"...as I've said repeatedly in this thread now, the NEED Act needs language to protect non-fraudulent bankers (defined as such not because they didn't practice legal fractional-reserve lending but because they didn't engage in the types of fraud very clearly and often discussed by Bill Black). This point of mine is in keeping with the spirit of the "Positive Money plan," which spirit was lacking in your own commentary in this thread, Joe. I find it interesting that you actually posted a follow-up comment containing the following:
"In case anybody missed it, this is in there:
"'This shall be done in such a way as not to jeopardize the cash flow or the financial health of the institution.'"
I certainly did not miss it. Why though did you pooh-pooh my same concerns but turn around and point to the Positive Money effort in a positive manner? I'm not trying to pick a fight with you, Joe, or to embarrass you or score points or anything of the like. I'm simply wanting to know why the difference? Was it just a simple misunderstanding?
Joe Bongiovanni's position (supplied privately but with no confidentiality requested or understood; yet, I won't recreate his message here) is that I was quoting the Positive Money proposed legislation. I did not and am not. I was and remain fully aware that I was referring to their marketing materials concerning their Act.
Joe (in earlier portions of this discussion thread) maintained/maintains that such marketing materials are needed but sufficient. I disagree and for the following irrefutable reasons:
Marketing materials are not binding. There are theories of judicial interpretation that allow for the discovery of such marketing materials for the purposes of ascertaining the intent of legislators, but countervailing theory has is that what finally becomes statute, should not be subject to the marketing materials of some. There are those who vote for something for reasons other than as outlined in marketing materials of those who introduced the legislation.
When one signs a written contract, verbal assurances, and marketing materials that run contrary to the actual contract are usually non-binding. This is a moving target. Fraud and other factors should remain relevant, but courts differ. The NEED Act should not take any such chances when a clear and easy alternative exists (unless those behind the act are not on the up and up).
That clear and easy alternative is to simply include the marketing language right in the Act. If the Act intends that transitioning "be done in such a way as not to jeopardize the cash flow or the financial health of the institution," then let it state it and not vaguely or as merely implied in the minds of some. Further, let it be qualified that, that clause shall not be used to shield fraud.
Refusing to include these things in the Act makes it ripe for banker counter-revolutionary tactics and rightly so. Anyone who can't see this has blinders on concerning it or ulterior motives. I would suggest that Dennis Kucinich does not have ulterior motives. As for the degree to which he has delved into the Act to this level, I cannot say. He is a busy man with many issues on his plate. He needs good advisors on these issues. He needs advisors who will anticipate the bankers and banksters and head them off before they rally.
Joe, of course, won't acknowledge that I'm right, because he has been blocked by forces beyond his control and not because I'm wrong. May Joe overcome.
Monetary Reform: Series 1: here
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)