STEVE FORBES, FORBES MAGAZINE, ARGUING SELECTIVELY FOR MORE DEREGULATION

I was going to write this, but someone else already did.

Obama Won, Greenspan Shrugged, but Capitalists Tool On
Thursday 06 November 2008
by: Steve Weissman, t r u t h o u t

I won't reproduce the article here. Click over to read it.

I will say that the laissez-faire crowd (the utopian Capitalists) can't be proven wrong in their minds, because to be able to do it in the sense they mean by proof would mean waiting forever to see whether or not people would simply catch on to what works best in the long run. The fact of the matter is that that works equally well for coercive socialism and totalitarian dictatorships and also Christianity as Jesus expressed it. That's not really the central issue though with Steve Forbes of Forbes magazine.

Steve Forbes, as Steve Weissman points out to some degree and which I will expand here, is asking us to believe that regulation caused evil people to take advantage of regulations. The regulators though were not allowed to regulate in the places where Steve points as the culprit. He points to the Federal Reserve as regulators, which they are. However, at the same time though, the public isn't on the inside at the Fed. The Fed is private. It is private enterprise. It is a Constitutional responsibility of Congress (money creation) that Congress has wrongly privatized (by being bought out via campaign contributions from the superrich bankers and a corporate revolving door when they leave Congress also provided by those bankers and the mega-corporations they fund).

Now, to be fair, the duped laissez-faire capitalists (the ones lower down who actually want to believe that there are superrich laissez-faire capitalists, such as Steve Forbes, rather than that those superrich have simply fooled those non-adepts in the craft) are right that Fed is the takeover of the state such that it has become the state. Who can argue against that? Who wants to other than the private parties who own the Fed as a plutocratic institution?

The fuller truth though is that anti-capitalists have no part in the Fed and want it abolished. The whole truth is that those who are most in the spirit of anti-capitalism are most interested in non-coerced consensus as the governing principle. Steve Forbes is dead set against that.

He knows full well that one-person-one-vote with truly open discussions where the superrich don't control would not result in capitalism as the choice for how humanity should be organized and bringing forth. He wouldn't have his wage-slaves serving him in his corporate dining room and elsewhere. He'd being serving too as he should want to.

Donate


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.