What is this Federal Reserve Chairman talking about? He is saying that the $700 billion bailout isn't really a loss for the American taxpayers, because the companies being bailed out have actual assets worth that much. That's a lie. It's a flat out lie, and he knows it. Watch him here on this Libertarian website.

Those companies were way over levered on purpose on un-creditworthy borrowers just so this situation would occur. It was definitely planned. People make big money in booms, and others (some times the same people) make big money on busts.

The little borrowers were sold a bill-of-goods. They were told that rising real estate values would cover them — that all they needed to do is hold and then refinance.

There is no value when the bottom has fallen out. Those borrowers cannot repay. The loans upon which the securities (so-called assets) are based are worthless. The only value in the mundane sense is in the land and improvements at the current market value, which is still going down.

The system isn't going to recover until equity-positions are recovered to pre-boom times. That means it isn't going to recover until after all the losses have been absorbed and sanity (if one can ever call the system sane — I know better) prevails. That means leverage back where people have about twenty percent equity to start again or are buying where the loan payments are way below what was once thought to be affordable (meaning with a twenty percent or better (50% right now makes more sense) cushion against hard times).

Ben Bernanke is a hired spin artist just as was Alan Greenspan. He's covering — doing a tap dance — for the sakes of the plutocrats who are buying up all the market of those they've ruined and doing so using the tax payments of the middle and lower classes. It's nothing but robber baron tactics, and it's a class struggle.


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.
    • Thomas James

      One interesting thing is that when the bailout was first proposed there was no indication that any of this money would be used to help the homeowner avoid foreclosure. The responce from the Christian right led by Pat Robertson was that any amendments to the bailout is just diddle dallying around and we should just rush to get the bill signed in order to shore up the economy. Many of the Christian right church goers have denounced the homeowners facing foreclosure as just a bunch of lazy people on welfare who do not want to work and that help should only go to the businessmen who actually create jobs. What the Christian right who believe that the poor deserve what they get is that when Jesus was born he too was homeless.

    • @Thomas James -

      Hello Thomas James,

      Thank you for your comment. I was not up on Pat Robertson's statement regarding the bailout. It doesn't surprise me though. It's true to form. He's no Christian. He never has been. He's a fake. He's in it for the money. There's no doubt about it.

      What you're speaking about is Calvinism and the so-called Protestant Work Ethic. Calvinism and its historical ties with capitalism is a complete abomination. Jesus didn't teach Calvinism or capitalism at all. All the self-styled Christians who cite scripture to support capitalism are merely twisting and avoiding the fullest context of Jesus's message. They read selectively so they may continue being highly selfish, greedy, coercive, violent, and perverse.

      All these super patriots who call themselves Americans and Christians are not Christians in the least. They don't follow Jesus. They don't advocate doing what Jesus asks his followers to do.

      This goes for Barack Obama, John McCain, Sarah Palin, and Joe Biden.

      These truths need to be put front and center and kept there until all the phoniness dissolves away and is replaced by Christ's real teachings.

      Let Pat Robertson and the rest of them answer to Jesus's statement:

      (The following requires font-family:"TITUS Cyberbit Basic" to see the Greek.)

      Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. (Matthew 5:3)






      From πτώσσω ptōssō (to crouch; akin to G4422 and the alternate of G4098); a beggar (as cringing), that is, pauper (strictly denoting absolute or public mendicancy, although also used in a qualified or relative sense; whereas G3993 properly means only straitened circumstances in private), literally (often as noun) or figuratively (distressed): - beggar (-ly), poor.






      From G4154; a current of air, that is, breath (blast) or a breeze; by analogy or figuratively a spirit, that is, (human) the rational soul, (by implication) vital principle, mental disposition, etc., or (superhuman) an angel, daemon, or (divine) God, Christ's spirit, the Holy spirit: - ghost, life, spirit (-ual, -ually), mind. Compare G5590.

      I'm sick of these people giving God and Jesus a bad reputation. If Jesus blessed the poor, who the Hell are these other souls or spirits calling them all lazy? Some of the hardest working people on the planet are dirt poor. That's a fact. I stand up for them. Anyone who doesn't risks damnation.

    • Thomas James

      On a second thought I recently am having a series of nightmares concerning my grandfather who passed away a few years ago. I really think that he must have been the reincarnation of Ebineezer Scrooge but i did not warn him because I was afraid that if he thought that I was a communist he would have cut me out of his will. Now thinking about it this probably was a form of elder abuse.

      According to my interpretation of Charles Dickens Scrooge probably thought he was a very generous man because when he died his employee became a very wealthy man because Scrooge had no relatives that were to receive an inheritance. Although this was indeed true and many celebrated the death of Scrooge it was too much money too late for Tiny Tim who needed an operation in order to save his life. Tiny Tims father could not even take out a loan in anticipation of any inheritance because he was not a blood relative and could not reasonably expect to receive any money.

      So my question is is Charles Dickens some sort of communist or are we to go along with the Christian right Newt Gingrich agenda to take children away from these welfare people and to put them in orphanges.

      And my question is are we to embrace the Christian right because they are against abortion yet these are the same Christian right who either called William J. Calley a hero or slapped him on the wrist when he blew the brains out of innocent civillian Vietnamese babies.

      And are we to embrace the Christian right and their approval of the atomic bombing of Japan claiming that this act actually saved lives? And I remember the Christian right who put Reagan in office advocated an all out first strike nuclear war against the Soviet Union as a winning strategy because it was thought that we could get them before they got us. And even if it were possible to win an all out nuclear war would that not make us mass murderers?

      I think the real reason why the Churches put up with and encourage all these abominations is because they do not want to offend all of these wealthy tithers. So when they want to make it look like they are purging the temple they will leave the money changers alone and instead go after the bartenders or the tobacco industry.

    • Hi Thomas,

      I'm not sure whether or not your questions are rhetorical. I will address them regardless.

      The important thing about Scrooge is that he repented and was atoning in earnest. That's the best anyone can do at this point. God has the power to undo things such as what happened to Tiny Tim. If our hearts merit such, it will happen.

      Yes, Dickens was some sort of communist. He was a Christian. He had it in his heart. No doubt he confronted his own failings regularly.

      Of course the so-called Christian right is wrong. However, so is the so-called Christian left. You are to embrace that which is righteous that the right-wing espouses while simultaneously rejecting that which is false-hearted. The same applies to the left. Abortion is not a good thing. The world is not welcoming. That's why people are confronted with thoughts they use to justify abortion in the first place. It though is not much different from flushing souls in other ways such as war.

      As for advocating total war or partial war, it is mass murder. Those who engage in it are mass murderers. When all those souls who do iniquity are flushed, what then? Where will it stop? The solution lies in turning. Turning includes not flushing others. It's a hard concept to grasp, but it's true. It's why Jesus says that God judges no one.

      Finally, as for the churches of which you write that "put up with and encourage all these abominations," they are the people they "put up with and encourage." There is no church and then the congregation. Jesus put up with but didn't encourage abominations. That's the right path. When the abominable are flushed under their standard, Jesus is left and so is God.

      Does this make sense to you?


      Tom Usher