A Facebook friend of mine posted this video on my FB Wall. I listened and wrote a somewhat detailed comment on it, which I posted on that Wall post and which I am sharing here as well.
First, here's the video:
Now here's my comment:
The song is cute but hardly entirely accurate. First, the Constitution doesn't say that the currency has to be backed by gold or silver. That's a distortion. Second, that distortion suggests that gold and/or silver are "real," fixed value when in fact both are only "worth" what people think they are. It's entirely psychological except for the utilitarian value of the metals; and by that, I don't mean that speculative "investing" for "passive" capital gains is utilitarian. I mean that the metals can be used for technological and other purposes that can and often do benefit humanity and the planet, etc., depending upon the technologies and other uses.
The fact is that anything the people agree upon as a medium of exchange can be the so-called "real" money. Afterall, wouldn't you trade your gold for diamonds if the "gain" were right for you? Wouldn't most others do the same under the current capitalistic mentality? They would, even though were everyone starving, no one would trade real food for either gold or diamonds or tulips or Beanie Babies.
Look, those with the most gold and silver and diamonds love the idea that there are little fry, dupe, libertarian capitalist going around writing and singing and sharing such songs rather than seeing through the whole facade that includes gold and money.
Fiat currency is great provided it's handled properly. It's vastly better than gold. The governments (the people's governments) don't need gold to bring forth real productivity, quite the contrary. Store up your treasure in Heaven, Dean, unless you've posted this here just to see what I'd say on the matter, which is fine.
There is absolutely nothing, zero, ziltch, inherent in gold or silver that will "reinstate our liberty." That's a farce. That's the statement of someone who has taken his history from liars and others who are deceived by the falsehood.
When gold was "the money," who was free? Free to do what? Free from what evil? Come on. This "gold is the money" concept is goofy.
Look, think of it this way. The problem hasn't been with paper money versus gold. It has been debt and most importantly usury, which was banned in the Old Testament by Jew to Jew. Do you know why? Do know who the top libertarian capitalists have been? Who was/is the Mont Pelerin Society? It wasn't and isn't a bunch of Torah Jews (not Talmud but Torah). Jesus threw these spraying skunks out of the Temple. They murdered him to silence him, but here we are discussing what Jesus did, why, and to whom: the modern-day Pharisees and the moneychangers who include the gold-nuts.
Screw the gold acquirers and hoarders. Oh, I don't mean starve them because they are too stupid and short-sighted and self-centered and hard-hearted to get beyond the psychological ploys of the Pharisees. No, I mean don't follow the anti-Christs; and every single one of the original Mont Pelerin Society members were against Christ. Not one professed Jesus or his teachings. They couldn't have and gone on teaching their crap without showing themselves as the huge, stupid hypocrites that they were/are. Jesus was, and remains, diametrically opposed to this "gold is the real money" crap.
If the US government (the people) issued debt-free paper money and fixed the value by matching the supply exactly to real productivity, not finance capitalism, there would be no inflation or deflation and there would be all the money in the world, literally. The government (the people) would issue their currency to themselves to bring forth all the things the people want: houses, food, clothes, transportation, labor saving devices, travel, rest and relaxation, roads, sidewalks, water systems, sewage systems and treatment plants, hospitals, schools, inter-planetary travel, free energy for all, environmental clean up and abatement, you name it. Everything could become clean, free of creating pollution, sustainable, only beneficial, etc., and all without any gold as God as mammon (literally worshipped and glorified in this awful song – gold is the savior – it's sick).
If there is anything I've written here that you don't understand, please ask. If you do understand what I'm saying, then spread that word and not the libertarian-capitalist, anti-Christ nonsense.
Mammon, in this case gold, isn't going to set anyone free. Translating that whole system into the system where the moneychangers have zero say will bring everyone closer to real freedom by far.
Debt/usury (any interest) capitalism is from the devil. That's Satan. It's not freedom whether it's gold or anything else used as a medium of exchange.
Read this: http://www.themoneymasters.com/faqs/ in light of what I've written here.
Peace to you, my friend,
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)