A bold new plan from the federal government proposes to end the mortgage crisis and provide extra troops for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan at the same time. Homeowners whose mortgages have reset to higher interest rates can now lower their rates by volunteering for combat duty. The rates would be lowered by a full percentage point for each year of service.

The White House admits that some thorny difficulties do remain to be worked out. Factors affecting the plan include the age and physical condition of those volunteering, and what some detractors have described as "miniscule" military pay that would be available to repay the restructured loans.

Nevertheless, the private sector seems to be enthusiastically embracing the government's plan. New financial instruments based on years of combat service and their expected presumed reduction in the mortgage rate should provide a bottom to prices and an end to foreclosures. They will be bundled as mortgage backed securities, then structured as CDOs and made available to investors worldwide.

Government spokesperson Eva Sion decried as "appeasing the terrorists" the alarm expressed by some financial experts that this is precisely the same approach that created the credit crisis in the first place. "These financial instruments should provide stability to the market. We have shown in our financial modeling that these financial instruments will less risky than similar instruments currently on the market." A Bloomberg reporter was then ejected from the room by security guards after asking if such "similar instruments" included bonds now selling for 5 cents on the dollar.

As for the vexing question of how to adequately prepare for the possibility that the "volunteer" soldiers might get killed or become incapacitated while in combat, the government announced a plan by the private sector to sell life insurance bonds (which of course will also be sliced and diced into CDOs.)

This could lead to the bonds being shorted, which means the investor hopes and expects some of the volunteers will be killed. In extreme cases, the investors could seek to maximize return on their investment by arming Iraqi insurgents to do just that. However the bonds themselves would remain profitable and the markets orderly - which of course remains the primary consideration.

RLCC Comment: Imagine sitting around with the job of thinking up ways to get people to be willing to kill for you for money — kill anyone you say whether guilty or innocent. That's sick. Those who participate are dead of the Holy Spirit.

Link to source-webpage by Bob Morris, obtained via: Politics in the Zeros, March 31, 2008, 9:07pm


The following should appear at the end of every post:

According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":

Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.

Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.

Political Campaign Intervention

Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.

Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.

Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:

  • Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
  • Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
  • Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
  • Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
  • Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office

Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:

  • The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
  • Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
  • We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
  • When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
  • It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
  • We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
  • We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
  • When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
  • We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
  • It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)

  • Subscribe

  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 – present, website developer and writer. 2015 – present, insurance broker.

    Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration.

    Volunteerism: 2007 – present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.

    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.