Ellen Brown is correct when she offers up the following:
It is time to pry open the black box, get educated, and get organized.Â Here are three things that need to be done for starters:
- Protect depositor funds from derivative raids by repealing the super-priority status of derivatives.
- Separate depository banking from investment banking by repealing the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 and reinstating the Glass-Steagall Act.
- Protect both public and private revenues by establishing a network of publicly-owned banks, on the model of the Bank of North Dakota.
For more information on the public bank option, seeÂ http://publicbankinginstitute.org
Ellen's exact notion for public banking may not jibe with mine, but the idea that public banking is better than not under the current mixed (socialist/capitalist) economic system is completely correct. I won't go into detail here concerning my idea of the best public-banking model pending the moneyless society. I'm for one bank for the whole US. I've written about it at length on this site already.
What I want to say though is that while Ellen is right to point out the problems with derivatives, it would be wise that we avoid sounding as if a total economic collapse around derivatives is somehow imminent. I'm not suggesting that Ellen is doing that, but there are people on the Internet who are sounding pretty much that way—doing what I consider Libertarian-Capitalist fear-mongering.
If a worst-case scenario were to unfold, the United States government would not allow all American depositors with deposits under $250K in FDIC insured banks to lose their money to "bail in" derivatives holders. Doing that would be no different than using taxpayer money all over again. A worst-case situation concerning derivatives at a TBTF bank would ripple through the whole economy causing more damage than the 2008 crash. There would be zero point in the US not covering the FDIC in full.
The only reason the US government might not do it were if the government were not even going to pretend not to be stealing the taxpayers'/depositors' money to give to the derivatives holders. That would be blatantly asking for revolution (violent if non-violent weren't to work).
Are there people in government who are so bought off and so stupid that they'd actually risk that? I believe there are, but I believe there are too many people who while being bought off, aren't THAT crazy and stupid.
It's a judgment call, a gut reaction.
So, let's work toward reform and restoration of sounder principles and practices, but let's not risk ourselves overstating immediate risks. The US is not Cyprus, and the US so-called TBTF banks really must walk a tightrope much more now than before 2008, at least until memories fade and older folks die off and are replaced by new adults who are green, wet behind the ears, and a new pack of suckers for the con-artists on Wall Street, the spiritual offspring of the banksters of yore.
- Don't just cede the definition to the banksters: Does the Bank "Own" Your Deposited Money?
- See the related links at the bottom of this one too: A Must Read: "The Austerity Delusion | Foreign Affairs"
- You may also use the search feature on this site to search on terms such as "United States Notes."
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)