Monday, October 31, 2022

The Lack of Spiritual Life

 There is not much said today about the disintegration of the American family. There are books, articles, blogs, and videos on single-parent living, but only a little about why this is happening.

I am not an expert on marriage and divorce; I can only relate to what I have experienced in my fifty-four years as a minister. I have heard for many years the number one problem is marriage is material. I'm afraid I have to disagree with this being the main issue. It is not how much money is brought home by husband or wife but rather the spiritual condition of both.

The lack of a holy spiritual condition deprives the spiritual unity that makes for a spiritually loving family. A sacred spiritual condition based on a personal relationship with the LORD makes for a solid foundation. It gives a sense of mutual spiritual belonging to something more significant than the individual.

The American family has been in a spiritual crisis for some time. The lack of spiritual values in the family has created moral, ethical, and religious turmoil in our culture. 

From the time a child is born, they are programmed to ignore their spiritual life. Their life is surrounded by everything that divides people rather than unites them. They are programmed by the movies they watch, the music they listen to, the video games they play, and the social media they use. These foster selfishness, hedonism, greed, and a disregard for the sacred, destroying kindness, mercy, compassion, and respect for human life.

If you are a student of history, you know that the destruction of a nation of people comes from a spiritual-religious crisis, expressed in every culture by the decay of the family.

The family is the foundation of spirituality. God designed mankind to grow and survive through the family. God told Adam to multiply and replenish the Earth. How was this to happen? Gen.2:18 Then the LORD God said, "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him."

The very first institution God founded upon the Earth was the home (Gen. 2: 18-25). God established a marriage between a man and a woman. Scripture places tremendous emphasis on the sanctity of marriage. Marriage is integral to His plan. If we have weak marriages, we will have weak families. If we have weak families, we will have weak churches. If we have weak churches, we will have weak communities. And if we have weak communities, we will have a weak nation. That is why He demands that marriages be treated as sacred treasures. If spirituality falters and weakens, then it weakens, first of all, in the family tradition and family life. But once shaken in the family, it begins to weaken and degenerate in all human relationships and organizations.

We should understand that the troubles of the modern family lie in spiritual depravity, in the loss of culture and relationships in the family, and the absence of respect for the hierarchy established by God, but we do not seem to acknowledge the problem.  

More often than not, the relationship is based on sexual attraction and not on true love. Once the sexual attraction is gone, so is the marriage. And if there is no love? This tremendous creative power and man's supreme moral state fall apart, and disaster ensues.

Some say that love missing from a relationship will end in mutual disgust, hatred, suspicion, and family scenes,' which is a natural breeding ground for sick characters, psychopathic tendencies, neurasthenic lethargy, and vital 'failure.'

This often happens in the modern family. All values are turned upside down. Women cheat on their feminine nature, acting like men. Men cheat on their masculine nature, acting like women. The soul yearns for freedom and love, but being in the grip of a perverted understanding of self, relationships, and the world, it suffocates and blindly surrenders itself into the hands of cunning manipulators who skillfully impose patterns of behavior, tastes, and lifestyles. Is it any wonder our youth are confused about their gender? 

 A unique environment based on a spiritual life is needed for the personal and psychological development of the child. After all, here in a completely informal setting, in the process of daily life, a child sees the relationship between adults and people of different sexes at first less consciously, and then more and more consciously learns moral behavior and experience in solving problems, including everyday life. (More behavior is caught than taught.) If the spiritual aspect of life is ignored, a generation will not know God and live according to what they see right in their own eyes. The result--broken families.


Sunday, October 23, 2022

Why I Will Not Vote For Todd Young

 Why am I voting for a third party? In the past four years, I have been very disappointed in the Republican Party at the State and Federal. Our governor is more like a Democrat than a Republican. Our State Senator Todd Young is an embarrassment. He cannot call himself a conservative with his voting record supporting increased spending. I will not continue to support a political party that lacks the backbone to stand up for America First. Every American should be angry about supporting the war in Ukraine. We have no business spending billionss of dollars, depleting our oil reserves, weakening our military weapon stock, and pushing toward a nuclear war to support a country that kills its own people.  Since 2014 the Ukraine government has waged war against its citizens. I am fed up with our political leaders' lies about why we must support another war. It is time America takes care of Americans. Sen. Todd Young does not seem to understand taking care of Americans First or protecting the future generation from excessive debt.

So, this year the Republicans will no doubt win both the House and the Senate in the Congressional race so, I will vote to make a change in Indiana. It is time to give Hoosier a choice. In many counties, the Republicans run unopposed. It is time to open the door to a party that will challenge the Republicans and holds their campaign promises with some accountability. I have been asked how I can support a political party that supports abortion. For years I have listened to the Republicans talk about Pro-Life legislation, and nothing happens. We still have abortions and still have promises. So maybe if there was a political party that would give the Republicans a challenge, they might be more accountable to their campaign pledges and do what they say they will do. So, I will be casting my vote for James Sceniak for Senate.

https://www.sceniakforsenate.com/libertarian-james-sceniak-talks-about-inflation-abortion-other-key-issues-in-senate-race/

This year the Libertarian Party has the opportunity to gain the 10 percent needed to participate in the general primaries. A vote for Jeff Maurer as Secretary of State will not be wasted and will give Hoosiers a choice.

Per Indiana law, a political party must get a minimum of 10 percent in the Secretary of State's race to participate in the general primaries. They must get at least 2 percent to maintain ballot access. So, voting Libertarian for Secretary of State is a vote to give Hoosier voters more choices. This year the Secretary of State candidate is Jeff Maurer. He's running to ensure our elections are safe and secure. He wants you to get a receipt with your vote so you can verify your vote counted the way you intended. He is a better choice than the Republican candidate with a questionable work history in the Indiana government. https://www.maurerforindiana.com/

Most people do not know that the primary elections cost the taxpayer. Delegates select Libertarian candidates at the convention at no cost to taxpayers. For county and local races, they are officially nominated at county conventions. Delegates select other higher-level candidates at the state convention,

I will not vote for a candidate who is running unopposed. There should not be people running unopposed. The election process in Indiana limits who can run for a political office by unreasonable requirements. It is almost impossible for a suitable candidate not affiliated with one of two political parties to run for office due to the conditions to get on the ballot. It is time to change the process and stop giving control to just a few political tyrants.

Thursday, October 20, 2022

My Lost Family

 For the past few weeks, the shortness of time and the world's condition has been on my mind. I have often thought of the members of my family who have not given their souls to Jesus Christ and where they will spend eternity. 

I understand how Paul felt in Roman 9 when he spoke about his fellow Israelites.


As a person who has given his life to the LORD and is guided by the Holy Spirit and in the will of God, I can say truthfully that I am concerned about my family. I am sad when I think those in my family have not accepted the LORD as their Savior. I am talking about my earthly family, and I do not know how to approach them with the message of salvation. They were raised in a Christian family; they know that Jesus died for their sins and that He has promised to forgive them and make them His family. They are descendants of a long line of ancestors who chose the LORD as their Savior. Our parents raised them to worship and serve the LORD. Our mother wept and prayed for them to find a way of salvation. Yet, they have not heard the voice of the LORD calling them to salvation. I have prayed for my children and grandchildren that they too find the way to salvation.


Every day I read about the wars spreading worldwide and the possibility of nuclear war. I see the number of "died suddenly" deaths occurring daily in the obituaries. I hear of the many who are stricken with cancer and heart and kidney diseases at a young age. All this makes me see the shortness of life and the importance of preparing for eternity.


My prayer is

Jehovah-Rophe, Your people are crying daily for their families to be saved. Heal and restore our lost loved ones into the faith in Jesus Christ. Heal their sin-sick souls. Bind every curse spoken against them. Cover and cleanse them with Your blood shed on the cross for their salvation. May they be born again and saved through Your mighty name. I trust in Your words as spoken to Isaiah. So shall my word be that goes forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it. Father, I know it is not Your will that any perish but come to salvation.


Many parents are reaching out to You, and I am reaching out to You, Lord, seeking salvation for my children. Our children have lost their way. Satan has blinded their eyes, and the ways of sin have a hold on them May the Holy Spirit speak to them and bring them back to Jesus Christ. 


Please help them to understand and spread your word. Please bring them back to You, Father. In Jesus' most precious name, AMEN!!


Matt. 18:18 Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.


In the name of Jesus, the only begotten Son of God, the King of kings, Lord of lords, and Creator of all things, I command the spirits operating in the life of my loved ones be bound, those evil spirits blinding my children to the gospel, to keep them out of the kingdom of God, I bind you now. I belong to the Lord Jesus Christ. And I carry His authority and righteousness. So, in His Name, I command you to desist in your maneuvers. I spoil your house according to the Word of God, and I enter into it to deliver my loved one from your hands.


"Father, I'm asking You to send laborers across the path of my lost family, laborers who are equipped with the Word of God about salvation, Baptism in the Holy Spirit, healing, and deliverance. Send laborers who can communicate effectively with my family, so Your Word can reach their hearts. Amen.

Tuesday, October 11, 2022

WE ARE HEADING TOWARD NUCLEAR WAR. WHY?

 I do not have a degree in political science or international studies. I am just a common man with my own thoughts about things in our government. I do know this you will eventually get what is coming to you if you act like a bully. The Biden Administration continues to poke the Russian Bear and will ultimately pay a high price for their bullying.

Last week the New York Times ran a shocking article claiming that the U.S. intelligence community believes the Ukrainian government to be responsible for the August attack that killed Darya Dugina, the daughter of a prominent Russian philosopher. Kyiv conducted an al-Qaeda-style attack on an innocent civilian inside Russia. The murder of Dugina was a textbook definition of terrorism, which is "the use of violence or the threat of violence, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political goals."

The U.S. government has used Ukarine to fight agaisnt Russia and is pushing the world toward a nuclear war. Here is the fingerprint of the Biden administration. In his own words, Biden said he would end the Nordstream pipelines. Nordstream pipelines were blown up, seemingly ending, at least in the near term, the possibility that Germany may find a way to save its economy by mending fences with its main energy supplier. A leading Polish politician thanked the U.S. for doing the job.

Then over the weekend, the bridge connecting mainland Russia to Crimea was bombed, killing at least six civilians and leaving part of the bridge underwater. Traffic was restored hours after the attack, but Russian President Vladimir Putin blamed Ukraine's intelligence service. We all know that Ukraine relies on its U.S. masters, so we can assume the U.S. provided the intelligence allowing the targeting of the bridge.

There is a pattern here. More and more brazen attacks are being launched against Russia, and Washington is doing little to hide U.S. fingerprints. Why?

Have you ever asked yourself why the U.S. is trying to destroy Russia? Could it be that there is an underlying motive that we are not being told about? If we know Russia could be pushed to use nuclear weapons, why would we continue to torment them to the point they respond with nuclear war? No one wins if there is a nuclear war.

So the question is if  Biden knows his proxy war against Russia is moving us closer to the unthinkable – nuclear annihilation – why does his Administration persist in crossing red line after red line? Biden's "experts" believe that Putin is bluffing and will do nothing about the Dugina assassination, the Nordstream pipeline sabotage, and the Kerch Bridge attack.

But what if they're wrong? Somewhere between 70 and 84 missiles targeted military and energy facilities. Russian President Vladimir Putin said his forces used "precision weapons" to target critical energy infrastructure and military command facilities. This was in retaliation for Kyiv's "terrorist" actions — a reference to Ukraine's attempts to repel Moscow's invasion forces, including an attack on a critical bridge between Russia and the annexed Crimean Peninsula that Putin called a "terrorist act" masterminded by Ukrainian special services.

Putin vowed a "tough" and "proportionate" response should Ukraine carry out further attacks that threaten Russia's security. "No one should have any doubts about it," he told Russia's Security Council by video.

The explosions in Kyiv and other cities came just a day after Putin blamed Kyiv for the massive explosion on a 12-mile bridge connecting Crimea with Russia. How many red lines must be crossed before Russia says enough is enough? 

I have been against this conflict since 2014, when the U.S. helped bring about a change in the Ukraine government. The reality of this conflict started in 2008 at the NATO Summit in Bucharest, where NATO issued a statement that said Ukraine and Georgia would become part of NATO. The Russians made it unequivocally clear that they viewed this as an existential threat and drew a line in the sand. Regardless of the Russian protest, the U.S. moved forward to include Ukraine in the West to make Ukraine a Western threat on Russia's border. Of course, this includes more than just NATO expansion. NATO expansion is the heart of the strategy. Still, it includes E.U. expansion as well, turning Ukraine into a pro-American liberal democracy, and, from a Russian perspective, this is an existential threat.

It's imperative to understand that, until 2014, the U.S. did not envision NATO expansion and E.U. expansion as a policy to contain Russia. Nobody seriously thought that Russia was a threat before February 22, 2014. NATO expansion, E.U. expansion, and turning Ukraine, Georgia, and other countries into liberal democracies were all about creating a giant zone of peace that spread all over Europe and included Eastern Europe and Western Europe. It was not aimed at containing Russia. What happened is that this significant crisis broke out, and the U.S.had to assign blame, and of course, they were never going to blame themselves. They were going to blame the Russians. So they invented this story that Russia was bent on aggression in Eastern Europe. Putin is interested in creating a greater Russia or maybe even re-creating the Soviet Union.

Before February 22, 2014, the U.S. did not think Putin was an aggressor. This is a story that our government invented so that they could blame Putin. The United States is principally responsible for the war in Ukraine. But no American policymaker, and hardly anywhere in the American foreign-policy establishment, and the MSM will want to acknowledge that line of argument and say that the Russians are responsible. 

Why do we, as Americans, support a war costing us tens of billions of dollars in military aid and moving us toward nuclear war over a conflict that has nothing to do with the United States?

 Why does the U.S. Administration – with the support of most Republicans in Congress – continue to send tens of billions of dollars in military aid and move us toward nuclear war over a conflict that has nothing to do with the United States?

The time to end U.S. participation in this war is Now! We must start demanding that our representatives stop this madness. We can start the change in the November elections by voting to put in office those who have America's first interest.

Saturday, September 17, 2022

I Am A Political Atheist

 I have decided to come out of the political closet and declare myself a political atheist. 

Why don't you believe in politics? I get that question all the time. I always try to give a sensitive, reasoned answer. This is usually awkward, time-consuming, and pointless. People who believe in their political faith don't need proof; they follow the truth and certainly don't want evidence to the contrary. They are happy with their political faith. They say, "it's true to me," and "it's faith." I still give my logical answer because I feel that not being honest would be patronizing and impolite. I don't believe in either the liberal or conservative faith because there is absolutely no scientific evidence for the existence that particular political faith is "truth," and from what I've witnessed, the very definition of political truth is a logical impossibility in this known universe.

I know that I am running the risk of being arrogant. The past two years have taught me to follow the science. Science seeks the truth. And it does not discriminate. For better or worse, it finds things out. Science is humble. It knows what it knows and what it doesn't know. It bases its conclusions and beliefs on hard evidence—constantly updated and upgraded evidence. It doesn't get offended when new facts come along. It embraces the body of knowledge. It doesn't hold on to political practices because they are traditions.

If you have been thinking of coming out of the political closet, you might want to consider a few things.

You might prefer to keep your political beliefs—or lack thereof—to yourself. In a society that typically defaults to political party faith of some kind, it can feel daunting to "come out" as a non-believer. Political atheists are sometimes stereotyped as independent jerks who want to debate or discount other people's political beliefs. But my desire to become a political atheist had nothing to do with debating anyone and everything but with wanting to live my life honestly and according to different principles.

The nature of political atheism isn't about spreading my belief, and it isn't about adhering to some political atheist code. Instead, it's about transparency and truthfulness. Depending on where you live, and the beliefs of your loved ones, practical issues around the political belief system can arise. Will your grandchildren expect a particular faith leader to officiate their wedding? Are they hoping you to baptize them in the waters of political bias? Will they take the sacred sacrament of voting for a political faith? Do you feel like you're hiding something from your family and friends?

If you've decided you're ready to become a political atheist (and it's safe for you to do so), you may be unsure of the best way to express yourself. Is there a right way to minimize conflict with the political believers in your life? 

Here are some tips and reminders to make coming out as a political atheist as seamless as possible.

First, define what "coming out" means to you. We must be able to define what "is" really means. Only you know how in-depth and detailed your coming out needs to be. Here are some practical questions to help you nail down what political atheism means to you:

Do you need to convince your family that you're happy without a political party?

Will someone you care about likely react negatively?

How will this impact your family decisions down the line, like with marriage, kids, or a lack thereof?

What will this mean for family and community traditions?

How will this impact your day-to-day life?

You are coming out frames your decision around the difference between secrecy and privacy. If you feel like your political atheism involves deception, then your coming out should safely address whatever makes you feel like you're hiding who you are.

Focus on yourself

Coming out as a political atheist should be about expressing your beliefs; it's not the time to go about changing someone else's. Keep in mind the questions above about defining your political atheism as practically as possible. Again, this will be an ongoing process with an opportunity for more conversations that dive into what you and the people around you believe. For now, focus on "I" statements to keep the conversation as grounded as possible. I have learned this by listening to political leaders as they speak about themselves. They often use "I" many times in their speeches.

In general, sooner is better.

The sooner you come out, the more likely you'll be able to pick the time and place and avoid potentially uncomfortable (or even unsafe) spur-of-the-moment coming out. Try to avoid the less-than-ideal situations that may arise if you push off coming out indefinitely:

The sooner you come out, the less likely it is that someone else will put you (accidentally or intentionally); that someone in your life will force the issue (pressing the question and not accepting a vague answer–it happens more than you might think); or that a crisis will make it necessary for you to come out right away, even though the timing is lousy (such as a health crisis or a death in the family, where political beliefs and the lack thereof suddenly become very relevant).

Plus, if necessary, you'll give the people in your life more time to get comfortable with the idea.

Plan things out

Once you figure out when and where you want to come out, take time to map out what you'll say. Like any difficult conversation, it's helpful to rehearse a script physically. Say your lines in the mirror, or write talking points on your phone notes. Quote famous political leaders. There is not a dime's worth of difference between liberal or conservative faith. Also, be prepared to go off-script—despite your best efforts, you can't plan other people's dialogue in real life. 

It's also a good idea to be thoughtful about when and where you have this conversation, especially with family. "Choose a place where they can have their feelings with some privacy, and a time when you'll have some time to hash things out if you need to, as tempting as it might be to have the conversation in a restaurant where they can't throw a fit, that's not really fair."

Pay attention to the relationship first.

Take this conversation one step at a time. If you're trying to preserve your relationships as best possible, then the moment you come out isn't the time to interrogate and attack someone's political faith. Instead, center the conversation on what (if anything) will change about the relationship at hand. 

Remind your loved ones that who you are isn't changing. You're asking to have this part of you respected, just as you respect their own choice to believe their political faith is the only true faith. If you don't appreciate how they choose to think, then this might be a more severe and final conversation about your relationship.

Prepare for confrontation

For most people, the core issue with coming out as a political atheist is that expressing your beliefs will inherently contradict someone else's. So, are you preparing for a point-by-point refutation of the family political faith right away? Or are you simply expressing your desire to abstain from certain political practices personally? Confrontation might be inevitable, so be ready to pick your battles.

Be confident

Make it clear that your coming out is not an invitation for group soul-searching. You likely put a lot of thought into this decision, so let the people know you're open to discussion, not debate.

When people you care about act as if you've wounded them by not believing in their political party (faith) and telling them about it, it can be painful to deal with them. If people get upset when you tell them you're a political atheist, you can express compassion for their being bitter without accepting responsibility for it. You can be sad that they feel bad, but you don't have to say, "I'm sorry I did this to you."

Be the bigger person.

The reality is that the more open you are about your political atheism, the more you'll open yourself up to anti-political atheism hostility. As I have said, you'll have to pick your battles unless you want every conversation to turn into a fruitless debate.

Where, when, and how you draw lines around your political atheism may change over time. Be ready to be the bigger person, and let some anti-political atheist comments roll off your back.

Finally, if you're coming out as a political atheist and anticipate a lousy reaction, establish a supportive community first—friends, selected family members, online, and so on. If your coming out doesn't go as planned, take stock of the fact that you made an important decision to be true to yourself. That counts for a lot.

Tuesday, August 30, 2022

HOW AMERICA BECAME A SLAVE NATION

Moses made it known that God made a promise to His people. This promise was that when His people obeyed Him, they would be blessed in all the work they do. One clear, specific example of His blessing is that His people would be “lenders, not borrowers.” There is a passage that says how the Lord would extend His treasure, the Heavens, and provide rain to the land. It is said that if you follow Him, you will have plenty to lend, and you will not borrow. This is God’s way of letting His obedient and faithful followers know that he will give them strength and provide for them.

PROMINENT AMERICANS, including Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and Andrew Jackson, have argued and fought against the central banking policies used throughout Europe. 

 HOW DID THIS HAPPEN-- "let me issue and control a nation's money supply, and I care not who makes its laws," as European private banker Mayer Amschel Rothschild, founder of the Rothschild banking dynasty, once said. 

 A note issued by a central bank, such as the Federal Reserve Note, is bank currency. These notes are given to the Government in exchange for an interest-bearing government bond. 


 The primary means to pay for the interest on these bonds is to borrow more bank notes, thus beginning a vicious cycle that ultimately ends with the destruction of the currency and bankruptcy of the Nation. This took place in 1913 with the Federal Reserve System.  


Let me ask the question as to why such a doomed system would exist. The reason is that during the arrangement, which can last for centuries, the central bankers who issue the money amass great fortunes from the large sums of interest collected. 


 In essence, it transfers wealth from the many to the elite few. Government leaders prefer such a system because it does not require budgets to be balanced. It is far more politically expedient to borrow than to tax the citizens directly. 


 The effects of currency debasement and debt accumulation are not noticeable, and in words attributed to Vladimir Lenin by John Maynard Keynes: 

"By a continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens...There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning society's existing basis than debugging the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose." 


 Throughout the history of the United States, there has been a struggle between central bankers and their interest-bearing money and those who oppose them. The United States was created as a direct result of that struggle. 


 Colonial America 

To pay debts incurred from the Seven Years' War with France, King George III of England sought to tax the colonies in America heavily. In 1742, the British Resumption Act required that taxes and other debts be paid in gold. 


 As a result of the scarcity of gold, the colonists turned to alternative forms of money, including wampum, tobacco, and copper coins. Most silver coinages came from Spanish America, Spain, the Netherlands, the German States, France, and other foreign countries. The colonies began issuing colonial script that was paper fiat currency not backed by gold or silver. This type of money was also known as colonial bills of credit. This radically differed from the bills of debt issued by the central banks of Europe. 


 During a visit to Britain in 1763, The Bank of England asked Benjamin Franklin how he would account for the newfound prosperity in the colonies. Franklin replied: 


 "That is simple. In the colonies we issue our own money. It is called 'Colonial Script'. We issue it in proper proportion to the demands of trade and industry to make the products pass easily from the producers to the consumers...In this manner, creating for ourselves our own paper money, we control its purchasing power, and we have no interest to pay to no one."

 

 In response, the Bank of England influenced the British Parliament to stop this activity. Under the Currency Act of 1764, King George III decreed that the Colonists cease printing their own money. The colonial script in circulation was to be exchanged with notes drawn from the Bank of England at a two-to-one ratio. This caused widespread unemployment and economic depression in the colonies. 


 "In one year, the conditions were so reversed that the era of prosperity ended, and a depression set in, to such an extent that the streets of the Colonies were filled with unemployed." (Benjamin Franklin) 


 Additional British legislation further angered the colonists, who protested taxation without representation. The Stamp Act of 1765 was the first direct tax levied by the British Parliament on the colonies. Every item of commerce – newspapers, almanacs, pamphlets, official documents, even decks of playing cards – were required to have the stamps. An economic boycott of British goods later led to its repeal. 


 The Townsend Acts of 1767 taxed several essential goods, including paper, glass, and tea. On April 12, 1770, all the taxes, except for that on tea, were repealed. 


 Increased British military presence in the colonies further reduced Colonial support towards Britain. On March 5, 1770, a sizeable boisterous mob armed with sticks of firewood began throwing snowballs and debris at a group of British soldiers. One of the soldiers was struck down, and in confusion, the British soldiers discharged their muskets into the crowd. Eleven people were hit, of which three were killed instantly. Two later died from their wounds. The event became known as the Boston Massacre and was often cited and exaggerated to further illicit discontent towards the British. 


 The currency restrictions hated taxes, and numerous clashes with British soldiers set the stage for the infamous Boston Tea Party. 


 The colonists began smuggling in tea from Holland to circumvent British taxes. Under the Tea Act of 1773, the British removed a duty always paid at an English port by the tea merchant on his way from the Orient to America, thereby making their tea cheaper than that from Holland. 


 Tea-laden ships reached Charleston, Philadelphia, New York, and Boston in the autumn of 1773. However, the colonists felt that principles were at stake and, in defiance, refused to purchase the English tea. The only port the tea landed in was Charleston, where it was left to rot in storage. 


 On December 16, 1773, a group of colonists disguised as Mohawk Indians, led by Samuel Adams, boarded the ships of British tea merchants and dumped 340 chests of tea with an estimated value of £10,000 worth into the Boston harbor. 

The angry British Government responded by passing several acts that came to be known as the Intolerable Acts of 1774. These Acts included, among other measures, the Boston Port Act, which closed the vital port until the East India Company had been repaid for the destroyed tea and until the king was satisfied that order had been restored. 


The harsh measures of these Acts made it difficult for moderates within the colonies to continue supporting Britain and promoted sympathy towards Massachusetts. This resulted in the formation of the First Continental Congress. Measures discussed at this meeting included a formal agreement to boycott British goods unless the Intolerable Acts were reversed and a pledge that all colonies would support Massachusetts in case of any military action from Britain. 


  Open hostilities began on April 19, 1775, in Middlesex County, Province of Massachusetts Bay, when a British regiment was dispatched to confiscate arms and arrest revolutionaries. This sparked the American Revolutionary War, later identified as the War of Independence. 


 The Bank of North America (1781-1785) 

The first attempt to set up a European-style central bank was the formation of the Bank of North America by Robert Morris, who used gold loaned from France as a reserve deposit. Using the fractional reserve banking system, money was loaned out to eager American political leaders who were cash-strapped from the War of Independence. 


Fractional reserve banking is a time-honored tradition beginning with the English goldsmiths of 1000 A.D. The goldsmiths, who functioned as early bankers then, discovered that they could lend out more in paper receipts for gold than they had of the actual metal so long as most depositors never asked for their gold back. 


 Fractional reserve banking is the tolerated and institutionalized practice of banks lending out money they don't have and charging interest. In any other industry, this would be considered fraud.  


 To illustrate the process, consider a bank having $1 million in reserve deposits. Under a reserve ratio of 10%, that Bank may legally lend out $10 million in loans. A modest interest rate of 7% equates to annual revenue of $700,000 from an underlying asset of just $1 million. It is through this fraudulent practice that banking is such a profitable business and why banks own all the tallest buildings in major urban centers. 


 The significant issue of bills from the Bank of North America led to a rapid decline in their value and the collapse of the Bank in 1785. The interest money collected during those years did not go unnoticed. Gouverneur Morris of Pennsylvania, one of the authors of the Constitution of the United States, stated in 1787 that,  "The rich will strive to establish their dominion and enslave the rest. They always did. They always will... They will have the same effect here as elsewhere, if we do not, by (the power of) Government, keep them in their proper spheres." (Governor Morris of Pennsylvania) 


 The (First) Bank of the United States 

Six years after the collapse of the Bank of North America, bankers in Europe installed a private central bank, known as the (First) Bank of the United States. The bank bill was officially proposed by Alexander Hamilton, Secretary of the Treasury, to the first session of the First Congress in 1790. 


  Coincidently, one of Hamilton's first jobs after graduating from law school in 1782 was as an aide to Robert Morris, the head of the Bank of North America that collapsed in 1785. 


 Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson argued that the Bank violated traditional property laws and that its relevance to constitutionally authorized powers was weak. 


"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies...If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs." (Thomas Jefferson, 1743-1826) 


Hamilton argued that while the Constitution states that no single state government can create paper currency, there is no wording preventing the Federal Government from doing so. 


 In the end, George Washington signed the bank bill into law on April 25, 1791, for a 20-year charter. In the first five years of operation, the American Government borrowed $8.2 million, and prices rose by 72%. 

  "I wish it were possible to obtain a single amendment to our Constitution - taking from the federal government their power of borrowing." (Thomas Jefferson, 1798) 

  Twenty years later, the Democratic-Republican majority in Congress voted against renewing the Federalist-conceived institution, and the [First] Bank of the United States officially closed its doors on March 3, 1811. 


 War of 1812 

Nathan Mayer Rothschild, son of Mayer Amschel Rothschild, is claimed by some historians to have warned: "...that the United States would find itself involved in a most disastrous war if the bank's charter were not renewed." Coincidently, within five months of the closing of the [First] Bank of the United States, the British declared War, allegedly financed by loans from the Rothschilds. They, currently, were already prominent bankers in Europe. 


 The War of 1812 resulted in the first significant issue of treasury notes from the United States of America. These notes differed from bank notes because they were not exchanged for an interest-bearing government bond. 


The U.S. Constitution defines a difference between legal currency and bills of credit. As a result, the treasury bills were not to circulate as currency and could only be issued to persons who 'may choose to accept them. A resolution in 1814 seeking to make the treasury notes "legal tender in all debts due" was voted down 95 to 42. Some 50 years later, Congress would not demonstrate such wisdom again. 

  With the British busy fighting Napoleon, the War of 1812 ended in a draw in 1814. 


 The Second Bank of the United States 

Due to the costs of War, many banks had over-issued their currency from making loans to the Government. Congress suspended the redemption of paper money in gold or silver to protect the banking industry. Instead of just keeping the banks solvent, this measure allowed them to lend money further. Soon the entire U.S. banking system was in chaos. 


 The banking system would ultimately be required to honor its obligations. This would result in widespread bankruptcies, as loans would need to be called in to cover depositor withdrawals. The most politically viable option to prevent this was establishing a central bank to function as the lender of last resort. 


 The Second Bank of the United States was chartered in 1816 under the administration of U.S. President James Madison. It was founded with a mandate similar to the previous [First] Bank of the United States, whose charter had expired five years prior. These mandates were to issue currency, purchase government debt, and serve as the official depository for Treasury funds. 


The Bank was to raise $7 million as reserves but never acquired more than $2.5 million. In 1818, the Bank had $2.36 million in reserves and $21.8 million of notes and deposits on record, giving it a reserve ratio of 0.11. Within one and half years, the Bank had added $19.2 million to the Nation's money supply, thus sparking an economic boom. 


 As a result of soaring prices from currency devaluation, the Bank became in danger of being unable to honor redemptions on its reserves. To prevent such a calamity, the Bank decreased the money supply from $21.9 million to $11.5 million. The 47% reduction in the money supply led to a textbook example of a deflationary bust caused by manipulating the money supply. 


 Andrew Jackson 'Kills the Bank' 

President Jackson advocated sound monetary policies as outlined in the U.S. Constitution. He opposed the central bank system of issuing currency against debt. 


 Jackson had an investigation done on the Second Bank of the United States, which he said established "beyond question that this great and powerful institution had been actively engaged in attempting to influence the elections of the public officers utilizing its money." 


 In 1832, Andrew Jackson's re-election slogan was "JACKSON and NO BANK!" On July 10, 1832, President Jackson vetoed congress' decision to renew the charter of The Second Bank of The United States. 


 "It is not our own citizens only who are to receive the bounty of our government. More than eight million of the stock of this Bank are held by foreigners... is there no danger to our liberty and independence in a bank that in its nature has so little to bind it to our country? Controlling our currency, receiving our public money, and holding thousands of our citizens in dependence... would be more formidable and dangerous than a military power of the enemy." (President Andrew Jackson, July 10, 1832) 


 In 1833, President Andrew Jackson instructed his Secretaries of the Treasury to cease depositing funds to the Bank. Two refused to obey, so he fired them, one after the other, until he got one who did: Roger B. Taney, his former Attorney General, and the future Supreme Court Chief Justice. 


 In 1835, Jackson paid off the final installment of the national debt. He was the first and only President ever to accomplish this. A few weeks later, Richard Lawrence tried to shoot Jackson. However, both revolvers failed, and he was arrested and tried but was found not guilty by reason of insanity. Allegedly, he told several friends that wealthy people in Europe had put him up to it and promised to get him released if he was caught. 


 Abraham Lincoln 

To finance the North's Civil War efforts, Lincoln approached the European banks controlled by the Rothschilds in 1861. 


 They demanded 24% to 36% interest. Lincoln refused and instead passed the Legal Tender Act of 1862. Under this new piece of legislation, Lincoln issued US$449,338,902 of interest-free money, known as Greenbacks, so-called from the green ink they used. It served as legal tender for all public and private debts and was used to finance the Union's Civil War efforts. 


  "The Government should create, issue and circulate all the currency and credit needed to satisfy the spending power of the Government and the buying power of consumers...The privilege of creating and issuing money is not only the supreme prerogative of Government, but it is the Government's greatest creative opportunity. By the adoption of these principles, the long-felt want for a uniform medium will be satisfied. The taxpayers will be saved immense sums of interest..." (Abraham Lincoln) 


 An editorial in the London Times, 1865, reveals the sentiment of the European bankers: "If this mischievous financial policy, which has its origin in North America, shall become indurated down to a fixture, then that Government will furnish its own money without cost. It will pay off debts and be without debt. It will have all the money necessary to carry on its commerce. It will become prosperous without precedent in the history of the world. The brains and wealth of all countries will go to North America. That country must be destroyed, or it will destroy every monarchy on the globe." 


 By 1863, Congress had authorized printing US$850 million worth of Greenbacks. Private banks used these Greenbacks as bank reserves, against which they issued their banknotes and demanded deposits. Throughout the U.S. Civil War, the money supply went from $45 million to $1.77 billion. Prices subsequently skyrocketed. 


In 1863, Congress passed the National Bank Act, from which point forward, all money in circulation would be created out of debt from bankers buying U.S. government bonds in exchange for bank notes. By 1865, the national banks had 83 percent of all bank assets in the United States. 


 For all my Confederate Flag wavers, let me show how you have been deceived in your support of Confederate ideas. 


 In 1854, Freemason Killian Van Rensselaer founded the Masonic front organization, the Knights of the Golden Circle, in Cincinnati, Ohio. The Golden Circle immediately absorbed the Masonic operatives in Young America and became the military pre-organization of the Confederacy.45 The Knights of the Golden Circle rode west across Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois, then south along the Mississippi River to the Gulf of Mexico, and east into Maryland and Virginia. Along the way, they opened castles (chapters) and signed up recruits. Freemason John Quitman opened a castle of the Knights in Jackson, Mississippi. Likewise, Albert Pike opened one in New Orleans, through which Mazzini's Mafia would later enter the United States following the Civil War. 


 When we think of the Confederacy, the big names that automatically come to mind are the three legends carved into the side of Georgia's Stone Mountain: President Jefferson Davis, General Robert E. Lee, and General Stonewall Jackson. Significant figures for sure, but in the grander power scheme of things, these men, including President Davis himself, were outranked by Judah P. Benjamin. The fact that Benjamin's name is relatively unknown is, ironically, a testament to the incredible "behind-the-scenes" power he wielded. Unfortunately for the South (and the North), Benjamin's influence served neither of the Americas. His loyalties were elsewhere – in Rothschild's London! 


 Benjamin's image never made it to Stone Mountain, but his 'mug-shot' did appear on Confederate currency and bonds! 


 Before and during the War Between the States, Jewish influence supported both the cause of Northern Unionism and Southern Secession. Louisiana Senator John Slidell is not Jewish (at least not outwardly), but his family ties to elite European Jewry run deep. Slidell's daughter is engaged to Baron Frederic Erlanger, a French Jewish financier based in Paris. Erlanger helps fund the Confederacy, gouging the South with usurious interest rates and fees. 


 Before and during the War Between the States, Jewish influence supported both the cause of Northern Unionism and Southern Secession. Louisiana Senator John Slidell is not Jewish (at least not outwardly), but his family ties to elite European Jewry run deep. Slidell's daughter is engaged to Baron Frederic Erlanger, a French Jewish financier based in Paris. Erlanger helps to fund the Confederacy, gouging the South with usurious interest rates and fees too!


Erlanger's financing of the South, as confirmed even by contemporary New York Times articles, is directly linked to the House of Rothschild.   Pappa-in-Law Slidell would later serve the Confederate States government as a foreign diplomat to Great Britain and French Emperor Napoleon III. Now the niece of the influential Senator is married to northern financier August Belmont (Schönberg)– Rothschild's Jewish boy and Democrat boss supporting the Northern cause, at least at first. After the War, "Confederate" Slidell will make his "Unionist" nephew-in-law Belmont his political protégé. 


Also hooked up with Senator Slidell in this tangled North-South-Rothschild knot of financial-political intrigue is fellow Louisiana Senator Judah Benjamin, the Jewish big-shot who becomes the Confederacy's Attorney General, Secretary of War, and then Secretary of State. Through the shadowy fog of 150 years of elapsed history, we can now discern a pattern of divide & conquer, the balance of conspiratorial power actions being played upon both sides – and with tragic consequences. 


 Senator Slidell – His Jewish Son-in-Law Erlanger – His Jewish Northern Nephew-in-Law Belmont and Jewish fellow Senator Benjamin form an incestuous North-South connection with direct links to the House of Rothschild. 

 If the South is to have any chance of gaining independence, it will have to win early before the more industrialized and populated North can outlast them. Therefore, the first battle of the War at Bull Run (Manassas, Virginia) is critical. To make a long story short, the rebels force a Union retreat that soon turns into a complete rout. Some will quickly refer to the Battle of Bull Run as "The Battle of Yankee Run." 


 The Union Capital, Washington DC, is just miles away and now essentially undefended. It is the South's for the taking. The capture of D.C. and other parts north would have delivered a huge psychological blow to the North. Because many northerners aren't in favor of the War anyway, the capture of D.C. might very well have ended the War that same year. But instead of finishing the job, someone has decided to spare the Capitol – a decision that inflames the Southern press and leads to bitter finger-pointing. 


 The 'fall-guy' for this blunder will be War Secretary Leroy Walker. But in reality, the ex-war hero, ex-War Secretary, and current Confederate President Jefferson Davis call the shots, not the young Walker. But it is also known that Davis relies heavily on the advice from the man whose intelligence and gift-of-gab he is awed by – Jewish Attorney General and former Louisiana Senator Judah Benjamin, referred to by critics as "Davis's pet Jew." 


 Was it Judah Benjamin, the man so admired by Solomon de Rothschild, who may have whispered poison in Davis's ear, telling him not to take D.C. and thus blowing the chance to win the game early for the South? And after Walker has been made the scapegoat and fired, who replaces him as War Secretary? None other than Judah Benjamin! 


 After Bull Run turned into a rout, Washington DC – just 30 miles away – could have been captured. Whose idea was it to halt? That of Davis — or his trusted "adviser" Benjamin? 


 Establishment historians will later claim that Benjamin's stubborn defiance of the Generals was due to a lack of supplies in the South. But given how early it was in the War, the claim that supplies were low seemed like a cover story. If "lack of supplies" had been the cause of Benjamin's decisions, Generals Stonewall Jackson and P. G. T. Beauregard would not have had reason to dislike Benjamin as they did. 


 Such a delaying scenario would fit perfectly with a Rothschild plan to have a long war in which both sides could be indebted and weakened before the British & French could arrive. 


Generals Jackson, Beauregard, and Wise all hated Judah Benjamin. 


 With that in mind, let's look at the shady Mr. Benjamin. Outwardly, the esteemed Jefferson Davis was the 'top dog' of the South – the President of the Confederate States of America. But behind the scenes, Judah Benjamin, with his European connections, 'gift of gab' and impressive intellect, is more powerful than Davis in the grand scheme of things. The banking agent Alexander Hamilton had been to George Washington, the trusted Benjamin was to Davis, and then some. Like Hamilton, Benjamin was also born a British subject (West Indies). There is simply no exaggerating the influence of Judah Benjamin. 


Biographer Eli Evans wrote that Benjamin: "…achieved greater political power than any other Jew in the nineteenth century — perhaps even in all American history."  


 Historian Charles Curran, in a 1967 issue of 'History Today," wrote: "Judah Philip Benjamin must be bracketed with Disraeli, who was his contemporary, as the ablest Jewish politician ever born under the British flag. But his career outdid Disraeli's in audacity. Benjamin lived three lives in one." 


 Judah is a plantation owner, slave-owner, and originally a Senator from Louisiana – as was mentioned and equally European-connected John Slidell. Although he had no military experience, Benjamin was named the South's Secretary of War in 1861 after serving as Attorney General for several months. Many in the South will come to loath and mistrust Benjamin. The great General Jackson once threatened to resign over conflicts with Benjamin (here) – who was commonly referred to in the South as "Mr. Davis's pet Jew."  


 What is astonishing here, or somewhat not surprising, is the high position occupied by our co-religionists, or rather by those who were born into the faith and who, having married Christian women and without converting, have forgotten the practices of their fathers. 


 Judah P. Benjamin, the Attorney General of the Confederate States, is perhaps the greatest mind on this continent. H.M. Hyams, the lieutenant governor of Louisiana, Moyse, the Secretary of the Interior, etc. And what is odd, all these men have a Jewish heart and take an interest in me because I represent the greatest Jewish house in the world." 


 In 1862, under intense Congressional pressure, Benjamin was forced to resign as War Secretary. Jefferson Davis appointed his beleaguered adviser as the South's Secretary of State! In this position, Benjamin will work with Slidell and Slidell's French Jewish son-in-Law Erlanger to secure not just financing from the Rothschild syndicate but also to induce the direct involvement of Rothschild's Britain & France into the War on the side of the South. 


 A joint British & French entry into the War would have tipped the scales in favor of the South and ultimately led to two American nations under foreign influence. Lincoln and his Secretary of State, William Seward, block Judah Benjamin's scheme by turning to Russia for help. 


 In a clear message to his old Rothschild-funded foes from the Crimean War, Czar Alexander II stations the better part of his Pacific fleet in San Francisco and a portion of his western fleet in New York. The British & French instigators of the Crimean War get the message and are forced to back off. Judah Benjamin and the Rothschild financiers are thus thwarted. Together, Alex and Abe defied the London Bankers and will pay a heavy price for it. 


 After the War, in recognition of, or payback for, Russia's help in keeping Britain & France out of the War, Seward arranged for the purchase of Alaska from Russia – an act dismissed at the time as "Seward's Folly." But now we know the reason for the "folly." 


 The presence of Russian fleets in San Francisco and New York kept Judah Benjamin's British and French attack dogs at bay.  Just another reason the Rothschilds hate Russia. 


On October 16, 1864, on page 2, The Chicago Tribune reported, 

 BELMONT'S CONFEDERATE BONDS  

 "It is perhaps somewhat flattering to our national pride to know that the Rothschilds, who hold up every despotism in Europe, have concluded that it would be cheaper to buy up one of our political parties (Democrats), and in that way secure the dissolution of the Union, than to have their agents in England and France interfere and fight us. 


But Irishmen and Germans have a something, which for brevity we will call a 'crop,' and this fact sticks in their crop, that the oppressors of Ireland and Germany, the money kings of Europe, not daring to carry out their first pet project of breaking down this Government by the armed intervention, of England and France. 


 Let Belmont state over his own signature, if he can, that he and the Rothschilds have not, directly or indirectly, in their own name or in that of others, operated in Confederate stocks during this rebellion. Until he can face the music in that style, it matters little what tune any of the Copperhead penny whistles may be authorized to blow, as they are very seldom allowed to state anything true." 

 Abe and Alex both paid with their lives for defying the Rothschilds. Judah Benjamin was suspected of engineering the Lincoln assassination. 


 Lincoln's alliance with the Rothschild family's most hated enemy, Russia, and his printing of interest-free 'Greenbacks" to finance the War were big "no-no's" that got him killed. John Fazio's 'Decapitating the Union' supports the belief of many during that time that Judah Benjamin was the plot's mastermind. 


 Lincoln was assassinated by John Wilkes Booth on April 14, 1865, just five days after Lee surrendered to Grant. On April 12, 1866, Congress passed the Contraction Act, which called for retiring Lincoln's greenbacks from circulation as soon as they returned to the Treasury to pay taxes. 


 The winner of the U.S. Civil War was the Rothschilds. What is sad is there are people today who believe the War was over slavery and state's rights. The War was over the control of the U.S. money system. In 1913 they completed their goal of owning America. 


So, my Confererate friends wave your flag and continue to be deceived by supporting a cause that has indebted America to the Rothschilds. It was the South and the Southern Democrats that divided our nation.  It is the same ideas from the Democrats that will drive the final nail in the coffin of the Great Experiment and America will cease to exist as the land of the free and home of the brave.  


The rich (Rothschild) ruleth over the poor (Americans) And the borrower is servant to the lender