"The New Kleptocracy"
"The largest financial theft in American history"
Must Listen Interview — By Guns & Butter
Actually, there's nothing new about it. It's the same old Kleptocracy from the beginning.
Michael Hudson, the economist and professor, has pointed out the parable Jesus told about the king who showed mercy on a debtor who then went out but didn't in turn show mercy to his debtors. So the king reversed his decision. It is a very appropriate analogy to the bailout of banks that are still foreclosing on people.
Therefore is the kingdom of heaven likened unto a certain king, which would take account of his servants. (Matthew 18:23)
And when he had begun to reckon, one was brought unto him, which owed him ten thousand talents. (Matthew 18:24)
But forasmuch as he had not to pay, his lord commanded him to be sold, and his wife, and children, and all that he had, and payment to be made. (Matthew 18:25)
The servant therefore fell down, and worshipped him, saying, Lord, have patience with me, and I will pay thee all. (Matthew 18:26)
Then the lord of that servant was moved with compassion, and loosed him, and forgave him the debt. (Matthew 18:27)
But the same servant went out, and found one of his fellowservants, which owed him an hundred pence: and he laid hands on him, and took him by the throat, saying, Pay me that thou owest. (Matthew 18:28)
And his fellowservant fell down at his feet, and besought him, saying, Have patience with me, and I will pay thee all. (Matthew 18:29)
And he would not: but went and cast him into prison, till he should pay the debt. (Matthew 18:30)
So when his fellowservants saw what was done, they were very sorry, and came and told unto their lord all that was done. (Matthew 18:31)
Then his lord, after that he had called him, said unto him, O thou wicked servant, I forgave thee all that debt, because thou desiredst me: (Matthew 18:32)
Shouldest not thou also have had compassion on thy fellowservant, even as I had pity on thee? (Matthew 18:33)
And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors, till he should pay all that was due unto him. (Matthew 18:34)
So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you, if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespasses. (Matthew 18:35)
Michael believes that it is painfully obvious that the pork that was tacked onto the Congressional bailout to get Democrats to go alone constitutes bribes. I agree. It is bad government. It is corruption. These are selfish people being bought off by selfish people.
You may listen to him.
Of course, we are to forgive them as we want to be forgiven. Nevertheless, the truth is the truth about their greed and sin. Our forgiveness does not relieve them of the responsibility to repent and atone. If they don't, we aren't the ones who will punish them. The demons will do that. Also, throwing a few scraps and bones to the common people and poor won't satisfy the requirement. God is not stupid.
Thanks to Information ClearingHouse for the link.
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)