TheRealNews: Paul Jay speaks with Kevin Gallager: The tyranny of national-bond holders (and what to do about it), by Tom Usher

Kevin Gallager: Bond holders using commercial contracts to shift all liability and risk for state debt onto ordinary people

Essentially, the international banksters are saying that lending money to nation-states must be as risk-free as possible for those "investors." As Paul Jay points out in the video though, the common citizens of those nation-states usually have very little to say about the arrangements from the start, meaning they don't have much say if any about going into debt in the first place. Also, Paul is correct in pointing out that there are plenty of ways to have stimulus without increasing debt. One thing that he has never mentioned or covered to-date to my understanding concerns United States Notes, which were issued by President Abraham Lincoln to fund the US Civil War rather than going into deep debt with the international and national banksters of his day who wanted upwards of 32% interest on their proposed loans to the federal government to pay for the war.

President John Kennedy also issued non-debt money, which was immediately pulled by President Lyndon Johnson after Kennedy's assassination. The Federal Reserve System's debt-regime was put back as the sole system.

Austerity is stupid. Stimulus is definitely required.

  1. The government should hire all the unemployed and pay them with debt- and tax-free United States Notes (USN).
  2. The Federal Reserve should be nationalized and dissolved. Federal Reserve Notes should be deemed United States Notes (debt-free).
  3. USN should be full legal tender and should be used to completely pay off the national debt but only to those who did not commit fraud on the people in racking up that national debt.
  4. Fraudulent contracts should be declared null and void. USN should be used to fund all the infrastructure and other needs of the people — again, debt-and-tax free.
  5. The supply of USN should be exactly regulated so that there is zero inflation or deflation.
  6. It should be exactly the same as growth/productivity.
  7. Finance capitalism should be outgrown. It is a stupid system.
  8. All planning should be via the people via their democratic choices.
  9. The people should choose unselfishness.


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 Libertarian Capitalism, United States Notes. Bookmark the permalink.