Part 1 is here.
On Bill Still's foreign policy, he has been advocating that European nation-states being subjected to austerity by banksters (my term; FDR's term) leave the euro and likely the EU. If there were no better alternative, I would agree. However, Bill knows that the US is facing many of the exact same debt issues as EU-euro states. Yet, Bill Still isn't advocating the breakup of the US federation into a number of separate nations is he? I haven't seen him say that he is, but I also haven't seen where anyone has asked him.
The EU and euro were poorly designed. Is the best answer to dump them? The US replaced its Articles of Confederation with the US Constitution. I'm not saying the system is perfect in the US, far from it; but it would still be better for Europe to be integrated so long as it reforms such that bankster consolidation is rendered impossible.
This LinkedIn group is about monetary reform, and right now, "contagion" is the global watchword. Germany is the strongest nation in Europe (leaving aside the issue of whether Russia is European, per se). Angela Merkel is weak, not because she lacks the office but because she is personally weak in the area where strength is required. Of course, many "libertarians" will disagree for ideological and other reasons. They will see her as Austrian-School leaning, which she is. However, Chartalism, Keynesianism, and Post-Keynesianism are far from the only alternatives. More to the urgent point though is that Angela Merkel must act federally just as those under the weak Articles of Confederation did in the Revolutionary War against the British Empire. She needs to reach out in emergency ways to all the states in the EU to rapidly transform them into a Federation based upon a shared American-System view versus a British-Empire (bankster) view. This is an emergency, and emergency measures are required. She must be as "decisive" as Ben Bernanke has been (for the banksters) but not for banksters, of course, but rather for right reasons and in right ways. The emergency can't wait for the EU to go through a long, drawn-out legal process of having each nation dicker about while "Rome" burns. It's been amazing how long they've had to do the right things but haven't taken even tiny steps yet.
Bill sees banker fascism being applied against Greece and Italy, et al. However, Germany, because of Merkel's weakness, is caught between a rock and a hard place. Her "fascism" is not her issue. She's not grabbing power. She's running from it and for the wrong reasons. She needs to exercise all the power she can muster to bring to Europe exactly what United States Notes (USN) could do today for the US, and she needs to do it ASAP!
The expedient, short-to-midterm answer, as a stepping stone to better things once the citizenry has been properly educated as to the possibilities (real options), is for the EU to do to the euro what most of us here and Bill and I have been advocating that is: United States money be as United States Notes; Federal Reserve Notes be either immediately nationalized and declared interest-and-debt free (and sufficiently increased to pay off legitimate National Debt) or replaced with USN; and governmental borrowing be made illegal (no bonds). Bill goes on to the issue of fractional-reserve lending, and rightly so; however, I have a mental block, or I'm right that 1-for-1, reserve lending is still unnecessary and retarding for a fully functioning democracy, including whether or not representative, republican, and/or limited, etc.
On Bill's advocacy for a border fence with Mexico, I disagree that this is the proper move, even temporarily. The problems in Mexico are steeped in American imperialism. I say that FDR's Good Neighbor Policy was heading the world in the right direction. The US federal government's recent obvious gunrunning into Mexico was an imperialistic foreign policy decision. The CIA and others being directly involved in drug trafficking and money laundering to use the proceeds for other immoral, imperial actions, including further destabilizations for reasons of the greed of the American Empire should not be tolerated.
America was not founded to be a new British Empire or an extension of it. What is called Anglo-Saxon Economics is not the American System. Rather than promote the "free market," we should focus on quality of life and do so democratically and as consensually as humanly possible. The so-called free market was "best" exercised by slave traders. Laissez-faire capitalism has sought to morph itself over the decades to accommodate competing "rights," such as the right not to be a slave; but there is a huge disconnect there.
I'm not advocating a private central bank here. I hold that the US Treasury Department is that bank but just isn't being used as such. Frankly, while I disagree with certain of Alexander Hamilton's tenets, he's received a bum rap from libertarian capitalists [Note: The Libertarian complaint was/is not entirely unjustified: "The First Bank of the United States was modeled after the Bank of England and differed in many ways from today's central banks. For example, it was partly owned by foreigners, who shared in its profits."]. They tied him to the British Empire; however, he was opposed to American dependence on the British and was opposed to the British colonial (slave) model. There you see why the slave issue still resonates. The slave states were opposed to the American System. The US Confederacy allied with the British Empire, which sought to break up America because America was a rising competitor and anti-imperial in many respects.
You will note that Bill Still does not dismiss the American System out of hand but rather appears to me to see where tariffs are the correct move. I hold with tariffs but not for selfish reasons but rather as a tool to break the world-banking elite's (plutocrats) parasitic stranglehold on the peoples of the whole world.
On Bill Still's endorsement of Ron Paul (interesting that a person running for President says during his campaign that he would vote for someone else for President; of course, that's assuming Bill doesn't win the election, which he's admitted he won't), Ron Paul is what Bill has termed a "gold bug." It's accurate. Therefore, why would Bill vote for Ron Paul when Ron Paul is not even as close to United States Notes as is Dennis Kucinich? Well, Dennis isn't running this time. Nevertheless, Ron Paul's positions are woefully inadequate to the moment, if ever. The Gold Standard would be a major disaster. I trust the vast majority of those commenting here, if not all of us, agree. Let's not promote Ron Paul in general. Let's say where he's right but also where he's wrong. I'm not prejudicing Bill's whole position vis-a-vis Ron Paul. There's only so much time in a day to answer all the questions in the world. Bill would no doubt have plenty to say in qualifying his endorsement.
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)