Tom Usher commented or added the following:
I don't agree with every plank of this platform, but I do agree with a large portion of it. For instance:
"We demand a national currency, safe, sound, and flexible, issued by the general government only, a full legal tender for all debts, public and private, and that without the use of banking corporations, a just, equitable, and efficient means of distribution direct to the people, ... also by payments in discharge of its obligations for public improvements."
This is the modern Greenbackers position as well. The government would re-nationalize the currency and spend it directly into the system for whatever the people want through their democratic choices. I prefer consensus to coercive-democratic, but what we have now is a plutocracy by elitists who dupe the minions into believing that they, the duped and minions, could never choose wisely. It's not true. The only thing missing is the will to not do the bidding of the evil ones, to not cave into their bribes, their appeals to ... shortsighted selfishness.
The re-nationalized money would be issued interest-free. It would be used to payoff legitimate bond holders and not the banksters who have perpetrated a massive fraud on the people via the Federal Reserve System. Fractional-reserve banking would be no-longer. The supposed need to borrow at usury (an inherent evil from Hell) would be eliminated, as the people could create funding for anything the people need and want. The quantity of money, the money supply, the amount of money in circulation and savings, would be pegged exactly to real productivity and not to so-called finance capitalism. Hence, there would be no inflation or deflation.
The government, the people's government, would put everyone to work who needs work and can do work and is not now able to get it. The work would be whatever needs doing and all with an eye to quality and not "profits" in mammon. Quality would be quality of life for everyone, which necessarily means the workers themselves, the people.
The people's government would also educate everyone without charge. Everyone could work and learn at the same time, learning the highest skills known to humanity, with the only barrier being the individuals learning capacity. There would be no blocking by the people of the people.
This would completely eliminate poverty. It would go a long way, and eventually all the way, to restoring the environment. It would be the best that can be done in every aspect of life in the flesh. It is translatable to every nation-state and would at first reduce and then eliminate wars.
I believe, no I know, it comes out from God. I know it is consistent with the message of Jesus Christ. For those who don't see it that way but who still agree with re-nationalizing the currency, there need be no violence between us.
In the end, this would lead to the elimination of the evil that is money (means of exchange) itself. Hallelujah!
We don't need to trade. We need to give each other what we need. It's simple. Don't let the "economists" dupe you. They don't study how to run the house that is the planet and Universe. They don't know how to run it correctly. Their doctrines stink. Let them see the light and change to righteousness and away from the spirit of mammon, whether gold or otherwise.
Know this. Gold is a bubble. It's only a matter of time as to when it bursts. It is not the real currency. The real currency is faith. It is love, peace, truth, mercy, forgiveness, and all the rest of the good.
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)