FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TAKES ORDERS ON AIG AND OTHER GIANTS FROM PLUTOCRATIC PRIVATE FEDERAL RESERVE
So, Bear Stearns was bailed out, sort of, by JPMorgan Chase & Co. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are being kept alive on life support. Lehman was allowed to die. That's the largest corporate failure in U.S. history. Barclays is buying parts of Lehman. Now though, the Federal Reserve (a private, closely held something or other) is taking over AIG. That's American International Group Inc.
AIG is the largest insurance company in the world. It's so big, most people have never heard of it. The Fed is taking over 79.9% to keep it afloat. The thing is, the news media keeps talking about this as if the federal government is doing this.
Fed rescues AIG, Barclays buys Lehman U.S. unit
By Tony Munroe
Wed Sep 17, 2008 3:08am EDT
The Fed isn't the federal government, even though the federal government does what it's told to do by the Fed.
The Federal Reserve is a private business owned and operated (but mostly owned) by the plutocrats who set up the crash so they could do what they are doing that is gobble up more market share while duping the people into paying for it out of their taxes paid on salaries and often small wages paid them in turn by the same plutocrats who in the end employ them (own them) as wage slaves. Think about it. It's true. It is God's truth.
"We're essentially continuing a system where profits are privatized and ... losses socialized," said Nouriel Roubini. Of course, this is how it's been. It's a racket. There is no good reason for it. It only exists this way because of the egos of those who have little to no working conscience. For most, it's just a dog-eat-dog (hence the Bible calls people dogs, meaning selfish — dogs fight easily over food rather than sharing) world, a scientific, materialistic world.
Soak the Rich
So, why not soak the rich? If the rich can soak the poor, which they do constantly, why can't the poor raise the taxes on the rich until the National Debt is paid off 100%? You know, when I was born, the U.S. was the largest creditor nation in the world. Now it's the largest debtor nation. The only thing that has changed is that taxes on the rich went down &mdash way, way down.
We Don't Need Taxes
Truth be told, I'm against taxes. Taxes don't even need to exist at all. We don't need money either. We just need heart. It's called love. God is love.
Medium of Exchange
The scientists think that things just came into being without any spiritual intelligence manifesting. Well, the whole of Creation came into being without anyone using any medium of exchange. It all came forth out of a moneyless system.
Money is artificial. It's a contrivance. It's totally unnecessary. It only exists because certain people are greedy and selfish. Remove the selfishness from the hearts of everyone, and we'd move into Heaven.
Out From Under
The naysayers though pooh-pooh that idea. They do that because they don't want those who serve them to come out from under. It's really stupid though. The selfish ones would be endlessly better off with the poor and downtrodden out from under. Those selfish ones are just too stupid to grasp that though. It's amazing.
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)