G20 stupidly commits itself to more "neoliberalism"

Tom Usher wrote or added | This is pretty good, but there are some points with which the more astute observer should take strong exception: 1) that neoliberalism is never about starving people (even indirectly but nevertheless intentionally or at the very least, wittingly) and 2) that the people behind the people behind the people behind the people, meaning those (the plutocrats) behind those behind the main economic advisers to the heads of state, were caught flatfooted rather than having set up the whole affair so that they could short and long the various positions, get out with their profits in time as insiders, etc. We saw this clearly with the combination of Henry Paulson as Treasury Secretary, Alan Greenspan as Fed. Chairman, Goldman Sachs, and John Paulson, which John Paulson was handpicked by Goldman Sachs to likewise handpick the coming failures (a sure thing, given Greenspan's prior work to help the bubble along despite his earlier professed deep understanding of "irrational exuberance" that he conveniently forgot — wink, wink) and Henry Paulson's work as Treasury Secretary where he leveraged fear and threats (veiled or otherwise) to get Wall Street's (Goldman Sachs's) way by way of the bailouts with tax payer's general, US income-tax revenues. What a scheme that all was, and remains, and which is actually never ending, as we are in the process of staging the next bubble, which will burst for sure.

These things are definitely known but censored. They are deliberately avoided in the mainstream because the last thing the greediest of the greedy, the plutocrat banksters, want the common people to understand is that those common people could see through all of the plans and actions of those plutocrats and put nearly an instant stop to all of it simply by choosing the wisest (most idealistic), shepherds for managing and coordinating the affairs of the house that is planet Earth.

This would mean doing away with people ruining others financially to gain market share and replacing that evil system with a wholly cooperative system where the object is to do the very best for each individual and the whole of humanity at the same time — definitely doable.


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.