Bill Still on Monetary Reform: "SR 23: Baby Birds"

Bill's YouTube note about his latest video upload:

Unveiling a new 6-Step pathway to free ourselves from the shackles of the national debt system.

I agree a great deal with Bill's positions. Let me state where we differ a bit. Keep in mind that most of this movement's thinking is in the developmental stages. It's evolving. Let me preface by saying that even if Bill's ideas are the way the nation goes, I'm not saying that, that wouldn't be a vast improvement over what we have. It would definitely be a vast improvement.

Now, I differ concerning his Point 5. My position has been, and remains, that while we are amending the US Constitution, as we should (or scrap it and start over), we add Bill's no governmental borrowing provision but we also add a no inflation/deflation provision. My position is that by law, we peg the money supply exactly to real productivity and that the measurements be done in real-time via the network and computers. It would be something like just-in-time inventory where the inventory is money created as needed (instantly) and on automatic pilot the politicians couldn't tamper with. Real productivity would be pretty much defined as anything the people vote as valuable to them and that is not what is today term finance capitalism.

Therefore, there really wouldn't need to be any private or publicly traded commercial banks to lend money because lending and borrowing wouldn't even be necessary in the first place.

Bill has also answered people who have been concerned that Bill is advocating socialism. Bill says he is not. He says he is for as much de-consolidation as possible. Let me clarify that socialism is not confined to the central-planning by a one-party dictatorship a la the Soviet Union model. We don't have to have an all-powerful executive or unaccountable congress making microeconomic decisions in order to have the system I'm describing as a starting place on the road to zero taxes and zero debt (hence zero usury or interest) and zero poverty.

There is a decentralized social-democratic model out there that has never been implemented on a national scale in any large nation, such as the US. It could be and should be.

We need "we the people" making the local choices that are reflected to the central hub that is the federal government that reflects back the money supply to fund local projects that are coordinated nationally too. We need employee ownership. We need democracy in the workplaces. We need equal ownership and equal votes. We need to do away with money having a greater say.

As to Bill's "Fair Trade" statement, I've been an advocate of that since the beginning. I was born that way. I've been writing on this blog for a long time the same position I held when the wrongheaded decisions were taken under the Clinton administration and before, which position was is and that we should never have lessened our standards or accepted goods from places with lower standards on the environment or labor or safety or what have you.

Allowing trade with, allowing in imports from, any place that had terribly low standards killed the US economy and US high-paying jobs while causing environmental contamination and worse of other places on the planet that were pristine or nearly so. We didn't do those other nations any favor. We could have serve them and our own people much better had we kept our standards high, insisted on other nations raising theirs to meet ours, and helping them to achieve that.

So, as you can see, the gulf between Bill's and my position is not huge. We agree much more then we disagree.

I'm glad he's out there speaking out. He's done a yeoman's job researching and documenting. I've learned a great deal listening to him and reading him and those to whom he's pointed. In fact, his original video did more than any other single source to spur my thinking on the subject. Then, I revisited Jesus's teachings in light of my additional knowledge; and wow, the light really, really started coming on.

I had always had a deep problem with greed. I hated it from the very moment I learned of it; but before Bill's video, I really didn't know anything about economics other than what they taught in the public and private schools.

Once you begin to study the subject, you come to find out that they teach next to nothing of depth on the subject in those schools. In fact, the more you really learn, the more you come to find out how simple it all is. The economists who whine that economics is hard are either stupid, ignorant, or shills for the banksters. I actually suspect it's mostly a combination of the three.

Let them open their eyes and hears and see and hear and understand and know the truth.

I know. I know. I really need to make videos too, but I don't have the money.


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 United States Notes. Bookmark the permalink.