AUDIT THE FED AND NATIONALIZE IT
Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) is blocked by Senate Democrat Leadership from having a vote on his amendment to audit the Federal Reserve, based on a bill authored by Congressman Ron Paul (R-Texas) in th...
And to think it's coming from a Republican.
Is it just a safe thing to be complaining about because he'll never get his wish? There's more to it than that. I know when I'm dealing with a former slave state and a tobacco state, etc. I know what a Dixiecrat-cum-Republican is. I also know that Wall Street isn't centered in South Carolina. Think about it. It is no small matter that Republican Jim DeMint mentions that Bernie Sanders and he are on the same side on this issue. Bernie Sanders is a Social Democrat, meaning, he's a socialist who believes in democracy. He's not for undemocratically taking the reins of governmental power. He's for open discussions leading to the informed consent of the governed. I don't agree with all of Bernie's positions, but what he isn't is a Stalinist in or out of the closet.
One wonders why Mr. DeMint did not move against all the offending amendments he cited. Perhaps the rules wouldn't allow for that at that time. Anyway, the Senators in favor of auditing the Federal Reserve need to continue submitting the amendment and need to submit it where it won't be subjected to some blocking rule.
It would be interesting to know if any debate occurred on the merits or whether the Democratic leadership in the Senate simply moved to block without offering up any other reason.
It's sad, all very sad, and a clear indictment of the system.
Ron Paul has crafted a bill that can be passed and that will begin the process of unraveling the Federal Reserve, which needs to happen and will happen. Dennis Kucinich has put forward a much more aggressive bill:
Now, it might not pass right away; but this sort of going all the way for what a Representative can see as the best idea he or she can find for the sake of the whole people is the right thing to do under the circumstances and within the given forum. It will eventually gain steam and pass.
What you can see here are Socialists, Libertarians, Republicans, and Liberal Democrats all seeing their way clear to vastly improving the economy of the U.S. and world. Those who block them on this are the enemy of human kind. They are the utterly self-centered who must and will be overthrown. That overthrow will not be done by violent means in the end. Those who attempt to use violence to bring in a more righteous state will only find error waiting for them that can be corrected only by the non-violent. That's the truth.
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)