Commentary on: H.R. 2990 "National Emergency Employment Defense Act of 2011": a monetary-reform act

HR 2990 IH
1st Session
H. R. 2990

To create a full employment economy as a matter of national economic defense; to provide for public investment in capital infrastructure; to provide for reducing the cost of public investment; to retire public debt; to stabilize the Social Security retirement system; to restore the authority of Congress to create and regulate money, modernize and provide stability for the monetary system of the United States; and for other public purposes.

September 21, 2011

Mr. KUCINICH (for himself and Mr. CONYERS) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services
This Act may be cited as the 'National Emergency Employment Defense Act of 2011'.

Read The Bill: H.R. 2990 -

It's a good start, but it has many problems and unnecessary layers remaining.

The authority of the Federal government to borrow should be removed. It's not necessary.

We don't need a "Monetary Authority."

The Monetary Authority should simply be the Secretary of the Treasury.

The Federal Reserve should be nationalized but then dissolved ASAP.

The US should not lend money to banks. Having the US be a lender to banks makes the US a wholesaler to banks as retailers. That's a very bad idea.

If there is to be any private-bank retail lending, then such banks can lend based upon deposits and not loans from the US.

In addition, the amount of money in supply should be regulated in real-time (just the way huge corporations manage "just-in-time" inventory: automated), not by a committee.

Also, all Federal Reserve Notes should be nationalized in one fell swoop at the time the Federal Reserve is nationalized.

Lastly, this Act doesn't address immediately paying off the National Debt (retiring all bonds).

It also doesn't address replacing taxes with money issuance such that no taxes ever need be collected by the government.


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.
    • Hello Mosheh,

      Hmmm, you remind me a bit of myself a number of years back.

      Dennis Kucinich is not deliberately trying to scam anyone. He's still learning and hasn't heard of or thought of all the options/possibilities and the degree to which he should go out on a political limb, so to speak.

      Nevertheless, many of your observations are valid points for debate and discussion.

      If I may though (and this is a blog I run, so I will), your use of all-caps rather than block quoting the parts of the bill is not conducive.

      It also appears that you don't concern yourself enough with avoiding character spaces at the beginnings of lines and with double-double spacing and such.

      I must tell you, I was tempted to delete your comment on account of all the problems with it.

      I'll let it stand this time; but please, if you want to post more comments in future here, polish your work a bit more. Everyone makes mistakes. I know I do, but it doesn't take much effort to avoid appearing sloppy.

      I'm sorry if that offends you, but you're asking people to choose you as the President of the US while your inattention to detail is rather glaring. I don't think many people would vote for someone who posts comments that are as messy as the one you've left here. They'd be worried that your overall thinking may be as such.

      That might seem somewhat unfair since you're trying to focus on economic issues that go to the heart of society and spirit, but the things I've mentioned aren't divorced from those things.

      As someone quoting Christian scripture, you ought to be aware, or made aware, that how we are organized is central. Order is critical even as we can be relaxed, as Jesus relaxed at times.

      Lastly, it is customary, for good reason, that a commentator also discuss the host's points, which you appear to have completely ignored.

      This site is here for a reason and has an agenda, one of which is not to serve to get anyone elected to secular office but rather move people to the Christian Commons, which is vastly better than any plan for the US economy, per se, although I've furthered United States Notes to that end, albeit as a mere stepping stone to the moneyless/real-Christian society of prophecy.



    • I deleted Mosheh Thezion's reply to my comment because it was as if he didn't read my comment and it was certainly clear that he didn't bother to look at this blog, it's posts, or most importantly, the Christian Commons Project.

      I don't have time for Mosheh Thezion's approach nor do I wish to facilitate it.