The Banksters versus Putin and the People

Putin immediately faced a depression (deliberately caused by the West) that made the Great Depression in the US look like a picnic. He ousted oligarchs who weren't doing a thing for the People but only for themselves. Those oligarchs were lauded and fully backed by the West. He did not institute democratic socialism. He did place a great deal of emphasis on the welfare state and social democracy of the economic type, not with the social-anarchist bent pushed by so many in the West.


Tom Usher

Who's against him and why? Western bankers and their international financial allies are the driving force behind the movement to take him down. They want to be the top dogs everywhere. Putin's central banker gets technical/show awards from the global central-banking community, but she answers to Putin, not to those at the pinnacle of that banking cartel.

Xi is being tolerated and even lauded to drive a wedge and to attempt to embarrass Trump (relatively), but Xi will have the rug pulled out from under him the moment the top banksters decide he can't be handled and used enough to suit them. He's much more an authoritarian than is Putin, but the US MSM is given its talking points by the banksters' messengers.

The CIA, NSA, and Pentagon work for the banksters. Those who rise within the ranks of those institutions who don't finally catch on and don't finally go along are targeted and destroyed. That's your deep state. Edward Snowden and plenty of others don't yet know that. They will.

Putin didn't light the fires in Chechnya, Georgia, Ukraine, Syria, or anywhere else.

The stories claiming he ordered hacking the US election are part of the scheme to install the banksters atop Russia (and Iran and China, not that Iran and China are ideal, far from it).

The real war is between laissez-faire capitalism and grass-roots democratic socialism. It's a war between the economic classes. It's a war between 1) those who will condone anything so long as they have the top economic and financial power and 2) those who want to eliminate poverty but don't want social and cultural license granted to do anything one might want to do regardless of the negative consequences for others. There is such a thing as decadence. That fact is being ignored for effect: to aid in toppling Putin. It's like aiding al Qaeda only to have that come back to haunt you: very shortsighted.

Is Putin the leader of the revolution? No. Is he its enemy? That remains to be seen. He's certainly also wrong on AGW. As for all the deaths of journalists, the CIA has a history of killing people and making it appear that the CIA's real target did it or ordered it. Putin doesn't say that he knows who killed whom. He does admit that there are Russians he considers patriots who will take matters into their own hands to save Russia from Western imperialism (actually bankster imperialism).


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 Libertarian Capitalism. Bookmark the permalink.