More On the Platinum Coin

I, of course, agree that the term "coin" can refer to any material and even cyber. Coins do not have to be and never have had to be metal except where a supreme law specifically stated or states metal or a particular metal or particular metals. The problem is in convincing so-called Strict-Constructionists and/or perhaps so-called Originalists and getting around the evil, lying ones throughout government and at the major corporations and greedy think tanks, etc. Some do conflate Sections 8 and 10 of Article 1 of the US Constitution. However, it sounds like we are getting closer to sanity/consensus.

"Coin" is a verb and is a concept. That's why for all practical purposes, we can coin paper and even cyber money/currency. Frankly, we also could and should legally bypass the Fed altogether.

The new United States Notes (debt- taxes- and interest-free) should be issued directly by the US Treasury without any platinum coin having to run through the Federal Reserve. I'm okay with the platinum-coin plan though if that is closer to the people's ability to grasp the concept and grasp that it would be completely legal.

We should also pay off the National Debt completely while not enriching any fraudsters/banksters. We should guarantee that no pensioners or others fall into bankruptcy, homelessness, starvation, or even poverty as a result (it would be easy!).

We should have a new monetary authority that is a non-politicizable, opensource, computer algorithm that would completely control the money supply to avoid all price inflation/deflation in the aggregate and such that no necessities of life would ever become unaffordable for any citizen. We should have pure bottom-up grassroots democracy where a fully informed public makes the choice for what they want to do collectively, what to fund, so to speak. They would have to do the work, but they already are.

There is no lack of money, ever! There are only banksters standing in the way with their hands out for a cut during money creation and for doing nothing to earn their disgustingly piggish, evil share.


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 Monetary Reform, United States Notes. Bookmark the permalink.