Now, the bailout is up to $7.76 trillion dollars in one form or another. That's only the beginning though. We are left in the position of taking the regulators words for it that much of it is soundly collateralized.

It is only the beginning. The 2009 year will be one of titanic shocks and changes to the global order of a scale perhaps not experienced in the past five centuries. This is why we should speak of the end of the American Century and its Dollar System.

How destructive that process will be to the citizens of the United States who are the prime victims of Paulson's crony capitalists, as well as to the rest of the world depends now on the urgency and resoluteness with which heads of national Governments in Germany, the EU, China, Russia and the rest of the non-US world react. It is no time for ideological sentimentality and nostalgia of the postwar old order. That collapsed this past September along with Lehman Brothers and the Republican Presidency. Waiting for a 'miracle' from an Obama Presidency is no longer an option for the rest of the world.

(Source: "Colossal Financial Collapse: The Truth behind the Citigroup Bank 'Nationalization'," by F. William Engdahl. Global Research. November 24, 2008)

F. William Engdahl is incorrect to allow that Paulson did not know ahead of time the impact of allowing Lehman Bros. to fail. It was planned to cause shock so that Paulson would be granted sweeping powers to remake Wall Street and U.S. and world banking much to his personal liking (in sync with the plutocrats). This whole thing has simply been a financial 9/11 inside job.

Just as people were warned via text messaging before 9/11 and just as people were warned before October 29, 1929, people knew before the Great Crash of 2008. Follow the money, always.

The reason the same players are being put into positions of power is not due to their competency and experience in the sense people are being misled to believe. They are being retained, because they won't blow the whistle.

You won't have seen that anywhere else first. That position originated right here on this blog.

The plutocrats will not allow anyone anywhere near the audit trail of what is truly happened and is still unfolding. The choice of people is not Obama's to make. He wouldn't have gotten anywhere near the Oval Office if he hadn't already agreed to play ball with the Bilderberg Group on the Bilderberg Group's terms.


India is being rocked by terrorist attacks with Indian Mujahadeen taking credit for much of the terror. This does not bode well for peace between fundamentalist — militant Hindus and Muslims in general. The people behind the attacks are sick. What can't be ruled out is U.S. imperial incitement. It is awful never being able to rule out the U.S. being ultimately behind revving up violence to throw panic and fear around so it may continue the neocons' expressly stated objective that is the military takeover of the world.


Hugo Chavez is making a mistake trying to encourage OPEC to reduce production so oil prices will rise. It's good for reducing air-pollution that consumption is down. Reducing production will continue that trend. However, the selfish use of even an evil such as oil is not a good thing. It is not the spirit that will bring forth what is truly best for Venezuelans. It would be vastly superior were Hugo to negotiate with the U.S. in a way that would lead to the U.S. and Venezuela sharing clean-alternative-energy technologies.

The pro-Chavez United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV) won 72% of the governorships in the November 23, 2008 elections and 58% of the popular vote, dumbfounding the predictions of most of the pro-capitalist pollsters and the vast majority of the mass media who favored the opposition.
There is no point in expecting the mass media to recognize the Socialist victory. Its effort to magnify the significance of the opposition's 40% electoral vote and their victory in 20% of the states was predictable. In the post-election period, the Socialists, no doubt, will critically evaluate the results and hopefully re-think the selection of future candidates, emphasizing job performance on local issues over and above professed loyalty to President Chavez and 'Socialism'.
... effective power and control must be transferred to organized workers and autonomous consumer and neighborhood councils.

("Victory for Venezuela's Socialists in Crucial Elections," by James Petras. November 25, 2008.)

"...autonomous consumer and neighborhood councils" is a right idea. It's very consistent with the Christian Commons Project™. However, James Petras is still for coercion. He fears that a lack of the threat of counter-violence would simply embolden the fascists. That's the price we pay for being righteous though. We must set the right example to set the right standard into which others may grow over time.

Russia and Venezuela
Russian President Dmitry Medvedev visited Venezuela while a Russian Naval Ships also visited. Venezuela is buying Russian military equipment.

Constitutional Amendment Banning Bush's Self-Pardon and Pardons of Crimes He Authorized

As I've written before, any Constitutional Amendment (banning self-pardons and pardons of crimes authorized by the president) or otherwise dealing with pardons must be retroactive; otherwise, Bush's self-pardon and pardons of those he ordered or authorized to break the law will still stand.

What do you plan to do to them if you try them and find them guilty? What will be the sentence? I believe in reconciliation. I believe in not judging or condemning in the way Bush has judged and condemned.

Obama Centrist

Look, most Democrats knowingly voted for electability. They knowingly did the exact same thing Bill Clinton urged them to do. Clinton pulled the Party to the right to win. Who can't do that? The Republicans are going to move to become perceived as moderates to win. It's far from over. The only right thing to do is to speak truth more and more and more.

If Obama had run as a "liberal," he would have lost. Why is that? It's the case, because he isn't as compelling as his handlers have suggested that he is. He is not capable of standing on his feet arguing and educating and swaying for what is right over the slick-image garbage that both of the major parties peddle.

Barack Obama is a pragmatist/politician but not knowing what is really pragmatic. He is about "what will work" without fixing the system. He's about masking the symptoms. He's not about getting at the root cause of all that ails.

Obama is not going to repeal any of the tax cuts for the rich any time soon. His supposed tentative plan now is to allow the tax to expire rather than repeal it.


Zimbabwe refused to allow former U.S. President Jimmy Carter and former U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan and South African human rights advocate Graca Machel into Zimbabwe. They wanted to enter the country to investigate human rights abuses and to assess the predicament of the general population.

It's a sad thing when Zimbabwe hides from the likes of Jimmy Carter and refuses him entry. No one without something to hide would do that.

Yes, Zimbabwe has been victimized by racist policies of the colonial powers, but that's not an excuse for how Zimbabwe has conducted itself. Jimmy Carter would only serve to help the people of Zimbabwe including against racism.

Bush Administration

The Government Accountability Office reported that the Bush administration hid the true cost of privatizing government jobs. Bush's team wanted to make employing workers directly on the government payroll appear to be higher than the cost of having private corporations supply the workers. Bush's team lied so Bush crony capitalists could cost the taxpayers more and get richer. It was, and remains, a scam, since the privatization hasn't been reversed yet.

Don't you just hate greed, lies, and cheating? Don't you just hate greedy, lying, cheats? You're supposed to hate them even while you hold out the prospect of forgiveness. You are supposed to feel for the lost and fallen. Why not? We've all fallen. We all need for repent and atone and to be forgiven.

The Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development

Did the leaders of the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, based in Richardson, Texas, U.S., funnel millions of dollars to Hamas who used it for terrorism, or did they send millions of dollars not to Hamas and that were used for humanitarian purposes? The five were found guilty, but I haven't read anything that sounds convincing.

Anyway, one person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter. Is Hamas a terrorist group if they are fighting a war of resistance against unlawful occupation and against those who used terrorism to dispossess Hamas member families and to displace them? I don't hold with fighting, but it seems that Hamas's is the lesser sin relative to Israel's. Just because the Bush administration declared Hamas a terrorists group doesn't change that.
The following is from The New York Times:

...the prosecution said, the foundation supported terrorism by sending more than $12 million to charitable groups, known as zakat committees, which build hospitals and feed the poor.

Prosecutors said the committees were controlled by Hamas and contributed to terrorism by helping Hamas spread its ideology and recruit supporters. The government relied on Israeli intelligence agents, using pseudonyms, to testify in support of this theory.

Now that's weak. It sounds like a kangaroo court. Under that twisted logic, no one could aid anyone in Gaza without doing something illegal in the eyes of the U.S. government. That's down right evil. It's contemptible. Shame on the Bush administration for collectively punishing the Gazans and other Palestinians. That's a clear violation by the Bush administration of the Fourth Geneva Conventions.


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.