Burien, Washington
Sections
- » About
- » Contact
- » Professional Information
- » Company Information
- » Status Messages
- » Blogs
- » Pictures
- » Discussions
- » Recent Music
- » Widgets
Services and Profiles
|
Compare services and Connect | ||||
|
Antemedius |
|
|
||
| Blogger |
|
|
|||
|
CCP "Cause" on Facebook |
|
|
||
| coComment |
|
|
|||
|
CoolTribe |
|
|
||
| del.icio.us |
|
|
|||
| Digg |
|
|
|||
| Disqus |
|
|
|||
|
|
|
||||
|
|
Facebook RLCC-CC Cause |
|
|
||
| Flickr |
|
|
|||
| FriendFeed |
|
|
|||
|
Google Profile |
|
|
||
| IntenseDebate |
|
|
|||
| Last.fm |
|
|
|||
|
Lijit |
|
|
||
|
|
|
|||
| LiveJournal |
|
|
|||
| LiveSpaces |
|
|
|||
| Mixx |
|
|
|||
| MyBlogLog |
|
|
|||
| Myspace |
|
|
|||
|
MySpace RLCC-CC Cause |
|
|
||
|
NowPublic |
|
|
||
|
OpEdNews |
|
|
||
|
Propeller |
|
|
||
|
|
|
||||
|
retaggr |
|
|
||
|
RLCC Member |
|
|
||
|
RLCC-CCP on BlogCatalog |
|
|
||
|
RLCC-CCP on MyBlogLog |
|
|
||
|
RLCC-CCP on NetworkedBlogs |
|
|
||
|
Scribd |
|
|
||
| StumbleUpon |
|
|
|||
|
Tangle |
|
|
||
| Technorati |
|
|
|||
|
|
Tom Usher on BlogCatalog |
|
|
||
|
|
|
||||
|
Yahoo Buzz |
|
|
||
| Youtube |
|
|
|||
|
Zimbio |
|
|
||
About Me
The Christian Commons Project is designed to carry out the mandate to the Church given by Jesus in John 21:14-17 to feed the people.
The Real Liberal Christian Church (RLCC) published its Articles of Association, March 2007. The RLCC is a 501(c)(3). See: http://www.realliberalchristianchurch.org/501C3_AND_ADDITIONAL_INFO.html
Employment:
2007 - Present: Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project
1995 - Present: Independent contracting; Website developing; Writing
1993 - 1995: Factors International/Bradbury Hill International Finance
Education:
City University, Olympia: Bellevue
Graduate Studies: Public Administration
Organizational Theory/Design
Arizona State University
BS, Political Science
Northern Arizona University
The Real Liberal Christian Church (RLCC) published its Articles of Association, March 2007. The RLCC is a 501(c)(3). See: http://www.realliberalchristianchurch.org/501C3_AND_ADDITIONAL_INFO.html
Employment:
2007 - Present: Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project
1995 - Present: Independent contracting; Website developing; Writing
1993 - 1995: Factors International/Bradbury Hill International Finance
Education:
City University, Olympia: Bellevue
Graduate Studies: Public Administration
Organizational Theory/Design
Arizona State University
BS, Political Science
Northern Arizona University
Contact
 |
Fax number | 1 928 244 2396 |
Professional Information
| Company |
Real Liberal Christian Church & Christian Commons 
|
| Industry | Religious Institutions |
I'm Looking For.....
| Members for the Christian Commons Project |
To TopCompany Information : Real Liberal Christian Church & Christian Commons
Visit the Real Liberal Christian Church & Christian Commons website
Address
|
|
To TopStatus Messages
| The Petraeus briefing: Biden’s embarrassment is not the whole story, by Mark Perry | The Middle East http://ff.im/hK7hr 2 hours ago | |
| "The self-determination of the Palestinians is a cause close to the heart of Brazilians." -- Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva 4 hours ago | |
| Kucinich caved. 4 hours ago | |
| New password-stealing virus targets Facebook - Yahoo! News http://ff.im/hJLbF 4 hours ago | |
| America's relationship with Israel is important but not as important as the lives of America's soldiers. -- Mark Perry paraphrasing Petraeus 4 hours ago | |
| Barack Obama, how can the peoples' elected representatives perform intelligence oversight when they aren't allowed to know the secrets? 4 hours ago | |
| Hillary Clinton shares "common values" with the fascist, racist, land-thieving, ethnic cleansing, lying Likudniks. She doesn't speak for me. 4 hours ago | |
| The UN collected 84 unexploded white phosphorus shells in Gaza. Do you know there are still Israeli who deny they used white phosphorus? 5 hours ago | |
| Barney Frank said a consumer protection agency in the Fed is a "bad joke." I often don't agree with Barney Frank but not this time. 5 hours ago | |
| Will US Move to Calm Spat with Israel Over Settlements? - TIME http://ff.im/hIT7t 9 hours ago |
Find me on :
To TopBlogs
Discussions
| Shooting the Breeze : An important truth I learned from the Chicago Bulls 3 months ago | |
| "I am using passive as in apathetic and not engaged with what God is doing." I saw that. Peace | |
| Shooting the Breeze : An important truth I learned from the Chicago Bulls 3 months ago | |
| I have the opposite take from yours. I was somewhat pleasantly surprised at the manifestation of a higher level of "sportsmanship" that is all too uncommon these days. Competitive winning in the hyper-money-making game that is major-league, professional sports is not the highest virtue. Did Jesus win or lose when he was passive toward the Pharisees, who came in the dead of night as if he were a common thief? Did Jesus win or lose when he was passive toward the Roman Soldiers, who tortured and crucified him, as those Pharisees had so desperately wanted? One can stand with Jesus and not deny him and in fact speak up clearly and resolutely while still being passive. In fact, it's required if one is to stand with him at all. Peter seized a mundanely competitive moment and cut off an ear. He was wrong. He wasn't abiding then by Jesus's rules. Peace, Tom Usher http://www.realliberalchristianchurch.org P.S. When you quote or even paraphrase this, real attribution will be appreciated in Heaven. | |
| Re: John McCain Wants to Block FCC’s Net Neutrality Rules 4 months ago | |
| John McCain being older has nothing to do with it. The real point is that John fairly recently admitted knowing next to nothing about the Internet. What he did was listen to those who got him there - whose deep pockets paved the way to his Senate seat. Do you know his past? I was an adult living in Arizona when he showed up there after his people calculated the best place for him to go, where his chances of being elected would be the greatest and quickest. It was Goldwater Country, and Goldwater's career could only last so much longer. I also looked into John's past and his connections with organized crime in Arizona and Canada via his wife's family. Check out Kemper Marley (Mafia), Don Bolles (murdered investigative journalist), and Jim Hensley (John McCain's wife's father). I did that so I'd know "where he's coming from" with his various talk. I also remember firsthand the rules about giving up information to the "enemy" being conveniently and radically relaxed primarily on account of John's POW-experience in Vietnam. He is the son of a son...the Admiral's boy of the Admiral's boy, now U.S. Senator, married to a well-connected, very wealthy heiress whose money resulted from what?He's fabulously rich now. He didn't get that way by caring about the little people. He's a major, if not the major, military imperialist in the U.S. He wanted to be Teddy Roosevelt with a bigger stick.Now, if you want to let that mind, John's mind, decide the who, what, where, when, and why of the gate-valves on the Internet, then you'll get the superrich, military imperialists, who love to clamp down against all dissenting voices, being the ones controlling the valves and where and when they decide simply because they are rich and bought your mind and soul and vote. They are rich because they are selfish and they bribe you to turn to that mentality too. So, why sell out?If you think that, that will get you innovation, then why does Bill Gates hate open-source programming so much? Why does he think it's wicked communism? Why does he work against it if not for selfish, anti-you reasons, unless you're working for him and bought and paid for.If competition is so great, why is it so great only when it's done with purely self-centered motives? Why is capitalism always so paranoid to go head-to-head with the non-profit cooperative that should be the people's government? Yes, we have crony capitalism in the United States. John McCain is a prime example of that. So the telecoms will be sure to have people paid to troll the main sites where they can leave telecom/imperial propaganda when those same telecoms have had no problem working secretly and illegally with the NSA that was definitely spying domestically on domestic calls by U.S. natural-born citizens to U.S. natural-born citizens whether or not those individuals had done anything truly suspicious.They listened in on your most private and personal conversations that were none of their business and on which they should not have been eavesdropping. They are not capable of being God. They get nearly everything wrong to create a lively terror (just as Winston Churchill liked it). They persecute. They oppress without cause. They imprison and torture the innocent right along with the guilty. Then they say, "Just move on."The only CEO (QWEST) who fought it, per the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution, ended up in prison. Every CEO who went along with it and everyone right on down the chain-of-command who went along with it and the same on the NSA side should have had to face the music. John McCain was instrumental in seeing to it that that didn't happen. He received big political funding for doing that too. Yet you want his backers and him making the rules for which voices get the exposure on the Internet. In my book, that's extremely gullible, naive, and foolish.Now, there's a huge battle of the so-called Libertarian Capitalists, mostly on the part of little-fry dupes doing the bidding of those who fund that movement, against those who are more open-source minded (sort of where the first libertarian/anarchists on the Internet started before they were further corrupted). Also, it was the people's government that started the Internet (DARPA) albeit for military reasons.If you look at where the big money comes from for the think tanks (such as the Cato Institute for one) that plant the "libertarian" seeds that the famous talking heads, such as Glenn Beck for one (who isn't really a purist but has tons of neocon in him), then cause to go viral, you will find ultra-rich plutocrats who have a long history of fighting tooth and nail against everything that's best for the little people. You'll find Big Oil such as Koch Industries for instance. Follow the money.They (the plutocrats) hated the truth coming out about tobacco smoking. They hated every effort to stop their ability to bury 55-gallon drums loaded with highly toxic waste that then rusted and leaked into your water tables. They hated catalytic converters being put on vehicles so that the old and weak and you could breathe cleaner air. They hated unleaded gas. They hated anti-dumping legislation. They hated child labor laws and even managed to get them repealed for a little while. They hated the 40-hour week. They hated OSHA. They hated Social Security. They hated unemployment compensation. They hated worker's compensation. They hated being held liable for Love Canal. They hated unions. They hated anything that took back from them to spread amongst those from whom they derived it in the first place. They hated and still largely hate anything that cramps their luxurious and obscene lifestyles while those who work for them are reduced to food stamps and Hoovervilles and being canon fodder or robotic mass-murderers on the other side of the planet or now from air-conditioned offices in the U.S. where they can play with their joy sticks and laugh and give each other hi-fives about which innocent "Hajji" or "rag-head" child's head they blew off: demonic.It's amazing how the Libertarian Capitalists complain against the people's publicly controlled regulators, but at the same time those Libertarian Capitalists, such as those at the cowardly Ludwig von Mises Institute (that censored my submitted comments there), complain about the major bankers and the Federal Reserve (who supposedly are privately self-regulating and who fund themselves and the corporations off your hard-earned taxes with usury due them, the banksters, for having done absolutely nothing but arbitrarily picking the amount of money they want to create) who are working the hardest to bring in the anti-public regulation New World Order that the Libertarians love to hate. It is amazing that the telecoms are right in bed with exactly what those Libertarians hate but then defend right here. It's confusion! It's hypocrisy! It's inherent in capitalism as a worldview.Let me put it this way. The Libertarian/Objectivist Capitalist, Ayn Rand utopia is just that and always will be: nowhere. That's because you can never arrive at what is truly best via a selfish starting place. The answer isn't in everyone realizing the best individually selfish thing to do. The answer is in everyone serving each other not with dreams of selfish rewards but rather with dreams of how much better off everyone whom everyone loves will be. That's not when serving something greater than self starts, a la the neocon John McCain. That's when self starts becoming the whole, a la Christ.Libertarian Capitalism is anti-coercion until it comes time to be coercive against those who want an equal vote. The telecoms by-and-large are extremely anti-democratic if you care about democracy.As for not wanting the government in my business, it depends upon the circumstances and not whether or not there is a check attached. Do you drop a coin in a meter as you pull your car out of your driveway if you can still afford a driveway and a car (no thanks to the predatory Wall Street bankers unless you work for the likes of Goldman Sachs with its biggest bonuses in its history during this economic depression)? Do you remember Henry Paulson, George W. Bush's Treasury Secretary, who threatened mass riots if his cronies weren't bailed out on the public's dime? Do you remember the bait and switch where we were all told how it would get lending started again and then suddenly it became bank consolidation: big fish swallowing even healthier little fish? Does that coin (chip debit) you'd have to drop in at the end of your driveway go to the private corporation that constructed the road? Do you want that privatized system everywhere you try to go and with everything you try to do or would you rather pay your share as you are able and still be allowed to drive on the freeway (hence its name "free way" - more akin to "free dom" is "toll road") in the fast lane even if you're temporarily out of work and otherwise broke and even if you need to cross the whole country? You might need to get to that job interview in a hurry afterall. Do you hate the public, toll-free, generally tax-funded superhighway system where the rich and poor can both travel versus a network of private toll roads where the poor won't be able to use the road? If you do, then you love magnifying slavery.Perhaps though, you think the rich aren't rich enough with the middle class and poor not yet having been reduced enough to make the rich even richer in relative terms. How long do think that can go on? The superrich think they'll end up with advanced enough science and intentionally super-expensive technology that they won't need the downtrodden worker-bees anymore, not even the middle class or even the upper-middle class. All will be expendable. In fact, they will be eliminated so that the superrich can enjoy more of the planet without the riffraff uglying up things. That's the long-term vision they have. It's sociopathy and anti-God.If you create that system of private tolls at every turn (and it is the inevitable result of libertarian capitalism), you will have zero say. You don't vote in the shareholders meetings or boardrooms if you don't have the filthy lucre to do it; and if the people's government (ostensibly designed against sole sovereignty in the top plutocrat, monarch) is reduced to having no say, then only the biggest money will speak and be heard. You can though go to the public polls to vote for your representatives, not that that's been good enough, far from it. If everything goes capitalist-private, you will not be allowed publicly to voice any thoughts not pre-approved by the private corporations controlled by the superrich (the new royalty). Then you'll have the same New World Order in any case. I'm already heavily censored. They are trying to buy the government too to censor everywhere the kinds of things I'm saying. We already have much of that, but do you want so much of it that it ends up being total mind-control?The people's government is the mundane instrument for leveling the playing field. Are you against a level playing field? Are you for feudalism? Are you for despotism?I haven't given my full view here, so don't assume that I subscribe to coercive pure democracy. I don't. Lastly, I don't disagree with everything the Pope says about sex. He does though owe it to everyone to look into all sides of the various issues and to do his best to give a Christian-only answer. However, he hobnobs in his huge palace. He's far from with the people. He has his fudging, Distributive, political-economic-religious answer at best. His church was never anti-elitist. Just look at what it's done about the fascist coup in Honduras. Jesus was though.Peace | |
| Re: John McCain Wants to Block FCC’s Net Neutrality Rules 4 months ago | |
| It's like the Pope making rules about sex. | |
| Your Daily Word : Should a Convict be Ordained? I say YES! 5 months ago | |
| Well Mikes, I just finished reading all the comments here and your comment over on my post, and I must say that I see you, Mikes, as having grown in the Spirit since I last visited your blog or heard from you. Keep at it, brother. We are still a bit apart semantically, but we are both still growing closer to God. Peace, love, truth, mercy, and forgiveness, Tom | |
| Your Daily Word : Should a Convict be Ordained? I say YES! 5 months ago | |
| Hi Mikes and All, I started writing this in response to your question, Mikes, over on BlogCatalog: "Should a Convicted Sexual Abuser be ordained to be a MINISTER?" http://www.blogcatalog.com/broadcast/view/39188 I should think most people would prefer to answer the question: "Should no convicted sexual offenders ever be ordained to the ministry?" Really, that ends up being the question of whether or not anyone who has ever sinned and repented should ever be ordained to the ministry. Truly repented with stick-to-itiveness is the operative aspect, isn't it? If someone is truly showing the signs of one who now knows best in the congregation, shouldn't he or she be followed? Which Apostle never sinned? Even they deferred to each other. There are plenty of former sexual offenders who were never convicted by the people. God knows though. How many people have been addicted to pornography for instance but have ended up swearing off porn? After writing that and a bit more, I decided to see your whole post since it occurred to me that there is some story behind the question concerning which story I should probably learn more. So, in your post, you are dealing with a particular case of a pedophile/pederast. Recidivism is taken for granted by so many. However, how may Christians claim we as human beings may change, as Jesus called and still calls sinners to return to the fold, if we also say that pedophiles, pederasts, homosexuals, adulterers, and also those who commit all manner of non-sexual sins, per se, cannot change. People can change and do change. As for who is and who is not given to do it, we only know in the end when everything is fixed and change is too late. Jesus said that those who blaspheme the Holy Spirit won't be forgiven in this or the next age/life. Jesus though forgives ignorance. What is blasphemy in Jesus's mind that falls to the level of marking an individual soul unforgivable forever? I have wondered if I've ever made the mistake without realizing it. I do say that if I have, I am certainly apologetic and ask to be enlightened so as never to be so ignorant again. I don't say that disingenuously just to be feigning the right words, as if trying to fake out God. I don't want to fake out myself. I don't want to be playing mind tricks with myself. I trust you understand. This post also brings to mind the Conservative Bible Project on Conservapedia: http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservative_Bible_P... They want the adulteress story you mentioned, Mikes, out of the Bible (their planned Bible). They also don't believe Jesus said, "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing." They want that gone too. By the way, Mikes, how do you know that the adulteress was Mary Magdalene? I also wrote this before reading the other comments. I suspect that others will have echoed most of your position and perhaps mine. Peace to all, Tom Usher Real Liberal Christian Church | |
| Re: Why President Zelaya's Actions in Honduras Were Legal and Constitutional 7 months ago | |
| I added the comment because my reply was to @geopol and you changed your user name. By adding my comment, fewer readers might be thrown by your user-name change. It's helpful to make the thread a tad easier to follow.I asked you why you didn't go with, what I suppose might be, your real first and last name (Jared Nuzzolillo). If you don't want to share your reason, that's up to you."...it's easy to determine who I am wherever I use it." Well, you're using it here. Who are you? If you don't want to say, again, it's up to you. It's just a question.When I asked Cynthia about how long she's been in Honduras, what she "owns" there, and whether she was there during the death squads, she didn't answer. I ask you about you for the same general reasons.As for brothers in Christ, just saying it doesn't make it so.Lastly, I wasn't planning to engage you on topics not directly linked with the main topic of the coup in Honduras. Learning the backgrounds of commentators helps in becoming informed. Consider how Jeremy Scahill researched Erik Prince's background, family, religion, etc. It informed us. How can we evaluate the coup plotters and executers without knowing whether they were members of death squads and whether they've ever repented?That's not too difficult to understand for you. So, it's not excessive on my part to inquire after your identity and connections.Peace to all | |
| Re: Why President Zelaya's Actions in Honduras Were Legal and Constitutional 7 months ago | |
| So, you changed your handle from "geopol" to "onceuponapriori" and claimed your Discus profile/comments. What was wrong with "Jared Nuzzolillo"? | |
| Re: Why President Zelaya's Actions in Honduras Were Legal and Constitutional 7 months ago | |
| I wrote this reply in response to franky's comment above http://rebelreports.com/post/133319827 #comment-... that starts "Article 5 provides for plebiscites." I also wrote it without first having seen Participatory's replies to franky. I find myself echoing Participatory here, but I'll post it anyway.@frankyWhy are you here embarrassing and condemning yourself? It was nonbinding. Everyone knows that now. You can't oust a democratically elected president for conducting a constitutionally allowed mere survey. Do you really think the Big Lie tactic works anymore? It's dead. It's over. There's a stake through its heart that can never be pulled out."We can expect that he would have manipulated the phony plebiscite and lied about the results as needed and as he was able."You can't do pre-crime unless you know everything from God's perspective. Do you understand that? No one has anything to show that Zelaya was planning what you say. If your view holds, then anyone can come and arrest you and throw you out of the country just because. Don't you know how evil that is?What was he going to do, say, hey, we just did a binding vote when the document says exactly the opposite? How many people who would have said in the survey that they were in favor of adding the question to the ballot would have gone along with suddenly declaring that they voted in a binding poll? What would have prevented the military at that time from doing what they did?Where would Obama and Clinton have come down on the issue then? What do you think I would have said in that case? Do you think everyone here who is supporting the restoration of Zelaya would have backed him doing that? I doubt even one would have. Hugo Chavez wouldn't have supported him in that.The coup plotters and executers really messed up, and it can't be fixed short of putting everything back the way it was and then letting the real legal system work.Your ideas are so bad that how you can even look at yourself in the mirror is beyond me.He was not trying to change the existing constitution. He was asking people whether they would like the opportunity to democratically draft a wholly new constitution. There is nothing in the current constitution that prevents that.The ruling was wrong.Also, all you've done here is say could have, could have, could have. You sound like a neocon. I don't go with could have. I go with what was he actually planning concerning which there is irrefutable proof, as in innocent until proven guilty and beyond a shadow of a doubt. That's just on the mundane level too. You though, can't live up to even that low standard."...there can't be much doubt that Zelaya was an outlaw willing to throw the country into chaos, possibly to the benefit of himself, but certainly to the benefit of Chavez's revolutionary program.""...much doubt..."? You've convicted yourself not just there but throughout. There is doubt even in your own mind, but you'll crucify him. Wow.What was his sin? Helping the poor is the only thing I've heard he was doing. That offends you something terrible? I don't know the whole of his heart, but I like what I know of it better than what I know of yours. | |
| Re: Why President Zelaya's Actions in Honduras Were Legal and Constitutional 8 months ago | |
| By the way, if your name is Jared Nuzzolillo, why not say so and go claim your profile: http://disqus.com/people/6a123f6f033e0f67a5a729... ? | |
| Re: Why President Zelaya's Actions in Honduras Were Legal and Constitutional 8 months ago | |
| @geopol,Delving into this could pull this post and its comment thread very far away from the issue of the legality (constitutionality) of Zelaya's question to the people of Honduras – the utterly flawed and quite lame excuse for the coup. I know it's all interconnected, but I don't know Jeremy Scahill's view on how far to allow the topic(s) to range. It is his blog, not yours or mine afterall.In addition, before I would embark on this "debate" with you, I would require that you define "evidence" here. What "evidence" would satisfy? Without going into great detail, it is obvious from your comment that you actually promote the concept of holding out the benefit of the doubt concerning the inherent goodness versus evil at the core of the CIA-mind. I find that insane on its face – more insane than much of what is on Alex Jones's sites. Why you raised him here is a question.The CIA is what it has done. It has never repented in earnest, as it has always continued doing what the Empire has wanted. The CIA is Machiavellian. That is quite clear. Anyone who doubts it is being extremely naive and gullible. The CIA is not a force for good. The highest priority of the CIA is worldly imperialism where amorality is considered a strength to dupe the masses.You do understand here that in order to defend your position, which is clear, you'll have to defend amorality pretending to be good.In my book, might in the arm does not make right in the head and lying isn't virtuous.If you want to take the CIA to the court of public opinion, I'm all for it. Let me know when they are prepared to show me every last bit of the information they have in the CIA's bowels and that I may share that openly with the world for their considered opinions on the facts. Please don't tell me that they can't do that because it would harm the cause of goodness and truth. They won't go along because they have "official" and highest-level evils to hide. Do you doubt it? Where's your evidence? Show us their goodness. If you're going to spout the American Dream here, don't. We're not under that spell.CIA planes have gone down in recent history with drugs shipments on board. Haven't you looked? Will you define away two plus two equals four so that you can continue the way of tricking people, many of whom want to be thusly fooled? Count me out.How do you handle the money laundering done by the major banks? Do you deny they do it? Do you deny that the government where those Banks conduct such business couldn't shut it down except that the banks are ultimately for a while in control? The records of such transactions have been exposed while the cash flows have continued. What do you make of it? Do you call the major banks rogues? Are all the governments rogues? Are those within the CIA who traffic rogues? Well, of course they are. Ask yourself rogues from what. Jeremy may be an atheist. I don't know. I trust he won't be offended that for intellectual reasons I give you the following:Pilate saith unto him, What is truth? (John 18:38 KJV)I know them by their results. I know there are innocent babies being blown to pieces by CIA and Pentagon predator drones and other weaponry. What do you know?Truth and peace | |
| Re: Why President Zelaya's Actions in Honduras Were Legal and Constitutional 8 months ago | |
| I replied below. | |
| Re: Why President Zelaya's Actions in Honduras Were Legal and Constitutional 8 months ago | |
| Oh, Cynthia,I don't like devolving to this level of discourse. I'll try to keep it as elevated as possible.Look, a constitutional crisis is when any branch oversteps and another branch or the people rise up. You are saying Zelaya overstepped. He is saying that the courts overstepped with the military's collusion (led by a convicted major car thief? http://narcosphere.narconews.com/notebook/al-gi... ). That's obvious. If his survey was just that, a survey, with the question as stated in this thread and the court ruled that that wasn't allowed, then the court was wrong and a constitutional power struggle has ensued. This is how it is around the world. Honduras is not some special, isolated case in this regard. If the President then decides to get his materials, wrongfully declared off limits by the court (as if the court can tell a President, who is the commander and chief of the armed forces and the chief of the executive branch, that he can't go anywhere on any military base and take property wrongfully seized under an unconstitutional court order even issued by the Supreme Court), then the President is still acting legally in the final analysis, and that's the only one that matters, except for in the divine. This though is being handled by you as a mundane issue, and that's how I'm approaching you.As for Chavez, he's taken a side in this and he happens to be right about which side has the most apparent legal merits. As for meddling, I don't subscribe to that concept. I'm here talking about Honduras, and I'm having an influence. I don't call that meddling. I stand up for what's right.You are speaking as if I condone acts of violence. Well, that hardly sticks considering that I'm a total pacifist. Now what are you going to accuse me of next?You wrote: "I find it amazing that you don't put your money where your mouth is and move to Venezuela since you think and have suddenly determined that it is so great that it should be imposed on everyone in the world irregardless of their laws."This sarcasm will get you nowhere. First of all, I have no money. Second, I don't think Venezuela should impose it's will on anyone. Third, I haven't suddenly come to any determination about that. Your style of debate leaves a great deal to be desired. It is indicative of a dangerous mind, not to be trusted.If Zelaya's popularity was 1% but he is right in this matter, then that's how it is. Popularity leading up to this "crisis" is irrelevant. Even if his own party misinterpreted the law or was afraid to confront the existing power structure to further remove the vestiges of military dictatorship, so what. That too is irrelevant. Whether he has done the politically expedient thing remains to be seen. He has embarked on the risk. We shall see how it plays out. If Barack Obama isn't his usual self (putty in the hands of monied interests on Wall Street), Zelaya will be vindicated at least in this matter.Chavez is not wrong not to recognize any government that would come on the heels of a coup against Zelaya where Zelaya has not first been restored to office. That's exactly how I'd advise both Obama and Chavez. I never recognized George W. Bush as the real President of the United States for instance. His forces stole both elections, and neither Gore nor Kerrey had the ethics or backbone of Hugo Chavez (despite Chavez's obvious militancy). Gore and Kerrey are not pacifists though. They would pledge to protect the U.S. constitution, and even have pledged to do that; but when they had their chances, they both caved in. I take no such oath.Now, what stake do you have in all of this? How much property do you hold in Honduras? What business are you in, and how big is that business? How long have you been in Honduras? Did you move there when it was a brutally repressive dictatorship with death squads? What do you stand to lose in your view if Zelaya were not blocked from bringing in a more egalitarian government? I noticed on your site that it claims to be an expatriate's. Save us all the time and trouble and answer an expatriate from where and why?Peace | |
| Re: Why President Zelaya's Actions in Honduras Were Legal and Constitutional 8 months ago | |
| Well, I visited your site, Cynthia, and I can see that you put words into Chavez's mouth over here on this site. Chavez did not say that he wants a dictatorship. You are simply calling Zelaya a would-be dictator. You are saying that because Chavez supports Zelaya, Chavez is for a dictatorship. You want people to believe Chavez is a dictator. It seems obvious where your heart lies. It lies with elitism. Your site is geared toward people winking at each other. Cynthia, are you aware that it has been well documented that the CIA transports cocaine and heroin? Of course you are. Why do you think coca production has gone dramatically up in Columbia since the U.S. and Columbia cozied up so much under George W. Bush? You know why it has. You haven't fooled me, and I doubt you're fooling anyone else over here. | |
| Re: Why President Zelaya's Actions in Honduras Were Legal and Constitutional 8 months ago | |
| This is in reply to Cynthia's last two comments. voline above translated the survey question as follows: "Do you agree to install a fourth ballot box in the November 2009 general elections to decide on calling a National Constituent Assembly that would approve a new constitution?" Now, you are saying that the ballot boxes were already stuffed. Where are these already stuffed ballot boxes? You say, "distributed," as in past tense. Distributed where, to whom, and when? You also say that it was binding. Are you mixed up? You are referring to the November 2009 ballot and not to the survey, aren't you? What you are saying is difficult to follow because if it is true, you are accusing Zelaya and Chavez of being idiots. I don't know Zelaya much at all. I have though followed and listened to Chavez. Chavez is a consummate politician. He would never say what you've suggested. He has either lost his mind overnight, or you are severely misinterpreting or deliberately mischaracterizing. Without knowing more, without hearing Chavez in context, I am inclined at this point to think that Chavez was speaking about the Honduran military and elitists in Honduras rather than about Zelaya and Chavez. Please provide a link to the Gazette article to which you have referred. I would like to read it for myself before arriving at any final conclusion concerning your allegations here.The reason I say that both Zelaya and Chavez would have to be total idiots to be doing what you're suggesting is because the accusation you are making concerning the Gazette article would fly in the face of the survey question itself. How could the results of the survey throw the nation into a constitutional convention to rewrite the constitution from scratch when the survey question itself is directed at providing a ballot box in November?Listen, if Zelaya is as dumb as you are suggesting here, the Honduran military and elites could have stopped him far short of the actions they took. Even Zelaya's followers wouldn't have gone along with using that survey question immediately to throw the country into a National Constituent Assembly.Peace | |
| Recommended Christian Blogs/Sites (your-dailyword.blogspot.com) 8 months ago | |
| You're a good marketer, Mikes; and you're marketing good rather than evil. Way to network to spread the ingathering in righteousness! | |
| Your Daily Word : Recommended Christian Blogs/Sites 8 months ago | |
| You're a good marketer, Mikes; and you're marketing good rather than evil. Way to network to spread the ingathering in righteousness! | |
| Your Daily Word : Who will stand in the gap of this land? 8 months ago | |
| You are most welcome for my comment above. As for the long comments that kept disappearing from your post on Carrie Prejean, I just checked the screen shots I took. The links show up as light blue text, and I see only one. Do you just delete spam without looking? Otherwise, wouldn't the long comment still be there for you to de-spam? Anyway, I appreciate that you kept thinking about what possibly could cause such comments to disappear. I take it you have no comment-length set. Thanks also for popping over to the RLCC site and leaving a comment about the Missouri State University video on the homosexual agenda against real Christianity. I'm glad to say that the University reversed all of what happened to Emily Brooker. Peace to you, Mikes | |
| Who will stand in the gap of this land? (your-dailyword.blogspot.com) 8 months ago | |
| You are most welcome for my comment above. As for the long comments that kept disappearing from your post on Carrie Prejean, I just checked the screen shots I took. The links show up as light blue text, and I see only one. Do you just delete spam without looking? Otherwise, wouldn't the long comment still be there for you to de-spam? Anyway, I appreciate that you kept thinking about what possibly could cause such comments to disappear. I take it you have no comment-length set. Thanks also for popping over to the RLCC site and leaving a comment about the Missouri State University video on the homosexual agenda against real Christianity. I'm glad to say that the University reversed all of what happened to Emily Brooker. Peace to you, Mikes | |
| Re: Why President Zelaya's Actions in Honduras Were Legal and Constitutional 8 months ago | |
| Without knowing all the details, I must say that if you have characterized things correctly here, and I have no reason at this point to conclude otherwise, it would appear that the survey was surely not illegal.As for the general being fired for insubordination, if the President has that power and is the final arbiter, then the court had no business reinstating the general.My other questions above, no doubt, will take more work to answer.On other matters raised in this thread, it is my understanding that Zelaya would not even have been president at the time any 4th ballot box or question would have been put to the whole people. It is clear that the military powers and those behind them feared the people choosing a constitutional convention to rewrite the constitution. In other words, they feared the consent of the majority of the governed. The arguments in this thread that Zelaya was illegally seeking a new constitution are erroneous on their face. He was seeking a new constitution, but that is not illegal under natural or divine law. The only people who would block it are those who fear power in the hands of the people. Yes, the people can become a mob; however, they do so usually in the face of other lawlessness and where truth is suppressed. The ignorant become an unruly law or are those who are driven to extremes by the already lawless.In my view at this point, unless new evidence comes to light, the military and the courts acted illegally.Zelaya was not seeking a second term under the current constitution. That's clear.I wrote this comment before seeing "Participatory's " comment above, which is well-reasoned given the current mundane law in Honduras.Is Zelaya of the mind to create a brutal, totalitarian, dictatorship on the order of Joseph Stalin; or is he more of a mind to simply keep Honduras from being a pawn of greedy foreign influences and investors. That's putting it charitably.There is a class struggle going on. The poor in Honduras are not asking for everything for free. I'm sure of that. They are ready, able, and willing to work to feed, house, clothe, and care for each other if not interfered with. The upper class is wrong to look down on them as inferiors, etc. Not all do that, but too many of them do. It's a universal truth across the planet. I don't need to visit Honduras to know this is the case there. I've read statements of some of the rich from there. Also, I remember the death-squad era. It's well documented too.Neoliberal economics is still very much a threat to the whole hemisphere and planet frankly. We don't need the Washington Consensus. I'm watching what Barack Obama does. So far, I'm still severely dis-impressed. I don't want war over this or for the people to suffer under some economic-sanctions regime, but the whole world needs to behave as if the military and courts there have zero authority. Any aid needs to go directly to the people completely by-passing the military and courts until further notice. | |
| Re: Why President Zelaya's Actions in Honduras Were Legal and Constitutional 8 months ago | |
| Obviously, the above comment is intended for Alberto Valiente Thoresen. | |
| Re: Why President Zelaya's Actions in Honduras Were Legal and Constitutional 8 months ago | |
| Yesterday, I asked in a post on my site for an accurate translation of both the applicable sections of the constitution and the whole document being circulated by Zelaya, what I called in my post a "referendum/survey" (due to the lack of clarity in the mainstream and alternative media at the time). You have handled much of the constitutional aspect. Do you have access to the survey? As a follow-on, what was the exact order given by the Supreme Court? What legal basis did it give, if any? Is it contending that the current constitution cannot be scrapped and replaced no matter a National Constituent Assembly? Also, what is the legal process in the constitution for dealing with allegations of presidential illegality? What is provided for removing Supreme Court justices? I see that "franky" above has been asking similar questions and doing some digging. I would like to see the standard of investigation in mainstream media raised up to a much higher level. They have the resources and financing to have found out and published the answers to all these questions and more on the first day. | |
| Who will stand in the gap of this land? (your-dailyword.blogspot.com) 8 months ago | |
| Your sentiments here are unselfish. You are showing feelings even for strangers. You are being the better neighbor. Praise to you, brother. You are a son of God. | |
| Your Daily Word : Who will stand in the gap of this land? 8 months ago | |
| Your sentiments here are unselfish. You are showing feelings even for strangers. You are being the better neighbor. Praise to you, brother. You are a son of God. | |
| A True Christian Perspective on Miss California Carrie Prejean (your-dailyword.blogspot.com) 8 months ago | |
| Hey Mikes, It has occurred to me that perhaps Intense Debate wouldn't let me post it because it's so similar to the one I put on The Joyful Christian Wife site. Anyway, did you find out anything about comment-size limits/settings? Shoot me an email when something develops. Until then, I will definitely stay away from long comments on Intense Debate. Peace to all, Tom | |
| Your Daily Word : A True Christian Perspective on Miss California Carrie Prejean 8 months ago | |
| Hey Mikes, It has occurred to me that perhaps Intense Debate wouldn't let me post it because it's so similar to the one I put on The Joyful Christian Wife site. Anyway, did you find out anything about comment-size limits/settings? Shoot me an email when something develops. Until then, I will definitely stay away from long comments on Intense Debate. Peace to all, Tom | |
| Your Daily Word : He is MIGHTY to Save us 8 months ago | |
| I'm going over to YouTube to favorite that one. I might (probably will) put it on the RLCC site too. It's good to see, hear, and show people glorifying. | |
| He is MIGHTY to Save us (your-dailyword.blogspot.com) 8 months ago | |
| I'm going over to YouTube to favorite that one. I might (probably will) put it on the RLCC site too. It's good to see, hear, and show people glorifying. | |
| A True Christian Perspective on Miss California Carrie Prejean (your-dailyword.blogspot.com) 8 months ago | |
| Thanks Mikes. I received a second reply from them, but they still didn't answer the question. They seem to be concerned that you and I are in a dispute, which we are not. We are trying to solve a problem that may turn out to be a bug or incompatibility issue or something. If we can determine that it's Intense Debate, then that will help others. I think often about John Saddington. The difference here is that you aren't finding the comments in your moderation or spam whereas both submissions were available to John to restore. Therefore, I believe the problem I'm having here on your site is not the same as what I experienced on his. Peace brother | |
| Your Daily Word : A True Christian Perspective on Miss California Carrie Prejean 8 months ago | |
| Thanks Mikes. I received a second reply from them, but they still didn't answer the question. They seem to be concerned that you and I are in a dispute, which we are not. We are trying to solve a problem that may turn out to be a bug or incompatibility issue or something. If we can determine that it's Intense Debate, then that will help others. I think often about John Saddington. The difference here is that you aren't finding the comments in your moderation or spam whereas both submissions were available to John to restore. Therefore, I believe the problem I'm having here on your site is not the same as what I experienced on his. Peace brother | |
| The Green Nazis: Environmentalism in the Third Reich (Alex Jones' Infowars) 8 months ago | |
| Hello All, Jurriaan Maessen wrote, "It is a well documented though seldom highlighted fact that the Nazis were very much into environmentalism- not for environmentalism’s sake of course, but rather as a means of oppression and control." The Nazis had many members. They didn't agree about everything. Can it be substantiated that none was an environmentalist for the sake of the health of the natural environment? Perhaps Jurriaan means as a Party and not so much as individual members of the Party. I suspect it. The article's context suggests it. In addition, the notion of a genuine Party-concern for environmentalism is inconsistent with Germany's military industrialization and warfare, which contributed to great quantities of environmental pollution. The quote also strongly suggests that the author views environmentalism for environmentalism's sake as at least not unworthy. The complaint concerns governmental coercion, especially when the motives are ulterior, and not environmentalism, per se. Therefore, within this comment thread, there are many libertarians who may disagree with Jurriaan. I do not hold with coercing while I also do not hold with polluting. Mercury in vaccinations has been roundly criticized on this site. There is mercury pollution largely from coal burning that has contaminated great quantities of the freshwater fish population in the U.S. One is unreasonably selective to hate the mercury in vaccines while having no issue with unbridled coal burning that as resulted in mercury poisoning of unsuspecting eaters of polluted fish. Is the prevailing consensus on this site that no one should tell anyone else that burning coal presents health issues but everyone should speak out against the same toxicant in vaccines? That would be hypocritical on its face. To avoid leaving the question of hypocrisy dangling, it would be an improvement were the clear distinction between environmentalism, per se, on one hand and using it as a pretext for evil ends on the other hand to be featured more prominently and with greater clarity. There is nothing wrong with the right kind of environmentalism. The right kind of environmentalism is beautiful. It's consistent with the Golden Rule. Peace and love | |
| Your Daily Word : A True Christian Perspective on Miss California Carrie Prejean 8 months ago | |
| Well, I gave it one last attempt without the link and with coComment off. It didn't work that way either. I did discover though that the textbox retains a snippet of the message as follows: "Hello Mikes and Everyone," That's all there is of it. When I reload the page it stays there. When I reload the browser, it clears it. Mikes, there's something wrong with Intense Debate at least for this user/commentator. I'll try to let them know what I experienced after I hear from you about what you discover on your end. Thanks for working with me on this. Peace, brother, Tom | |
| A True Christian Perspective on Miss California Carrie Prejean (your-dailyword.blogspot.com) 8 months ago | |
| Well, I gave it one last attempt without the link and with coComment off. It didn't work that way either. I did discover though that the textbox retains a snippet of the message as follows: "Hello Mikes and Everyone," That's all there is of it. When I reload the page it stays there. When I reload the browser, it clears it. Mikes, there's something wrong with Intense Debate at least for this user/commentator. I'll try to let them know what I experienced after I hear from you about what you discover on your end. Thanks for working with me on this. Peace, brother, Tom | |
| A True Christian Perspective on Miss California Carrie Prejean (your-dailyword.blogspot.com) 8 months ago | |
| I tried it one more time without the link. It too showed up but disappeared upon reloading the page. | |
| Your Daily Word : A True Christian Perspective on Miss California Carrie Prejean 8 months ago | |
| I tried it one more time without the link. It too showed up but disappeared upon reloading the page. | |
| Your Daily Word : A True Christian Perspective on Miss California Carrie Prejean 8 months ago | |
| Okay. I resubmitted the long comment. It showed up. I took screen shots of it. I reloaded the page, and the long comment was gone but the short ones remained. So, Mikes, do you have a length limit set? Do you have a block on links? I had one link to the RLCC site at the bottom. John Saddington still had the comments including with the link. They didn't completely disappear. Anyway, will you please nose around some more in your Intense Debate admin pages and settings to see if you can figure out what's happening. If you want the screen shots, just give the word and I'll email them. Any help you can give will be appreciated. I'm sorry to be a bother, but I believe you can understand why I'm doing this. Thanks, Mikes. Peace, Tom | |
| A True Christian Perspective on Miss California Carrie Prejean (your-dailyword.blogspot.com) 8 months ago | |
| Okay. I resubmitted the long comment. It showed up. I took screen shots of it. I reloaded the page, and the long comment was gone but the short ones remained. So, Mikes, do you have a length limit set? Do you have a block on links? I had one link to the RLCC site at the bottom. John Saddington still had the comments including with the link. They didn't completely disappear. Anyway, will you please nose around some more in your Intense Debate admin pages and settings to see if you can figure out what's happening. If you want the screen shots, just give the word and I'll email them. Any help you can give will be appreciated. I'm sorry to be a bother, but I believe you can understand why I'm doing this. Thanks, Mikes. Peace, Tom | |
| Your Daily Word : A True Christian Perspective on Miss California Carrie Prejean 8 months ago | |
| Very strange It showed up and was captured by comment tracking. No one else has ever had this problem on your site of whom you're aware? I'm going to try it again, verbatim. Please bear with me. Thanks. Tom | |
| A True Christian Perspective on Miss California Carrie Prejean (your-dailyword.blogspot.com) 8 months ago | |
| Very strange It showed up and was captured by comment tracking. No one else has ever had this problem on your site of whom you're aware? I'm going to try it again, verbatim. Please bear with me. Thanks. Tom | |
| Provincial election returns (Informed Comment) 8 months ago | |
| Hello Juan and All, "In past elections the numbers have been all over the place." Yes, but the history of elections is short. With such heady current issues, why think that there has been some pattern established upon which one may base final judgment? I do acknowledge though that you, Juan, have not yet chiseled anything in granite in your post. Pre-election and independent polling done by mainstream-American pollsters showed Ahmadinejad with the lead. http://www.realliberalchristianchurch.org/?p=3189 I posted that before I knew about the Interior Ministry's legal control of the process and ballots, etc. I also realize you have other sources and access. What I haven't done, for lack of time, is to compare that polling region-by-region and city-by-city to the "official" results. I assume someone is doing just that and that the results will be forthcoming. There was a large "undecided" (or unwilling to reveal) going into the election. That's important to keep in mind no matter what. If they did fudge the ballot numbers, it was a stupid thing to do. Regardless, everyone should reserve final judgment until there is more evidence even if real evidence is not possible to ascertain what with the way the Interior Ministry controls elections. I believe you are doing that (reserving final judgment). Are the Muslim leaders adhering to the Islamic requirement not to cheat? Is the Interior Ministry a rogue element vis-à-vis the theocratic leadership? Peace, Tom Usher | |
| Rev. Wright: I Meant to Say “Zionists” Are Keeping Me from Talking to President Obama (The Blotter: Failing to Serve America's Heroes on the Home Front) 8 months ago | |
| Why have my comments been deleted here? Twice, I have submitted the following: Hello All, Big Lie tactic: Political Zionism equals Semitism The more they repeat it, the more they're outed as Big Liars. Political Zionism does not equate with Semitism. That's the truth, and there's nothing anyone can do to change it. I can be and am opposed to that false brand of Zionism while I am not either a racist or an ethnic bigot. I am not alone in this. Many Jews agree. Why many of them are cowed by AIPAC is something they'll have to come to grips with. Some have stood up. More are coming forward to stand with the fact: that false brand of Zionism does not equate with Semitism. Jacob is where the name "Israel" came from. Jacob rightly admonished his sons (who unlike the current crop, such as Avigdor Lieberman had some cause). Jacob said of his son's who committed genocide (and there are those within Judaism and the Zionism of which we speak here who advocate genocide, Rabbi Manis Friedman Of The Chabad-Lubavitch Movement, being a recent high profile example) saying: And Jacob said to Simeon and Levi, Ye have troubled me to make me to stink among the inhabitants of the land, among the Canaanites and the Perizzites: and I being few in number, they shall gather themselves together against me, and slay me; and I shall be destroyed, I and my house. (Genesis 34:30) Listen to your father. Fact: The Palestinians are Semites every bit as much as are those calling themselves Jews. God bless both the Palestinians and Jews. Peace Both of those submissions were deleted. Why? Who there at ABC News is afraid of my comment and why? I see other comments here that call Wright names. I am here to clarify. I am not being allowed to do that. Why? I will now post on the Real Liberal Christian Church (RLCC) website at www.realliberalchristianchurch.org that ABC has censored my comment (twice) concerning this article of yours. I have submitted nothing that merits censorship. If someone took exception to my comment, he or she could have put up a counter-comment. ABC News is doing a disservice to the people by the actions clearly demonstrated here. Censoring me demonstrates that truth is not of interest to ABC News in this matter. You are not reporting the news but rather taking sides and censoring dissenting views without just cause. Nevertheless, may God bless you (with the truth). Tom Usher | |
| Rev. Wright: I Meant to Say “Zionists” Are Keeping Me from Talking to President Obama (The Blotter: Failing to Serve America's Heroes on the Home Front) 8 months ago | |
| Hello All, Big Lie tactic: Political Zionism equals Semitism The more they repeat it, the more they're outed as Big Liars. Political Zionism does not equate with Semitism. That's the truth, and there's nothing anyone can do to change it. I can be and am opposed to that false brand of Zionism while I am not either a racist or an ethnic bigot. I am not alone in this. Many Jews agree. Why many of them are cowed by AIPAC is something they'll have to come to grips with. Some have stood up. More are coming forward to stand with the fact: that false brand of Zionism does not equate with Semitism. Jacob is where the name "Israel" came from. Jacob rightly admonished his sons (who unlike the current crop, such as Avigdor Lieberman had some cause). Jacob said of his son's who committed genocide (and there are those within Judaism and the Zionism of which we speak here who advocate genocide, Rabbi Manis Friedman Of The Chabad-Lubavitch Movement, being a recent high profile example) saying: And Jacob said to Simeon and Levi, Ye have troubled me to make me to stink among the inhabitants of the land, among the Canaanites and the Perizzites: and I being few in number, they shall gather themselves together against me, and slay me; and I shall be destroyed, I and my house. (Genesis 34:30) Listen to your father. Fact: The Palestinians are Semites every bit as much as are those calling themselves Jews. God bless both the Palestinians and Jews. Peace | |
| A True Christian Perspective on Miss California Carrie Prejean (your-dailyword.blogspot.com) 8 months ago | |
| Hi Mikes, Will you please check your Intense Debate spam folder for a comment I submitted about 6 hours ago on this post, and let me know? Thanks, brother, Tom | |
| Your Daily Word : A True Christian Perspective on Miss California Carrie Prejean 8 months ago | |
| Hi Mikes, Will you please check your Intense Debate spam folder for a comment I submitted about 6 hours ago on this post, and let me know? Thanks, brother, Tom | |
| A True Christian Perspective on Miss California Carrie Prejean (your-dailyword.blogspot.com) 8 months ago | |
| Hello Mikes and Everyone, The following is a comment I submitted on this post back on May 31, 2009. I trust it's all right to resubmit: Hi Mikes, I posted a comment over on Marlo's site. It hasn't shown up yet; but it's early in the morning, and I'll give it time for Marlo to approve or reject. Anyway, if it's alright with you Mikes, I'll duplicate it here as follows: Hi Marlo and All, I was led here by Mikes of "Your Daily Word." I see he's already provided a link above, so I won't duplicate it here. First, I don't have a TV and haven't seen the "surfing" photos. Whether that adds to my objectivity or not, I leave to you. I will say that if she posed in a way she shouldn't have, that was an unchristian moment. It doesn't resign her to everlasting damnation, especially provided she has repented. God is merciful and forgiving. So we are to be also. Now, that also applies to Perez Hilton. Perez though has yet to repent. She's busy creating a different world from the kingdom, and she knows it full well. Even still, we are to forgive her as well but in a qualified sense, meaning we aren't to condone her errors but be always ready to receive her into the body if she comes in earnest. The whole culture puts pressure on both of them to look and act a certain way: to be sexy to some but sluttish to others. I like wholesomeness. I wish I had never been introduced to contrivance. Where's that leave me vis-a-vis the Miss California spectacle? Not interested is the real answer. If the young woman is heterosexual and believes that homosexuality is an error, harmful, and unchristian and says so, how can she be held up to the purest standard before even knowing what that is? The contest contains others who don't even hold that homosexuality is harmful at all but rather a great thing? The purest of the pure won't even be in such a contest. Let's be honest. The whole thing is surreal. It's all make believe. It's a fake world. Society needs to stop promoting the fake. We need people to be real. Peace, Tom Usher Real Liberal Christian Church Here's a follow-up to clarify about referring to Perez as a female: Hello, This is a follow-up/clarification. When I posted my comment above, I was under the impression that Perez Hilton was a female. I was not trying to be cute by calling him (an admitted homosexual) "she." I believe I was confused due to Paris Hilton and an article that linked them [The article part is wrong. I remember that I saw the article afterwards.]. Anyway, I thought it was important enough to add this. Thank you for understanding. Peace, Tom I put the clarification on Marlo's site too. Now we see that Donald Trump has "fired" Carrie for allegedly not holding up her end of the contract – not showing up for sponsored engagements and for doing engagements not okayed by the pageant. Of course, she would not have been fired had she not said what she did in response to Perez Hilton. Also, I did go to see the photos of her so I could judge for myself. I don't buy her explanation that it was the wind. It's not truthful. The trouble is that the exposures (photos) were to titillate. They were not Carrie in her true innocence. By today's standard, they were very "mild." Nevertheless, the format speaks. She's young and was offered temptation. Even if the photos had been of her in her innocence, the fallen wolves would still drool. We must be mindful of these things. We must bring minds and hearts back to the garden-mentality and spirit. May God bless Carrie Prejean. I don't hold that she's some kind of irredeemable soul. There's probably a real angel of light inside her. Let that spirit come forward. Let all the other spirits leave. I want that for everyone, myself included. I believe, Mikes, you are saying the same thing here. More power to you. Love, Tom Usher Real Liberal Christian Church | |
| The great, international, demonic, truly frightening Iranian threat (Alex Jones' Infowars) 9 months ago | |
| @ Just the Truth Says I can keep it fairly short I think. Let me clarify, as I can see how my words were taken not as intended. (This is why dialoguing is good.) When I wrote, "The prophecy is that all finally turn and become one," I was referring to the remnant of which you wrote. My point was that they do become Christians. My belief, which is consistent with Jesus's teachings, is that Christians are the real Jews and that those who call themselves Jews today but reject Jesus are false to the spirit of Jacob (Israel). I won't go into it here unless it presents a problem and you want me to elaborate. You wrote, "There is nothing merciful about encouraging them in their delusions of grandeur." Blessing them doesn't encourage that. Jesus said to bless the people who hate you. They hate it when people who disagree with them bless them. It shames them. That's not the reason for blessing them though. If they don't turn and develop the ability to think with the higher portions of their brain (frontal and temporal lobes where unselfishness and connectedness reside), well, you can't force them. You did though want it for them and ask it of them. When it comes time for your soul, you'll not be cast out for selfishness or being unable to connect. You don't think Jesus was wrong about blessing them. You know what I mean. Just accept it. Bless them. If you refuse, you're being stubborn. Don't be that. As for atheists, many of them believe there is nothing after death. They don't believe in the metaphysical. They don't believe in spirit. I'm being intentionally simplistic here. I could delve into all sorts of things, but it isn't necessary right here and right now. Well, you are passionate. What are you going to do though? Jesus says that you are not to take lives. You are not to resist evil. If they hit you, turn your other cheek to them. If they spit on you, whip you, beat you, laugh at you, scorn you, lie about you, stab you, take your guns, knock down your house, steal your land, cut down your olive trees, dump their raw sewage on your crops, poison your wells, imprison you, torture and even crucify you until your flesh gives up the ghost, you are to forgive them for their ignorance and not wish upon them all that they have done upon anyone including you. That's what Jesus has said, and it's right too. If you don't understand how that can be, I'm willing to discuss it but only in earnest. As for the censorship here concerning the Talmud, compromises are often forced upon us. Alex Jones has undoubtedly bumped up against a warning. If he crosses the line, it might mean a huge crimp on being able to get out there the things he wants out there. I cross the line on the RLCC site that he won't allow anyone to cross here. My style though is very different. I am interested in seeing all sides and getting at the root of the problem. I can't mix assault rifles and my Christianity for instance. Mixing assault rifles and mottos such as "Come and take it" with Christianity doesn't work. Trying indicates a failure of consistency. It's hypocrisy. Of course, not everyone is looking to do what Jesus said to do: be perfect. I'm working on it. I want it. I believe it is there. I believe the offer is genuine. I trust Jesus. I trust God. Peace, love, and truth are one, Tom Usher | |
| The great, international, demonic, truly frightening Iranian threat (Alex Jones' Infowars) 9 months ago | |
| @ Just the Truth It is refreshing that you apologized. Of course, apology accepted. I do know how passions can take us right to the edge. Some fall in. You wrote, "However, by getting down to their level and being willing to nitpick about who said what and why and if they meant thus and so, you are, in my opinion, furthering the idea that what a Muslim leader says regarding his opinion of the Jews is grounds for anything or is newsworthy in any sense." I disagree on several fronts. First, I'm not interested in nitpicking but in asking him directly, openly, and honestly what he thinks. Ahmadinejad has called for debates several times. Saddam Hussein did the same. There is a trick of "not dignifying" such calls. It is a cowardly act designed to keep the people in the dark. Ahmadinejad is out for hearts, minds, and souls for Mohammed, not Jesus. If there were a debate and he were to lose (and that would clearly depend upon whom he would be debating), then Muslims the world over would benefit immensely, as would Ahmadinejad himself. Second though is the fact that were Ahmadinejad truly calling for militarily wiping out Israel based on the current circumstances and just the moment he could attain the weaponry to do so, it would be news. The sweep of your statement appears to be saying not to give those who are fascists who are leading Israel any points even when the points are clearly valid. The world as they are painting it is unreal. They are painting a false picture. Ahmadinejad is not a perfect being by any stretch, but he's not stupid (in the relative sense) and Iranians are not interested in committing national suicide. There are Iranians who chant death to Israel and death to America. There are Israelis and Americans who do the same vis-a-vis Iran. Those people are facilitated by not "dignifying" Benjamin Netanyahu's statements that it's 1938 and Ahmadinejad is Hitler. No, we must call Netanyahu to substantiate his claims via more than sound bites. Letting the whole world rush headlong into war after war while refusing to insist upon longer News segments is folly. Look at the length of your reply to me and mine to you. We've spoken more back and forth than Obama and Ahmadinejad or Netanyahu and Ahmadinejad. Did George W. Bush ever even speak to Saddam Hussein? He certainly never would have debated him in the open because, frankly, he would have lost that debate but Saddam would have been hugely forced to moderate to live up to avoid further hypocrisy after going down the laundry list of things he knew about the inner workings of Empire in the outlying regions, such as Iraq was at the time. Look at how the U.S. executing Japanese soldiers for waterboarding has resurfaced and why. Bush wanted Saddam tried in Iraq by a kangaroo court on side charges and then dead as quickly as possible so he couldn't spill his guts about the Empire's supplying him with the very chemical weapons they ostensibly tried and hanged him for using. Saddam was a CIA creation. Ahmadinejad knows his history. He lived through the Iran-Iraq War as an adult. He knows who supplied whom and with what. The US was wrong to overthrow Mohammed Mosaddeq in 1953. It was wrong to install the Shah. It was wrong to train SAVAK. It was wrong to wink and nod and encourage torture. I would rather have been poor as a nation than rich in mammon and having done those utterly evil things. You also wrote, "The Muslims have no weapons." No, that's incorrect. Iran has weapons. Iran has some of the fastest and deadliest torpedoes for instance. The other Muslim nations with oil money to burn have purchased plenty of weaponry. Pakistan is Muslim and is a nuclear power. In addition, you appear to be severely underestimating the Russians. The Russians have an uncanny ability to counter American weaponry. Israel pulled out of Lebanon on account of Russian weapons defeating American tanks. It's a fact. In addition, you are ignoring China. China, Russia, and Iran are cooperating. China has made huge strides in the technological realm and certainly can now compete with the U.S. in manufacturing. I'm not saying these things as some chess player on this level. It's a mundane realm. That's not where I engage. Nevertheless, they are mundane facts and the Pentagon does deal on that level despite its fervent desire to be able to simply think and have its will be done without exception. You wrote, "...when our Constitution strictly forbids the government establishing a state religion — this is WRONG. Why must this antichrist religion of Judaism be the state religion of the United States, why must we wage war against everybody the Jews hate, bleed and die and pay and pay, for these evil things?" The supporters of Israel would say that the support is not for the religion but for the secular. The Zionists who pled with the British Empire for land (Uganda and elsewhere) were atheists by and large. Herzl was an atheist. The Biblical rationale didn't come up until much later. You won't be able to substantiate that Jewishness is not DNA but religious. Jewishness isn't even either according to many, many claiming Jewishness. A non-ethnic Jew can become a member of Judaism and his or her child can then be an atheist. This is partly distracting though. It was a nasty and wrong thing that the Empire (then British) did and that the U.S. upheld. Ahmadinejad is right about that. The U.S. uses Israel too. The U.S. has around 800 known bases around the world. Israel is part of the Empire, but empires change. The fact that the U.S. has such a large Jewish population that is so commercially oriented is critical to understanding. Jesus cleaned the temple of the moneychangers. The powers that be at the time hated him for that and the other things he did that were upsetting their set-up. They still hate him on those terrible grounds. That's the issue. The answer isn't in killing all Jews or any Jews. I speak to those who would. I say it for the sake of those who are unsure and might be tempted to fall into that antichrist mentality. I say it so others may echo it. You're a civil libertarian. You believe in the Bill of Rights. Many Americans don't hold with it. Is that treason? Well, what would Jefferson do? He'd fight a civil war/revolution to decide it. I don't hold with violence. That won't make me popular around here. I'm not interested in being popular though. I'm interested in being right. I don't hold with Jefferson. He was a deist, humanist, and hugely hypocritical. He was a son of the so-called Enlightenment that has resulted in this dark age -- growing darker even as many are seeing more light in their own lives and hearts. This was prophesied too. You said, "I’m not a racist." Excellent. Now, just focus in only on those of the Jews who are drumming for war. Be sure you make clear that you are not lumping anti-war Jews in with them. Qualify to your hearts content about the errors of Talmudic and Torah Judaism. Don't hold all the sins of his many generations of sons against the repent and atoning Jacob. I actually model my own action vis-a-vis my flesh brother on the actions of Jacob and am very glad I did. I know Jesus has zero problems with that too. Finally, you also wrote, "I believe everybody should be allowed to live in peace and nobody deserves to be able to take away what another person has because they fancy themselves to be somehow superior in their genes or who their parents were, whatever.The Bible is full of examples of the horrible things the Jews did. Soon as Moses went up on the mountain to meet with God, the Jews started orgying and worshipping Baal. The Bible doesn’t say God picked the Jews to reveal himself to so intimately because they are such wonderful people. Not at all. The Old Testament has many, many words of God calling them stubborn, unfaithful, stiffnecked and proud. Revelation says Jerusalem in the last days is compared to “Sodom and Egypt” and warns of the Synagogue of Satan. Jesus told the Pharisees that they were a den of vipers and their father was Satan and said they killed all the prophets and ignored the word of God and were into the traditions of men instead. Nothing has changed with them that I can see. And from what you said in your post above, I don’t think you probably disagree with what I’ve said here...." Close; however, Jews turn. The prophecy is not that all the Jews (bloodline) are wiped out. The prophecy is that all finally turn and become one. They all finally live the type and degree of love for each other Jesus showed by going to the cross for the sake of that truth. Bless them. Show them mercy in their ignorance no matter how crafty they or you think they are. So, here we are on this site that is monitored like a hawk by government(s) agents and computers. We are at the end of this thread having a deep discussion solving the problems of the world while everyone else has raced on to the next sound bite. Are we accomplishing anything? This conversation between us has been noted. It's not phony. Let them learn. You will notice that I am Tom Usher. You will notice that I have linked to the RLCC site. I am in the book. No fear! Just tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but. That's what our brother Jesus did and still does through the written word and through us if the Holy Spirit is within and speaks through us. I once was lost, but now I'm found. If you are going to die for something, die for truth and live. Peace | |
| The great, international, demonic, truly frightening Iranian threat (Alex Jones' Infowars) 9 months ago | |
| @ Just the Truth I've never seen a reaction to any comment of mine anywhere on the Internet or on my blog where anyone has ever jumped to more false conclusions than you have here. It's amazing. Well, let me answer. I'll put your questions/statements in quotes and try to be gentle. Question: "Tom Usher, what if Ahmadinejad believes the Holocaust never happened at all. Does that mean we go nuke Iran?" Answer: No Question: "What about all the people who were killed under Lenin (a Jew) or a result of Marx’s writings (a Jew), the millions of people who have died under communist tyranny, a movement started by the Jews, Trotsky and Lenin and Marx? Huh?" Answer: They shouldn't have died. Marx, Lenin, and Trotsky were wrong. Question: "What does Ahmadinejad’s opinion of the Holocaust have to do with WWIII and blowing up millions, even billions of innocent people?" Answer: If he isn't saying it, it shows that those who know better (know he isn't) are liars. If they will lie about that, why trust them. (That's rhetorical, hence no question mark.) The idea is to show the lies of the liars to the gullible so they won't be taken in. Of course, this issue is far from the only place the propagandists are at work. It just happens to be one where I was here and commented. I happen to know that Ahmadinejad doesn't believe that no Jews were murdered in the concentration camps. He is though a politician who gauges how his words will be received by his supporters. I'm not just concerned about "Americans." If millions of Jews were exterminated, don't all Iranians deserve to know that rather than being misled (rhetorical). Your handle is "Just the Truth." Let it be for everyone. If you will re-read the post above, you will see that the author, William Blum, raised the issue of Ahmadinejad and Holocaust denial. I think he had a good point. I support the thrust of his post. I'm simply building on it. If that offends you, so be it. Question: "Do the Jews fancy themselves so wonderful and superior and godlike that anybody who questions their sad story about the Holocaust needs to immediately die?" Answer: Some do (fancy themselves). Statement: Get a grip. Reply: Well, considering you jumped to all sorts of false conclusions, I really don't need to address that. Question: "Is Ahmadinejad not allowed to have anything but lovely thoughts about the Jews?" Answer: No Question: "Is it a crime worthy of death to hate Judaism?" Answer: No Statement: "Because if it is, then count me guilty, because I truly hate Judaism. It is one of the most evil religions on the face of the earth, right up there with Anton LaVey’s Satanic Bible and Scientology and the rest of the New Age religions that tell people they are little gods." Reply: Okay Statement: "No wonder the Jews are so hateful and murderous. They are taught from childhood out of the Talmud and Cabala to have big swelled up heads about their special selves and that the rest of us are subhuman vermin worthy of death, that it is good to lie to us and cheat us and steal from us." Reply: I've seen it. I wasn't born yesterday. Not all Jews subscribe. Jesus was/is a Jew for instance. He's a different kind. They aren't all the same you know. You aren't one of those Nazi Jesus-was-an-Aryan people are you? Statement: "They hate us all, call the women shiksas, meaning an animal in heat, and what the Talmud says about Jesus I won’t repeat (because if I do the software will blip out my post)." Reply: I've read what it says. Statement: "Maybe you should be worrying more about what the Jews think about Ahmadinejad and the rest of us, and less about what Ahmadinejad thinks of the Jews, since Israel has at least 400 nukes and is itching to use them and Ahmadinejad has zilch —" Reply: I'll forgive you for having started off jumping to false conclusions. That last statement of yours is just a continuation of jumping to false conclusions. I endeavor to remember to say "some Jews" rather than lumping all Jews together, as if they are all Avigdor Lieberman. You'd be wise to do the same. Sprinkle it in. You'll get farther. You do realize that there are Jews who denounce fascism and the Likud and Yisrael Beiteinu, right? You do know that the reason we know that Israel has nukes is because of a great Christian Jew, Mordechai Vanunu, right? Statement: Get real. Reply: A real thing to do is to consider various ways things can be taken before going on the attack. I realize you are passionate about these issues, but you do need to take care. Carelessness is harmful. You are accusing "the Jews" of being careless. Take care not to continue falling into hypocrisy. We all need to take care. I include myself. Peace to all. | |
| ChurchCrunch : Digital Bullets are Just as Harmful as Real Ones 9 months ago | |
| The truth can be as a bullet to some souls. You wanted proof? It was there – the comment was there back on May 20. You put it back up on what, June 1, 2009, only after it was brought to your attention again. Here's your proof people: http://www.realliberalchristianchurch.org/images/... I don't have any control over BlogCatalog or Intense Debate. Together, they show it was there, just as my eyes told me. Your statement that both comments went to spam because I had submitted a duplicate is false. Both comments showed up as normal and not spam. My comments were the only ones that disappeared and you're saying I should have contacted you. Then you turned around and said don't post our emails and that you were dropping the issue but posted the above without saying anything to me. I'm done. This is prima facie. | |
| ChurchCrunch : Digital Bullets are Just as Harmful as Real Ones 9 months ago | |
| Okay, John, John, you wrote a comment saying that my comment disappeared because I submitted a duplicate. I wrote a thorough response showing that that was incorrect. You chose to ignore it. You rather said that I should have contacted you (something I have done with others many times). In my reply, I said quite openly that I would apologize and post a prominent retraction if you can explain how the comment showed up, was indexed by Google, and then disappeared. You were told early on about the problem, but did nothing – claiming later you didn't have time. Now, other people here are possibly attempting to see into why I'm might have concluded that I was censored. Nowhere have you taken a second to sympathize with the fact that all over the place wholly appropriate comments of mine have been blocked and I've even been banned by atheists and others for standing up for Jesus or that I have made contact about comments not showing up plenty of times but that I felt that in this case, it wasn't warranted. Was it a hasty conclusion? That was your stated position, but now what have you done? You never answered my questions about how the comment showed and then disappeared. My Intense Debate comments had not been having problems before your site. Now they are. You then wrote an email to me saying that you don't want me to put the content of the email online but that you were going to "drop it" (the issue). Now I've been notified by others that not only did you not honor that statement but you've posted the above post without any notice to me from you that you were reneging on your unsolicited email to me. Interesting method. If you weren't dishonest before, you certainly are now. If people can rebuke me here but don't rebuke you for what you've plainly done that's slimy, that's their problem. You may have plenty of visitors supporting your position here; but considering that your explanation about duplicate comments and spam was without merit and that you've now clearly done exactly what you said you would not and after I've been attempting to find out more about what might have happened where I was possibly in error, well, John, you may be disappointed, but now I'm even more disappointed. Why should I believe you now about the original disappearance of the comment after you said you were dropping it and also wrote to me, "Whatever you feel led to do you may do"? Now clearly exposed as dishonorable, are you to be trusted? I had more issues come up regarding Intense Debate and pursued the issues with it in mind to return here sincerely to apologize (to repent of any error) if it turns out that Intense Debate screwed up and not you. I put the new information online for all to see. You didn't answer my comments or questions because, as you wrote, you "have much more important issues to deal with than this," but you found the time to write this post and answer these comments without letting me know or commenting on my site, etc. Yeah, it sucks is right. I'll leave it to others to decide who's being completely honest here. I know. Tom Usher P.S. The choice of image for this post is extremely misleading. | |
| ChurchCrunch : Sunday Special QA No. 10 9 months ago | |
| John, I supplied a link in a reply comment on your post: http://churchcrunch.com/2009/05/20/one-of-the-top... In addition, I understand how Mikes is using the term "anti-christian"; however, I wrote on the RLCC post about this issue as follows, "...has another agenda and is not simply confused in the mundane on this issue...." That was about you. That's leaving the door open to an "honest" mistake (confused somehow about the technology involved as one possibility) and/or that only this incident might be anti-Christian as opposed to your being anti-Christian all the time or something akin to it. I also wrote, "I don't want to assign too much in the way of error to that author, as I require some benefit of the doubt, especially at first, else I'd be banned and censored more often than I already am, which is all too often." That, as well, is leaving the door open and indicates that I am not saying that you are antichrist -- that others might take wrong (read too much in here; use the worst connotation). At any rate, the whole incident must be taken within full context. The issue for me, as a professing Christian, is one of supportiveness for ultimate truth, which necessitates that we bring forth as Jesus said. That's where I place the line. Lastly, I don't want to beat this incident to death. Thank you for allowing my comment. Peace, | |
| ChurchCrunch : One of the Top Bloggers in the World is Christian 9 months ago | |
| http://www.realliberalchristianchurch.org/?p=3135... | |
| ChurchCrunch : One of the Top Bloggers in the World is Christian 9 months ago | |
| Hello All, Pardon me if this ends up a duplicate comment post since my first effort didn't seem to go through properly. A person blogging who is fairly privately (Internet-wise) professing Christianity -- not a "Christian" blog, per se Why does anyone have to figure out that he's a Christian? Why doesn't he proclaim it right on his front page? Would traffic fall off and revenue decrease? What are his priorities? These are real questions and not condemnations. I have a problem with people posing as one thing and claiming something else. I had a huge run-in with a certain atheist over it and was banned from Entrecard on account of it. Please don't take it that I'm putting this fellow, Darren Rowse, into the same category. What does Arianna Huffington profess? Her blog is rated number 1 by Technorati. Peace, For: The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project Tom Usher | |
Find me on :
To TopRecent Music
|
T-Bone Walker – Stormy Monday 3 weeks ago | |
|
|
Eddie Boyd – Third Degree 3 weeks ago | |
|
|
Albert Collins – Grapeland Gossip 3 weeks ago | |
|
|
Johnny Shines – Sweet Home Chicago 3 weeks ago | |
|
|
Earl Hooker – Yes, Yes 3 weeks ago | |
|
|
Clarence "Gatemouth" Brown – Jumpin' The Blues 3 weeks ago | |
|
|
Junior Wells – We're Ready 3 weeks ago | |
|
|
The Paul Butterfield Blues Band – Work Song 3 weeks ago | |
|
|
Mississippi John Hurt – Stack O'Lee 3 weeks ago | |
|
|
Leadbelly – Pick A Bale Of Cotton 3 weeks ago |
Find me on :
To TopWidgets
To Top
