Does Rush Limbaugh ever read? He's so busy talking. He's so busy getting and maintaining the pulse of people who don't read, one wonders. Don't the people who follow Rush get nearly every speck of their "news" from listening to AM radio while their on the road or whatever and then the rest of their "news" from watching FOX News channel's mostly non-journalist talking heads? When do they read?
You know those talkers only talk so fast. One can read, well some can read, ten times even a hundred times faster than those people can talk. Also, one can then read many different viewpoints.
These Rush followers really don't know what the opposition is really saying. They only know what Rush says the opposition is saying or thinking, and he gets it mostly quite wrong.
A while back, Rush said that the plan to fund some healthcare from taxes is akin to Nazism: the Obama plan. He was told that Nazism is not and was not socialism. He's still though insisting that Nazi is short for National Socialism so therefore the Nazi movement was socialist. Under Hitler, it was not socialist. The Nazi government did not own all the means of production (the meaning of socialism). They did have an extremely strong industrial policy that was driven by expansion plans. Nevertheless, the capitalist industrialists were still very much active under Hitler. The fact is that Hitler was a fascist, and fascism is a phenomenon of the right.
Schacht was one of the few finance ministers to take advantage of the freedom provided by the end of the gold standard to keep interest rates low and government budget deficits high, with massive public works funded by large budget deficits. The consequence was an extremely rapid decline in unemployment—the most rapid decline in unemployment in any country during the Great Depression. Eventually this Keynesian economic policy was supplemented by the boost to demand provided by rearmament and swelling military spending.
As big business became increasingly organized, it developed an increasingly close partnership with the Nazi government. The government pursued economic policies that maximized the profits of its business allies, and, in exchange, business leaders supported the government's political and military goals.
What you see there is a mixed economy where Hitler's economist was vastly smarter than Henry Paulson, Timothy Geithner, and Ben Bernanke combined to the nth degree. What you see there is a total absence of finance capitalism (meaning Wall Streeters and bankers or banksters) and a total commitment to infrastructure and then armaments.
The only mistake there is armaments. If Hitler had been smart enough, he could have plowed all of Germany's efforts into only Main Street needs of the people and far outdone anything in the history of the human race.
The huge error of the United States right now is that the people chose Barack Obama rather than someone who would have done exactly what I just outlined.
There are a few people who were for very nearly exactly what I just described.
Anyway, it's still not too late. However, the people are being severely misled on both sides of the Democratic Party/Republican Party divide.
No one is listening to what makes sense. They can't hear. What do they want? What are they deserving?
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)