Raise money via selling interest-bearing treasury bonds to the Federal Reserve that can't sell them to anyone else because the Fed and conservative-Republican cronies (Phil Gramm, et al.) aided by Blue Dog Democrats and Democratic Leadership Council types (Bill Clinton and Al Gore, et al.) debauched the currency. Use the money borrowed from the Fed, which didn't have the money to lend it except that the government borrowed it (magic), to build roads and runways and railroads that run on oil. Then tax oil to pay for it all. However, the people still pay the price of it all, and the people who collect the interest, paid from taxes collected from the people, get the lion's share of fleeting Ponzi-scheme profits while they strangle and bleed the goose that is laying that supposed golden egg. Brilliant such schemers are not.
We have here Obama and his "team" arguing for $50 billion for those roads and runways and railroads plus the tax hikes. We have "Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., his party's leader in the Senate," and "Rep. John Boehner, R-Ohio, the Republican leader in the House," both arguing against Obama but for what? Do you hear them offering a way to end the Ponzi scheme? You do not! All they do is echo the nonsense from the more-so neolibs of the global Ponzi scheme itself. They are just worse than Obama, and Obama's terrible.
What is t r u t h o u t doing? The trend around there is toward greater and greater mainstreaming of their output? The linked article is "by: Steven Thomma | McClatchy Newspapers" for crying out loud! McClatchy is not radical. Truthout used to be radical. Sure, it would repeat the mainstream when it suited the radical agenda, but what's going on now? This McClatchy article doesn't touch the real issues. It actually ignores them. You know Steven Thomma and McClatchy Newspapers know what the real issues are. You know they know that the Federal Reserve is a house of cards constructed of, by, and for the bankster plutocrats to drink the people's blood and eat their flesh. Yet, Truthout sends this out as one of their top 5 articles of the week. Shame!
Not only that, but it indicates that the people are falling for it, again. The "it" here is the Obama "change" crap. What change? Obama is not, never has been, and if his history is any indication, never will be, real change. He was the worst choice for capitalizing on the housing crash — the debt crisis — manufactured by the plutocrats for the plutocrats. Why is that? He squandered the clear timing. He allowed the bailout of the banksters to stand and to continue. He misdirected the stimulus spending. He did not instantly rein in the banksters via anti-racketeering, anti-trust, and anti-fraud actions. He kept Bush-43's economic team. He reappointed Ben Bernanke. He did not move to thoroughly audit the Federal Reserve in broad daylight and then shut it down. He has not moved to re-nationalize the currency. He continued the terrible Pentagon budget and allowed the torturers and war criminals and perpetrators of 9/11 (the inside job) to walk.
Punishment is a different matter. First, establish the facts for the sake of a more informed people.
Where is the leadership? The leadership is hidden by the very mainstream that Truthout is aiding and abetting because Truthout doesn't turn around and critique the Steven Thommas and their work that should never see the light of day on a radical site without such a critique tied directly in. At least such critiques should be the norm if they can't be churned out quite fast enough to satisfy the likes of Yours Truly.
Where's the End the Federal Reserve System and institute the Greenbackers' Plan for interest-free United States Notes to instantly pay off the Nation Debt and to spend directly into the economy for those roads and runways and railroads that would be used by vehicles running on clean, non-greenhouse, agro-beneficial (not robbing) energy rather than oil? Who needs tax hikes or breaks when we don't need taxes in the first place?
Why is this not catching on like wild fire? Why is everyone asleep and hypnotized by the powers that be? Where are the minds that can take the best from the left and libertarians and dump the bad across-the-board? Where's the consensus on ending the Ponzi scheme — the banksters' scam — plutocrat leeches?
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)