CANADA - IMMUNIZATION EXEMPTIONS by State & countries (includes current statutes, letters & forms)
IMMUNIZATION EXEMPTIONS by State & countries (includes current statutes, letters & forms)
Canada
HEALTH CANADA STATEMENT ON IMMUNIZATION
"Unlike some countries, immunization is not mandatory in Canada; it cannot be made mandatory because of the Canadian Constitution. Only three provinces have legislation or regulations under their health-protection acts to require proof of immunization for school entrance. Ontario and New Brunswick require proof for diphtheria, tetanus, polio, measles, mumps, and rubella immunization. In Manitoba, only measles vaccination is covered. It must be emphasized that, in these three provinces, exceptions are permitted for medical or religious grounds and reasons of conscience; legislation and regulations must not be interpreted to imply compulsory immunization. "
http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/chris/2003/11/29/canadian_vaccine_laws.htm
Ontario
Current Statutes & Laws (English):
http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/DBLaws/Statutes/English/90i01_e.htm
Current Statutes & Laws (French):
http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/DBLaws/Statutes/French/90i01_f.htm
Medical, Religious & Philosophical
Vaccine exemption forms can be obtained from your local health department. Ask for form #2. This needs to be filled out, and notarized and given to your child's school. Parents are advised to retain a copy for their own files, as schools often lose the forms, and the process then has to be repeated. Form #2 can be accessed in PDF format at: (.pdf) http://www.vran.org/docs/form-2.pdf
PDF documents (.pdf)
A special reader, Acrobat Reader software for Windows(TM), Macintosh(TM), MS-DOS(TM), SGI(TM), and Sun(TM) is required and is available free from Adobe.
Download Acrobat Reader:
Exemption Letters & Forms...
Birth Exemptions:
For those who are planning a hospital birth but want to evade invasive routine post natal procedures such as a Hep B shot, vitamin K injection, newborn screening, or the application of silver nitrate in the newborn's eyes, a very specific birthing plan must be submitted to the hospital in advance of the birth. Hospital staff must be informed, in advance, of your needs, wants and desires where your baby and birthing experience are concerned. The same applies to midwives.
Vitamin K Injection...
The prescribing information on Vitamin K shot states that fatalities are an adverse reaction according to the Merck pharmaceutical package insert.
(.pdf) http://www.fda.gov/medwatch/SAFETY/2003/03Feb_PI/AquaMEPHYTON_PI.pdf
"WARNING - INTRAVENOUS USE Severe reactions, including fatalities, have occurred during and immediately after the parenteral administration of AquaMEPHYTON® (Phytonadione)."
fatalities=death
Alternatives to Vitamin K Prophylaxis...
Although oral vitamin K is not licensed for use as a drug, drops for oral administration are available. Typically, one drop contains 2 mg. of vitamin K. Contact a midwife in your area, or a birthing supply company (such as birthwithlove.com), or Scientific Botanicals (206 527-5521) where your health care provider can order liquid vitamin K directly.
Here's another much safer alternative that your chiropractor or naturopath can order for you.
http://www.bioticsresearch.com/Products/BioK.htm
Sample Vaccine Letters From this website
http://www.vaccines.bizland.com/letters.htm
Most hospitals now require the Hepatitis B vaccine for newborns. Many parents are also cornered by emergency room personnel during accident visits. Hospitals nationally are under pressure to utilize every opportunity to score a "hit." If your pediatrician understands your views, get him involved with the hospital. As a last resort, protect your right to receive quality care in the following manner. (Usually, you'll never find anybody in the hospital to sign this simple form):
"I certify that the (Name of Vaccine)________ vaccine being administered to (Name of Child)_________ is free from all known and yet unknown zoonotic or human viruses or viral fragments and will not cause acute or chronic illness in the recipient due to viral contamination or as a reaction to the components of this vaccine. (Signature of Physician and Date)_________."
If you do get a signature, hold on to the form.
(Links to model birth plan letter and acceptance of responsibility)
Acceptance of Responsibility. http://www.vaclib.org/legal/accept1.htm
Model Birth Plan Letter for Hospital Births. You can attach an exemption from immunizations. In some states, there are religious exemptions from newborn screening tests such as PKU, etc...
(.doc) Model Letter for Hospital Births (Model11425.doc)
Model Birth Plan Letter for Hospital Births. This one is more detailed. You can attach an exemption from immunizations. In some states, there are religious exemptions from newborn screening tests such as PKU, etc...
(.doc) Model letter for hospital births 2.doc (11426)
Model Birth Plan Letter for Hospital Births for an adopted child...
Model letter for hospital births for adoptions -- Dear Doctor and Medical Staff.doc (11427)
(.doc) VaccineTruth.net/letters/Model letter for hospital births for adoptions.doc
The above documents can also be made available in WordPerfect (.wpd) format.
Please contact us if you want the model birth plan letters in WordPerfect.
Or you can do your own model birth plan letter online...
Hospital Birth Preference Plan ~ Birth Naturally, LLC
http://www.birthnaturally.org/GentleBirth/hospitalplan.htm
The birth plan arrangements and letter should be turned in before delievery date.
This �Refusal to Permit Medical Treatment� form is optional to use.
"Refusal to Permit Medical Treatment" form
Refusal to Permit Medical Treatment. A generic form.
(.pdf) http://www.scpie.com/riskmgmt/forms/refusal_treatment.pdf
It would be good idea to use with an AFFIDAVIT (Ontario) (.pdf) or exemption statement from parents AND model birth plan letter. We hope people will use this affidavit, model birth plan letter and refusal forms, and is successful. We want to hear about it when someone is successful with this. The ACCEPTANCE OF RESPONSIBILITY is imperative in exercising your rights for legal exemptions from forced medical experimentation and legalized bioterrorism. DO be prepared to fight for your baby's rights!
British Columbia
Newborn Screening Refusal Form for BC, Canada.
Refusal page 5 of the document. It is a scanned copy, so you may need the original.
(.pdf) http://www.rcp.gov.bc.ca/guidelines/Master%5B1%5D.NB9.NewbornScreening.June99.pdf
EYE CARE AND PREVENTION OF OPHTHALMIA NEONATORUM
Parents my refuse eye prophylaxis
http://www.rcp.gov.bc.ca/guidelines/NB1MasterEyeCareFebruary.pdf
CANADA
Vaccination Risk Awareness Network
Edda West
P.O. Box 169
Winlaw, BC V0G 2J0
(250) 355-2525
eddawest@netidea.com
info@vran.org cc:eddawest@netidea.com
http://www.vran.org
Alberta, Canada
Wildeman & Downie � Genetic and Metabolic Screening of Newborns 1
Genetic and Metabolic Screening of Newborns: Must Health Care Providers Seek Explicit Parental Consent?
(.pdf) http://www.law.ualberta.ca/centres/hli/pdfs/hlj/v9/wildedownfrm.pdf
"On the issue of whether these screening programs were mandated by government authority, the authors stated:
Genetic screening programs in Canada are voluntary; there are no health laws or regulations which enforce screening for genetic disease. The viability in the provincial programs more often than not reflects the initiative of individuals or groupswho usually hold no position in government but who act as advisers to their programs. The diverse nature of the provincial programs undoubtedly reflects the interests of their advisers.37"
Daycare & Preschools: Ontario. Use same form as schools, if required.
Schools:
Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care Statement of Conscience or Religious Belief
First form (page 2 in French)
(.pdf) http://www.regional.niagara.on.ca/living/health_wellness/disease-prevent/pdf/Statement-of-Conscience-or-Religious-Belief.pdf
Same form as above. First form (page 2 in French)
(.pdf) Statement-of-Conscience-or-Religious-Belief.pdf
Same form from a chiropractor...
(.pdf) http://www.chiro.cc/files/immunization_exempt.pdf
Second Form in English only (2nd page is the exemption form)
(.pdf) http://www.myhamilton.ca/NR/rdonlyres/C75BB2F8-FF67-488F-AF2E-74D8292437A5/0/ExemptionFromImmunization.pdf
Government of New Brunswick / Gouvernement du Nouveau-Brunswick
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND WELLNESS
PROOF OF IMMUNIZATION REQUIREMENT OR EXEMPTION FOR SCHOOL ENTRY (exemption statement bottom of form)
3. DECLARATION OF OBJECTION TO IMMUNIZATION
I object to the administration of vaccines to my child named above and therefore request exemption from the requirements as provided for in the Education Act. I understand that my child will be excluded from school in the event of an outbreak of one of the infectious diseases.
(.pdf) http://www.gnb.ca/0000/pol/e/706AB.pdf
Colleges & Universities:
These Google searches are mostly the college and school exemptions. There are always new forms coming online. Keep a regular check on these to look for newly added forms. Some are for daycare too. The links are the actual keywords that are used.
Immunization Exemption Form
Vaccine Exemption Form
Immunization Waiver
Employment:
You gotta love this vaccine waiver, short and to the point!
University of Saskatchewan
Human Resources Division
(.pdf) http://adminsrv.usask.ca/hse/pdf/Vaccination%20Waiver%20Form.pdf
Work situations: Fill in the blanks and it covers Rabies, Hep A & B, and Tetanus.
or download from here...
(.pdf) http://www.usask.ca/dhse/pdf/Vaccination%20Waiver%20Form.pdf
This is the same form as above, except it�s generic.
(.pdf) VaccineTruth.net/letters/Vaccination Waiver Form.pdf
Most of these are the Hepatitis B vaccine declination forms, such as the OSHA form. There are hundreds of these forms. Rather than linking to each one, here are the Google Search results for these keywords. There are other vaccines that one can decline that are worded like the OSHA forms.
Vaccine Declination Form
or
Hep B vaccine waiver
TB Test:
These letters will need to be modified in wording to reflect Canadian laws.
Constitution Acts 1867 to 1982 Table of Contents
TB Testing Exemption Letter:
HTML
Sample Exemption Letter for TB testing. May be modified to your use. http://www.vaclib.org/letters/TBwaiverGen.htm
Microsoft Word Document (.doc)
Sample Exemption Letter for TB testing. May be modified to your use. http://www.vaclib.org/letters/TBwaiverGen.doc
TB Testing Exemption Letter for Adults:
Microsoft Word Document (.doc)
Sample Exemption Letter for TB testing. May be modified to your use. http://www.vaclib.org/letters/TBTestingWaiverAdult.doc
WordPerfect Document (.wpd)
Sample Exemption Letter for TB testing. May be modified to your use. http://www.vaclib.org/letters/TBTestingWaiverAdult.wpd
PDF document (.pdf)
Sample Exemption Letter for TB testing. http://www.vaclib.org/letters/TBTestingWaiverAdult.pdf
Lead Testing Exemption Letter:
HTML
Sample Exemption Letter for Lead testing. May be modified to your use. http://www.vaclib.org/letters/Lead_testing_waiverGen.htm
Microsoft Word Document (.doc)
Sample Exemption Letter for Lead testing. May be modified to your use. http://www.vaclib.org/letters/Lead_testing_waiverGen.doc
The above TB and Lead exemption letters courtesy of Deirdre DeVane of Wash DC. Thank you Deirdre!
The adult TB letters were edited by Sherri Tenpenny. Thank you Sherri!
TB Testing Alternatives...
TB can be detected by biofeedback machines that are hooked up to a computer, such as the QXCI, Best BioMeridian MSAS (Meridian Stress Assessment) or Electro Dermal Screening, Quantum Life System, and the F-Scan. You will need to ask specifically for a pathogen scan, especially TB. You will also need to request a printout with the results.
Here are some of the practitioners for Canada
Canada BEST™ BioMeridian Practitioners:
Alberta
The Hoffman Centre for Integrative Medicine
Bruce Hoffman
1133 - 17th Avenue, N.W.
Calgary, AB
T2M 0P7
Contact: (403) 206-2333
Other Services: Collapse Process, Meridian Stress Assessment (Electrodermal), Integrative Medicine, Ayurveda and Mind-Body Medicine, Functional Medicine, Anti-Aging Medicine, Nutritional Medicine.
Energy Balance Resources, Ltd. - Canada
D-269 1600 90th Ave SW
Calgary, Alberta
Canada T2V5A8
1-888-833-EBRC (3272)
ebrc@nucleus.com
http://www.4ebr.com
British Columbia
Lynn McIntosh, R.N.C.P.
16235 10th Ave.
Surrey, BC V4A 1A9
Phone: (604) 538-2247
http://www.thenutritionist.org
Meridian Stress Assessment System saves you time, money and effort pinpointing your exact nutritional requirements. Mold, fungus, virus, hormonal imbalances, heavy metals, food sensitivities, etc. can be checked by this system. Colour graph of your testing is made up for you.
Dr. Jim Chan Naturopathic Clinic
Dr. Jim Chan, ND Naturopathic Physician
3331 No. 3 Road
Richmond B.C.
V6X 2B6
Tel: 604.273.4372
Fax: 604.303.9663
http://www.drjimchan.com
naturopath@drjimchan.com
Alta Vista Naturopathic Clinic
Dr. Maria Fabbro, Naturopath
#210 � 2678 West Broadway
Vancouver, BC V6K 2G3, Canada
Phone: 604.736-3800
Fax: 604.736.3840
http://www.drfabbro.com
Email: mariafabbro@telus.net
MSA (Meridian Stress Assessment) (Electrodermal Screening)
In Dr Fabbro�s experience, MSA has provided valuable information for several patients, especially in areas where standard medical tests have been limited or inconclusive.
Ontario
Circle of Health
Joanne Garrison- Nutrition & Wellness Specialist
6150 Valley Way, Niagara Falls, ON
Tel.: 905-371-3331
Toll Free: 1-866-484-4019
http://www.circleofhealth.ca/
E-mail: circleofhealth@bellnet.ca
http://www.circleofhealth.ca/meridians.htm
The Chiropractic Health And Wellness Centre
Dr. Steve Stewart, D.C.
919 Oxford St. East
London, Ontario
N5Y 3J9
TELEPHONE: 1-519-659-7220
http://www.combatpressurepoints.com
mash@ssmma.com
Steve Stewart's Modern Martial Arts In Association With The Chiropractic Health And Wellness Centre of Modern Acupuncturist Specializing In Health. Educational Material for the Client Meridian Health Services uses the B.E.S.T. system, a computerized bioenergetic health testing system that allows us to accurately conduct an interview with the body. Also called Electrodermal screening, it is an assessment of the many energy meridians of the body and the organs and structures located along those meridians.
Inspired Life Health Centre - Toronto's Natural Health Clinic
#5 - 320 Danforth Avenue
(located in the Carrot Common)
Toronto, Ontario
Canada
M4K 1N8
416-461-8688
http://www.inspiredlife.ca/sensitivity-testing.html
Sensitivity Testing (Meridian Stress Assessment)
Virus Screen $30.00
Bacteria Screen $30.00
Mydan Health Services
Mailing address:
PO Box 65123, RPO Chester
358 Danforth Avenue
Toronto, Ontario
M4K 3Z2
Tel: 416-628-3783
http://www.mydan.ca
The Holistic Alternative
Caron DeVita, C.C.T. HLB, LBA
Box 283 Keswick, Ontario L4P 3E2
Phone: 416-318-8871
Fax: 905-476-5227
http://www.carondevita.com
cdevita@sympatico.ca
Meridian Stress Assessment - THE BEST SYSTEM ($50.00 to $150.00) As you know, Electro Dermal Screening is not new, but the Best System incorporates the technology and knowledge of four systems to bring you the �Best�. Organ balancing, (stressed or weakened) pathogenic conditions, electromagnetic stresses, miasm checks (energetically what you bring in through birth) may be performed. Dental materials and supplements may be checked for compatibility. The teeth can be checked on an individual basis to determine cavitation, foci or other problems in the mouth. The Best System is one of the most unique testing modalities to help determine an appropriate protocol for you.
Bio-Logic Health & Wellness Clinic
Hilda Crombie C.C.Ir., C.R.
Downtown Medical Place
49 High Street, Suite 307A
Barrie, ON - L4N 5J4
Telephone #: 705-792-6999
biologic01@hotmail.com
Electro Dermal Screening (EDS), also called: Meridian Stress Assessment
No extra charge home visits with 25km radius of the office.
Other home visits welcome for $ 0.50 per km driven distance.
Canada QXCI Practitioners:
Alberta
Alternative Health Center
Bevan Sayler
Mike Jaroslacosky
General EPFX / QXCI Practitioner
5014 51st Ave
Lacombe, AB T4L 1A2
403-782-4034 bsayler57@hotmail.com
Connections for the Future
Tanya Kovler
General EPFX / QXCI Practitioner
Edmonton, AV
780-984-8284
tanyakovler@hotmail.com
Laura Melnyk, RMT
Laura Melnyk Massage and Wellness Center
General EPFX / QXCI Practitioner dealing with health and nutrition
Edmonton, AB
780-430-6648
lauramelnyk@shaw.ca
Paulette Tessier
Certified QXCI/SCIO Practitioner
Certified Biofeedback Therapist
Chartered Herbalist
P.O. Box 97
La Corey, Alberta, Canada
T0A 2E0
Phone : 780-826-1868
paulette@sciology.com
sciology.com
Vitality Plus
Anne Indenbosch
General EPFX / QXCI Practitioner
Lethbridge, AB
403-381-3286
403-330-1811
anneindenbosch@hotmail.com
lardbouw@la.shockware.com
Ontario
Renew You
Ron Honda BSC
100 Golf Links Rd.
Ancaster, ON L9G 3K9
905-304-0111
rhonda@sympatico.ca
Vancouver
Body Energy Health
Jane Harper
Rate fee-initial visit consultation (3 hours)
Reg. $180.00
Introductory $100.00
Subsequent visits reg.
$100.00 (1hr)
$160.00 (2hr)
Other introductory prices and packages available
4613 Bellevue Dr. (at rear)
Vancouver, B.C. V6R 1E7
604-228-1529
jkharper@telus.net
Web Address: www.qxcivancouver.com
http://www.qxciscio.com/qxci-north-america.html
For information on purchase or lease of the new Quantum Life BioFeedback L.I.F.E. System, please email Donna and leave your name, mailing address, phone number and email. If you're inquiring for another interested individual or practitioner, please leave their information. The company will then send information and contact the interested parties.
Or you may call 1-888-249-1421.
The L.I.F.E. System is also registered with the FDA for safety issues as a Class 2 Biofeedback Device
Saturday, June 13, 2009
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
FDA and health Canada approves being slowly poisoned
Here's an article that warrants a read....we will be extra vigilant in checking labels from now on....
The content of this article has links to substantiate its claims - Scary stuff
MSG (a slow poison) - Very interesting
The food additive MSG (Mono-Sodium Glutamate) is a slow poison. MSG hides
behind 25 or more names, such as Natural Flavoring." MSG is even in your
favorite coffee from Tim Horton's and Starbucks coffee shops!
I wondered if there could be an actual chemical causing the massive
obesity epidemic, and so did a friend of mine, John Erb. He was a research
assistant at the University of Waterloo in Ontario , Canada , and spent
years working for the government. He made an amazing discovery while
going through scientific journals for a book he was writing called The Slow
Poisoning of America .
In hundreds of studies around the world, scientists were creating obese
mice and rats to use in diet or diabetes test studies. No strain of rat or mice
is naturally obese, so scientists have to create them. They make these creatures
morbidly obese by injecting them with MSG when they are first born.
The MSG triples the amount of insulin the pancreas creates, causing rats
(and perhaps humans) to become obese. They even have a name for the
fat rodents they create: "MSG-Treated Rats."
When I heard this, I was shocked. I went into my kitchen and checked
the cupboards and the refrigerator. MSG was in everything -- the Campbell
's soups, the Hostess Doritos, the Lays flavored potato chips, Top Ramen,
Betty Crocker Hamburger Helper, Heinz canned gravy, Swanson frozen
prepared meals, and Kraft salad dressings, especially the "healthy low-fat" ones.
The items that didn't have MSG marked on the product label had something called
"Hydrolyzed Vegetable Protein," which is just another name for Monosodium Glutamate.
It was shocking to see just how many of the foods we feed our children everyday
are filled with this stuff. MSG is hidden under many different names in order to
fool those who read the ingredient list, so that they don't catch on.
(Other names for MSG are "Accent, "Aginomoto," "Natural Meat Tenderizer," etc.)
But it didn't stop there.
When our family went out to eat, we started asking at the restaurants what menu
items contained MSG. Many employees, even the managers, swore they didn't
use MSG. But when we ask for the ingredient list, which they grudgingly provided,
sure enough, MSG and Hydrolyzed Vegetable Protein were everywhere.
Burger King, McDonald's, Wendy's, Taco Bell, every restaurant -- even
the sit-down eateries like TGIF, Chili's, Applebee's, and Denny's -- use MSG
in abundance. Kentucky Fried Chicken seemed to be the WORST offender: MSG
was in every chicken dish, salad dressing. and gravy. No wonder I loved to
eat that coating on the skin -- their secret spice was MSG!
So why is MSG in so many of the foods we eat?
Is it a preservative, or a vitamin?
Not according to my friend John Erb. In his book The Slow Poisoning of America ,
he said that MSG is added to food for the addictive effect it has on the human body.
Even the propaganda website sponsored by the food manufacturers lobby group
supporting MSG explains that the reason they add it to food is to make people eat more.
A study of the elderly showed that older people eat more of the foods that it is added to.
The Glutamate Association lobbying group says eating more is a benefit to the elderly,
but what does it do to the rest of us?
"Betcha can't eat [just] one," takes on a whole new meaning where MSG
is concerned! And we wonder why the nation is overweight!
MSG manufacturers themselves admit that it addicts people to their
products. It makes people choose their product over others, and makes
people eat more of it than they would if MSG wasn't added.
Not only is MSG scientifically proven to cause obesity, it is an addictive
substance. Since its introduction into the American food supply fifty years
ago,MSG has been added in larger and larger doses to the pre-packaged
meals,soups, snacks, and fast foods we are tempted to eat everyday.
The FDA has set no limits on how much of it can be added to food. They
claim it's safe to eat in any amount. But how can they claim it's safe when
there are hundreds of scientific studies with titles like these:
"The monosodium glutamate (MSG) obese rat as a model for the study of
exercise in obesity." Gobatto CA, Mello MA, Souza CT , Ribeiro IA. Res
Commun Mol Pathol Pharmacol. 2002.
"Adrenalectomy abolishes the food-induced hypothalamic serotonin
release in both normal and monosodium glutamate-obese rats." Guimaraes RB,
Telles MM, Coelho VB, Mori C, Nascimento CM, Ribeiro. Brain Res Bull. 2002 Aug.
'Obesity induced by neonatal monosodium glutamate treatment in spontaneously
hypertensive rats: An animal model of multiple risk factors."
Iwase M, Yamamoto M, Iino K, Ichikawa K, Shinohara N, Yoshinari Fujishima.
Hypertens Res. 1998 Mar.
"Hypothalamic lesion induced by injection of monosodium glutamate in
suckling period and subsequent development of obesity." Tanaka K, Shimada
M, Nakao K Kusunoki. Exp Neurol. 1978 Oct.
No, the date of that last study was not a typo; it was published in
1978. Both the "medical research community" and "food manufacturers" have
known about the side effects of MSG for decades.
Many more of the studies mentioned in John Erb's book link MSG to
diabetes, migraines and headaches, autism, ADHD, and even Alzheimer's.
So what can we do to stop the food manufactures from dumping this
fattening and addictive MSG into our food supply and causing the obesity
epidemic we now see?
Several months ago, John Erb took his book and his concerns to one of
the highest government health officials in Canada . While he was sitting in
the government office, the official told him, "Sure, I know how bad MSG is.
I wouldn't touch the stuff." But this top-level government official refuses
to tell the public what he knows.
The big media doesn't want to tell the public either, fearing issues with their
advertisers. It seems that the fallout on the fast food industry may hurt their
profit margin. The food producers and restaurants have been addicting us
to their products for years, and now we are paying the price for it.
Our children should not be cursed with obesity caused by an addictive food
additive.
But what can I do about it? I'm just one voice!
What can I do to stop the poisoning of our children, while our governments
are insuring financial protection for the industry that is poisoning us?
This message is going out to everyone I know in an attempt to tell you
the truth that the corporate-owned politicians and media won't tell you.
The best way you can help to save yourself and your children from this
drug-induced epidemic is to forward this article to everyone. With any
luck, it will circle the globe before politicians can pass the legislation
protecting those who are poisoning us.
The food industry learned a lot from the tobacco industry. Imagine if big tobacco
had a bill like this in place before someone blew the whistle on nicotine?
If you are one of the few who can still believe that MSG is good for
us and you don't believe what John Erb has to say, see for yourself. Go to
the National Library of Medicine at www.pubmed.com. Type in the words "MSG
Obese" and read a few of the 115 medical studies that appear.
We the public do not want to be rats in one giant experiment, and we
do not approve of food that makes us into a nation of obese,
lethargic,addicted sheep, feeding the food industry's bottom line while
waiting for the heart transplant, the diabetic-induced amputation,
blindness, or other obesity-induced, life-threatening disorders.
With your help we can put an end to this poison.
Do your part in sending this message out by word of mouth, e-mail, or by
distribution of this printout to your friends all over the world and stop
this "Slow Poisoning of Mankind" by the packaged food industry.
Blowing the whistle on MSG is our responsibility, so get the word out.
The content of this article has links to substantiate its claims - Scary stuff
MSG (a slow poison) - Very interesting
The food additive MSG (Mono-Sodium Glutamate) is a slow poison. MSG hides
behind 25 or more names, such as Natural Flavoring." MSG is even in your
favorite coffee from Tim Horton's and Starbucks coffee shops!
I wondered if there could be an actual chemical causing the massive
obesity epidemic, and so did a friend of mine, John Erb. He was a research
assistant at the University of Waterloo in Ontario , Canada , and spent
years working for the government. He made an amazing discovery while
going through scientific journals for a book he was writing called The Slow
Poisoning of America .
In hundreds of studies around the world, scientists were creating obese
mice and rats to use in diet or diabetes test studies. No strain of rat or mice
is naturally obese, so scientists have to create them. They make these creatures
morbidly obese by injecting them with MSG when they are first born.
The MSG triples the amount of insulin the pancreas creates, causing rats
(and perhaps humans) to become obese. They even have a name for the
fat rodents they create: "MSG-Treated Rats."
When I heard this, I was shocked. I went into my kitchen and checked
the cupboards and the refrigerator. MSG was in everything -- the Campbell
's soups, the Hostess Doritos, the Lays flavored potato chips, Top Ramen,
Betty Crocker Hamburger Helper, Heinz canned gravy, Swanson frozen
prepared meals, and Kraft salad dressings, especially the "healthy low-fat" ones.
The items that didn't have MSG marked on the product label had something called
"Hydrolyzed Vegetable Protein," which is just another name for Monosodium Glutamate.
It was shocking to see just how many of the foods we feed our children everyday
are filled with this stuff. MSG is hidden under many different names in order to
fool those who read the ingredient list, so that they don't catch on.
(Other names for MSG are "Accent, "Aginomoto," "Natural Meat Tenderizer," etc.)
But it didn't stop there.
When our family went out to eat, we started asking at the restaurants what menu
items contained MSG. Many employees, even the managers, swore they didn't
use MSG. But when we ask for the ingredient list, which they grudgingly provided,
sure enough, MSG and Hydrolyzed Vegetable Protein were everywhere.
Burger King, McDonald's, Wendy's, Taco Bell, every restaurant -- even
the sit-down eateries like TGIF, Chili's, Applebee's, and Denny's -- use MSG
in abundance. Kentucky Fried Chicken seemed to be the WORST offender: MSG
was in every chicken dish, salad dressing. and gravy. No wonder I loved to
eat that coating on the skin -- their secret spice was MSG!
So why is MSG in so many of the foods we eat?
Is it a preservative, or a vitamin?
Not according to my friend John Erb. In his book The Slow Poisoning of America ,
he said that MSG is added to food for the addictive effect it has on the human body.
Even the propaganda website sponsored by the food manufacturers lobby group
supporting MSG explains that the reason they add it to food is to make people eat more.
A study of the elderly showed that older people eat more of the foods that it is added to.
The Glutamate Association lobbying group says eating more is a benefit to the elderly,
but what does it do to the rest of us?
"Betcha can't eat [just] one," takes on a whole new meaning where MSG
is concerned! And we wonder why the nation is overweight!
MSG manufacturers themselves admit that it addicts people to their
products. It makes people choose their product over others, and makes
people eat more of it than they would if MSG wasn't added.
Not only is MSG scientifically proven to cause obesity, it is an addictive
substance. Since its introduction into the American food supply fifty years
ago,MSG has been added in larger and larger doses to the pre-packaged
meals,soups, snacks, and fast foods we are tempted to eat everyday.
The FDA has set no limits on how much of it can be added to food. They
claim it's safe to eat in any amount. But how can they claim it's safe when
there are hundreds of scientific studies with titles like these:
"The monosodium glutamate (MSG) obese rat as a model for the study of
exercise in obesity." Gobatto CA, Mello MA, Souza CT , Ribeiro IA. Res
Commun Mol Pathol Pharmacol. 2002.
"Adrenalectomy abolishes the food-induced hypothalamic serotonin
release in both normal and monosodium glutamate-obese rats." Guimaraes RB,
Telles MM, Coelho VB, Mori C, Nascimento CM, Ribeiro. Brain Res Bull. 2002 Aug.
'Obesity induced by neonatal monosodium glutamate treatment in spontaneously
hypertensive rats: An animal model of multiple risk factors."
Iwase M, Yamamoto M, Iino K, Ichikawa K, Shinohara N, Yoshinari Fujishima.
Hypertens Res. 1998 Mar.
"Hypothalamic lesion induced by injection of monosodium glutamate in
suckling period and subsequent development of obesity." Tanaka K, Shimada
M, Nakao K Kusunoki. Exp Neurol. 1978 Oct.
No, the date of that last study was not a typo; it was published in
1978. Both the "medical research community" and "food manufacturers" have
known about the side effects of MSG for decades.
Many more of the studies mentioned in John Erb's book link MSG to
diabetes, migraines and headaches, autism, ADHD, and even Alzheimer's.
So what can we do to stop the food manufactures from dumping this
fattening and addictive MSG into our food supply and causing the obesity
epidemic we now see?
Several months ago, John Erb took his book and his concerns to one of
the highest government health officials in Canada . While he was sitting in
the government office, the official told him, "Sure, I know how bad MSG is.
I wouldn't touch the stuff." But this top-level government official refuses
to tell the public what he knows.
The big media doesn't want to tell the public either, fearing issues with their
advertisers. It seems that the fallout on the fast food industry may hurt their
profit margin. The food producers and restaurants have been addicting us
to their products for years, and now we are paying the price for it.
Our children should not be cursed with obesity caused by an addictive food
additive.
But what can I do about it? I'm just one voice!
What can I do to stop the poisoning of our children, while our governments
are insuring financial protection for the industry that is poisoning us?
This message is going out to everyone I know in an attempt to tell you
the truth that the corporate-owned politicians and media won't tell you.
The best way you can help to save yourself and your children from this
drug-induced epidemic is to forward this article to everyone. With any
luck, it will circle the globe before politicians can pass the legislation
protecting those who are poisoning us.
The food industry learned a lot from the tobacco industry. Imagine if big tobacco
had a bill like this in place before someone blew the whistle on nicotine?
If you are one of the few who can still believe that MSG is good for
us and you don't believe what John Erb has to say, see for yourself. Go to
the National Library of Medicine at www.pubmed.com. Type in the words "MSG
Obese" and read a few of the 115 medical studies that appear.
We the public do not want to be rats in one giant experiment, and we
do not approve of food that makes us into a nation of obese,
lethargic,addicted sheep, feeding the food industry's bottom line while
waiting for the heart transplant, the diabetic-induced amputation,
blindness, or other obesity-induced, life-threatening disorders.
With your help we can put an end to this poison.
Do your part in sending this message out by word of mouth, e-mail, or by
distribution of this printout to your friends all over the world and stop
this "Slow Poisoning of Mankind" by the packaged food industry.
Blowing the whistle on MSG is our responsibility, so get the word out.
Friday, May 22, 2009
Secrets of American History - Timeline of Assassinations, Presidents in Opposition of Central Banks, and the Rothschilds
Secrets of American History - Timeline of Assassinations, Presidents in Opposition of Central Banks, and the Rothschilds
1790: Mayer Amschel Rothschild states “Let me issue and control a nation’s money and I care not who writes the laws.”
1791: The Rothschilds get, “control of a nation’s money,” through Alexander Hamilton (their agent in George Washington’s cabinet) when they set up a central bank in the USA called the First Bank of the United States. This is established with a 20 year charter.
1811: The charter for the Rothschilds Bank of the United States runs out and Congress voted against the renewal. Nathan Mayer Rothschild is not amused and he states, “Either the application for renewal of the charter is granted, or the United States will find itself involved in a most disastrous war.” However the United States stands firm and the Charter is not renewed which causes Nathan Mayer Rothschild to issue another threat, “Teach those impudent American’s a lesson. Bring them back to colonial status.”
1812: Backed by Rothschild money, and Nathan Mayer Rothschild’s orders, the British declare war on the United States. The Rothschild’s plan was to build up such a debt in fighting this war that they would have to surrender to the Rothschilds and allow the charter for the Rothschild owned First Bank of the United States to be renewed.
1816: The American Congress passes a bill permitting yet another Rothschild dominated central bank, which gives the Rothschilds control of the American money supply again. This is called the second bank of the United States and is given a twenty year charter. The British War against America therefore ends with the deaths of thousands of British and American soldiers, but the Rothschilds get their bank.
1832: President Andrew Jackson (the 7th President of the United States from 1829 to 1837), runs the campaign for his second term in office under the slogan “Jackson And No Bank!” This is in reference to his plan to take control of the American money system to benefit the American people, not for the profiteering of the Rothschilds.
1833: President Andrew Jackson starts removing the government’s deposits from the Rothschild controlled, Second Bank of the United States and instead deposits them into banks directed by democratic bankers. This causes the Rothschilds to panic and so they do what they do best, contract the money supply causing a depression. President Jackson knows what they are up to and later states, “You are a den of thieves and vipers, and I intend to rout you out, and by the Eternal God, I will rout you out.”
1835: On January 30, an assassin tries to shoot President Jackson, but miraculously both of the assassin’s pistols misfired. President Jackson would later claim that he knew the Rothschilds were responsible for the attempted assassination.
1836: Following his years of fighting against the Rothschilds and their central bank in America, President Andrew Jackson finally succeeds in throwing the Rothschilds central bank out of America, when the bank’s charter is not renewed,
1841: President John Tyler (the 10th President of the United States From 1841 to 1845) vetoed the act to renew the charter for the Bank of the United States. He goes on to receive hundreds of letters threatening him with assassination.
1861: President Abraham Lincoln (16th President of the United States from 1860 till his assassination in 1865) approaches the big banks in New York to try to obtain loans to support the ongoing American Civil War. As these large banks were heavily under the influence of the Rothschilds, they offer him a deal they know he cannot accept, 24% to 36% interest on all monies loaned. Lincoln is very angry about the high level of interest so he prints his own debt free money and informs the public that this is now legal tender for both public and private debts.
1862: By April $449,338,902 worth of Lincoln’s debt free money (Greenbacks) has been printed and distributed. He states of this, “We gave the people of the republic the greatest blessing they ever had, their own paper money to pay their own debts.”
1863: President Abraham Lincoln discovers the Tsar of Russia, Alexander II (1855-1881), was having problems with the Rothschilds as well as he was refusing their continual attempts to set up a central bank in Russia. The Tsar then gives President Lincoln some unexpected help. The Tsar issued orders that if either England or France actively intervened in the American Civil War, and help the South, Russia would consider such action a declaration of war, and take the side of President Lincoln. To show that he wasn’t messing about, he sent part of his Pacific Fleet to a port in San Francisco and another part to New York.
1865: In a statement to Congress, President Abraham Lincoln states, “I have two enemies, the Southern Army in front of me, and the financial institutions in the rear. Of the two, the one in my rear is my greatest foe.” Later that year, on April 14, President Lincoln is assassinated, less than two months before the end of the American Civil War.
1881: President James A. Garfield (The 20th President of the United States who lasted only 100 days) states two weeks before he is assassinated, “Whoever controls the volume of money in our country is absolute master of all industry and commerce…when you realize that the entire system is very easily controlled, one way or another, by a few powerful men at the top, you will not have to be told how periods of inflation and depression originate.”
1913: The last and current central bank in America, the Federal Reserve, is set up during the presidency of Woodrow Wilson.
1917: The Rothschilds order the execution by the Bolsheviks they control, of Tsar Nicholas II and his entire family in Russia, even though the Tsar had already abdicated on March 2. This is both to get control of the country and an act of revenge for Tsar Alexander I blocking their world government plan in 1815 at the Congress of Vienna, and Tsar Alexander II siding with President Abraham Lincoln in 1864.
1963: On June 4th (the 35th President of the United States 1961-1963) signs Executive Order 11110 which returned to the U.S. government the power to issue currency, without going through the Federal Reserve.
That is the real history that needs to be taught. I have also passed on those points in U.S. banking history but, few believe it could be possible that a few men can have so much power. Think about this.
quote:
A master at building impenetrable walls around his family assets the current value of the Rothschild holdings are estimated to be between $100 and $300 trillion, yes that is trillion dollars! Now for a point of reference the current United States National Debt is $9.4 trillion.
http://www.prlog.org/10058722-morgan-chase-buyout-of-bear-stearns-trillionaires-delight.html
————————————-
The wealth of the very top families in the world dwarfs the wealth of the entire U.S. excluding those who are part of those few international families. Yes, I said international families.
They not only have homes and family and representatives in many nations, they have no loyalty to any nation. Their only loyalty is to the goals they have set in place. The majority of those goals were set in place by men who have long passed from this earth but, who also left in place the wealth and power and family to continue their plans to achieve a “new world order,” that they control.
It is they who created the League of Nations which later was let die to be replaced by their U.N. They created the IMF, World Bank, WTO, CFR, Bilderbergs, Bohemian Grove, Trilateral Commission, NATO, and got NAFTA, CAFTA and other things passed. The same people also provide the advisers and cabinet that both parties need for their administrations.
And as so often pointed out, created the “Federal Reserve Act,” on Jekyll Island that Pres. Wilson signed into law in 1913 the same year we ratified the 16th and 17th amendments that destroyed the power of the states to “check” the power of the Federal Government these elite would operate through.
I would appreciate any responses, either pro or con. I am gravely concerned for the health and long-term prospects of our beloved Republic.
http://investment-blog.net/secrets-of-american-history-timeline-of-assassinations-presidents-in-opposition-of-central-banks-and-the-rothschilds/
THE HISTORY OF MONEY PART 1
Let's Go FORWARD
Tell someone you are going to a convention of accountants and you might get a few yawns, yet money and how it works is probably one of the most interesting things on earth.
It is fascinating and almost magical how money appeared on our planet. Unlike most developments we enjoy, which can be traced back to a source, civilisation or inventor, money appeared in places then unconnected all over the world in a remarkably simular way.
Consider the American Indians using Wampum, West Africans trading in decorative metallic objects called Manillas and the Fijians economy based on whales teeth, some of which are still legal tender; add to that shells, amber, ivory, decorative feathers, cattle including oxen & pigs, a large number of stones including jade and quartz which have all been used for trade across the world, and we get a taste of the variety of accepted currency.
There is something charming and childlike imagining primitive societies, our ancestors, using all these colourful forms of money. As long as everyone concerned can agree on a value, this is a sensible thing for a community to do.
After all, the person who has what you need might not need what you have to trade. Money solves that problem neatly. Real value with each exchange, and everyone gaining from the convenience. The idea is really inspired which might explain why so many diverse minds came up with it.
BUT ALL IS NOT WELL
"History records that the money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling money and its issuance."
President James Madison
Money, money, money, it's always just been there, right? Wrong.
Obviously it's issued by the government to make it easy for us to exchange things. Wrong again!
Truth is most people don't realise that the issuing of money is essentially a private business, and that the privilege of issuing money has been a major bone of contention throughout history.
Wars have been fought and depressions have been caused in the battle over who issues the money; however the majority of us are not aware of this, and this is largely due to the fact that the winning side became and increasingly continues to be a vital and respected member of our global society, having an influence over large aspects of our lives including our education, our media and our governments.
While we might feel powerless in trying to stop the manipulation of money for private profit at our expense, it is easy to forget that we collectively give money its value. We have been taught to believe printed pieces of paper have special value, and because we know others believe this too, we are willing to work all our lives to get what we are convinced others will want.
An honest look at history will show us how our innocent trust has been misused.
Let's start our exploration of money with:
JESUS FLIPS (many coins) 33 A.D.
Jesus was so upset by the sight of the money changers in the temple, he waded in and started to tip over the tables and drive them out with a whip, this being the one and only time we ever hear of him using force during his entire ministry.
So what caused the ultimate pacifist to become so aggressive?
For a long time the Jews had been called upon to pay their temple tax with a special coin called the half shekel. It was a measured half ounce of pure silver with no image of a pagan emperor on it.
It was to them the only coin acceptable to God.
But because there was only a limited number of these coins in circulation, the money changers were in a buyers market and like with anything else in short supply, they were able to raise the price to what the market would bear.
They made huge profits with their monopoly on these coins and turned this time of devotion into a mockery for profit. Jesus saw this as stealing from the people and proclaimed the whole setup to be. "A den of thieves". 1
Once money is accepted as a form of exchange, those who produce, loan out and manipulate the quantity of money are obviously in a very strong position. They are the "Money Changers".
1. King James NT, Mt 21:13, Mr 11:17, Lu 19:46
MEDIEVAL ENGLAND (1000 - 1100 A.D.)
Here we find goldsmith's offering to keep other people's gold and silver safe in their vaults, and in return people walking away with a receipt for what they have left there.
These paper receipts soon became popular for trade as they were less heavy to carry around than gold and silver coins.
After a while, the goldsmith's must have noticed that only a small percentage of their depositor's ever came in to demand their gold at any one time. So cleverly the goldsmith's made out some receipts for gold which didn't even exist, and then they loaned it out to earn interest.
A nod and a wink amongst themselves, they incorporated this practice into the banking system. They even gave it a name to make it seem more acceptable, christening the practice 'Fractional Reserve Banking' which translates to mean, lending out many times more money than you have assets on deposit.
Today banks are allowed to loan out at least ten times the amount they actually are holding, so while you wonder how they get rich charging you 11% interest, it's not 11% a year they make on that amount but actually 110%.
THE TALLY STICKS (1100 - 1854)
King Henry the First produced sticks of polished wood, with notches cut along one edge to signify the denominations. The stick was then split full length so each piece still had a record of the notches.
The King kept one half for proof against counterfeiting, and then spent the other half into the market place where it would continue to circulate as money.
Because only Tally Sticks were accepted by Henry for payment of taxes, there was a built in demand for them, which gave people confidence to accept these as money.
He could have used anything really, so long as the people agreed it had value, and his willingness to accept these sticks as legal tender made it easy for the people to agree. Money is only as valuable as peoples faith in it, and without that faith even today's money is just paper.
The tally stick system worked really well for 726 years. It was the most successful form of currency in recent history and the British Empire was actually built under the Tally Stick system, but how is it that most of us are not aware of its existence?
Perhaps the fact that in 1694 the Bank of England at its formation attacked the Tally Stick System gives us a clue as to why most of us have never heard of them. They realised it was money outside the power of the money changers, (the very thing King Henry had intended).
What better way to eliminate the vital faith people had in this rival currency than to pretend it simply never existed and not discuss it. That seems to be what happened when the first shareholder's in the Bank of England bought their original shares with notched pieces of wood and retired the system. You heard correctly, they bought shares. The Bank of England was set up as a privately owned bank through investors buying shares. Even the Banks resent nationalisation is not what it at first may appear, as its independent resources unceasingly multiply and dividends continue to be produced for its shareholder's.
These investors, who's names were kept secret, were meant to invest one and a quarter million pounds, but only three quarters of a million was received when it was chartered in 1694.
It then began to lend out many times more than it had in reserve, collecting interest on the lot.
This is not something you could just impose on people without preparation. The money changers needed to created the climate to make the formation of this private concern seem acceptable.
Here's how they did it.
With King Henry VIII relaxing the Usury Laws in the 1500's, the money changers flooded the market with their gold and silver coins becoming richer by the minute.
The English Revolution of 1642 was financed by the money changers backing Oliver Cromwell's successful attempt to purge the parliament and kill King Charles. What followed was 50 years of costly wars. Costly to those fighting them and profitable to those financing them.
So profitable that it allowed the money changers to take over a square mile of property still known as the City of London, which remains one of the three main financial centres in the world today.
The 50 years of war left England in financial ruin. The government officials went begging for loans from guess who, and the deal proposed resulted in a government sanctioned, privately owned bank which could produce money from nothing, essentially legally counterfeiting a national currency for private gain.
Now the politicians had a source from which to borrow all the money they wanted to borrow, and the debt created was secured against public taxes.
You would think someone would have seen through this, and realised they could produce their own money and owe no interest, but instead the Bank of England has been used as a model and now nearly every nation has a Central Bank with fractional reserve banking at its core.
These central banks have the power to take over a nations economy and become that nations real governing force. What we have here is a scam of mammoth proportions covering what is actually a hidden tax, being collected by private concerns.
The country sells bonds to the bank in return for money it cannot raise in taxes. The bonds are paid for by money produced from thin air. The government pays interest on the money it borrowed by borrowing more money in the same way. There is no way this debt can ever be paid, it has and will continue to increase.
If the government did find a way to pay off the debt, the result would be that there would be no bonds to back the currency, so to pay the debt would be to kill the currency.
With its formation the Bank of England soon flooded Britain with money. With no quality control and no insistence on value for money, prices doubled with money being thrown in every direction.
One company was even offering to drain the Red Sea to find Egyptian gold lost when the sea closed in on their pursuit of Moses.
By1698 the national debt expanded from £1,250,000 to £16,000,000 and up went the taxes the debt was secured on.
As hard as it might be to believe, in times of economic upheaval, wealth is rarely destroyed and instead is often only transferred. And who benefits the most when money is scarce? You may have guessed. It's those controlling what everyone else wants, the money changer's.
When the majority of people are suffering through economic depression, you can be sure that a minority of people are continuing to get rich.
Even today the Bank of England expresses its determination to prevent the ups and downs of booms and depressions, yet there have been nothing but ups and downs since its formation with the British pound rarely being stable.
One thing however has been stable and that is the growing fortune of:
THE ROTHSCHILDS (1743)
A goldsmith named Amshall Moses Bower opened a counting house in Frankfurt Germany in 1743. He placed a Roman eagle on a red shield over the door prompting people to call his shop the Red Shield Firm pronounced in German as "Rothschild".
His son later changed his name to Rothschild when he inherited the business. Loaning money to individuals was all well and good but he soon found it much more profitable loaning money to governments and Kings. It always involved much bigger amounts, always secured from public taxes.
Once he got the hang of things he set his sights on the world by training his five sons in the art of money creation, before sending them out to the major financial centres of the world to create and dominate the central banking systems.
J.P. Morgan was thought by many to be the richest man in the world during the second world war, but upon his death it was discovered he was merely a lieutenant within the Rothschild empire owning only 19% of the J.P. Morgan Companies.
"There is but one power in Europe and that is Rothschild."
19th century French commentator 1
We will explore a little more about the richest family a little later, after we've had a look at:
1. Niall Ferguson, THE HOUSE OF ROTHSCHILD, Money's Prophets, 1798-1848
THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION (1764 - 1781)
By the mid 1700's Britain was at its height of power, but was also heavily in debt.
Since the creation of the Bank of England, they had suffered four costly wars and the total debt now stood at £140,000,000, (which in those days was a lot of money).
In order to make their interest payments to the bank, the British government set about a programme to try to raise revenues from their American colonies, largely through an extensive programme of taxation.
There was a shortage of material for minting coins in the colonies, so they began to print their own paper money, which they called Colonial Script. This provided a very successful means of exchange and also gave the colonies a sense of identity. Colonial Script was money provided to help the exchange of goods. It was debt free paper money not backed by gold or silver.
During a visit to Britain in 1763, The Bank of England asked Benjamin Franklin how he would account for the new found 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."
Benjamin Franklin 1
America had learned that the people's confidence in the currency was all they needed, and they could be free of borrowing debts. That would mean being free of the Bank of England.
In Response the world's most powerful independent bank used its influence on the British parliament to press for the passing of the Currency Act of 1764.
This act made it illegal for the colonies to print their own money, and forced them to pay all future taxes to Britain in silver or gold.
Here is what Franklin said after that.
"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
"The colonies would gladly have borne the little tax on tea and other matters had it not been that England took away from the colonies their money, which created unemployment and dissatisfaction. The inability of the colonists to get power to issue their own money permanently out of the hands of George III and the international bankers was the PRIME reason for the Revolutionary War."
Benjamin Franklin's autobiography
By the time the war began on 19th April 1775 much of the gold and silver had been taken by British taxation. They were left with no other choice but to print money to finance the war.
What is interesting here is that Colonial Script was actually working so well, it became a threat to the established economic system of the time.
The idea of issuing money as Franklin put it "in proper proportion to the demands of trade and industry" and not charging any interest, was not causing any problems or inflation. This unfortunately was alien to the Bank of England which only issued money for the sake of making a profit for its shareholder's.
1. Congressman Charles G. Binderup of Nebraska, Unrobing the Ghosts of Wall Street
THE BANK OF NORTH AMERICA (1781-1785)
If you can't beat them, join them, might well have been his argument when arms dealer, Robert Morris suggested he be allowed to set up a Bank of England style central bank in the USA in 1781.
Desperate for money, the $400,000 he proposed to deposit, to allow him to loan out many times that through fractional reserve banking, must have looked really attractive to the impoverished American Government.
Already spending the money they would be loaned, no one made a fuss when Robert Morris couldn't raise the deposit, and instead suggested he might use some gold, which had been loaned to America from France.
Once in, he simply used fractional reserve banking, and with the banks growing fortune he loaned to himself, and his friends the money to buy up all the remaining shares. The bank then began to loan out money multiplied by this new amount to eager politicians, who were probably too drunk with the new 'power cash' to notice or care how it was done.
The scam lasted five years until in 1785, with the value of American money dropping like a lead balloon. The banks charter didn't get renewed.
The shareholder's walking off with the interest did not go unnoticed by the governor.
"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 1
1. THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION OF 1787, 7/2
FIRST BANK OF THE UNITED STATES (1791-1811)
It worked once, it will work again. It's been six years. There are a lot of new hungry politicians. Let's give it a try. And so there it was, in 1791, the First Bank of the United States (BUS). Not only deceptively named to sound official, but also to take attention away from the real first bank which had been shut down.
Its initials however gave a clear indication that Americans were once again being taken for a ride. And true to its British model, the name of the investors was never revealed.
Having gotten away with it a second time, some of them probably wished Amshall Rothschild had picked a different time to make his pronouncement from his private central bank in Frankfurt.
"Let me issue and control a nation's money and I care not who writes the laws."
Mayer Amschel Rothschild, 1790
Not to worry, no one was listening, the American government borrowed 8.2 million dollars from the bank in the first 5 years and prices rose by 72%. This time round the money changer's had learned their lesson, they had guaranteed a twenty year charter.
The president, who could see an ever increasing debt, with no chance of ever paying back, had this to say.
"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
While the independent press, who had not been bought off yet, called the scam "a great swindle, a vulture, a viper, and a cobra."
As with the real first bank, the government had been the only depositor to put up any real money, with the remainder being raised from loans the investors made to each other, using the magic of fractional reserve banking. When time came for renewal of the charter, the bankers were warning of bad times ahead if they didn't get what they wanted. The charter was not renewed.
Five month later Britain had attacked America and started the war of 1812.
Meanwhile a short time earlier, an independent Rothschild business, the Bank of France, was being looked upon with suspicion by none other than:
NAPOLEON (1803 - 1825)
He didn't trust the bank saying:
"When a government is dependent upon bankers for money, they and not the leaders of the government control the situation, since the hand that gives is above the hand that takes... Money has no motherland; financiers are without patriotism and without decency; their sole object is gain."
Napoleon Bonaparte, 1815
For both sides of a war to be loaned money from the same privately owned Central Bank is not unusual. Nothing generates debt like war. A Nation will borrow any amount to win. So naturally if the loser is kept going to the last straw in a vain hope of winning, then the more resources will be used up by the winning side before their victory is obtained more resources used, more loans taken out, more money made by the bankers; and even more amazing, the loans are usually given on condition that the victor pays the debts left by the loser.
In 1803, instead of borrowing from the bank, Napoleon sold territory west of the Mississippi to the 3rd President of the United States, Thomas Jefferson for 3 million dollars in gold; a deal known as the Louisiana Purchase.
Three million dollars richer, Napoleon quickly gathered together an army and set about conquering much of Europe.
Each place he went to, Napoleon found his opposition being financed by the Bank of England, making huge profits as Prussia, Austria and finally Russia all went heavily into debt trying to stop him.
Four years later, with the main French army in Russia, Nathan Rothschild took charge of a bold plan to smuggle a shipment of gold through France to finance an attack from Spain by the Duke of Wellington.
Wellington's attack from the south and other defeats eventually forced Napoleon into exile. However in 1815 he escaped from his banishment in Elba, an Island off the coast of Italy, and returned to Paris.
By March of that year Napoleon had equipped an army with the help of borrowed money from the Eubard Banking House of Paris.
With 74,000 French troops led by Napoleon, sizing up to meet 67,000 British and other European Troops 200 miles NE of Paris on June 18th 1815, it was a difficult one to call. Back in London, the real potential winner, Nathan Rothschild, was poised to strike in a bold plan to take control of the British stock market, the bond market, and possibly even the Bank of England.
Nathan, knowing that information is power, stationed his trusted agent named Rothworth near the battle field.
As soon as the battle was over Rothworth quickly returned to London, delivering the news to Rothschild 24 hours ahead of Wellington's courier.
A victory by Napoleon would have devastated Britain's financial system. Nathan stationed himself in his usual place next to an ancient pillar in the stock market.
This powerful man was not without observers as he hung his head, and began openly to sell huge numbers of British Government Bonds.
Reading this to mean that Napoleon must have won, everyone started to sell their British Bonds as well.
The bottom fell out of the market until you couldn't hardly give them away. Meanwhile Rothschild began to secretly buy up all the hugely devalued bonds at a fraction of what they were worth a few hours before.
In this way Nathan Rothschild captured more in one afternoon than the combined forces of Napoleon and Wellington had captured in their entire lifetime.
THE HISTORY OF MONEY PART 2
The 19th century became known as the age of the Rothschild's when it was estimated they controlled half of the world's wealth. While their wealth continues to increase today, they have managed to blend into the background, giving an impression that their power has waned. They only apply the Rothschild name to a small fraction of the companies they actually control. Some authors claim that the Rothschild's had not only taken over the Bank of England but they had also in 1816 backed a new privately owned Central Bank in America called The Second Bank of The United States, causing huge problems to the American president.
ANDREW JACKSON (1828 - 1836)
When the American congress voted to renew the charter of The Second Bank of The United States, Jackson responded by using his veto to prevent the renewal bill from passing. His response gives us an interesting insight. "It is not our own citizens only who are to receive the bounty of our government. More than eight millions 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 moneys, and holding thousands of our citizens in dependence... would be more formidable and dangerous than a military power of the enemy. If government would confine itself to equal protection, and, as Heaven does its rains, shower its favour alike on the high and the low, the rich and the poor, it would be an unqualified blessing. In the act before me there seems to be a wide and unnecessary departure from these just principles."
Andrew Jackson 1 In 1832 Jackson ordered the withdrawal of government deposits from the Second bank and instead had them put into safe banks. The Second Banks head, Nicholas Biddle was quite candid about the power and intention of the bank when he openly threatened to cause a depression if the bank was not re-chartered, we quote. "Nothing but widespread suffering will produce any effect on Congress... Our only safety is in pursuing a steady course of firm restriction - and I have no doubt that such a course will ultimately lead to restoration of the currency and the re-charter of the bank."
Nicholas Biddle 1836 By calling in existing loans and refusing to issue new loans he did cause a massive depression, but in 1836 when the charter ran out, the Second Bank ceased to function. It was then he made these two famous statements: "The Bank is trying to kill me - but I will kill it!" and later "If the American people only understood the rank injustice of our money and banking system - there would be a revolution before morning..."
Andrew Jackson When asked what he felt was the greatest achievement of his career Andrew Jackson replied without hesitation "I killed the bank!" However we will see this was not the end of private financial influence passing itself off as official when we look at...
1. Andrew Jackson, Veto of the Bank Bill, to the Senate, (1832)
ABRAHAM LINCOLN AND THE CIVIL WAR (1861 - 1865)
With the Central Bank killed off, fractional reserve banking moved like a virus through numerous state chartered banks instead causing the instability this form of economics thrives on. When people lose their homes someone else wins them for a fraction of their worth. Depression is good news to the lender; but war causes even more debt and dependency than anything else, so if the money changers couldn't have their Central Bank with a license to print money, a war it would have to be. We can see from this quote of the then chancellor of Germany that slavery was not the only cause for the American Civil War. "The division of the United States into federations of equal force was decided long before the Civil War by the high financial powers of Europe. These bankers were afraid that the US, if they remained as one block, and as one nation, would attain economic and financial independence, which would upset their financial domination over the world."
Otto von Bismark chancellor of Germany 1876 On the 12th of April 1861 this economic war began. Predictably Lincoln, needing money to finance his war effort, went with his secretary of the treasury to New York to apply for the necessary loans. The money changers wishing the Union to fail offered loans at 24% to 36%. Lincoln declined the offer. An old friend of Lincoln's, Colonel Dick Taylor of Chicago was put in charge of solving the problem of how to finance the war. His solution is recorded as this. "Just get Congress to pass a bill authorising the printing of full legal tender treasury notes... and pay your soldiers with them and go ahead and win your war with them also."
Colonel Dick Taylor When Lincoln asked if the people of America would accept the notes Taylor said. "The people or anyone else will not have any choice in the matter, if you make them full legal tender. They will have the full sanction of the government and be just as good as any money; as Congress is given that express right by the Constitution."
Colonel Dick Taylor 1 Lincoln agreed to try this solution and printed 450 million dollars worth of the new bills using green ink on the back to distinguish them from other notes. "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, discounts and exchanges. The financing of all public enterprises, the maintenance of stable government and ordered progress, and the conduct of the Treasury will become matters of practical administration. The people can and will be furnished with a currency as safe as their own government. Money will cease to be the master and become the servant of humanity. Democracy will rise superior to the money power."
Abraham Lincoln 2 From this we see that the solution worked so well Lincoln was seriously considering adopting this emergency measure as a permanent policy. This would have been great for everyone except the money changers who quickly realised how dangerous this policy would be for them. They wasted no time in expressing their view in the London Times. Oddly enough, while the article seems to have been designed to discourage this creative financial policy, in its put down we're clearly able to see the policies goodness. "If this mischievous financial policy, which has its origin in North America, shall become endurated 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."
Hazard Circular - London Times 1865 From this extract its plan to see that it is the advantage provided by the adopting of this policy which poses a threat to those not using it. 1863, nearly there, Lincoln needed just a bit more money to win the war, and seeing him in this vulnerable state, and knowing that the president could not get the congressional authority to issue more greenbacks, the money changers proposed the passing of the National Bank Act. The act went through. From this point on the entire US money supply would be created out of debt by bankers buying US government bonds and issuing them from reserves for bank notes. The greenbacks continued to be in circulation until 1994, their numbers were not increased but in fact decreased. "In numerous years following the war, the Federal Government ran a heavy surplus. It could not (however) pay off its debt, retire its securities, because to do so meant there would be no bonds to back the national bank notes. To pay off the debt was to destroy the money supply."
John Kenneth Galbrath The American economy has been based on government debt since 1864 and it is locked into this system. Talk of paying off the debt without first reforming the banking system is just talk and a complete impossibility. That same year Lincoln had a pleasant surprise. Turns out the Tsar of Russia, Alexander II, was well aware of the money changers scam. The Tsar was refusing to allow them to set up a central bank in Russia. If Lincoln could limit the power of the money changers and win the war, the bankers would not be able to split America and hand it back to Britain and France as planned. The Tsar knew that this handing back would come at a cost which would eventually need to be paid back by attacking Russia, it being clearly in the money changers sights. The Tsar declared that if France or Britain gave help to the South, Russia would consider this an act of war. Britain and France would instead wait in vain to have the wealth of the colonies returned to them, and while they waited Lincoln won the civil war. With an election coming up the next year, Lincoln himself would wait for renewed public support before reversing the National Bank Act he had been pressured into approving during the war. Lincoln's opposition to the central banks financial control and a proposed return to the gold standard is well documented. He would certainly have killed off the national banks monopoly had he not been killed himself only 41 days after being re-elected. The money changers were pressing for a gold standard because gold was scarce and easier to have a monopoly over. Much of this was already waiting in their hands and each gold merchant was well aware that what they really had could be easily made to seem like much much more. Silver would only widen the field and lower the share so they pressed for...
1. Lincoln By Emil Ludwig 1930, containing a letter from Lincoln, also reprinted in Glory to God and the Sucker Democracy A Manuscript Collection of the Letters of Charles H. Lanphier compiled by Charles C. Patton.
2. Abraham Lincoln. Senate document 23, Page 91. 1865.
THE RETURN OF THE GOLD STANDARD (1866 - 1881)
"Right after the Civil War there was considerable talk about reviving Lincoln's brief experiment with the Constitutional monetary system. Had not the European money-trust intervened, it would have no doubt become an established institution."
W.Cleon Skousen. Even after his death, the idea that America might print its own debt free money set off warning bells throughout the entire European banking community. On April 12th in 1866, the American congress passed the Contraction Act, allowing the treasury to call in and retire some of Lincoln's greenbacks, With only the banks standing to gain from this, it's not hard to work out the source of this action. To give the American public the false impression that they would be better off under the gold standard, the money changers used the control they had to cause economic instability and panic the people. This was fairly easy to do by calling in existing loans and refusing to issue new ones, a tried and proven method of causing depression. They would then spread the word through the media they largely controlled that the lack of a single gold standard was the cause of the hardship which ensued, while all this time using the Contraction Act to lower the amount of money in circulation. It went from
$1.8 billion in circulation in 1866 allowing $50.46 per person,
to $1.3 billion in 1867 allowing $44.00 per person,
to $0.6 billion in 1876 making only $14.60 per person and down
to $0.4 billion only ten years later leaving only $6.67 per person
and a continually growing population. Most people believe the economists when they tell us that recessions and depressions are part of the natural flow, but in truth the money supply is controlled by a small minority who have always done so and will continue to do so if we let them. By 1872 the American public was beginning to feel the squeeze, so the Bank of England, scheming in the back rooms, sent Ernest Seyd, with lots of money to bribe congress into demonetising silver. Ernest drafted the legislation himself, which came into law with the passing of the Coinage Act, effectively stopping the minting of silver that year. Here's what he said about his trip, obviously pleased with himself. "I went to America in the winter of 1872-73, authorised to secure, if I could, the passage of a bill demonetising silver. It was in the interest of those I represented - the governors of the Bank of England - to have it done. By 1873, gold coins were the only form of coin money."
Ernest Seyd Or as explained by Senator Daniel of Virginia "In 1872 silver being demonetized in Germany, England, and Holland, a capital of 100,000 pounds ($500,000.00) was raised, Ernest Seyd was sent to this country with this fund as agent for foreign bond holders to effect the same object (demonetization of silver)". 1 Within three years, with 30% of the work force unemployed, the American people began to harken back to the days of silver backed money and the greenbacks. The US Silver Commission was set up to study the problem and responded with telling history: "The disaster of the Dark Ages was caused by decreasing money and falling prices... Without money, civilisation could not have had a beginning, and with a diminishing supply, it must languish and unless relieved, finally perish. At the Christian era the metallic money of the Roman Empire amounted to $1,800,million. By the end of the fifteenth century it had shrunk to less than $200,million. History records no other such disastrous transition as that from the Roman Empire to the Dark Ages..."
United States Silver Commission While they obviously could see the problems being caused by the restricted money supply, this declaration did little to help the problem, and in 1877 riots broke out all over the country. The bank's response was to do nothing except to campaign against the idea that greenbacks should be reissued. The American Bankers Association secretary James Buel expressed the bankers attitude well in a letter to fellow members of the association. He wrote: "It is advisable to do all in your power to sustain such prominent daily and weekly newspapers, especially the Agricultural and Religious Press, as will oppose the greenback issue of paper money and that you will also withhold patronage from all applicants who are not willing to oppose the government issue of money. To repeal the Act creating bank notes, or to restore to circulation the government issue of money will be to provide the people with money and will therefore seriously affect our individual profits as bankers and lenders. See your congressman at once and engage him to support our interest that we may control legislation."
James Buel American Bankers Association 2 What this statement exposes is the difference in mentality between your average person and a banker. With a banker 'less really is more' and every need an opportunity to exploit. James Garfield became President in 1881 with a firm grasp of where the problem lay. "Whosoever controls the volume of money in any country is absolute master of all industry and commerce... And when you realise that the entire system is very easily controlled, one way or another, by a few powerful men at the top, you will not have to be told how periods of inflation and depression originate."
James Garfield 1881 Within weeks of releasing this statement President Garfield was assassinated. The cry from the streets was to...
1. Senator Daniel of Virginia, May 22, 1890, from a speech in Congress, to be found in the Congressional Record, page 5128, quoting from the Bankers Magazine of August, 1873
2. from a circular issued by authority of the Associated Bankers of New York, Philadelphia, and Boston signed by one James Buel, secretary, sent out from 247 Broadway, New York in 1877, to the bankers in all of the States
FREE SILVER (1891 - 1912)
Fleecing of the flock is the term the money changers use for the process of booms and depressions which make it possible for them to repossess property at a fraction of its worth. In 1891 a major fleece was being planned. "On Sept 1st, 1894, we will not renew our loans under any consideration. On Sept 1st we will demand our money. We will foreclose and become mortgagees in possession. We can take two-thirds of the farms west of the Mississippi, and thousands of them east of the Mississippi as well, at our own price... Then the farmers will become tenants as in England..."
1891 American Bankers Association as printed in the Congressional Record of April 29, 1913 The continued gold standard made this possible. William Jennings Bryan was the Democratic candidate for president in 1896, campaigning to bring silver back as a money standard. (free Silver) "We will answer their demand for a gold standard by saying to them: You shall not press down upon the brow of labour this crown of thorns, you shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold."
William Jennings Bryan Of course the money changers supported his opposition on the Republican side so long as he wanted the gold standard maintained. The factory bosses were somehow convinced to tell their work force that business would close down if Bryan was elected, and everyone would lose their jobs. The Republicans won by a small margin. Bryan tried again in 1900 and in 1908 but lost both times. He became secretary of state under Wilson in 1912 but became disenchanted and resigned in 1915 under suspicious circumstances connected with the sinking of the Lusitania which drove America into the First World War.
J.P.MORGAN AND THE CRASH OF 1907
If you want to work out the cause of the crash of 1907, checking who benefited is where you might like to look first. With the stock market slump causing most of the over extended banks to falter, in steps J.P. Morgan offering to save the day. People will do strange things when in a panic, and this might explain why Morgan was authorised to print $200 million from nothing, which he then used to prop things up. Some of the troubled banks with less than 1% in reserve had no choice. It was accept this solution or go under. Even if they had worked out that their problems had been caused by the same people now offering the solution, there is not a lot they could have done about it. J.P.Morgan was hailed a hero. "All this trouble could be averted if we appointed a committee of six or seven men like J.P.Morgan to handle the affairs of our country."
Woodrow Wilson But not everyone was fooled. "Those not favourable to the money trust could be squeezed out of business and the people frightened into demanding changes in the banking and currency laws which the Money Trust would frame."
Rep. Charles A. Lindbergh (R-MN) Apart from making a small number rich at the expense of the many, in this case the instability also served the second purpose of encouraging the public to believe that they would be better off living under a Central Bank and a Gold Standard. Desperate people have little time for logic.
LINCOLN WATCHES
In Washington the statue of Lincoln sitting in his chair is facing a building called the Federal Reserve Headquarters. This institution would not be there if Lincoln's monetary policy had been adopted by the USA. It is not Federal and it has doubtful reserves. The name is an open deception designed to give this private bank the appearance that it is operating in the public's interest, when in fact it is run solely to gain private profit for its select stock holders. It came into being as the result of one of the slickest moves in financial history. On 23rd December 1913 the house of representatives had past the Federal Reserve Act, but it was still having difficulty getting it out of the senate. Most members of congress had gone home for the holidays, but unfortunately the senate had not adjourned sene die (without day) so they were technically still in session. There were only three members still present. On a unanimous consent voice vote the 1913 Federal Reserve Act was passed. No objection was made, possibly because there was no one there to object. Charles Lindbergh would have objected. "The financial system has been turned over to... the federal reserve board. That board administers the finance system by authority of... a purely profiteering group. The system is private, conducted for the sole purpose of obtaining the greatest possible profits from the use of other peoples money."
Rep Charles A, Lindbergh (R-MN) Louis T. McFadden would have objected. "We have in this country one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever known. I refer to the Federal Reserve Board... This evil institution has impoverished... the people of the United States... and has practically bankrupted our Government. It has done this through... the corrupt practice of the moneyed vultures who control it."
Rep. Louis T, McFadden (R-PA) Barry Goldwater would also have objected. "Most Americans have no real understanding of the operation of the international money lenders... The accounts of the Federal Reserve System have never been audited. It operates outside the control of Congress and... manipulates the credit of the United States."
Sen. Barry Goldwater (R-AZ) Most Americans would object if they knew. The Federal Reserve is the largest single creditor of the United States Government, and they are also the people who decide how much the average persons car payments are going to be, what their house payments are going to be, and whether they have a job or not. The three people who passed the Federal Reserve Act in 1913, knew exactly what they were doing when they set up this private bank, modelled on the Bank of England and the fact that THE BANK OF ENGLAND had been operating independently unopposed since 1694 must have given them a great deal of confidence.
WHERE THERE'S WAR THERE'S MONEY
War uses up more materials more quickly than most anything else on earth. In war expensive equipment doesn't wear out slowly, it gets blown up. (It's interesting to note that during the 119 year period from the founding of the Bank of England to Napoleon's defeat at Waterloo, England had been at war for 56 years, while the rest of the time preparing for it. In the process the money changers had been getting rich.) So there it was, the newly formed Federal Reserve poised to produce any money the U.S. Government might need from thin air with each dollar standing to make a healthy interest. Nine days after its formation the Federal Reserve founders were wishing each other a Happy New Year. What good fortune might 1914 bring?
THE HISTORY OF MONEY PART 3
WORLD WAR I (1914-1918)
The Germans borrowed money from the German Rothschilds bank, the British from the British Rothschilds bank, and the French from the French Rothschilds.
American super banker J.P. Morgan was amongst other things also a sales agent for war materials. Six months into the war his spending of $10 million a day made him the largest consumer on the planet.
The Rockefeller's and the head of president Willson's War Industries Board, Bernard Baruch each made some 200 million dollars while families contributed their sons to the bloody front lines, but profit was not the only motive for involvement.
Russia had spoiled the money changers plan to split America in two, and remained the last major country not to have its own central bank.
However, three years after the start of the war the entire Russian Royal Family was killed and Communism began.
You might find it strange to learn that the Russian Revolution was also fuelled with British money. Capitalist businessmen financing Communism?
Author Gary Allen gives his explanation:
"If one understands that socialism is not a share-the-wealth programme, but is in reality a method to consolidate and control the wealth, then the seeming paradox of super-rich men promoting socialism becomes no paradox at all. Instead, it becomes logical, even the perfect tool of power-seeking megalomaniacs.
Communism or more accurately, socialism, is not a movement of the downtrodden masses, but of the economic elite."
Gary Allen, Author
W.Cleon Skousen wrote in his book 'The Naked Capitalist'.
"Power from any source tends to create an appetite for additional power... It was almost inevitable that the super-rich would one day aspire to control not only their own wealth, but the wealth of the whole world.
To achieve this, they were perfectly willing to feed the ambitions of the power-hungry political conspirators who were committed to the overthrow of all existing governments and the establishments of a central world-wide dictatorship."
W.Cleon Skousen
Extreme revolutionary groups were controlled by being financed when they complied and cut off, with money sometimes being given to their opposition, when they didn't.
If you find this hard to believe, listen to what the so called dictator of the new Soviet Union had to say.
"The state does not function as we desired. The car does not obey. A man is at the wheel and seems to lead it, but the car does not drive in the desired direction. It moves as another force wishes."
Vladimir Lenin 1
Rep. Louis T. McFadden, chairman of the House Banking and Currency Committee throughout the 1920-30s explained it this way.
"The course of Russian history has, indeed, been greatly affected by the operations of international bankers... The Soviet Government has been given United States Treasury funds by the Federal Reserve Board... acting through the Chase Bank. ...
England has drawn money from us through the Federal Reserve Banks and has re-lent it at high rates of interest to the Soviet Government... The Dnieperstory Dam was built with funds unlawfully taken from the United States Treasury by the corrupt and dishonest Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve Banks." Rep. Louis T.McFadden (D-PA) 2
Even when Communism collapsed in the Soviet Union, Boris Yeltsin revealed that most of the foreign aid was ending up, we quote. "straight back into the coffers of western banks in debt service."
1. Wurmbrand, "Marx and Satan," p. 49
2.United States Congressional Record, June 15, 1934
WORLD DOMINATION
With Russia down the money changers now had control of every major national economy. Like a steam roller moving and a wolf gathering its pack, there was only one thing left to do and that was to go global. The first attempt was the proposal at the Paris Peace Conference after WWI to set up the League of Nations. Old habits die hard, and even what they called 'the war to end all wars' was not enough to convince nations to dissolve their boundaries. The League died.
If politicians really were being controlled, you would think at least one would break ranks and cry out against it. Many did. One was no less than former New York City Mayor John Haylan
"These international bankers and Rockefeller-Standard Oil interests control the majority of the newspapers and magazines in this country. They use the columns of these papers to club into submission or drive out of office public officials who refuse to do the bidding of the powerful corrupt cliques which compose the invisible government....
The warning of Theodore Roosevelt has much timeliness today, for the real menace of our republic is this invisible government which like a giant octopus sprawls its slimy length over City, State, and nation... It seizes in its long and powerful tentacles our executive officers, our legislative bodies, our schools, our courts, our newspapers, and every agency created for the public protection...
To depart from mere generalisations, let me say that at the head of this octopus are the Rockefeller-Standard Oil interest and a small group of powerful banking houses generally referred to as the international bankers. The little coterie of powerful international bankers virtually run the United States government for their own selfish purposes.
They practically control both parties, write political platforms, make catspaws of party leaders, use the leading men of private organisations, and resort to every device to place in nomination for high public office only such candidates as will be amenable to the dictates of corrupt big business...
These international bankers and Rockefeller-Standard Oil interests control the majority of newspapers and magazines in this country."
John Hylan, Mayor of New York 1927, 1
These warnings fell on deaf ears, drowned out by the music and excitement of the roaring 20's. People don't tend to complain much in times of prosperity, so the money changers used this boom time they had created to defuse any complaints about their growing control.
1. (Former New York City Mayor John Haylan speaking in Chicago and quoted in the March 27, 1927, New York Times)
DEPRESSION IN 1929
Stack in front of you the biographies of all the Wall Street giants, J.P. Morgan, Joe F. Kennedy, J.D Rockefeller, Bernard Baruch, and you'll find they all marvel at how they got out of the stock market and put their assets in gold just before the crash.
Non mention a secret directive, since revealed, sent by the father of the Federal Reserve, Paul Warburg, warning of the coming collapse and depression.
With control of the press and the education system, few Americans are aware that the Fed caused the depression. It is however a well known fact among leading top economists.
"The Federal Reserve definitely caused the Great depression by contracting the amount of currency in circulation by one-third from 1929 to 1933."
Milton Friedman, Nobel Prize winning economist
"It was not accidental. It was a carefully contrived occurrence... The international bankers sought to bring about a condition of despair here so that they might emerge as rulers of us all."
Rep. Louis T.McFadden (D-PA)
"I think it can hardly be disputed that the statesmen and financiers of Europe are ready to take almost any means to re-acquire rapidly the gold stock which Europe lost to America as the result of World War I."
Rep. Louis T.McFadden (D-PA)
40 billion dollars somehow vanished in the crash.
It didn't really vanish, it simply shifted into the hands of the money changers. This is how Joe Kennedy went from having 4 million dollars in 1929 to having over 100 million in 1935.
During this time the Fed caused a 33% reduction of the money supply, causing deeper depression.
HOW THE FED CREATES MONEY
We've been talking about how the privately owned Federal Reserve can produce money from thin air. Here's how it's done.
1. The purchase of bonds is approved by the Federal Open Market Committee.
2. The Fed buys the bonds which it pays for with electronic credits made to the sellers bank. These credits are based on nothing.
3. The receiving banks then use these credits as reserves from which they can loan out ten times the amount.
To reduce the amount of money in the economy they simply reverse the process.
The Fed sells bonds to the public and money is drawn from the purchasers bank to pay for them.
Each million withdrawn lowers the banks ability to loan by 10 million.
The Federal bank in this way has overall control of the US money supply, as each country's central bank does in the same way. The bankers, through the magic of fractional reserve banking have been delegated the right to create 90% of the money supply. This control makes a mockery of any elected government. It places so called leaders behind a toy steering wheel, like the plastic ones, set up to amuse small children.
Or as Rep.Charles Lindbergh father of famous aviator Lucky Lindy puts it when commenting on the Federal Reserve Act:
"This act establishes the most gigantic trust on earth. When the President signs this bill, the invisible government by the Monetary Power will be legalised.
The people may not know it immediately, but the day of reckoning is only a few years removed... The worst legislative crime of the ages is perpetrated by this banking bill."
Rep. Charles Lindbergh (R-MN)
Or as Woodrow Wilson put it:
"We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled governments in the civilised world - no longer a government of free opinion, no longer a government by... a vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men.
Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organised, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it."
Woodrow Wilson
In order to clearly establish that this is not a conspiracy theory, but is actually how things are controlled, we further quote Charles Lindbergh. From the house of representatives, Lindbergh was well placed to see exactly what was happening back then and continues to happen today.
"To cause high prices all the federal reserve board will do will be to lower the re-discount rate..., producing an expansion of credit and a rising stock market; then when... business men are adjusted to these conditions, it can check... prosperity in mid-career by arbitrarily raising the rate of interest.
It can cause the pendulum of a rising and falling market to swing gently back and forth by slight changes in the discount rate, or cause violent fluctuations by greater rate variation, and in either case it will possess inside information as to financial conditions and advance knowledge of the coming change, either up or down.
This is the strangest, most dangerous advantage ever placed in the hands of a special privilege class by any Government that ever existed.
The system is private, conducted for the sole purpose of obtaining the greatest possible profits from the use of other people's money.
They know in advance when to create panics to their advantage. They also know when to stop panic. Inflation and deflation work equally well for them when they control finance..."
Rep. Charles Lindbergh (R-MN)
ADOLF'S BANKERS
Most all will be aware of Hitler's rise to power. What they probably don't know is that he was almost completely financed by money drawn from the privately owned American Federal Reserve.
"After WWI, Germany fell into the hands of the international bankers. Those bankers bought her and they now own her, lock, stock, and barrel. They have purchased her industries, they have mortgages on her soil, they control her production, they control all her public utilities.
The international German bankers have subsidised the present Government of Germany and they have also supplied every dollar of the money Adolph Hitler has used in his lavish campaign to build up threat to the government of Bruening.
When Bruening fails to obey the orders of the German International Bankers, Hitler is brought forth to scare the Germans into submission...
Through the Federal Reserve Board over $30 billion of American money has been pumped into Germany. You have all heard of the spending that has taken place in Germany...
Modernistic dwellings, her great planetariums, her gymnasiums, her swimming pools, her fine public highways, her perfect factories. All this was done on our money. All this was given to Germany through the Federal Reserve Board. The Federal Reserve Board has pumped so many billions of dollars into Germany that they dare not name the total."
Congressman Louis T.McFadden (D-PA) who served twelve years as Chairman of the Committee on Banking and Currency.
FORT KNOX
In 1933 new President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed a bill forcing all the American people, to hand over all their gold at base rate. With the exception of rare coins. He disowned himself from the bill claiming to not have read it and his secretary of the treasury claimed this was "what the experts wanted".
Bought at bargain basement price with money produced from nothing by the Federal Reserve, the gold was melted down and stacked in the newly built bullion depository called Fort Knox. Once collected in 1935 the price of gold was raised from $20.66 up to $35 per ounce, but only non American gold qualified to be sold. This meant those who had avoided the crash by investing in gold they had shipped to London could now nearly double their money while the rest of America starved.
But that's not all folks. By the end of WWII Fort Knox did hold 70% of the world's gold, but over the years it was sold off to the European money changers while a public audit of Fort Knox reserves was repeatedly denied.
Rumours spread about missing gold.
"Allegations of missing gold from our Fort Knox vaults are being widely discussed in European circles. But what is puzzling is that the Administration is not hastening to demonstrate conclusively that there is no cause for concern over our gold treasure - if indeed it is in a position to do so."
Edith Roosevelt
Finally in 1981 President Ronald Reagan was convinced to have a look into Fort Knox with a view to re-introducing the Gold Standard. He appointed a group called The Gold Commission. They found that the US Treasury owned no gold at all.
All the Fort Knox gold remaining is now being held as collateral by the Federal Reserve against the national debt. Using credits made from nothing. The Fed had robbed the largest treasure of gold on earth.
WORLD WAR II (1939-1945)
World War II saw the US debt increased by 598%, while Japan's debt went up by 1,348%, with France up by 583% and Canada up by 417%.
When you hear this, what is your first impression? Do you automatically think this is bad or this is good? Most of us feel a well programmed sense of desperation when we hear figures like this, but remember, to the money changers, this is music to their ears.
With the hot war over, the cold war began, the arms race causing more and more borrowing. Now the money changers could really concentrate on global domination.
Step one, the European Monetary Union and NAFTA.
Step two, centralise the global economy via the World Bank, the IMF and GATT (now the WTO).
THE WORLD CENTRAL BANK (1948 - Present)
In Washington, the headquarters of both the World Bank and the IMF (International Monetary Fund) face each other on the same street. What are these organisations, and who controls them?
To find out we need to look back to just after WWI. At this point the money changers were attempting to consolidate the central banks under the guise of peacemaking. To stop future wars they put forward the formation of a world central bank named the Bank of International Settlements, a world court called the World Court in the Hague, and a world executive for legislation called the League of Nations.
In his 1966 book entitled Tragedy and Hope, president Clinton's mentor Carroll Quigley writes about this.
"The powers of financial capitalism had [a] far-reaching [plan], nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole.
This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences.
The apex of the system was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations.
Each central bank... Sought to dominate its government by its ability to control treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."
Carroll Quigley, Professor, Georgetown University
They got 2 out of 3. The league of nations failed largely owing to the suspicions of the people and while opposition concentrated on this, the other two proposals snuck their way through.
It would take another war to wear the public resistance down. Wall street invested heavily to rebuild Germany, as the Chase bank had propped up the Russian revolution.
Now the Chase merged with the Warburg's Manhattan Bank to form the Chase Manhattan which would later merge with the Chemical Bank to become the largest bank on Wall Street.
In 1944 the US approved its full participation in the IMF and the World Bank. By 1945 the second League of Nations was approved under the new name 'The United Nations'. The war had dissolved all opposition. The methods used in the National Banking Act of 1864 and the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 were now simply used on a Global scale.
The Federal Reserve Act allowing the creation of Federal Reserve notes is mirrored by the IMF's authority to produce money called Special Drawing Rights (SDR's). It is estimated the IMF has produced $30 billion dollars worth of SDR's so far. In the United States SDR's are already accepted as legal money, and all other member nations are being pressured to follow suit. With SDR's being partially backed by gold, a world gold standard is sneaking its way in through the back door, which comes with no objection from the money changers who now hold two-thirds of the worlds gold and can use this to structure the worlds economy to their further advantage.
We have gone from the goldsmith's fraud being reproduced on a national scale through the Bank of England and the Federal Reserve, to a Global level with the IMF and the World Bank. Unless we together stop giving these exchange units their power by our collective faith in them, the future will probably see the Intergalactic Bank and the Federation of Planets Reserve set up in much the same way.
This radical transfer of power has taken place with absolutely no mandate from the people.
Nations borrow Special Drawing Right from the International Monetary Fund in order to pay interest on their mounting debts. With these SDR's produced at no cost, the IMF charges more interest. This contrary to bold claims does not alleviate poverty or further any development. It just creates a steady flow of wealth from borrowing nations to the money changers who now control the IMF and the World Bank.
The permanent debt of Third World Countries is constantly being increased to provide temporary relief from the poverty being caused by previous borrowing.
These repayments already exceed the amount of new loans. By 1992 Africa's debt had reached $290 billion dollars, which is two and a half times greater than it was in 1980. A noble attempt to repay it has caused increased infant mortality and unemployment, plus deteriorating schools, and general health and welfare problems.
As world resources continue to be sucked into this insatiable black hole of greed, if allowed to continue the entire world will face a simular fate.
As one prominent Brazilian politician, Luis Ignacio Silva,ðput it.
"Without being radical or overly bold, I will tell you that the Third World War has already started - a silent war, not for that reason any the less sinister. This war is tearing down Brazil, Latin America and practically all the Third World. Instead of soldiers dying there are children, instead of millions of wounded there are millions of unemployed; instead of destruction of bridges there is the tearing down of factories, schools, hospitals, and entire economies . . . It is a war by the United States against the Latin American continent and the Third World. It is a war over the foreign debt, one which has as its main weapon interest, a weapon more deadly than the atom bomb, more shattering than a laser beam . ."1
If a group or organisation had used its hard earned money to help these developing nations, then we might sympathise that there should be a real effort to repay these loans. But the money used was created from fractional reserve banking. The money loaned to the Third World came from the 90% the banks allow themselves to loan on the 10% they actually held. It didn't exist, it was created from nothing, and now people are suffering and dying in an effort to pay it back.
This has gone beyond clever financing, it's whole sale murder and it's time we stopped it. We can!
If you haven't already, read XAT3 to see how.
1. Luis Ignacio Silva, at the Havana Debt Conference in August 1985, quoted by Susan George, A Fate Worse Than Death p 238
1790: Mayer Amschel Rothschild states “Let me issue and control a nation’s money and I care not who writes the laws.”
1791: The Rothschilds get, “control of a nation’s money,” through Alexander Hamilton (their agent in George Washington’s cabinet) when they set up a central bank in the USA called the First Bank of the United States. This is established with a 20 year charter.
1811: The charter for the Rothschilds Bank of the United States runs out and Congress voted against the renewal. Nathan Mayer Rothschild is not amused and he states, “Either the application for renewal of the charter is granted, or the United States will find itself involved in a most disastrous war.” However the United States stands firm and the Charter is not renewed which causes Nathan Mayer Rothschild to issue another threat, “Teach those impudent American’s a lesson. Bring them back to colonial status.”
1812: Backed by Rothschild money, and Nathan Mayer Rothschild’s orders, the British declare war on the United States. The Rothschild’s plan was to build up such a debt in fighting this war that they would have to surrender to the Rothschilds and allow the charter for the Rothschild owned First Bank of the United States to be renewed.
1816: The American Congress passes a bill permitting yet another Rothschild dominated central bank, which gives the Rothschilds control of the American money supply again. This is called the second bank of the United States and is given a twenty year charter. The British War against America therefore ends with the deaths of thousands of British and American soldiers, but the Rothschilds get their bank.
1832: President Andrew Jackson (the 7th President of the United States from 1829 to 1837), runs the campaign for his second term in office under the slogan “Jackson And No Bank!” This is in reference to his plan to take control of the American money system to benefit the American people, not for the profiteering of the Rothschilds.
1833: President Andrew Jackson starts removing the government’s deposits from the Rothschild controlled, Second Bank of the United States and instead deposits them into banks directed by democratic bankers. This causes the Rothschilds to panic and so they do what they do best, contract the money supply causing a depression. President Jackson knows what they are up to and later states, “You are a den of thieves and vipers, and I intend to rout you out, and by the Eternal God, I will rout you out.”
1835: On January 30, an assassin tries to shoot President Jackson, but miraculously both of the assassin’s pistols misfired. President Jackson would later claim that he knew the Rothschilds were responsible for the attempted assassination.
1836: Following his years of fighting against the Rothschilds and their central bank in America, President Andrew Jackson finally succeeds in throwing the Rothschilds central bank out of America, when the bank’s charter is not renewed,
1841: President John Tyler (the 10th President of the United States From 1841 to 1845) vetoed the act to renew the charter for the Bank of the United States. He goes on to receive hundreds of letters threatening him with assassination.
1861: President Abraham Lincoln (16th President of the United States from 1860 till his assassination in 1865) approaches the big banks in New York to try to obtain loans to support the ongoing American Civil War. As these large banks were heavily under the influence of the Rothschilds, they offer him a deal they know he cannot accept, 24% to 36% interest on all monies loaned. Lincoln is very angry about the high level of interest so he prints his own debt free money and informs the public that this is now legal tender for both public and private debts.
1862: By April $449,338,902 worth of Lincoln’s debt free money (Greenbacks) has been printed and distributed. He states of this, “We gave the people of the republic the greatest blessing they ever had, their own paper money to pay their own debts.”
1863: President Abraham Lincoln discovers the Tsar of Russia, Alexander II (1855-1881), was having problems with the Rothschilds as well as he was refusing their continual attempts to set up a central bank in Russia. The Tsar then gives President Lincoln some unexpected help. The Tsar issued orders that if either England or France actively intervened in the American Civil War, and help the South, Russia would consider such action a declaration of war, and take the side of President Lincoln. To show that he wasn’t messing about, he sent part of his Pacific Fleet to a port in San Francisco and another part to New York.
1865: In a statement to Congress, President Abraham Lincoln states, “I have two enemies, the Southern Army in front of me, and the financial institutions in the rear. Of the two, the one in my rear is my greatest foe.” Later that year, on April 14, President Lincoln is assassinated, less than two months before the end of the American Civil War.
1881: President James A. Garfield (The 20th President of the United States who lasted only 100 days) states two weeks before he is assassinated, “Whoever controls the volume of money in our country is absolute master of all industry and commerce…when you realize that the entire system is very easily controlled, one way or another, by a few powerful men at the top, you will not have to be told how periods of inflation and depression originate.”
1913: The last and current central bank in America, the Federal Reserve, is set up during the presidency of Woodrow Wilson.
1917: The Rothschilds order the execution by the Bolsheviks they control, of Tsar Nicholas II and his entire family in Russia, even though the Tsar had already abdicated on March 2. This is both to get control of the country and an act of revenge for Tsar Alexander I blocking their world government plan in 1815 at the Congress of Vienna, and Tsar Alexander II siding with President Abraham Lincoln in 1864.
1963: On June 4th (the 35th President of the United States 1961-1963) signs Executive Order 11110 which returned to the U.S. government the power to issue currency, without going through the Federal Reserve.
That is the real history that needs to be taught. I have also passed on those points in U.S. banking history but, few believe it could be possible that a few men can have so much power. Think about this.
quote:
A master at building impenetrable walls around his family assets the current value of the Rothschild holdings are estimated to be between $100 and $300 trillion, yes that is trillion dollars! Now for a point of reference the current United States National Debt is $9.4 trillion.
http://www.prlog.org/10058722-morgan-chase-buyout-of-bear-stearns-trillionaires-delight.html
————————————-
The wealth of the very top families in the world dwarfs the wealth of the entire U.S. excluding those who are part of those few international families. Yes, I said international families.
They not only have homes and family and representatives in many nations, they have no loyalty to any nation. Their only loyalty is to the goals they have set in place. The majority of those goals were set in place by men who have long passed from this earth but, who also left in place the wealth and power and family to continue their plans to achieve a “new world order,” that they control.
It is they who created the League of Nations which later was let die to be replaced by their U.N. They created the IMF, World Bank, WTO, CFR, Bilderbergs, Bohemian Grove, Trilateral Commission, NATO, and got NAFTA, CAFTA and other things passed. The same people also provide the advisers and cabinet that both parties need for their administrations.
And as so often pointed out, created the “Federal Reserve Act,” on Jekyll Island that Pres. Wilson signed into law in 1913 the same year we ratified the 16th and 17th amendments that destroyed the power of the states to “check” the power of the Federal Government these elite would operate through.
I would appreciate any responses, either pro or con. I am gravely concerned for the health and long-term prospects of our beloved Republic.
http://investment-blog.net/secrets-of-american-history-timeline-of-assassinations-presidents-in-opposition-of-central-banks-and-the-rothschilds/
THE HISTORY OF MONEY PART 1
Let's Go FORWARD
Tell someone you are going to a convention of accountants and you might get a few yawns, yet money and how it works is probably one of the most interesting things on earth.
It is fascinating and almost magical how money appeared on our planet. Unlike most developments we enjoy, which can be traced back to a source, civilisation or inventor, money appeared in places then unconnected all over the world in a remarkably simular way.
Consider the American Indians using Wampum, West Africans trading in decorative metallic objects called Manillas and the Fijians economy based on whales teeth, some of which are still legal tender; add to that shells, amber, ivory, decorative feathers, cattle including oxen & pigs, a large number of stones including jade and quartz which have all been used for trade across the world, and we get a taste of the variety of accepted currency.
There is something charming and childlike imagining primitive societies, our ancestors, using all these colourful forms of money. As long as everyone concerned can agree on a value, this is a sensible thing for a community to do.
After all, the person who has what you need might not need what you have to trade. Money solves that problem neatly. Real value with each exchange, and everyone gaining from the convenience. The idea is really inspired which might explain why so many diverse minds came up with it.
BUT ALL IS NOT WELL
"History records that the money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling money and its issuance."
President James Madison
Money, money, money, it's always just been there, right? Wrong.
Obviously it's issued by the government to make it easy for us to exchange things. Wrong again!
Truth is most people don't realise that the issuing of money is essentially a private business, and that the privilege of issuing money has been a major bone of contention throughout history.
Wars have been fought and depressions have been caused in the battle over who issues the money; however the majority of us are not aware of this, and this is largely due to the fact that the winning side became and increasingly continues to be a vital and respected member of our global society, having an influence over large aspects of our lives including our education, our media and our governments.
While we might feel powerless in trying to stop the manipulation of money for private profit at our expense, it is easy to forget that we collectively give money its value. We have been taught to believe printed pieces of paper have special value, and because we know others believe this too, we are willing to work all our lives to get what we are convinced others will want.
An honest look at history will show us how our innocent trust has been misused.
Let's start our exploration of money with:
JESUS FLIPS (many coins) 33 A.D.
Jesus was so upset by the sight of the money changers in the temple, he waded in and started to tip over the tables and drive them out with a whip, this being the one and only time we ever hear of him using force during his entire ministry.
So what caused the ultimate pacifist to become so aggressive?
For a long time the Jews had been called upon to pay their temple tax with a special coin called the half shekel. It was a measured half ounce of pure silver with no image of a pagan emperor on it.
It was to them the only coin acceptable to God.
But because there was only a limited number of these coins in circulation, the money changers were in a buyers market and like with anything else in short supply, they were able to raise the price to what the market would bear.
They made huge profits with their monopoly on these coins and turned this time of devotion into a mockery for profit. Jesus saw this as stealing from the people and proclaimed the whole setup to be. "A den of thieves". 1
Once money is accepted as a form of exchange, those who produce, loan out and manipulate the quantity of money are obviously in a very strong position. They are the "Money Changers".
1. King James NT, Mt 21:13, Mr 11:17, Lu 19:46
MEDIEVAL ENGLAND (1000 - 1100 A.D.)
Here we find goldsmith's offering to keep other people's gold and silver safe in their vaults, and in return people walking away with a receipt for what they have left there.
These paper receipts soon became popular for trade as they were less heavy to carry around than gold and silver coins.
After a while, the goldsmith's must have noticed that only a small percentage of their depositor's ever came in to demand their gold at any one time. So cleverly the goldsmith's made out some receipts for gold which didn't even exist, and then they loaned it out to earn interest.
A nod and a wink amongst themselves, they incorporated this practice into the banking system. They even gave it a name to make it seem more acceptable, christening the practice 'Fractional Reserve Banking' which translates to mean, lending out many times more money than you have assets on deposit.
Today banks are allowed to loan out at least ten times the amount they actually are holding, so while you wonder how they get rich charging you 11% interest, it's not 11% a year they make on that amount but actually 110%.
THE TALLY STICKS (1100 - 1854)
King Henry the First produced sticks of polished wood, with notches cut along one edge to signify the denominations. The stick was then split full length so each piece still had a record of the notches.
The King kept one half for proof against counterfeiting, and then spent the other half into the market place where it would continue to circulate as money.
Because only Tally Sticks were accepted by Henry for payment of taxes, there was a built in demand for them, which gave people confidence to accept these as money.
He could have used anything really, so long as the people agreed it had value, and his willingness to accept these sticks as legal tender made it easy for the people to agree. Money is only as valuable as peoples faith in it, and without that faith even today's money is just paper.
The tally stick system worked really well for 726 years. It was the most successful form of currency in recent history and the British Empire was actually built under the Tally Stick system, but how is it that most of us are not aware of its existence?
Perhaps the fact that in 1694 the Bank of England at its formation attacked the Tally Stick System gives us a clue as to why most of us have never heard of them. They realised it was money outside the power of the money changers, (the very thing King Henry had intended).
What better way to eliminate the vital faith people had in this rival currency than to pretend it simply never existed and not discuss it. That seems to be what happened when the first shareholder's in the Bank of England bought their original shares with notched pieces of wood and retired the system. You heard correctly, they bought shares. The Bank of England was set up as a privately owned bank through investors buying shares. Even the Banks resent nationalisation is not what it at first may appear, as its independent resources unceasingly multiply and dividends continue to be produced for its shareholder's.
These investors, who's names were kept secret, were meant to invest one and a quarter million pounds, but only three quarters of a million was received when it was chartered in 1694.
It then began to lend out many times more than it had in reserve, collecting interest on the lot.
This is not something you could just impose on people without preparation. The money changers needed to created the climate to make the formation of this private concern seem acceptable.
Here's how they did it.
With King Henry VIII relaxing the Usury Laws in the 1500's, the money changers flooded the market with their gold and silver coins becoming richer by the minute.
The English Revolution of 1642 was financed by the money changers backing Oliver Cromwell's successful attempt to purge the parliament and kill King Charles. What followed was 50 years of costly wars. Costly to those fighting them and profitable to those financing them.
So profitable that it allowed the money changers to take over a square mile of property still known as the City of London, which remains one of the three main financial centres in the world today.
The 50 years of war left England in financial ruin. The government officials went begging for loans from guess who, and the deal proposed resulted in a government sanctioned, privately owned bank which could produce money from nothing, essentially legally counterfeiting a national currency for private gain.
Now the politicians had a source from which to borrow all the money they wanted to borrow, and the debt created was secured against public taxes.
You would think someone would have seen through this, and realised they could produce their own money and owe no interest, but instead the Bank of England has been used as a model and now nearly every nation has a Central Bank with fractional reserve banking at its core.
These central banks have the power to take over a nations economy and become that nations real governing force. What we have here is a scam of mammoth proportions covering what is actually a hidden tax, being collected by private concerns.
The country sells bonds to the bank in return for money it cannot raise in taxes. The bonds are paid for by money produced from thin air. The government pays interest on the money it borrowed by borrowing more money in the same way. There is no way this debt can ever be paid, it has and will continue to increase.
If the government did find a way to pay off the debt, the result would be that there would be no bonds to back the currency, so to pay the debt would be to kill the currency.
With its formation the Bank of England soon flooded Britain with money. With no quality control and no insistence on value for money, prices doubled with money being thrown in every direction.
One company was even offering to drain the Red Sea to find Egyptian gold lost when the sea closed in on their pursuit of Moses.
By1698 the national debt expanded from £1,250,000 to £16,000,000 and up went the taxes the debt was secured on.
As hard as it might be to believe, in times of economic upheaval, wealth is rarely destroyed and instead is often only transferred. And who benefits the most when money is scarce? You may have guessed. It's those controlling what everyone else wants, the money changer's.
When the majority of people are suffering through economic depression, you can be sure that a minority of people are continuing to get rich.
Even today the Bank of England expresses its determination to prevent the ups and downs of booms and depressions, yet there have been nothing but ups and downs since its formation with the British pound rarely being stable.
One thing however has been stable and that is the growing fortune of:
THE ROTHSCHILDS (1743)
A goldsmith named Amshall Moses Bower opened a counting house in Frankfurt Germany in 1743. He placed a Roman eagle on a red shield over the door prompting people to call his shop the Red Shield Firm pronounced in German as "Rothschild".
His son later changed his name to Rothschild when he inherited the business. Loaning money to individuals was all well and good but he soon found it much more profitable loaning money to governments and Kings. It always involved much bigger amounts, always secured from public taxes.
Once he got the hang of things he set his sights on the world by training his five sons in the art of money creation, before sending them out to the major financial centres of the world to create and dominate the central banking systems.
J.P. Morgan was thought by many to be the richest man in the world during the second world war, but upon his death it was discovered he was merely a lieutenant within the Rothschild empire owning only 19% of the J.P. Morgan Companies.
"There is but one power in Europe and that is Rothschild."
19th century French commentator 1
We will explore a little more about the richest family a little later, after we've had a look at:
1. Niall Ferguson, THE HOUSE OF ROTHSCHILD, Money's Prophets, 1798-1848
THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION (1764 - 1781)
By the mid 1700's Britain was at its height of power, but was also heavily in debt.
Since the creation of the Bank of England, they had suffered four costly wars and the total debt now stood at £140,000,000, (which in those days was a lot of money).
In order to make their interest payments to the bank, the British government set about a programme to try to raise revenues from their American colonies, largely through an extensive programme of taxation.
There was a shortage of material for minting coins in the colonies, so they began to print their own paper money, which they called Colonial Script. This provided a very successful means of exchange and also gave the colonies a sense of identity. Colonial Script was money provided to help the exchange of goods. It was debt free paper money not backed by gold or silver.
During a visit to Britain in 1763, The Bank of England asked Benjamin Franklin how he would account for the new found 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."
Benjamin Franklin 1
America had learned that the people's confidence in the currency was all they needed, and they could be free of borrowing debts. That would mean being free of the Bank of England.
In Response the world's most powerful independent bank used its influence on the British parliament to press for the passing of the Currency Act of 1764.
This act made it illegal for the colonies to print their own money, and forced them to pay all future taxes to Britain in silver or gold.
Here is what Franklin said after that.
"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
"The colonies would gladly have borne the little tax on tea and other matters had it not been that England took away from the colonies their money, which created unemployment and dissatisfaction. The inability of the colonists to get power to issue their own money permanently out of the hands of George III and the international bankers was the PRIME reason for the Revolutionary War."
Benjamin Franklin's autobiography
By the time the war began on 19th April 1775 much of the gold and silver had been taken by British taxation. They were left with no other choice but to print money to finance the war.
What is interesting here is that Colonial Script was actually working so well, it became a threat to the established economic system of the time.
The idea of issuing money as Franklin put it "in proper proportion to the demands of trade and industry" and not charging any interest, was not causing any problems or inflation. This unfortunately was alien to the Bank of England which only issued money for the sake of making a profit for its shareholder's.
1. Congressman Charles G. Binderup of Nebraska, Unrobing the Ghosts of Wall Street
THE BANK OF NORTH AMERICA (1781-1785)
If you can't beat them, join them, might well have been his argument when arms dealer, Robert Morris suggested he be allowed to set up a Bank of England style central bank in the USA in 1781.
Desperate for money, the $400,000 he proposed to deposit, to allow him to loan out many times that through fractional reserve banking, must have looked really attractive to the impoverished American Government.
Already spending the money they would be loaned, no one made a fuss when Robert Morris couldn't raise the deposit, and instead suggested he might use some gold, which had been loaned to America from France.
Once in, he simply used fractional reserve banking, and with the banks growing fortune he loaned to himself, and his friends the money to buy up all the remaining shares. The bank then began to loan out money multiplied by this new amount to eager politicians, who were probably too drunk with the new 'power cash' to notice or care how it was done.
The scam lasted five years until in 1785, with the value of American money dropping like a lead balloon. The banks charter didn't get renewed.
The shareholder's walking off with the interest did not go unnoticed by the governor.
"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 1
1. THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION OF 1787, 7/2
FIRST BANK OF THE UNITED STATES (1791-1811)
It worked once, it will work again. It's been six years. There are a lot of new hungry politicians. Let's give it a try. And so there it was, in 1791, the First Bank of the United States (BUS). Not only deceptively named to sound official, but also to take attention away from the real first bank which had been shut down.
Its initials however gave a clear indication that Americans were once again being taken for a ride. And true to its British model, the name of the investors was never revealed.
Having gotten away with it a second time, some of them probably wished Amshall Rothschild had picked a different time to make his pronouncement from his private central bank in Frankfurt.
"Let me issue and control a nation's money and I care not who writes the laws."
Mayer Amschel Rothschild, 1790
Not to worry, no one was listening, the American government borrowed 8.2 million dollars from the bank in the first 5 years and prices rose by 72%. This time round the money changer's had learned their lesson, they had guaranteed a twenty year charter.
The president, who could see an ever increasing debt, with no chance of ever paying back, had this to say.
"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
While the independent press, who had not been bought off yet, called the scam "a great swindle, a vulture, a viper, and a cobra."
As with the real first bank, the government had been the only depositor to put up any real money, with the remainder being raised from loans the investors made to each other, using the magic of fractional reserve banking. When time came for renewal of the charter, the bankers were warning of bad times ahead if they didn't get what they wanted. The charter was not renewed.
Five month later Britain had attacked America and started the war of 1812.
Meanwhile a short time earlier, an independent Rothschild business, the Bank of France, was being looked upon with suspicion by none other than:
NAPOLEON (1803 - 1825)
He didn't trust the bank saying:
"When a government is dependent upon bankers for money, they and not the leaders of the government control the situation, since the hand that gives is above the hand that takes... Money has no motherland; financiers are without patriotism and without decency; their sole object is gain."
Napoleon Bonaparte, 1815
For both sides of a war to be loaned money from the same privately owned Central Bank is not unusual. Nothing generates debt like war. A Nation will borrow any amount to win. So naturally if the loser is kept going to the last straw in a vain hope of winning, then the more resources will be used up by the winning side before their victory is obtained more resources used, more loans taken out, more money made by the bankers; and even more amazing, the loans are usually given on condition that the victor pays the debts left by the loser.
In 1803, instead of borrowing from the bank, Napoleon sold territory west of the Mississippi to the 3rd President of the United States, Thomas Jefferson for 3 million dollars in gold; a deal known as the Louisiana Purchase.
Three million dollars richer, Napoleon quickly gathered together an army and set about conquering much of Europe.
Each place he went to, Napoleon found his opposition being financed by the Bank of England, making huge profits as Prussia, Austria and finally Russia all went heavily into debt trying to stop him.
Four years later, with the main French army in Russia, Nathan Rothschild took charge of a bold plan to smuggle a shipment of gold through France to finance an attack from Spain by the Duke of Wellington.
Wellington's attack from the south and other defeats eventually forced Napoleon into exile. However in 1815 he escaped from his banishment in Elba, an Island off the coast of Italy, and returned to Paris.
By March of that year Napoleon had equipped an army with the help of borrowed money from the Eubard Banking House of Paris.
With 74,000 French troops led by Napoleon, sizing up to meet 67,000 British and other European Troops 200 miles NE of Paris on June 18th 1815, it was a difficult one to call. Back in London, the real potential winner, Nathan Rothschild, was poised to strike in a bold plan to take control of the British stock market, the bond market, and possibly even the Bank of England.
Nathan, knowing that information is power, stationed his trusted agent named Rothworth near the battle field.
As soon as the battle was over Rothworth quickly returned to London, delivering the news to Rothschild 24 hours ahead of Wellington's courier.
A victory by Napoleon would have devastated Britain's financial system. Nathan stationed himself in his usual place next to an ancient pillar in the stock market.
This powerful man was not without observers as he hung his head, and began openly to sell huge numbers of British Government Bonds.
Reading this to mean that Napoleon must have won, everyone started to sell their British Bonds as well.
The bottom fell out of the market until you couldn't hardly give them away. Meanwhile Rothschild began to secretly buy up all the hugely devalued bonds at a fraction of what they were worth a few hours before.
In this way Nathan Rothschild captured more in one afternoon than the combined forces of Napoleon and Wellington had captured in their entire lifetime.
THE HISTORY OF MONEY PART 2
The 19th century became known as the age of the Rothschild's when it was estimated they controlled half of the world's wealth. While their wealth continues to increase today, they have managed to blend into the background, giving an impression that their power has waned. They only apply the Rothschild name to a small fraction of the companies they actually control. Some authors claim that the Rothschild's had not only taken over the Bank of England but they had also in 1816 backed a new privately owned Central Bank in America called The Second Bank of The United States, causing huge problems to the American president.
ANDREW JACKSON (1828 - 1836)
When the American congress voted to renew the charter of The Second Bank of The United States, Jackson responded by using his veto to prevent the renewal bill from passing. His response gives us an interesting insight. "It is not our own citizens only who are to receive the bounty of our government. More than eight millions 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 moneys, and holding thousands of our citizens in dependence... would be more formidable and dangerous than a military power of the enemy. If government would confine itself to equal protection, and, as Heaven does its rains, shower its favour alike on the high and the low, the rich and the poor, it would be an unqualified blessing. In the act before me there seems to be a wide and unnecessary departure from these just principles."
Andrew Jackson 1 In 1832 Jackson ordered the withdrawal of government deposits from the Second bank and instead had them put into safe banks. The Second Banks head, Nicholas Biddle was quite candid about the power and intention of the bank when he openly threatened to cause a depression if the bank was not re-chartered, we quote. "Nothing but widespread suffering will produce any effect on Congress... Our only safety is in pursuing a steady course of firm restriction - and I have no doubt that such a course will ultimately lead to restoration of the currency and the re-charter of the bank."
Nicholas Biddle 1836 By calling in existing loans and refusing to issue new loans he did cause a massive depression, but in 1836 when the charter ran out, the Second Bank ceased to function. It was then he made these two famous statements: "The Bank is trying to kill me - but I will kill it!" and later "If the American people only understood the rank injustice of our money and banking system - there would be a revolution before morning..."
Andrew Jackson When asked what he felt was the greatest achievement of his career Andrew Jackson replied without hesitation "I killed the bank!" However we will see this was not the end of private financial influence passing itself off as official when we look at...
1. Andrew Jackson, Veto of the Bank Bill, to the Senate, (1832)
ABRAHAM LINCOLN AND THE CIVIL WAR (1861 - 1865)
With the Central Bank killed off, fractional reserve banking moved like a virus through numerous state chartered banks instead causing the instability this form of economics thrives on. When people lose their homes someone else wins them for a fraction of their worth. Depression is good news to the lender; but war causes even more debt and dependency than anything else, so if the money changers couldn't have their Central Bank with a license to print money, a war it would have to be. We can see from this quote of the then chancellor of Germany that slavery was not the only cause for the American Civil War. "The division of the United States into federations of equal force was decided long before the Civil War by the high financial powers of Europe. These bankers were afraid that the US, if they remained as one block, and as one nation, would attain economic and financial independence, which would upset their financial domination over the world."
Otto von Bismark chancellor of Germany 1876 On the 12th of April 1861 this economic war began. Predictably Lincoln, needing money to finance his war effort, went with his secretary of the treasury to New York to apply for the necessary loans. The money changers wishing the Union to fail offered loans at 24% to 36%. Lincoln declined the offer. An old friend of Lincoln's, Colonel Dick Taylor of Chicago was put in charge of solving the problem of how to finance the war. His solution is recorded as this. "Just get Congress to pass a bill authorising the printing of full legal tender treasury notes... and pay your soldiers with them and go ahead and win your war with them also."
Colonel Dick Taylor When Lincoln asked if the people of America would accept the notes Taylor said. "The people or anyone else will not have any choice in the matter, if you make them full legal tender. They will have the full sanction of the government and be just as good as any money; as Congress is given that express right by the Constitution."
Colonel Dick Taylor 1 Lincoln agreed to try this solution and printed 450 million dollars worth of the new bills using green ink on the back to distinguish them from other notes. "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, discounts and exchanges. The financing of all public enterprises, the maintenance of stable government and ordered progress, and the conduct of the Treasury will become matters of practical administration. The people can and will be furnished with a currency as safe as their own government. Money will cease to be the master and become the servant of humanity. Democracy will rise superior to the money power."
Abraham Lincoln 2 From this we see that the solution worked so well Lincoln was seriously considering adopting this emergency measure as a permanent policy. This would have been great for everyone except the money changers who quickly realised how dangerous this policy would be for them. They wasted no time in expressing their view in the London Times. Oddly enough, while the article seems to have been designed to discourage this creative financial policy, in its put down we're clearly able to see the policies goodness. "If this mischievous financial policy, which has its origin in North America, shall become endurated 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."
Hazard Circular - London Times 1865 From this extract its plan to see that it is the advantage provided by the adopting of this policy which poses a threat to those not using it. 1863, nearly there, Lincoln needed just a bit more money to win the war, and seeing him in this vulnerable state, and knowing that the president could not get the congressional authority to issue more greenbacks, the money changers proposed the passing of the National Bank Act. The act went through. From this point on the entire US money supply would be created out of debt by bankers buying US government bonds and issuing them from reserves for bank notes. The greenbacks continued to be in circulation until 1994, their numbers were not increased but in fact decreased. "In numerous years following the war, the Federal Government ran a heavy surplus. It could not (however) pay off its debt, retire its securities, because to do so meant there would be no bonds to back the national bank notes. To pay off the debt was to destroy the money supply."
John Kenneth Galbrath The American economy has been based on government debt since 1864 and it is locked into this system. Talk of paying off the debt without first reforming the banking system is just talk and a complete impossibility. That same year Lincoln had a pleasant surprise. Turns out the Tsar of Russia, Alexander II, was well aware of the money changers scam. The Tsar was refusing to allow them to set up a central bank in Russia. If Lincoln could limit the power of the money changers and win the war, the bankers would not be able to split America and hand it back to Britain and France as planned. The Tsar knew that this handing back would come at a cost which would eventually need to be paid back by attacking Russia, it being clearly in the money changers sights. The Tsar declared that if France or Britain gave help to the South, Russia would consider this an act of war. Britain and France would instead wait in vain to have the wealth of the colonies returned to them, and while they waited Lincoln won the civil war. With an election coming up the next year, Lincoln himself would wait for renewed public support before reversing the National Bank Act he had been pressured into approving during the war. Lincoln's opposition to the central banks financial control and a proposed return to the gold standard is well documented. He would certainly have killed off the national banks monopoly had he not been killed himself only 41 days after being re-elected. The money changers were pressing for a gold standard because gold was scarce and easier to have a monopoly over. Much of this was already waiting in their hands and each gold merchant was well aware that what they really had could be easily made to seem like much much more. Silver would only widen the field and lower the share so they pressed for...
1. Lincoln By Emil Ludwig 1930, containing a letter from Lincoln, also reprinted in Glory to God and the Sucker Democracy A Manuscript Collection of the Letters of Charles H. Lanphier compiled by Charles C. Patton.
2. Abraham Lincoln. Senate document 23, Page 91. 1865.
THE RETURN OF THE GOLD STANDARD (1866 - 1881)
"Right after the Civil War there was considerable talk about reviving Lincoln's brief experiment with the Constitutional monetary system. Had not the European money-trust intervened, it would have no doubt become an established institution."
W.Cleon Skousen. Even after his death, the idea that America might print its own debt free money set off warning bells throughout the entire European banking community. On April 12th in 1866, the American congress passed the Contraction Act, allowing the treasury to call in and retire some of Lincoln's greenbacks, With only the banks standing to gain from this, it's not hard to work out the source of this action. To give the American public the false impression that they would be better off under the gold standard, the money changers used the control they had to cause economic instability and panic the people. This was fairly easy to do by calling in existing loans and refusing to issue new ones, a tried and proven method of causing depression. They would then spread the word through the media they largely controlled that the lack of a single gold standard was the cause of the hardship which ensued, while all this time using the Contraction Act to lower the amount of money in circulation. It went from
$1.8 billion in circulation in 1866 allowing $50.46 per person,
to $1.3 billion in 1867 allowing $44.00 per person,
to $0.6 billion in 1876 making only $14.60 per person and down
to $0.4 billion only ten years later leaving only $6.67 per person
and a continually growing population. Most people believe the economists when they tell us that recessions and depressions are part of the natural flow, but in truth the money supply is controlled by a small minority who have always done so and will continue to do so if we let them. By 1872 the American public was beginning to feel the squeeze, so the Bank of England, scheming in the back rooms, sent Ernest Seyd, with lots of money to bribe congress into demonetising silver. Ernest drafted the legislation himself, which came into law with the passing of the Coinage Act, effectively stopping the minting of silver that year. Here's what he said about his trip, obviously pleased with himself. "I went to America in the winter of 1872-73, authorised to secure, if I could, the passage of a bill demonetising silver. It was in the interest of those I represented - the governors of the Bank of England - to have it done. By 1873, gold coins were the only form of coin money."
Ernest Seyd Or as explained by Senator Daniel of Virginia "In 1872 silver being demonetized in Germany, England, and Holland, a capital of 100,000 pounds ($500,000.00) was raised, Ernest Seyd was sent to this country with this fund as agent for foreign bond holders to effect the same object (demonetization of silver)". 1 Within three years, with 30% of the work force unemployed, the American people began to harken back to the days of silver backed money and the greenbacks. The US Silver Commission was set up to study the problem and responded with telling history: "The disaster of the Dark Ages was caused by decreasing money and falling prices... Without money, civilisation could not have had a beginning, and with a diminishing supply, it must languish and unless relieved, finally perish. At the Christian era the metallic money of the Roman Empire amounted to $1,800,million. By the end of the fifteenth century it had shrunk to less than $200,million. History records no other such disastrous transition as that from the Roman Empire to the Dark Ages..."
United States Silver Commission While they obviously could see the problems being caused by the restricted money supply, this declaration did little to help the problem, and in 1877 riots broke out all over the country. The bank's response was to do nothing except to campaign against the idea that greenbacks should be reissued. The American Bankers Association secretary James Buel expressed the bankers attitude well in a letter to fellow members of the association. He wrote: "It is advisable to do all in your power to sustain such prominent daily and weekly newspapers, especially the Agricultural and Religious Press, as will oppose the greenback issue of paper money and that you will also withhold patronage from all applicants who are not willing to oppose the government issue of money. To repeal the Act creating bank notes, or to restore to circulation the government issue of money will be to provide the people with money and will therefore seriously affect our individual profits as bankers and lenders. See your congressman at once and engage him to support our interest that we may control legislation."
James Buel American Bankers Association 2 What this statement exposes is the difference in mentality between your average person and a banker. With a banker 'less really is more' and every need an opportunity to exploit. James Garfield became President in 1881 with a firm grasp of where the problem lay. "Whosoever controls the volume of money in any country is absolute master of all industry and commerce... And when you realise that the entire system is very easily controlled, one way or another, by a few powerful men at the top, you will not have to be told how periods of inflation and depression originate."
James Garfield 1881 Within weeks of releasing this statement President Garfield was assassinated. The cry from the streets was to...
1. Senator Daniel of Virginia, May 22, 1890, from a speech in Congress, to be found in the Congressional Record, page 5128, quoting from the Bankers Magazine of August, 1873
2. from a circular issued by authority of the Associated Bankers of New York, Philadelphia, and Boston signed by one James Buel, secretary, sent out from 247 Broadway, New York in 1877, to the bankers in all of the States
FREE SILVER (1891 - 1912)
Fleecing of the flock is the term the money changers use for the process of booms and depressions which make it possible for them to repossess property at a fraction of its worth. In 1891 a major fleece was being planned. "On Sept 1st, 1894, we will not renew our loans under any consideration. On Sept 1st we will demand our money. We will foreclose and become mortgagees in possession. We can take two-thirds of the farms west of the Mississippi, and thousands of them east of the Mississippi as well, at our own price... Then the farmers will become tenants as in England..."
1891 American Bankers Association as printed in the Congressional Record of April 29, 1913 The continued gold standard made this possible. William Jennings Bryan was the Democratic candidate for president in 1896, campaigning to bring silver back as a money standard. (free Silver) "We will answer their demand for a gold standard by saying to them: You shall not press down upon the brow of labour this crown of thorns, you shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold."
William Jennings Bryan Of course the money changers supported his opposition on the Republican side so long as he wanted the gold standard maintained. The factory bosses were somehow convinced to tell their work force that business would close down if Bryan was elected, and everyone would lose their jobs. The Republicans won by a small margin. Bryan tried again in 1900 and in 1908 but lost both times. He became secretary of state under Wilson in 1912 but became disenchanted and resigned in 1915 under suspicious circumstances connected with the sinking of the Lusitania which drove America into the First World War.
J.P.MORGAN AND THE CRASH OF 1907
If you want to work out the cause of the crash of 1907, checking who benefited is where you might like to look first. With the stock market slump causing most of the over extended banks to falter, in steps J.P. Morgan offering to save the day. People will do strange things when in a panic, and this might explain why Morgan was authorised to print $200 million from nothing, which he then used to prop things up. Some of the troubled banks with less than 1% in reserve had no choice. It was accept this solution or go under. Even if they had worked out that their problems had been caused by the same people now offering the solution, there is not a lot they could have done about it. J.P.Morgan was hailed a hero. "All this trouble could be averted if we appointed a committee of six or seven men like J.P.Morgan to handle the affairs of our country."
Woodrow Wilson But not everyone was fooled. "Those not favourable to the money trust could be squeezed out of business and the people frightened into demanding changes in the banking and currency laws which the Money Trust would frame."
Rep. Charles A. Lindbergh (R-MN) Apart from making a small number rich at the expense of the many, in this case the instability also served the second purpose of encouraging the public to believe that they would be better off living under a Central Bank and a Gold Standard. Desperate people have little time for logic.
LINCOLN WATCHES
In Washington the statue of Lincoln sitting in his chair is facing a building called the Federal Reserve Headquarters. This institution would not be there if Lincoln's monetary policy had been adopted by the USA. It is not Federal and it has doubtful reserves. The name is an open deception designed to give this private bank the appearance that it is operating in the public's interest, when in fact it is run solely to gain private profit for its select stock holders. It came into being as the result of one of the slickest moves in financial history. On 23rd December 1913 the house of representatives had past the Federal Reserve Act, but it was still having difficulty getting it out of the senate. Most members of congress had gone home for the holidays, but unfortunately the senate had not adjourned sene die (without day) so they were technically still in session. There were only three members still present. On a unanimous consent voice vote the 1913 Federal Reserve Act was passed. No objection was made, possibly because there was no one there to object. Charles Lindbergh would have objected. "The financial system has been turned over to... the federal reserve board. That board administers the finance system by authority of... a purely profiteering group. The system is private, conducted for the sole purpose of obtaining the greatest possible profits from the use of other peoples money."
Rep Charles A, Lindbergh (R-MN) Louis T. McFadden would have objected. "We have in this country one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever known. I refer to the Federal Reserve Board... This evil institution has impoverished... the people of the United States... and has practically bankrupted our Government. It has done this through... the corrupt practice of the moneyed vultures who control it."
Rep. Louis T, McFadden (R-PA) Barry Goldwater would also have objected. "Most Americans have no real understanding of the operation of the international money lenders... The accounts of the Federal Reserve System have never been audited. It operates outside the control of Congress and... manipulates the credit of the United States."
Sen. Barry Goldwater (R-AZ) Most Americans would object if they knew. The Federal Reserve is the largest single creditor of the United States Government, and they are also the people who decide how much the average persons car payments are going to be, what their house payments are going to be, and whether they have a job or not. The three people who passed the Federal Reserve Act in 1913, knew exactly what they were doing when they set up this private bank, modelled on the Bank of England and the fact that THE BANK OF ENGLAND had been operating independently unopposed since 1694 must have given them a great deal of confidence.
WHERE THERE'S WAR THERE'S MONEY
War uses up more materials more quickly than most anything else on earth. In war expensive equipment doesn't wear out slowly, it gets blown up. (It's interesting to note that during the 119 year period from the founding of the Bank of England to Napoleon's defeat at Waterloo, England had been at war for 56 years, while the rest of the time preparing for it. In the process the money changers had been getting rich.) So there it was, the newly formed Federal Reserve poised to produce any money the U.S. Government might need from thin air with each dollar standing to make a healthy interest. Nine days after its formation the Federal Reserve founders were wishing each other a Happy New Year. What good fortune might 1914 bring?
THE HISTORY OF MONEY PART 3
WORLD WAR I (1914-1918)
The Germans borrowed money from the German Rothschilds bank, the British from the British Rothschilds bank, and the French from the French Rothschilds.
American super banker J.P. Morgan was amongst other things also a sales agent for war materials. Six months into the war his spending of $10 million a day made him the largest consumer on the planet.
The Rockefeller's and the head of president Willson's War Industries Board, Bernard Baruch each made some 200 million dollars while families contributed their sons to the bloody front lines, but profit was not the only motive for involvement.
Russia had spoiled the money changers plan to split America in two, and remained the last major country not to have its own central bank.
However, three years after the start of the war the entire Russian Royal Family was killed and Communism began.
You might find it strange to learn that the Russian Revolution was also fuelled with British money. Capitalist businessmen financing Communism?
Author Gary Allen gives his explanation:
"If one understands that socialism is not a share-the-wealth programme, but is in reality a method to consolidate and control the wealth, then the seeming paradox of super-rich men promoting socialism becomes no paradox at all. Instead, it becomes logical, even the perfect tool of power-seeking megalomaniacs.
Communism or more accurately, socialism, is not a movement of the downtrodden masses, but of the economic elite."
Gary Allen, Author
W.Cleon Skousen wrote in his book 'The Naked Capitalist'.
"Power from any source tends to create an appetite for additional power... It was almost inevitable that the super-rich would one day aspire to control not only their own wealth, but the wealth of the whole world.
To achieve this, they were perfectly willing to feed the ambitions of the power-hungry political conspirators who were committed to the overthrow of all existing governments and the establishments of a central world-wide dictatorship."
W.Cleon Skousen
Extreme revolutionary groups were controlled by being financed when they complied and cut off, with money sometimes being given to their opposition, when they didn't.
If you find this hard to believe, listen to what the so called dictator of the new Soviet Union had to say.
"The state does not function as we desired. The car does not obey. A man is at the wheel and seems to lead it, but the car does not drive in the desired direction. It moves as another force wishes."
Vladimir Lenin 1
Rep. Louis T. McFadden, chairman of the House Banking and Currency Committee throughout the 1920-30s explained it this way.
"The course of Russian history has, indeed, been greatly affected by the operations of international bankers... The Soviet Government has been given United States Treasury funds by the Federal Reserve Board... acting through the Chase Bank. ...
England has drawn money from us through the Federal Reserve Banks and has re-lent it at high rates of interest to the Soviet Government... The Dnieperstory Dam was built with funds unlawfully taken from the United States Treasury by the corrupt and dishonest Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve Banks." Rep. Louis T.McFadden (D-PA) 2
Even when Communism collapsed in the Soviet Union, Boris Yeltsin revealed that most of the foreign aid was ending up, we quote. "straight back into the coffers of western banks in debt service."
1. Wurmbrand, "Marx and Satan," p. 49
2.United States Congressional Record, June 15, 1934
WORLD DOMINATION
With Russia down the money changers now had control of every major national economy. Like a steam roller moving and a wolf gathering its pack, there was only one thing left to do and that was to go global. The first attempt was the proposal at the Paris Peace Conference after WWI to set up the League of Nations. Old habits die hard, and even what they called 'the war to end all wars' was not enough to convince nations to dissolve their boundaries. The League died.
If politicians really were being controlled, you would think at least one would break ranks and cry out against it. Many did. One was no less than former New York City Mayor John Haylan
"These international bankers and Rockefeller-Standard Oil interests control the majority of the newspapers and magazines in this country. They use the columns of these papers to club into submission or drive out of office public officials who refuse to do the bidding of the powerful corrupt cliques which compose the invisible government....
The warning of Theodore Roosevelt has much timeliness today, for the real menace of our republic is this invisible government which like a giant octopus sprawls its slimy length over City, State, and nation... It seizes in its long and powerful tentacles our executive officers, our legislative bodies, our schools, our courts, our newspapers, and every agency created for the public protection...
To depart from mere generalisations, let me say that at the head of this octopus are the Rockefeller-Standard Oil interest and a small group of powerful banking houses generally referred to as the international bankers. The little coterie of powerful international bankers virtually run the United States government for their own selfish purposes.
They practically control both parties, write political platforms, make catspaws of party leaders, use the leading men of private organisations, and resort to every device to place in nomination for high public office only such candidates as will be amenable to the dictates of corrupt big business...
These international bankers and Rockefeller-Standard Oil interests control the majority of newspapers and magazines in this country."
John Hylan, Mayor of New York 1927, 1
These warnings fell on deaf ears, drowned out by the music and excitement of the roaring 20's. People don't tend to complain much in times of prosperity, so the money changers used this boom time they had created to defuse any complaints about their growing control.
1. (Former New York City Mayor John Haylan speaking in Chicago and quoted in the March 27, 1927, New York Times)
DEPRESSION IN 1929
Stack in front of you the biographies of all the Wall Street giants, J.P. Morgan, Joe F. Kennedy, J.D Rockefeller, Bernard Baruch, and you'll find they all marvel at how they got out of the stock market and put their assets in gold just before the crash.
Non mention a secret directive, since revealed, sent by the father of the Federal Reserve, Paul Warburg, warning of the coming collapse and depression.
With control of the press and the education system, few Americans are aware that the Fed caused the depression. It is however a well known fact among leading top economists.
"The Federal Reserve definitely caused the Great depression by contracting the amount of currency in circulation by one-third from 1929 to 1933."
Milton Friedman, Nobel Prize winning economist
"It was not accidental. It was a carefully contrived occurrence... The international bankers sought to bring about a condition of despair here so that they might emerge as rulers of us all."
Rep. Louis T.McFadden (D-PA)
"I think it can hardly be disputed that the statesmen and financiers of Europe are ready to take almost any means to re-acquire rapidly the gold stock which Europe lost to America as the result of World War I."
Rep. Louis T.McFadden (D-PA)
40 billion dollars somehow vanished in the crash.
It didn't really vanish, it simply shifted into the hands of the money changers. This is how Joe Kennedy went from having 4 million dollars in 1929 to having over 100 million in 1935.
During this time the Fed caused a 33% reduction of the money supply, causing deeper depression.
HOW THE FED CREATES MONEY
We've been talking about how the privately owned Federal Reserve can produce money from thin air. Here's how it's done.
1. The purchase of bonds is approved by the Federal Open Market Committee.
2. The Fed buys the bonds which it pays for with electronic credits made to the sellers bank. These credits are based on nothing.
3. The receiving banks then use these credits as reserves from which they can loan out ten times the amount.
To reduce the amount of money in the economy they simply reverse the process.
The Fed sells bonds to the public and money is drawn from the purchasers bank to pay for them.
Each million withdrawn lowers the banks ability to loan by 10 million.
The Federal bank in this way has overall control of the US money supply, as each country's central bank does in the same way. The bankers, through the magic of fractional reserve banking have been delegated the right to create 90% of the money supply. This control makes a mockery of any elected government. It places so called leaders behind a toy steering wheel, like the plastic ones, set up to amuse small children.
Or as Rep.Charles Lindbergh father of famous aviator Lucky Lindy puts it when commenting on the Federal Reserve Act:
"This act establishes the most gigantic trust on earth. When the President signs this bill, the invisible government by the Monetary Power will be legalised.
The people may not know it immediately, but the day of reckoning is only a few years removed... The worst legislative crime of the ages is perpetrated by this banking bill."
Rep. Charles Lindbergh (R-MN)
Or as Woodrow Wilson put it:
"We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled governments in the civilised world - no longer a government of free opinion, no longer a government by... a vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men.
Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organised, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it."
Woodrow Wilson
In order to clearly establish that this is not a conspiracy theory, but is actually how things are controlled, we further quote Charles Lindbergh. From the house of representatives, Lindbergh was well placed to see exactly what was happening back then and continues to happen today.
"To cause high prices all the federal reserve board will do will be to lower the re-discount rate..., producing an expansion of credit and a rising stock market; then when... business men are adjusted to these conditions, it can check... prosperity in mid-career by arbitrarily raising the rate of interest.
It can cause the pendulum of a rising and falling market to swing gently back and forth by slight changes in the discount rate, or cause violent fluctuations by greater rate variation, and in either case it will possess inside information as to financial conditions and advance knowledge of the coming change, either up or down.
This is the strangest, most dangerous advantage ever placed in the hands of a special privilege class by any Government that ever existed.
The system is private, conducted for the sole purpose of obtaining the greatest possible profits from the use of other people's money.
They know in advance when to create panics to their advantage. They also know when to stop panic. Inflation and deflation work equally well for them when they control finance..."
Rep. Charles Lindbergh (R-MN)
ADOLF'S BANKERS
Most all will be aware of Hitler's rise to power. What they probably don't know is that he was almost completely financed by money drawn from the privately owned American Federal Reserve.
"After WWI, Germany fell into the hands of the international bankers. Those bankers bought her and they now own her, lock, stock, and barrel. They have purchased her industries, they have mortgages on her soil, they control her production, they control all her public utilities.
The international German bankers have subsidised the present Government of Germany and they have also supplied every dollar of the money Adolph Hitler has used in his lavish campaign to build up threat to the government of Bruening.
When Bruening fails to obey the orders of the German International Bankers, Hitler is brought forth to scare the Germans into submission...
Through the Federal Reserve Board over $30 billion of American money has been pumped into Germany. You have all heard of the spending that has taken place in Germany...
Modernistic dwellings, her great planetariums, her gymnasiums, her swimming pools, her fine public highways, her perfect factories. All this was done on our money. All this was given to Germany through the Federal Reserve Board. The Federal Reserve Board has pumped so many billions of dollars into Germany that they dare not name the total."
Congressman Louis T.McFadden (D-PA) who served twelve years as Chairman of the Committee on Banking and Currency.
FORT KNOX
In 1933 new President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed a bill forcing all the American people, to hand over all their gold at base rate. With the exception of rare coins. He disowned himself from the bill claiming to not have read it and his secretary of the treasury claimed this was "what the experts wanted".
Bought at bargain basement price with money produced from nothing by the Federal Reserve, the gold was melted down and stacked in the newly built bullion depository called Fort Knox. Once collected in 1935 the price of gold was raised from $20.66 up to $35 per ounce, but only non American gold qualified to be sold. This meant those who had avoided the crash by investing in gold they had shipped to London could now nearly double their money while the rest of America starved.
But that's not all folks. By the end of WWII Fort Knox did hold 70% of the world's gold, but over the years it was sold off to the European money changers while a public audit of Fort Knox reserves was repeatedly denied.
Rumours spread about missing gold.
"Allegations of missing gold from our Fort Knox vaults are being widely discussed in European circles. But what is puzzling is that the Administration is not hastening to demonstrate conclusively that there is no cause for concern over our gold treasure - if indeed it is in a position to do so."
Edith Roosevelt
Finally in 1981 President Ronald Reagan was convinced to have a look into Fort Knox with a view to re-introducing the Gold Standard. He appointed a group called The Gold Commission. They found that the US Treasury owned no gold at all.
All the Fort Knox gold remaining is now being held as collateral by the Federal Reserve against the national debt. Using credits made from nothing. The Fed had robbed the largest treasure of gold on earth.
WORLD WAR II (1939-1945)
World War II saw the US debt increased by 598%, while Japan's debt went up by 1,348%, with France up by 583% and Canada up by 417%.
When you hear this, what is your first impression? Do you automatically think this is bad or this is good? Most of us feel a well programmed sense of desperation when we hear figures like this, but remember, to the money changers, this is music to their ears.
With the hot war over, the cold war began, the arms race causing more and more borrowing. Now the money changers could really concentrate on global domination.
Step one, the European Monetary Union and NAFTA.
Step two, centralise the global economy via the World Bank, the IMF and GATT (now the WTO).
THE WORLD CENTRAL BANK (1948 - Present)
In Washington, the headquarters of both the World Bank and the IMF (International Monetary Fund) face each other on the same street. What are these organisations, and who controls them?
To find out we need to look back to just after WWI. At this point the money changers were attempting to consolidate the central banks under the guise of peacemaking. To stop future wars they put forward the formation of a world central bank named the Bank of International Settlements, a world court called the World Court in the Hague, and a world executive for legislation called the League of Nations.
In his 1966 book entitled Tragedy and Hope, president Clinton's mentor Carroll Quigley writes about this.
"The powers of financial capitalism had [a] far-reaching [plan], nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole.
This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences.
The apex of the system was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations.
Each central bank... Sought to dominate its government by its ability to control treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."
Carroll Quigley, Professor, Georgetown University
They got 2 out of 3. The league of nations failed largely owing to the suspicions of the people and while opposition concentrated on this, the other two proposals snuck their way through.
It would take another war to wear the public resistance down. Wall street invested heavily to rebuild Germany, as the Chase bank had propped up the Russian revolution.
Now the Chase merged with the Warburg's Manhattan Bank to form the Chase Manhattan which would later merge with the Chemical Bank to become the largest bank on Wall Street.
In 1944 the US approved its full participation in the IMF and the World Bank. By 1945 the second League of Nations was approved under the new name 'The United Nations'. The war had dissolved all opposition. The methods used in the National Banking Act of 1864 and the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 were now simply used on a Global scale.
The Federal Reserve Act allowing the creation of Federal Reserve notes is mirrored by the IMF's authority to produce money called Special Drawing Rights (SDR's). It is estimated the IMF has produced $30 billion dollars worth of SDR's so far. In the United States SDR's are already accepted as legal money, and all other member nations are being pressured to follow suit. With SDR's being partially backed by gold, a world gold standard is sneaking its way in through the back door, which comes with no objection from the money changers who now hold two-thirds of the worlds gold and can use this to structure the worlds economy to their further advantage.
We have gone from the goldsmith's fraud being reproduced on a national scale through the Bank of England and the Federal Reserve, to a Global level with the IMF and the World Bank. Unless we together stop giving these exchange units their power by our collective faith in them, the future will probably see the Intergalactic Bank and the Federation of Planets Reserve set up in much the same way.
This radical transfer of power has taken place with absolutely no mandate from the people.
Nations borrow Special Drawing Right from the International Monetary Fund in order to pay interest on their mounting debts. With these SDR's produced at no cost, the IMF charges more interest. This contrary to bold claims does not alleviate poverty or further any development. It just creates a steady flow of wealth from borrowing nations to the money changers who now control the IMF and the World Bank.
The permanent debt of Third World Countries is constantly being increased to provide temporary relief from the poverty being caused by previous borrowing.
These repayments already exceed the amount of new loans. By 1992 Africa's debt had reached $290 billion dollars, which is two and a half times greater than it was in 1980. A noble attempt to repay it has caused increased infant mortality and unemployment, plus deteriorating schools, and general health and welfare problems.
As world resources continue to be sucked into this insatiable black hole of greed, if allowed to continue the entire world will face a simular fate.
As one prominent Brazilian politician, Luis Ignacio Silva,ðput it.
"Without being radical or overly bold, I will tell you that the Third World War has already started - a silent war, not for that reason any the less sinister. This war is tearing down Brazil, Latin America and practically all the Third World. Instead of soldiers dying there are children, instead of millions of wounded there are millions of unemployed; instead of destruction of bridges there is the tearing down of factories, schools, hospitals, and entire economies . . . It is a war by the United States against the Latin American continent and the Third World. It is a war over the foreign debt, one which has as its main weapon interest, a weapon more deadly than the atom bomb, more shattering than a laser beam . ."1
If a group or organisation had used its hard earned money to help these developing nations, then we might sympathise that there should be a real effort to repay these loans. But the money used was created from fractional reserve banking. The money loaned to the Third World came from the 90% the banks allow themselves to loan on the 10% they actually held. It didn't exist, it was created from nothing, and now people are suffering and dying in an effort to pay it back.
This has gone beyond clever financing, it's whole sale murder and it's time we stopped it. We can!
If you haven't already, read XAT3 to see how.
1. Luis Ignacio Silva, at the Havana Debt Conference in August 1985, quoted by Susan George, A Fate Worse Than Death p 238
Sunday, April 26, 2009
A Biblical view of oaths
e
So Help Me God: A Biblical View of Oaths
David G. Hagopian
Contemporary culture faces a growing integrity crisis. The bond of a person's word is flippantly broken. A Biblical view of oaths and promises calls us to a higher, if not more painful, commitment to our word.
"I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth..."
"I take thee to be my lawful wedded wife and I do promise and covenant before God and these witnesses to be thy loving and faithful husband, in sickness and in health..."
"I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of the President of the United States..."
How often we have heard those oaths uttered during trials, weddings and inaugurations. But how seldom it is that people actually honor such oaths as evidenced by the incidence of perjury, divorce and demagoguery. And it doesn't stop there. Sadly, people--even Christian people--violate their oaths and vows at whim, as though truth were fungible and their promises, dispensable. By so doing, they demonstrate culpable ignorance of, indifference to, or callousness for their Biblical responsibility to honor their word in general and their oaths and vows in particular. Simply put, we have become a society and a church without verbal integrity, a society and a church without those who honor their oaths.
For that reason, it is important to examine what Scripture has to say about our responsibility to honor our oaths. After defining what constitutes an oath and proving that Scripture does not forbid all oaths, we will provide Biblical guidelines for taking oaths, and refute common excuses people proffer for violating their oaths. This article, then, is intended to be a concise overview of what the Bible has to say about oaths.
Oaths Defined
Perhaps there is no better place to begin this exposition of oaths than by explaining what we mean when we speak of oaths. In simple form, an oath is a promise. More particularly, an oath or promise is simply an agreement entered into between one person and another whereby the one taking the oath (1) explicitly or implicitly appeals to God to witness and sanction what he has said or committed himself to, and (2) calls God to judge and avenge His name if what he said is false or what he committed to do never comes to pass.[1]
>From this definition we can see how pervasive oaths are. When one signs a form swearing that the information it contains is true, he is making an oath. When a bride and groom promise to remain married till death do them part, they are making an oath.[2] When a party enters a contract, he is making an oath. When a courtroom witness swears to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth, he is making an oath.
The Third Commandment
With this understanding of oaths, we need to know what Scripture has to say about them. The Scriptural point of departure is the third commandment, which is translated in the King James version as "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain: for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain." Many Christians incorrectly assume that this verse merely teaches that we shouldn't curse using the name of God.[3] Indeed, the third commandment does teach that we should not curse using the name of God. But it teaches so much more.
So just what does the third commandment teach? To begin with, the phrase "the name of the Lord thy God" does not refer only to the literal name of God. Rather, the name of God refers comprehensively to God, including God's literal name, anything by which God makes Himself known, and ultimately, God Himself. In short, to call on the name of God is to call on God Himself!
While the name of God is used comprehensively to refer ultimately to God Himself, the phrase translated in vain means "falsely" (Isa.59:4). So the verse could be translated in at least two different ways: (1) Thou shalt not swear (utter) the name of God to a lie, or (2) Thou shalt not swear (utter) the name of God falsely. The basic meaning is the same: we should refrain from appealing to the name of God to confirm or bear witness to a falsehood.[4]
The third commandment, then, primarily forbids appealing to God to confirm a falsehood. But as with all of the ten commandments, the greater includes the lesser. The sixth commandment, for example, does merely prohibit unjustified killing; it also prohibits murderous and malicious feelings (Matt.5:21-24).
In the same way, the command not to call upon God to bear witness to a falsehood also forbids all lesser forms of irreverence for the name of God. Thus, the third commandment prohibits any lack of fear, honor and reverence for God and any profanation or abuse of anything by which God makes Himself known, especially in our speech. We should refrain from doing anything which detracts from the glory due the name of God in our lives. But the third commandment not only forbids certain conduct; it also affirmatively requires that we at all times fear, honor and reverence God and His most holy name as well as His titles, attributes, ordinances and works, especially in our speech. The third commandment, therefore, primarily requires us to honor our oaths and forbids us from violating them. When we appeal to God by means of oaths, we must honor God by honoring our oaths.
In Defense of Oaths
Through the years, some Christians have taught that the third commandment in particular and Scripture in general forbid all oaths. To bolster this contention, they marshal forth passages such as Matt. 5:33-37 and James 5:12 wherein we find the oft-quoted command, "swear not at all." And at first blush, these passages appear to forbid all oaths.
By carefully interpreting these passages, however, we will see that Christ was merely correcting Pharisaical and scribal abuses and misinterpretations of God's standards when it come to oaths. When interpreted in light of the general context of Scripture as a whole and in light of the particular context, we will see that far from forbidding all oaths, Christ (and James) forbade only unlawful (unbiblical) oaths.[5]
The General Context
The general context of Scripture, when studied carefully, reveals that God does not forbid all oaths.
First, Scripture commands us to swear by the name of God on certain occasions. In Deuteronomy 6:13, for example, Scripture commands God's people "You shall fear only the Lord your God; and you shall worship Him, and swear by His name." Far from prohibiting all oaths, Isaiah tells us that "he who swears in the earth shall swear by the name of God" (Is. 65:16). God sanctions lawful oaths to such an extent that He promises to build up those who swear by His name (Jer. 12:16). Even in the mundane affairs of life, such as confirming the truth between disputing neighbors, God commands His people to swear before Him (Ex. 22:10-11). Because Scripture commands God's people to swear by His name, it cannot forbid all oaths. God does not command what He simultaneously condemns!
Second, Scripture also teaches us that swearing is an act of confession and religious worship. We already saw in Deuteronomy 6:13 that God commands us to swear in His name precisely because swearing in God's name is but one way to worship and fear Him (cf Deut.10:20). Isaiah confirms this connection between swearing and worship; when he prophesies about the Assyrians and Egyptians coming into a covenantal relationship with God, he says that they will swear in the name of God. (Is. 19:18). Calvin explains that "by swearing in the Lord's name they will profess his religion."[6]
But exactly how is swearing an act of confession and worship? When we duly swear in God's name, we confess several things about God. To begin with, we confess that God exists. Moreover, we confess several of God's attributes as revealed to us in Scripture: we testify that He is omnipresent and omniscient, that He is eternal and immutable, that He is just and true, that He is powerful and wrathful. By confessing His existence and attributes, we also confess that He is the Supreme Judge over all the earth and that we are accountable to Him for all that we do and say. Though the word of men may fail, the word of God never fails. Though men may fail, God never fails. By taking oaths in God's name, we confess God to be the ultimate arbiter of truth, and we worship the God of truth in spirit and in truth.
Third, Scripture offers us many examples of those who swore, examples we are commanded to follow.
God Himself swears. David, anticipating the eternal priesthood of Christ exclaims under the inspiration of the Spirit, "The Lord has sworn and will not change His mind, Thou art a priest forever..."(Ps. 110:4). The author of Hebrews tells us that God swore not only by demonstrating that what the Psalmist anticipated in Psalm 110:4 had been fulfilled in Christ (Heb. 7:21), but also by telling us that God swore when He made His covenant with Abraham: "For when God made the promise to Abraham, since He could swear by no one greater, He swore by Himself" (Heb. 6:13).
While it is true that we will never be perfect this side of eternity, we are nonetheless commanded to imitate the perfection of God and to be like God (Matt. 5:48, Eph. 5:1). If God upheld His Word with oaths in His name, and if we are commanded to imitate God, then if the occasion arises, Scripture permits us to swear lawfully in the name of God. As such, Scripture cannot, without contradicting itself, forbid all oaths.
What is true of God the Father is equally true with respect to God the Son for three reasons. First, the deity of Christ implies that what is true of God is true of Christ; hence since God swore, Christ swore.
Second, if you were to read Psalm 110:4 and Hebrews 7:21, referred to above, you would observe that in Psalm 110:4, God swears that He will provide an eternal high priest (anticipation) while in Hebrews 7:21, God has honored His oath (fulfillment). God the Father made the oath; God the Son fulfilled it. Thus, the very life of the Son was the very fulfillment of an oath made by the Father.
Third, Christ actually undertook an oath when questioned by Caiaphas, the high priest as recorded in the gospel of Matthew. After Christ remained silent during the accusational phase of his trial, Caiaphas charged Christ, exclaiming, "I adjure You by the living God, that You tell us whether You are the Christ, the Son of God. Jesus said to him, You have said it yourself..." (Matt. 26:63:64a). Literally translated, Caiaphas said to Christ "I swear You [call on you to swear]" or "I charge You." In the rabbinical form of directly affirming an oath, Christ responded to Caiaphas. In other words, by answering Caiaphas' adjuration, Christ undertook an oath that what He was saying was true.[7] Thus, by virtue of His deity, priesthood, and trial, Christ swore.
And just as Christians are commanded to imitate God, so Christians are commanded to imitate Christ. "[T]he one who says he abides in Him," writes John, "ought himself to walk in the same manner as He walked" (1 Jn. 2:6). The example of Christ teaches us that under some circumstances, we may take oaths. Since the Living Word perfectly abided by the written word, and since the Living Word swore, the written word cannot forbid all oaths.
The Word of God not only records the examples of the Father and the Son; it also records for our benefit and instruction the example of the Apostle Paul who often supported what he said with oaths: (1) "For God...is my witness..." (Rom 1:9, Phil. 1:8); (2) "But I call God as witness to my soul..." (II Cor. 1:23); (3)"...God is witness..." (IThess. 2:5); (4) "you are witnesses, and so is God..." (I Thess. 2:10); and (5) "I adjure you by the Lord..." (I Thess. 5:27).[8] As you can see, there is no shortage of Biblical proof that Paul took oaths. But the Bible doesn't record the example of Paul for our idle theological speculation. Rather, we are commanded to imitate Paul as he in turn imitated Christ (I Cor. 4:16, 11:1). If the need arises, Scripture permits oaths.
>From this brief overview of Scripture, we have seen that Scripture commands God's people to take lawful oaths, informs us that taking an oath is an act of confession and religious worship, and commends to us the examples of the God the Father, Christ, and Paul, all of whom took oaths. Thus, to interpret Christ (and James) as forbidding all oaths is to foist contradiction on Scripture itself, as well as on the Father, Christ and Paul since, on this interpretation, they all swore contrary to Scripture. The general context of Scripture, therefore, does not support the notion that Scripture forbids all oaths.
The Particular Context
What is true of the general context of Scripture as a whole, is also true of the particular context of the passage in question: this passage proves beyond doubt that Christ is simply correcting Pharisaical abuses of and glosses on the Law. Christ constantly contrasts what the ancients said about the Law with what God says about the Law by repeating the formula: "Ye have heard that it was said...But I say unto you..." The Pharisees, for example, taught that the Law only forbade murder; Christ taught that the Law, properly understood, also forbade hate. The Pharisees taught that the Law only forbade adultery; Christ taught that the Law, properly understood, also forbade lust. The Pharisees taught that one was to love his neighbor and hate his enemy when the law affirmed the former but never even taught the latter![9]
Likewise, Christ corrected Pharisaical misconceptions about oaths. From this passage, it appears that the Pharisees thought that one could swear as often as he wished as long as he did not do so falsely and as long as he did not swear in the literal name of God. Christ's opponents appeared to swear frequently and round-aboutly. Christ attacks both of these errors head on by showing the Pharisees that heaven, earth, Jerusalem and even their own heads have their ultimate reference point in God: heaven is the throne of God; the earth is His footstool; Jerusalem is the city of the Great King; and it is that King who controls even the hair on one's head! In other words, when they swore by heaven, they swore by the God of heaven because the universe and everything in it is stamped with His glory.[10] By swearing in those ways, the Pharisees failed to see that one still takes the name of God in vain no matter how he wishes to dress up his words.[11]
"But," says the opponent of oaths, "how does your interpretation jibe with Christ's teaching that anything more than a simple yes or no is of evil?" The interpretation advanced in this article is perfectly consistent with Christ's teaching when that teaching is properly understood! In the New Testament Greek, the genitive case is used when Christ says that anything beyond yes and no is "of evil." What Christ means is that anything beyond yes and no -- an oath or a vow -- has its origin in evil; in other words, oaths arose as a result of evil or the Fall.[12] It is distrust, dishonesty, and inconsistency which make oaths necessary in the first place. If there were no sin, oaths would be unnecessary. But just because oaths are occasioned by the Fall doesn't necessarily make them evil in and of themselves.
To suggest that this is the case is to commit the genetic fallacy, assuming without proof that what is true of the genesis (origin) of something is true of the thing itself. After all, civil government became necessary only after the Fall (to restrain the social manifestations of sin); yet civil government is not evil because of that fact. In the same way, just because oaths became necessary after the Fall as a result of evil, does not mean that oaths, therefore, are evil.
Biblical Guidelines for Oaths
If Scripture only forbids unlawful oaths, it is important to distinguish lawful from unlawful oaths. Fortunately, Scripture, as our rule for all that we believe and do, provides us with clear guidelines so that we can distinguish lawful from unlawful oaths both as to whether we should undertake oaths and if we do undertake oaths, what the content of our oaths should be.
Should You Take An Oath?
Suppose you are confronted with a situation where you are contemplating whether or not you should take an oath. Here is a partial list of Biblical guidelines for taking oaths.
1. The object of the oath must be Biblical. It almost goes without mentioning that one cannot bind himself to do that which Scripture forbids, since no one can bind himself to sin.[13]
2. What you are about to say must be true, or you must do what you are about to promise. In addition to undertaking a Biblical objective, you must also speak the truth and do what you say you will do. "If a man makes a vow to the Lord, or takes an oath to bind himself with a binding obligation, he shall not violate his word; he shall do according to all that proceeds out his mouth" (Num. 30:2). If, therefore, you know that you are about to utter a falsehood or you know that you have no intention of absolutely honoring your word, then you should not take an oath.[14]
3. The oath must be necessary. Even if what you say is true or you will honor what you promise, you should not swear if swearing is unnecessary (Ex. 20:7). Scripture forbids all superfluous oaths (Matt 5:33-37, 23:16-22). There must be an adequate reason why appealing to God is necessary (e.g. Ex 22:10, 11). We should purge from our vocabulary sayings such as "swear to God" or "honest to God" unless the occasion is so serious and solemn as to necessitate an oath. Calvin rightly commented that "God's name is rendered cheap when it is used in true but needless oaths. For then it is taken in vain."[15] Remember that oaths are acts of worship and as such, should not be uttered on trivial occasions. The third commandment condemns all unnecessary, colloquial and irreverent swearing which has nothing to do with the solemn acts of worship commanded in Scripture.[16] So what makes an oath necessary according to Scripture? In one way or another, all of the oaths sanctioned in Scripture glorify God and edify others.
4. You must be prepared to abide by your oath no matter how your personal interests or circumstances may change. In addition to having a Biblical objective, intending to keep your word, and making sure that your oath is necessary, you should also realize that you must keep an oath no matter how your personal interests or circumstances may change (Ps. 15:4, 24:4). If you are not prepared to stand steadfastly by what you have promised, no matter what happens, then you should not make a oath.[17]
What Should Be the Content of Your Oath?
Provided that you abide by the Biblical guidelines for taking oaths, you should make sure that the content of your oath abides by the following principles.
1. The oath must appeal to God alone. Scripture emphatically commands us to swear only in the name of God (Deut. 6:13, 10:20; Jer. 5:7; Zeph. 1:4, 5). In no uncertain terms, God forbids swearing by other gods because swearing is an act of religious worship; when people swear by other gods they violate the second commandment. God is so angry with those who swear by other gods that He declares that He will "cut off" those who do so (Zeph. 1:4, 5).
Although oaths must appeal to God alone, there are a variety of ways in which one can appeal to God in the context of an oath: (1) "give glory to the God of Israel" (Josh 7:19); (2) "as the Lord lives" (Judg. 8:19; Ruth 3:13, 1Sam 14:39; II Sam. 2:27; Jer. 38:16); (3) "The Lord do so to me and more also" (Ruth 1:17; I Sam. 14:44; II Sam. 3:9, 35; 1Kings 2:23; II Kings 6:31); (4) "May the Lord be true and faithful witness" (Jer. 42:5); (5) "I adjure you by the living God..." (Matt. 26:63); (6) "I adjure you by the Lord..." (I Thess. 5:27); (8) "But I call God as witness to my soul..." (II Cor.1:23); (9) "...God is witness..." (I Thess. 2:5); (10) "You are witnesses and so is God..." (I Thess. 2:10).
2. The language of the oath must be unequivocal and unambiguous so as to be clearly understood by all parties. The great Reformed theologian, Charles Hodge, alludes to the story of a commander who swore to citizens of a besieged city that if they surrendered, not a drop of their blood would be shed. After securing their surrender, the commander then burned them all at the stake![18] We should never secure oaths by means of linguistic chicanery.
To help reduce the possibility of using equivocal and ambiguous terms, we should: (1) reduce oaths to written instruments (when possible), (2) define in those instruments any terms that warrant definition (so as to preclude later linguistic revision), and (3) make sure that there is a meeting of the minds as to the material items and conditions of these instruments.[19]
Breaking Oaths
Generally speaking, to break an oath is to violate the third commandment and to trample on the holy name of God. As with many divine commands, there is no shortage of wasted genius when it comes to cunning excuses and self-serving rationalizations for breaking oaths. Before examining some of these excuses, it is important to point out that if you were to abide by the Biblical criteria for making oaths, you would never find yourself in the position of reneging your oath!
Illegitimate Reasons for Breaking Oaths
Change in Circumstances
As strange as it may seem, some claim that changing circumstances exonerate them from honoring oaths previously made. Nothing could be more contrary to the entire tenor of Scripture when it comes to oaths. In Psalms 15:4 and 24:4, for example, David asks who can ascend to and dwell on the hill of God? In addition to having integrity, being righteous, speaking truth, and refusing bribes -- just to name a few -- the one who has sweet fellowship with God is the one who "swears to his own hurt, and does not change" and the one who "has not sworn deceitfully." If you make a vow, no matter how your circumstances may change, you are to do "all that proceeds out of [your] mouth" (Num. 30:2, Deut. 23:23).
Not only is this excuse unbiblical, it is also illogical because it flies squarely in the face of the very reason why we undertake oaths in the first place: we take stock of our circumstances and bind ourselves to the truth of our word or to a particular course of action, knowing full well that our circumstances may change with time. If ever there was a Biblical character who could have used this cop out, it was Jephthah. But instead of violating his oath to consecrate his daughter to temple service,[20] he rightly declared, "I have given my word to the Lord, and I cannot take it back" (Judg.11:35). This excuse is also untenable because the initial oath could have provided for possible contingencies. Just because it didn't, one cannot unilaterally claim to be released from his obligation. The conclusion simply does not follow on the basis of the premise.[21]
Oath Which Is Impossible to Perform
Perhaps the one who argues that changing circumstances alleviate him from his obligation to honor his oath is really saying that the oath is impossible to perform and consequently, he cannot perform it. The danger of this argument, though, is that it is particularly susceptible to rationalization: most people say something is impossible (that which cannot objectively be done) when they really mean that it is undesirable (that which one subjectively does not want to do). Obviously, one cannot violate an oath simply because he does not desire to perform his obligations under the oath.
So the real question becomes: when, if ever does impossibility -- properly defined -- excuse performance of an oath? To answer that question effectively, it is important to distinguish between two different situations. First, the easy case: if one knows the oath will be impossible to perform before he makes it, he should not make it and cannot thereafter seek recourse in this excuse. It is sinful both to make and break such an oath.
Second, the difficult case: what if the oath is possible when made but subsequently is rendered impossible? As stated above, before you ever make an oath, you should think through any possible contingencies ahead of time and provide for them. Some contingencies are so obvious that if you did not provide for them, you should nonetheless be held accountable to perform your oath. Aside from planning ahead for possible contingencies, perhaps you will still find yourself in a situation where the oath, as promised, is technically impossible to perform (e.g. the beneficiary of the oath has died). In such a situation, you should consider whether there is another course of action which will fulfill the intent of the oath (e.g. performing the oath for the benefit of the beneficiary's heirs).[22]
Violation of An Oath Negates the Oath
The claim that violating an oath negates the oath in its entirety is completely without Biblical warrant. Nowhere in Scripture will one find support for this kind of sophistic reasoning. In fact, this excuse can easily be reduced to absurdity. If a courtroom witness, for instance, swears to tell nothing but the truth and subsequently utters false testimony, is he thereafter free to perjure his testimony to his heart's content? If a secret agent swears to secrecy and thereafter violates his oath by committing a single act of treason, is he then free to commit treason without restraint? If a spouse violated his marriage oaths and vows by committing a single act of adultery, is he thereafter free to multiply his adulterous acts? How absurd! Precisely!
Oath Involuntarily Imposed by Legitimate Authority
In numerous instances, individuals in Scripture were forced to take oaths. Nowhere is this practice condemned, provided the oath doesn't require what God forbids or doesn't forbid what God requires. In fact, God actually sanctions involuntarily imposed oaths. When one sinned, for example, he could be "made to take an oath" calling for God's justice to be done (1Kings 8:31, 32; II Chron. 6:22, 23). Scripture is replete with oaths imposed by lawful authorities (Ex. 22:7-11; Neh 5:12, 19, 21; 8:25; 13:25). And as we saw above, Christ, as our perfect example, even submitted to Caiaphas, the high priest, when Caiaphas charged Christ to answer him (Matt. 26:63, 64). This excuse cannot withstand Biblical scrutiny.
Oath Made to Unbelievers
As with oaths imposed involuntarily by legitimate authorities, so Scripture sanctions oaths to unbelievers, provided the object of the oath is not sinful. (Ezek. 17:16,18,19; Josh. 9:18,19; II Sam. 21:1).
Oath Made Under Distress
Many oaths, due to the solemnity and seriousness with which they should rightly be uttered, will be uttered under distress. But the distress with which Jephthah uttered his vow, for example, did not alleviate his responsibility to honor it (Judg.11:35). David well recognized this truth when he declared "I shall come into Thy house with burnt offerings; I shall pay Thee my vows, [w]hich my lips uttered [a]nd my mouth spoke when I was in distress" (Ps.66:13, 14).
A Legitimate Reason To Break Oaths
Having refuted the most common excuses people proffer for violating their oaths, we must now turn briefly to the only biblical reason for violating an oath: if the objective of the oath is sinful. Since one can never bind himself to sin, such an "oath" is invalid from its inception and consequently, is not binding. By definition, one cannot break a non-existent oath. The sin, in such a situation, is not in breaking an unlawful oath, but in making it. Thus, Herod was under no obligation to kill John the Baptist, since he could not bind himself to commit murder. The real lesson here is one of prevention; you shouldn't make such oaths to begin with.
Conclusion
Hopefully we can better appreciate what Scripture has to say about oaths. Since this essay has defined what an oath is, explained how the Biblical view of oaths is rooted in the third commandment, demonstrated that Scripture does not forbid all oaths, delineated guidelines for taking oaths, and refuted common excuses for breaking oaths, we can see that oaths are serious business. We should not rush headlong into making oaths, and we should make sure that we honor the oaths that we make. "Where an oath is falsely taken," warns R. L. Dabney, "it is a heaven-daring attempt to enlist the Almighty in the sanction of the creature's lie and is thus, either the most outrageous levity, or the most outrageous impiety of which he can be guilty."[23]
It is always dangerous to engage in "heaven-daring" behavior. Lest we forget, the third commandment contains a promise, a promise of punishment for those who violate it. The third commandment chillingly pronounces that "the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh His name in vain." Since God will punish those who take His name in vain, we would do well to realize that it is a terrible thing to fall into the hands of the living God. Instead of invoking God's wrath and judgment, we must resolve ourselves to be those who honor God in all that we do and in all that we say.
But how can we ever begin to honor the name God in all that we do and say? By owning up to the only One who did just that--the One whose very life fulfilled the covenant promises of God. By speaking the truth and honoring His word, He paid the penalty for our disobedience. Apart from Him and His enabling hand, we have no hope. But with Him we have help in our time of need. May we implore His grace as we learn to honor our oaths. May we, along with the courtroom witness, learn to cry aloud "so help me God."
Notes
[1]
While this article does not deal specifically with vows, it would be helpful to distinguish oaths from vows. While an oath is a covenant entered into between man and man, a vow is a covenant entered into between man and God whereby the one taking the oath explicitly or implicitly appeals to God to witness and sanction what he has promised and to judge and avenge His name if the one vowing breaches what he promised to do. Many promises can be both oaths and vows as pointed out in note two.
[2]
Many people refer to the words exchanged by the wedding couple as marriage vows. Actually, they are oaths and vows: promises made between the spouses and promises made by each spouse to God.
[3]
For the sake of clarity, this article distinguishes between cursing on the one hand and swearing on the other hand. Cursing, as used in this article, refers to using vulgarity. While swearing can sometimes be used so that it is synonymous with cursing, swearing, as used in this article, means undertaking an oath.
[4]
Hodge, Charles, (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company), Vol. III, p. 305.
[5]
While some Christians erroneously teach that Scripture forbids all oaths, still others erroneously teach that Scripture only sanctions public oaths (i.e. oaths given in a public context, usually extracted by public officials). This view simply does not accord with the full weight of Scripture. Many oaths in Scripture are made between private individuals acting solely in a private capacity: Abraham to Abimelech (Gen.21:23); Abraham's servant to Abraham (Gen.24:31); Isaac to Abraham (Gen. 26:31); Jacob to Laban (Gen.31:53, 54); Jacob to Joseph (Gen.47:31); Reuben to Jacob (Gen.42: 37); David to Jonathan and Jonathon to David (I Sam. 20:1-42); David to Shimei (II Sam. 19:21-23); Boaz to Ruth (Ruth 3:13); Obadiah to Elijah (IKing 8:10). Add to this list the oaths of Paul in the text of the article (which those who maintain this view mistakenly claim were made in a quasi-public capacity). The private/public dichotomy simply does not hold up to Biblical scrutiny.
[6]
Calvin, John, Institutes of the Christian Religion, John T. McNeill, ed., (Philadelphia, PA: The Westminster Press, 1960), vol. I, p. 389.
[7]
This view can be supported further by noting that the Hebrew word for oath is rendered in the Septuagint (e.g. Gen. 1:5 and Num. 5:19) as orizw or exorizw, the latter of which was used in the imperative mood by the high priest. For more on the rabbinical oath and the exchange between Christ ant the high priest, see Hodge, p. 308. Moreover, with striking similarity, Paul solemnly charges the Thessalonians to read his epistle to all the brethren: "I adjure you by the Lord to have this letter read to all the brethren" (I Thess. 5:27).
[8]
See note 6 above.
[9]
In fact, the concept of hating one's enemies seems to have been taught by two different schools of Jewish thought prior to the time of Christ: some of the rabbis (Aboth R. Nathan and R. Simon B. Yochai) and the Essene community (The Rule of the Community otherwise known as the Manual of Discipline). The important point, for purposes of this article, is that Christ is not refuting the Law itself; rather, He is refuting scribal and Pharasaical misinterpretations of and accretions to that Law. That is the particular or local context of the passage in question.
[10]
This interpretation is confirmed by another passage in the gospel of Matthew (23:16-23). In that passage, Christ teaches the Pharisees that when they swore by the altar they swore by everything on the altar, that when they swore by the temple they swore by the God who dwells in the temple, that when they swore by heaven, they swore by the throne of God.
[11]
Calvin, John, Calvin's Commentaries,, David W. Torrance, ed., (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1980), vol. I, p.193; vol.III, p. 312.
[12]
Calvin, John, Calvin's Commentaries, vol. I, p. 193. The King James Version accurately conveys this idea when it translates the phrase "of evil" as "cometh of evil."
[13]
This point is addressed in more detail below.
[14]
Neither should you lie apart from taking an oath. You are not free to violate a simple statement any more than you are free to violate an oath. Both simple statements and oaths should be inviolable.
[15]
Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 390.
[16]
Hodge, p. 306, 307.
[17]
This point is addressed in more detail below.
[18]
Hodge, p. 312.
[19]
The field of contract law provides additional methods of ensuring that the terms of an oath are agreed to by both parties.
[20]
Keil and Delitzsch carefully demonstrate that Jephthah never vowed to kill his daughter, as many just assume or read into the text. Keil, C.F. and Delitzsch, F., Commentary on the Old Testament, Vol.II (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1988, pp. 387-395.
[21]
It is also important to note that this excuse presupposes the lesser-of-two-evils moral theory by assuming that God would place us in a situation where we would have to choose between violating a lawful oath or keeping our oath in the face of another sin. God never places His people in a position of choosing between evils. Such a view is mistaken for three reasons: (1) The God of scripture is the God of this created order; the one who commands you to obey Him is the one who created this world to work in harmony with His word. Scripture and your situation are not at dagger points with each other. (2) God tells us in His word that with every temptation, He will provide a way of escape; in other words, sin is never inevitable for the Christian. (3) If all humans must choose between evils, then the Biblical doctrine of Christ is seriously compromised. Scripture teaches us that Christ was tempted in every way as we are tempted, yet is without sin (Heb.4:15). So either Christ was tempted with a tragic moral choice (from which he could not escape and thus chose the lesser of evils -- sinned!) or he was not faced with every human temptation (in which case Scripture contradicts itself). For more on the refutation of choosing between evils, see Frame, John, Medical Ethics: Principles, Persons, and Problems (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publ. Co., 1988), pp. 8-10.
[22]
The law of wills has an analogue known as the doctrine of cy pres; according to the doctrine of cy pres , if a provision in a will would be impossible or illegal to effect, courts will attempt to construe the provision according to the next best charitable purpose.
[23]
Dabney, R.L., Systematic Theology, (St. Louis, MO: Presbyterian Publ. Co., [2d. ed. 1878], republished by The Banner of Truth Trust, 1985), p.364.
David G. Hagopian has a B.A. in history from the University of California, Irvine, and a J.D. from the University of Southern California. He is a senior editor of Antithesis. Copyright © by Covenant Community Church of Orange County 1990
So Help Me God: A Biblical View of Oaths
David G. Hagopian
Contemporary culture faces a growing integrity crisis. The bond of a person's word is flippantly broken. A Biblical view of oaths and promises calls us to a higher, if not more painful, commitment to our word.
"I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth..."
"I take thee to be my lawful wedded wife and I do promise and covenant before God and these witnesses to be thy loving and faithful husband, in sickness and in health..."
"I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of the President of the United States..."
How often we have heard those oaths uttered during trials, weddings and inaugurations. But how seldom it is that people actually honor such oaths as evidenced by the incidence of perjury, divorce and demagoguery. And it doesn't stop there. Sadly, people--even Christian people--violate their oaths and vows at whim, as though truth were fungible and their promises, dispensable. By so doing, they demonstrate culpable ignorance of, indifference to, or callousness for their Biblical responsibility to honor their word in general and their oaths and vows in particular. Simply put, we have become a society and a church without verbal integrity, a society and a church without those who honor their oaths.
For that reason, it is important to examine what Scripture has to say about our responsibility to honor our oaths. After defining what constitutes an oath and proving that Scripture does not forbid all oaths, we will provide Biblical guidelines for taking oaths, and refute common excuses people proffer for violating their oaths. This article, then, is intended to be a concise overview of what the Bible has to say about oaths.
Oaths Defined
Perhaps there is no better place to begin this exposition of oaths than by explaining what we mean when we speak of oaths. In simple form, an oath is a promise. More particularly, an oath or promise is simply an agreement entered into between one person and another whereby the one taking the oath (1) explicitly or implicitly appeals to God to witness and sanction what he has said or committed himself to, and (2) calls God to judge and avenge His name if what he said is false or what he committed to do never comes to pass.[1]
>From this definition we can see how pervasive oaths are. When one signs a form swearing that the information it contains is true, he is making an oath. When a bride and groom promise to remain married till death do them part, they are making an oath.[2] When a party enters a contract, he is making an oath. When a courtroom witness swears to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth, he is making an oath.
The Third Commandment
With this understanding of oaths, we need to know what Scripture has to say about them. The Scriptural point of departure is the third commandment, which is translated in the King James version as "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain: for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain." Many Christians incorrectly assume that this verse merely teaches that we shouldn't curse using the name of God.[3] Indeed, the third commandment does teach that we should not curse using the name of God. But it teaches so much more.
So just what does the third commandment teach? To begin with, the phrase "the name of the Lord thy God" does not refer only to the literal name of God. Rather, the name of God refers comprehensively to God, including God's literal name, anything by which God makes Himself known, and ultimately, God Himself. In short, to call on the name of God is to call on God Himself!
While the name of God is used comprehensively to refer ultimately to God Himself, the phrase translated in vain means "falsely" (Isa.59:4). So the verse could be translated in at least two different ways: (1) Thou shalt not swear (utter) the name of God to a lie, or (2) Thou shalt not swear (utter) the name of God falsely. The basic meaning is the same: we should refrain from appealing to the name of God to confirm or bear witness to a falsehood.[4]
The third commandment, then, primarily forbids appealing to God to confirm a falsehood. But as with all of the ten commandments, the greater includes the lesser. The sixth commandment, for example, does merely prohibit unjustified killing; it also prohibits murderous and malicious feelings (Matt.5:21-24).
In the same way, the command not to call upon God to bear witness to a falsehood also forbids all lesser forms of irreverence for the name of God. Thus, the third commandment prohibits any lack of fear, honor and reverence for God and any profanation or abuse of anything by which God makes Himself known, especially in our speech. We should refrain from doing anything which detracts from the glory due the name of God in our lives. But the third commandment not only forbids certain conduct; it also affirmatively requires that we at all times fear, honor and reverence God and His most holy name as well as His titles, attributes, ordinances and works, especially in our speech. The third commandment, therefore, primarily requires us to honor our oaths and forbids us from violating them. When we appeal to God by means of oaths, we must honor God by honoring our oaths.
In Defense of Oaths
Through the years, some Christians have taught that the third commandment in particular and Scripture in general forbid all oaths. To bolster this contention, they marshal forth passages such as Matt. 5:33-37 and James 5:12 wherein we find the oft-quoted command, "swear not at all." And at first blush, these passages appear to forbid all oaths.
By carefully interpreting these passages, however, we will see that Christ was merely correcting Pharisaical and scribal abuses and misinterpretations of God's standards when it come to oaths. When interpreted in light of the general context of Scripture as a whole and in light of the particular context, we will see that far from forbidding all oaths, Christ (and James) forbade only unlawful (unbiblical) oaths.[5]
The General Context
The general context of Scripture, when studied carefully, reveals that God does not forbid all oaths.
First, Scripture commands us to swear by the name of God on certain occasions. In Deuteronomy 6:13, for example, Scripture commands God's people "You shall fear only the Lord your God; and you shall worship Him, and swear by His name." Far from prohibiting all oaths, Isaiah tells us that "he who swears in the earth shall swear by the name of God" (Is. 65:16). God sanctions lawful oaths to such an extent that He promises to build up those who swear by His name (Jer. 12:16). Even in the mundane affairs of life, such as confirming the truth between disputing neighbors, God commands His people to swear before Him (Ex. 22:10-11). Because Scripture commands God's people to swear by His name, it cannot forbid all oaths. God does not command what He simultaneously condemns!
Second, Scripture also teaches us that swearing is an act of confession and religious worship. We already saw in Deuteronomy 6:13 that God commands us to swear in His name precisely because swearing in God's name is but one way to worship and fear Him (cf Deut.10:20). Isaiah confirms this connection between swearing and worship; when he prophesies about the Assyrians and Egyptians coming into a covenantal relationship with God, he says that they will swear in the name of God. (Is. 19:18). Calvin explains that "by swearing in the Lord's name they will profess his religion."[6]
But exactly how is swearing an act of confession and worship? When we duly swear in God's name, we confess several things about God. To begin with, we confess that God exists. Moreover, we confess several of God's attributes as revealed to us in Scripture: we testify that He is omnipresent and omniscient, that He is eternal and immutable, that He is just and true, that He is powerful and wrathful. By confessing His existence and attributes, we also confess that He is the Supreme Judge over all the earth and that we are accountable to Him for all that we do and say. Though the word of men may fail, the word of God never fails. Though men may fail, God never fails. By taking oaths in God's name, we confess God to be the ultimate arbiter of truth, and we worship the God of truth in spirit and in truth.
Third, Scripture offers us many examples of those who swore, examples we are commanded to follow.
God Himself swears. David, anticipating the eternal priesthood of Christ exclaims under the inspiration of the Spirit, "The Lord has sworn and will not change His mind, Thou art a priest forever..."(Ps. 110:4). The author of Hebrews tells us that God swore not only by demonstrating that what the Psalmist anticipated in Psalm 110:4 had been fulfilled in Christ (Heb. 7:21), but also by telling us that God swore when He made His covenant with Abraham: "For when God made the promise to Abraham, since He could swear by no one greater, He swore by Himself" (Heb. 6:13).
While it is true that we will never be perfect this side of eternity, we are nonetheless commanded to imitate the perfection of God and to be like God (Matt. 5:48, Eph. 5:1). If God upheld His Word with oaths in His name, and if we are commanded to imitate God, then if the occasion arises, Scripture permits us to swear lawfully in the name of God. As such, Scripture cannot, without contradicting itself, forbid all oaths.
What is true of God the Father is equally true with respect to God the Son for three reasons. First, the deity of Christ implies that what is true of God is true of Christ; hence since God swore, Christ swore.
Second, if you were to read Psalm 110:4 and Hebrews 7:21, referred to above, you would observe that in Psalm 110:4, God swears that He will provide an eternal high priest (anticipation) while in Hebrews 7:21, God has honored His oath (fulfillment). God the Father made the oath; God the Son fulfilled it. Thus, the very life of the Son was the very fulfillment of an oath made by the Father.
Third, Christ actually undertook an oath when questioned by Caiaphas, the high priest as recorded in the gospel of Matthew. After Christ remained silent during the accusational phase of his trial, Caiaphas charged Christ, exclaiming, "I adjure You by the living God, that You tell us whether You are the Christ, the Son of God. Jesus said to him, You have said it yourself..." (Matt. 26:63:64a). Literally translated, Caiaphas said to Christ "I swear You [call on you to swear]" or "I charge You." In the rabbinical form of directly affirming an oath, Christ responded to Caiaphas. In other words, by answering Caiaphas' adjuration, Christ undertook an oath that what He was saying was true.[7] Thus, by virtue of His deity, priesthood, and trial, Christ swore.
And just as Christians are commanded to imitate God, so Christians are commanded to imitate Christ. "[T]he one who says he abides in Him," writes John, "ought himself to walk in the same manner as He walked" (1 Jn. 2:6). The example of Christ teaches us that under some circumstances, we may take oaths. Since the Living Word perfectly abided by the written word, and since the Living Word swore, the written word cannot forbid all oaths.
The Word of God not only records the examples of the Father and the Son; it also records for our benefit and instruction the example of the Apostle Paul who often supported what he said with oaths: (1) "For God...is my witness..." (Rom 1:9, Phil. 1:8); (2) "But I call God as witness to my soul..." (II Cor. 1:23); (3)"...God is witness..." (IThess. 2:5); (4) "you are witnesses, and so is God..." (I Thess. 2:10); and (5) "I adjure you by the Lord..." (I Thess. 5:27).[8] As you can see, there is no shortage of Biblical proof that Paul took oaths. But the Bible doesn't record the example of Paul for our idle theological speculation. Rather, we are commanded to imitate Paul as he in turn imitated Christ (I Cor. 4:16, 11:1). If the need arises, Scripture permits oaths.
>From this brief overview of Scripture, we have seen that Scripture commands God's people to take lawful oaths, informs us that taking an oath is an act of confession and religious worship, and commends to us the examples of the God the Father, Christ, and Paul, all of whom took oaths. Thus, to interpret Christ (and James) as forbidding all oaths is to foist contradiction on Scripture itself, as well as on the Father, Christ and Paul since, on this interpretation, they all swore contrary to Scripture. The general context of Scripture, therefore, does not support the notion that Scripture forbids all oaths.
The Particular Context
What is true of the general context of Scripture as a whole, is also true of the particular context of the passage in question: this passage proves beyond doubt that Christ is simply correcting Pharisaical abuses of and glosses on the Law. Christ constantly contrasts what the ancients said about the Law with what God says about the Law by repeating the formula: "Ye have heard that it was said...But I say unto you..." The Pharisees, for example, taught that the Law only forbade murder; Christ taught that the Law, properly understood, also forbade hate. The Pharisees taught that the Law only forbade adultery; Christ taught that the Law, properly understood, also forbade lust. The Pharisees taught that one was to love his neighbor and hate his enemy when the law affirmed the former but never even taught the latter![9]
Likewise, Christ corrected Pharisaical misconceptions about oaths. From this passage, it appears that the Pharisees thought that one could swear as often as he wished as long as he did not do so falsely and as long as he did not swear in the literal name of God. Christ's opponents appeared to swear frequently and round-aboutly. Christ attacks both of these errors head on by showing the Pharisees that heaven, earth, Jerusalem and even their own heads have their ultimate reference point in God: heaven is the throne of God; the earth is His footstool; Jerusalem is the city of the Great King; and it is that King who controls even the hair on one's head! In other words, when they swore by heaven, they swore by the God of heaven because the universe and everything in it is stamped with His glory.[10] By swearing in those ways, the Pharisees failed to see that one still takes the name of God in vain no matter how he wishes to dress up his words.[11]
"But," says the opponent of oaths, "how does your interpretation jibe with Christ's teaching that anything more than a simple yes or no is of evil?" The interpretation advanced in this article is perfectly consistent with Christ's teaching when that teaching is properly understood! In the New Testament Greek, the genitive case is used when Christ says that anything beyond yes and no is "of evil." What Christ means is that anything beyond yes and no -- an oath or a vow -- has its origin in evil; in other words, oaths arose as a result of evil or the Fall.[12] It is distrust, dishonesty, and inconsistency which make oaths necessary in the first place. If there were no sin, oaths would be unnecessary. But just because oaths are occasioned by the Fall doesn't necessarily make them evil in and of themselves.
To suggest that this is the case is to commit the genetic fallacy, assuming without proof that what is true of the genesis (origin) of something is true of the thing itself. After all, civil government became necessary only after the Fall (to restrain the social manifestations of sin); yet civil government is not evil because of that fact. In the same way, just because oaths became necessary after the Fall as a result of evil, does not mean that oaths, therefore, are evil.
Biblical Guidelines for Oaths
If Scripture only forbids unlawful oaths, it is important to distinguish lawful from unlawful oaths. Fortunately, Scripture, as our rule for all that we believe and do, provides us with clear guidelines so that we can distinguish lawful from unlawful oaths both as to whether we should undertake oaths and if we do undertake oaths, what the content of our oaths should be.
Should You Take An Oath?
Suppose you are confronted with a situation where you are contemplating whether or not you should take an oath. Here is a partial list of Biblical guidelines for taking oaths.
1. The object of the oath must be Biblical. It almost goes without mentioning that one cannot bind himself to do that which Scripture forbids, since no one can bind himself to sin.[13]
2. What you are about to say must be true, or you must do what you are about to promise. In addition to undertaking a Biblical objective, you must also speak the truth and do what you say you will do. "If a man makes a vow to the Lord, or takes an oath to bind himself with a binding obligation, he shall not violate his word; he shall do according to all that proceeds out his mouth" (Num. 30:2). If, therefore, you know that you are about to utter a falsehood or you know that you have no intention of absolutely honoring your word, then you should not take an oath.[14]
3. The oath must be necessary. Even if what you say is true or you will honor what you promise, you should not swear if swearing is unnecessary (Ex. 20:7). Scripture forbids all superfluous oaths (Matt 5:33-37, 23:16-22). There must be an adequate reason why appealing to God is necessary (e.g. Ex 22:10, 11). We should purge from our vocabulary sayings such as "swear to God" or "honest to God" unless the occasion is so serious and solemn as to necessitate an oath. Calvin rightly commented that "God's name is rendered cheap when it is used in true but needless oaths. For then it is taken in vain."[15] Remember that oaths are acts of worship and as such, should not be uttered on trivial occasions. The third commandment condemns all unnecessary, colloquial and irreverent swearing which has nothing to do with the solemn acts of worship commanded in Scripture.[16] So what makes an oath necessary according to Scripture? In one way or another, all of the oaths sanctioned in Scripture glorify God and edify others.
4. You must be prepared to abide by your oath no matter how your personal interests or circumstances may change. In addition to having a Biblical objective, intending to keep your word, and making sure that your oath is necessary, you should also realize that you must keep an oath no matter how your personal interests or circumstances may change (Ps. 15:4, 24:4). If you are not prepared to stand steadfastly by what you have promised, no matter what happens, then you should not make a oath.[17]
What Should Be the Content of Your Oath?
Provided that you abide by the Biblical guidelines for taking oaths, you should make sure that the content of your oath abides by the following principles.
1. The oath must appeal to God alone. Scripture emphatically commands us to swear only in the name of God (Deut. 6:13, 10:20; Jer. 5:7; Zeph. 1:4, 5). In no uncertain terms, God forbids swearing by other gods because swearing is an act of religious worship; when people swear by other gods they violate the second commandment. God is so angry with those who swear by other gods that He declares that He will "cut off" those who do so (Zeph. 1:4, 5).
Although oaths must appeal to God alone, there are a variety of ways in which one can appeal to God in the context of an oath: (1) "give glory to the God of Israel" (Josh 7:19); (2) "as the Lord lives" (Judg. 8:19; Ruth 3:13, 1Sam 14:39; II Sam. 2:27; Jer. 38:16); (3) "The Lord do so to me and more also" (Ruth 1:17; I Sam. 14:44; II Sam. 3:9, 35; 1Kings 2:23; II Kings 6:31); (4) "May the Lord be true and faithful witness" (Jer. 42:5); (5) "I adjure you by the living God..." (Matt. 26:63); (6) "I adjure you by the Lord..." (I Thess. 5:27); (8) "But I call God as witness to my soul..." (II Cor.1:23); (9) "...God is witness..." (I Thess. 2:5); (10) "You are witnesses and so is God..." (I Thess. 2:10).
2. The language of the oath must be unequivocal and unambiguous so as to be clearly understood by all parties. The great Reformed theologian, Charles Hodge, alludes to the story of a commander who swore to citizens of a besieged city that if they surrendered, not a drop of their blood would be shed. After securing their surrender, the commander then burned them all at the stake![18] We should never secure oaths by means of linguistic chicanery.
To help reduce the possibility of using equivocal and ambiguous terms, we should: (1) reduce oaths to written instruments (when possible), (2) define in those instruments any terms that warrant definition (so as to preclude later linguistic revision), and (3) make sure that there is a meeting of the minds as to the material items and conditions of these instruments.[19]
Breaking Oaths
Generally speaking, to break an oath is to violate the third commandment and to trample on the holy name of God. As with many divine commands, there is no shortage of wasted genius when it comes to cunning excuses and self-serving rationalizations for breaking oaths. Before examining some of these excuses, it is important to point out that if you were to abide by the Biblical criteria for making oaths, you would never find yourself in the position of reneging your oath!
Illegitimate Reasons for Breaking Oaths
Change in Circumstances
As strange as it may seem, some claim that changing circumstances exonerate them from honoring oaths previously made. Nothing could be more contrary to the entire tenor of Scripture when it comes to oaths. In Psalms 15:4 and 24:4, for example, David asks who can ascend to and dwell on the hill of God? In addition to having integrity, being righteous, speaking truth, and refusing bribes -- just to name a few -- the one who has sweet fellowship with God is the one who "swears to his own hurt, and does not change" and the one who "has not sworn deceitfully." If you make a vow, no matter how your circumstances may change, you are to do "all that proceeds out of [your] mouth" (Num. 30:2, Deut. 23:23).
Not only is this excuse unbiblical, it is also illogical because it flies squarely in the face of the very reason why we undertake oaths in the first place: we take stock of our circumstances and bind ourselves to the truth of our word or to a particular course of action, knowing full well that our circumstances may change with time. If ever there was a Biblical character who could have used this cop out, it was Jephthah. But instead of violating his oath to consecrate his daughter to temple service,[20] he rightly declared, "I have given my word to the Lord, and I cannot take it back" (Judg.11:35). This excuse is also untenable because the initial oath could have provided for possible contingencies. Just because it didn't, one cannot unilaterally claim to be released from his obligation. The conclusion simply does not follow on the basis of the premise.[21]
Oath Which Is Impossible to Perform
Perhaps the one who argues that changing circumstances alleviate him from his obligation to honor his oath is really saying that the oath is impossible to perform and consequently, he cannot perform it. The danger of this argument, though, is that it is particularly susceptible to rationalization: most people say something is impossible (that which cannot objectively be done) when they really mean that it is undesirable (that which one subjectively does not want to do). Obviously, one cannot violate an oath simply because he does not desire to perform his obligations under the oath.
So the real question becomes: when, if ever does impossibility -- properly defined -- excuse performance of an oath? To answer that question effectively, it is important to distinguish between two different situations. First, the easy case: if one knows the oath will be impossible to perform before he makes it, he should not make it and cannot thereafter seek recourse in this excuse. It is sinful both to make and break such an oath.
Second, the difficult case: what if the oath is possible when made but subsequently is rendered impossible? As stated above, before you ever make an oath, you should think through any possible contingencies ahead of time and provide for them. Some contingencies are so obvious that if you did not provide for them, you should nonetheless be held accountable to perform your oath. Aside from planning ahead for possible contingencies, perhaps you will still find yourself in a situation where the oath, as promised, is technically impossible to perform (e.g. the beneficiary of the oath has died). In such a situation, you should consider whether there is another course of action which will fulfill the intent of the oath (e.g. performing the oath for the benefit of the beneficiary's heirs).[22]
Violation of An Oath Negates the Oath
The claim that violating an oath negates the oath in its entirety is completely without Biblical warrant. Nowhere in Scripture will one find support for this kind of sophistic reasoning. In fact, this excuse can easily be reduced to absurdity. If a courtroom witness, for instance, swears to tell nothing but the truth and subsequently utters false testimony, is he thereafter free to perjure his testimony to his heart's content? If a secret agent swears to secrecy and thereafter violates his oath by committing a single act of treason, is he then free to commit treason without restraint? If a spouse violated his marriage oaths and vows by committing a single act of adultery, is he thereafter free to multiply his adulterous acts? How absurd! Precisely!
Oath Involuntarily Imposed by Legitimate Authority
In numerous instances, individuals in Scripture were forced to take oaths. Nowhere is this practice condemned, provided the oath doesn't require what God forbids or doesn't forbid what God requires. In fact, God actually sanctions involuntarily imposed oaths. When one sinned, for example, he could be "made to take an oath" calling for God's justice to be done (1Kings 8:31, 32; II Chron. 6:22, 23). Scripture is replete with oaths imposed by lawful authorities (Ex. 22:7-11; Neh 5:12, 19, 21; 8:25; 13:25). And as we saw above, Christ, as our perfect example, even submitted to Caiaphas, the high priest, when Caiaphas charged Christ to answer him (Matt. 26:63, 64). This excuse cannot withstand Biblical scrutiny.
Oath Made to Unbelievers
As with oaths imposed involuntarily by legitimate authorities, so Scripture sanctions oaths to unbelievers, provided the object of the oath is not sinful. (Ezek. 17:16,18,19; Josh. 9:18,19; II Sam. 21:1).
Oath Made Under Distress
Many oaths, due to the solemnity and seriousness with which they should rightly be uttered, will be uttered under distress. But the distress with which Jephthah uttered his vow, for example, did not alleviate his responsibility to honor it (Judg.11:35). David well recognized this truth when he declared "I shall come into Thy house with burnt offerings; I shall pay Thee my vows, [w]hich my lips uttered [a]nd my mouth spoke when I was in distress" (Ps.66:13, 14).
A Legitimate Reason To Break Oaths
Having refuted the most common excuses people proffer for violating their oaths, we must now turn briefly to the only biblical reason for violating an oath: if the objective of the oath is sinful. Since one can never bind himself to sin, such an "oath" is invalid from its inception and consequently, is not binding. By definition, one cannot break a non-existent oath. The sin, in such a situation, is not in breaking an unlawful oath, but in making it. Thus, Herod was under no obligation to kill John the Baptist, since he could not bind himself to commit murder. The real lesson here is one of prevention; you shouldn't make such oaths to begin with.
Conclusion
Hopefully we can better appreciate what Scripture has to say about oaths. Since this essay has defined what an oath is, explained how the Biblical view of oaths is rooted in the third commandment, demonstrated that Scripture does not forbid all oaths, delineated guidelines for taking oaths, and refuted common excuses for breaking oaths, we can see that oaths are serious business. We should not rush headlong into making oaths, and we should make sure that we honor the oaths that we make. "Where an oath is falsely taken," warns R. L. Dabney, "it is a heaven-daring attempt to enlist the Almighty in the sanction of the creature's lie and is thus, either the most outrageous levity, or the most outrageous impiety of which he can be guilty."[23]
It is always dangerous to engage in "heaven-daring" behavior. Lest we forget, the third commandment contains a promise, a promise of punishment for those who violate it. The third commandment chillingly pronounces that "the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh His name in vain." Since God will punish those who take His name in vain, we would do well to realize that it is a terrible thing to fall into the hands of the living God. Instead of invoking God's wrath and judgment, we must resolve ourselves to be those who honor God in all that we do and in all that we say.
But how can we ever begin to honor the name God in all that we do and say? By owning up to the only One who did just that--the One whose very life fulfilled the covenant promises of God. By speaking the truth and honoring His word, He paid the penalty for our disobedience. Apart from Him and His enabling hand, we have no hope. But with Him we have help in our time of need. May we implore His grace as we learn to honor our oaths. May we, along with the courtroom witness, learn to cry aloud "so help me God."
Notes
[1]
While this article does not deal specifically with vows, it would be helpful to distinguish oaths from vows. While an oath is a covenant entered into between man and man, a vow is a covenant entered into between man and God whereby the one taking the oath explicitly or implicitly appeals to God to witness and sanction what he has promised and to judge and avenge His name if the one vowing breaches what he promised to do. Many promises can be both oaths and vows as pointed out in note two.
[2]
Many people refer to the words exchanged by the wedding couple as marriage vows. Actually, they are oaths and vows: promises made between the spouses and promises made by each spouse to God.
[3]
For the sake of clarity, this article distinguishes between cursing on the one hand and swearing on the other hand. Cursing, as used in this article, refers to using vulgarity. While swearing can sometimes be used so that it is synonymous with cursing, swearing, as used in this article, means undertaking an oath.
[4]
Hodge, Charles, (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company), Vol. III, p. 305.
[5]
While some Christians erroneously teach that Scripture forbids all oaths, still others erroneously teach that Scripture only sanctions public oaths (i.e. oaths given in a public context, usually extracted by public officials). This view simply does not accord with the full weight of Scripture. Many oaths in Scripture are made between private individuals acting solely in a private capacity: Abraham to Abimelech (Gen.21:23); Abraham's servant to Abraham (Gen.24:31); Isaac to Abraham (Gen. 26:31); Jacob to Laban (Gen.31:53, 54); Jacob to Joseph (Gen.47:31); Reuben to Jacob (Gen.42: 37); David to Jonathan and Jonathon to David (I Sam. 20:1-42); David to Shimei (II Sam. 19:21-23); Boaz to Ruth (Ruth 3:13); Obadiah to Elijah (IKing 8:10). Add to this list the oaths of Paul in the text of the article (which those who maintain this view mistakenly claim were made in a quasi-public capacity). The private/public dichotomy simply does not hold up to Biblical scrutiny.
[6]
Calvin, John, Institutes of the Christian Religion, John T. McNeill, ed., (Philadelphia, PA: The Westminster Press, 1960), vol. I, p. 389.
[7]
This view can be supported further by noting that the Hebrew word for oath is rendered in the Septuagint (e.g. Gen. 1:5 and Num. 5:19) as orizw or exorizw, the latter of which was used in the imperative mood by the high priest. For more on the rabbinical oath and the exchange between Christ ant the high priest, see Hodge, p. 308. Moreover, with striking similarity, Paul solemnly charges the Thessalonians to read his epistle to all the brethren: "I adjure you by the Lord to have this letter read to all the brethren" (I Thess. 5:27).
[8]
See note 6 above.
[9]
In fact, the concept of hating one's enemies seems to have been taught by two different schools of Jewish thought prior to the time of Christ: some of the rabbis (Aboth R. Nathan and R. Simon B. Yochai) and the Essene community (The Rule of the Community otherwise known as the Manual of Discipline). The important point, for purposes of this article, is that Christ is not refuting the Law itself; rather, He is refuting scribal and Pharasaical misinterpretations of and accretions to that Law. That is the particular or local context of the passage in question.
[10]
This interpretation is confirmed by another passage in the gospel of Matthew (23:16-23). In that passage, Christ teaches the Pharisees that when they swore by the altar they swore by everything on the altar, that when they swore by the temple they swore by the God who dwells in the temple, that when they swore by heaven, they swore by the throne of God.
[11]
Calvin, John, Calvin's Commentaries,, David W. Torrance, ed., (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1980), vol. I, p.193; vol.III, p. 312.
[12]
Calvin, John, Calvin's Commentaries, vol. I, p. 193. The King James Version accurately conveys this idea when it translates the phrase "of evil" as "cometh of evil."
[13]
This point is addressed in more detail below.
[14]
Neither should you lie apart from taking an oath. You are not free to violate a simple statement any more than you are free to violate an oath. Both simple statements and oaths should be inviolable.
[15]
Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 390.
[16]
Hodge, p. 306, 307.
[17]
This point is addressed in more detail below.
[18]
Hodge, p. 312.
[19]
The field of contract law provides additional methods of ensuring that the terms of an oath are agreed to by both parties.
[20]
Keil and Delitzsch carefully demonstrate that Jephthah never vowed to kill his daughter, as many just assume or read into the text. Keil, C.F. and Delitzsch, F., Commentary on the Old Testament, Vol.II (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1988, pp. 387-395.
[21]
It is also important to note that this excuse presupposes the lesser-of-two-evils moral theory by assuming that God would place us in a situation where we would have to choose between violating a lawful oath or keeping our oath in the face of another sin. God never places His people in a position of choosing between evils. Such a view is mistaken for three reasons: (1) The God of scripture is the God of this created order; the one who commands you to obey Him is the one who created this world to work in harmony with His word. Scripture and your situation are not at dagger points with each other. (2) God tells us in His word that with every temptation, He will provide a way of escape; in other words, sin is never inevitable for the Christian. (3) If all humans must choose between evils, then the Biblical doctrine of Christ is seriously compromised. Scripture teaches us that Christ was tempted in every way as we are tempted, yet is without sin (Heb.4:15). So either Christ was tempted with a tragic moral choice (from which he could not escape and thus chose the lesser of evils -- sinned!) or he was not faced with every human temptation (in which case Scripture contradicts itself). For more on the refutation of choosing between evils, see Frame, John, Medical Ethics: Principles, Persons, and Problems (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publ. Co., 1988), pp. 8-10.
[22]
The law of wills has an analogue known as the doctrine of cy pres; according to the doctrine of cy pres , if a provision in a will would be impossible or illegal to effect, courts will attempt to construe the provision according to the next best charitable purpose.
[23]
Dabney, R.L., Systematic Theology, (St. Louis, MO: Presbyterian Publ. Co., [2d. ed. 1878], republished by The Banner of Truth Trust, 1985), p.364.
David G. Hagopian has a B.A. in history from the University of California, Irvine, and a J.D. from the University of Southern California. He is a senior editor of Antithesis. Copyright © by Covenant Community Church of Orange County 1990
Saturday, April 18, 2009
Lying Semite Judge
The Speeding Judge
Dates of show: Oct. 31 and Nov. 2, 2008
In a case which has deep resonance for Britain and the entire civilized world, the whole of Australia has been glued to the media in recent weeks, following the story of an eminent judge who has ruined his reputation because he tried to lie his way out of a speeding fine that would have cost him about 36 pounds sterling . At the age of 70, he is about to go to jail for a minimum of two years because he failed to cough up 36 quid at the right moment. On the face of it, you can’t call his disaster a tragedy. A tragedy, according to classical principles, is a fall from high degree because of some great flaw. Marcus Einfeld, the judge in question, was certainly of high enough degree: none higher. Queens Counsel since 1977, Australian Living Treasure 1997, United Nations Peace Award 2002, the list goes on. He retired a few years ago but he has continually been brought back to judge important cases about refugees because the Australian legal system can’t do without his experience and prestige.
Or anyway it couldn’t. In 2006 a speed camera in Sydney caught his silver Lexus doing 6mph over the limit. At this point we have to forget about the dizzy speed of the car and try to slow down the thought processes going on in his head. There he is, at the top of his profession, with a national, indeed international, reputation for wisdom. This is the man who was the founding president of Australia’s Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission. In 1987 he headed the Commission’s enquiry into the living conditions of aborigines in the border area of New South Wales and Queensland and he wept openly at evidence that a young aboriginal boy who had been denied a proper rugby ball had played instead with an old shoe.
Those were famous tears, and there is every reason to think that they were sincerely felt. As a judge of great matters of justice, Marcus Einfeld had deservedly been revered for many years. He had a right to think of himself as the very incarnation of the law. Now here he was, with a speeding ticket in his hand, facing a fine of a paltry £36 for havingexceeded the speed limit by a lousy 6mph. And right there the fatal error begins to take form. It wasn’t so much the £36 fine. He could afford that. It was that the penalty points would bring him closer to losing his licence. Somehow the top judge and national treasure didn’t see himself in a position where he was not allowed to drive.
Unusual, that. Many 70 year old men of his exalted rank are very content to be driven, rather than having to do the driving. They have a man with a cap to drive them, so they can say, from the back seat: watch out for the speed cameras, Bruce. Perhaps Marcus Einfeld is one of those strange men – there are thousands of them in every country and they are nearly always men – who need to have a driving licence just so that they can get points on it, who think that the whole purpose of driving is to drive as far over the limit as they can and still get away with it, and still keep going for as long as the licence lasts even if they don’t get away with it.
But the judge was only 6mph over the limit, which scarcely made him a boy racer. He must have thought the prospect of getting yet more points on an already point-scarred licence was an awful lot of inconvenience for practically nothing, and he must also have thought – and here the other half of the fateful mental pattern comes into play – he must also have thought of how easy it would be to get out of it. All he had to do was say that someone else was driving the silver Lexus that day. So he said he had lent the car to an American friend, Professor Theresa Brennan. Satisfied, the magistrate dismissed the case, and the judge walked free. In just such a way, King Oedipus believed himself to be in the clear when he left Corinth.
If he – I mean the judge, not King Oedipus --had said that he had lent the car to an Australian government secret agent whom he could not name without rendering him vulnerable to attack by terrorists, Marcus Einfeld might still be enjoying his place at the top of the heap, admired by all. But Professor Theresa Brennan was an actual figure, who could be traced. When a newspaper did trace her, it turned out that she was no longer in existence. At the time of the speeding incident she had already been dead for three years.
It was probably already too late for Marcus Einfeld to save his career. Yet he might conceivably have climbed relatively unbesmirched out of the hole he was occupying, and even drawn some sympathy for the depth to which he had dug himself in by telling one of those little fibs that almost everyone tells over small matters. But like president Nixon in the Watergate scandal, the judge, although trying to cover up an infinitely smaller crime – dodging a £36 fine instead of okaying acts of black-bag espionage against a rival party in clear defiance of the Constitution of the United States – the judge chose to go on digging himself further towards the centre of the earth.
He said he didn’t mean that Theresa Brennan. He meant another Theresa Brennan. A Greek chorus at this point might have said that the Judge was anything but a natural liar, because he lied so very badly, just like most of us. Further proofs of his amateur status followed in quick succession. Finally, in a skein of inventions that we needn’t bother to unravel, he managed to implicate his own mother, aged 94, when he claimed to have been using her Toyota Corolla that day, so he couldn’t have been at the wheel of his silver Lexus.
Alas, there was security camera footage to prove that his mother’s Toyota Corolla had not emerged from the garage of her apartment block between daylight and dusk. We were left with the thought picture of a team of trained investigators examining a whole day’s worth of CCTV footage to establish that a Toyota Corolla had remained stationary throughout. With that thought picture, and with the thought picture of a man of true stature with his life in ruins.
Did any of this really matter? Well, obviously the original offence didn’t matter much. At 6 mph over the limit, the judge wasn’t going to hurt anyone. And the first lie shouldn’t have mattered much either. People really do lie all the time. Often they lie to protect themselves, sometimes they lie to protect their loved ones, and there is even such a thing as a saving lie, a lie that wards off the dreadful consequences of the truth. Ibsen wrote a play about that, called The Wild Duck. None of this means that lying is a virtue. Almost always, it’s a vice, to be avoided. But it’s a universal vice, and its prevalence is the very reason why any properly functioning legal system has a harsh law against perjury, because a court is where the lies have to stop, or there can be no justice.
And what the judge did was knowingly to put himself on the road to perjury. He was on the road at only 6mph over the limit and he could have stopped himself by coughing up 36 quid, but there was an inner momentum. Just why that should have been so is a question he’ll be occupying himself with for the next two years at least. Everyone else will be thinking about it too, but his will be easily the finest mind concerned with the subject. He doesn’t need me or anyone else to tell him that a judge who commits perjury, over no matter how trivial a matter, has sinned against the spirit of his profession.
That’s why his case really is a tragedy, and not just a farce. It’s a tragedy because he not only fell from high degree, there really was a tragic flaw: a capacity to forget, at the critical moment, the central ethical precept of the calling to which he had given his life. Suddenly, belatedly, and for almost no reason, he put himself in the position of a doctor who is arraigned for selling body parts, and, because he was selling only fingernails, defends himself by saying it hadn’t been him that sold the fingernails, it was Professor Theresa Brennan, or another Theresa Brennan, or his mother at the wheel of a Toyota Corolla. The doctor wasn’t supposed to be selling anything, so he should have owned up.
But the Judge doesn’t need to hear that from me, or from any other of the thousands of Australian experts – editorial writers, television commentators and philosophers of all descriptions – who are now picking this matter over. The Judge is already hearing about it from himself. He’s hearing about the fatal road that led from the speed camera to the truly tragic climax, which wasn’t the moment when one of his fellow judges had to send him down for three years, two of them without parole. The tragic climax came when the distinguished Judge Marcus Einfeld found himself on the telephone to his mother saying: “Mum, remember how you lent me your Toyota that day?” and she said “Marcus, what have you got yourself into?” And suddenly he was a little boy again, as all men are when the truth they must face is about a mess of their own making.
Dates of show: Oct. 31 and Nov. 2, 2008
In a case which has deep resonance for Britain and the entire civilized world, the whole of Australia has been glued to the media in recent weeks, following the story of an eminent judge who has ruined his reputation because he tried to lie his way out of a speeding fine that would have cost him about 36 pounds sterling . At the age of 70, he is about to go to jail for a minimum of two years because he failed to cough up 36 quid at the right moment. On the face of it, you can’t call his disaster a tragedy. A tragedy, according to classical principles, is a fall from high degree because of some great flaw. Marcus Einfeld, the judge in question, was certainly of high enough degree: none higher. Queens Counsel since 1977, Australian Living Treasure 1997, United Nations Peace Award 2002, the list goes on. He retired a few years ago but he has continually been brought back to judge important cases about refugees because the Australian legal system can’t do without his experience and prestige.
Or anyway it couldn’t. In 2006 a speed camera in Sydney caught his silver Lexus doing 6mph over the limit. At this point we have to forget about the dizzy speed of the car and try to slow down the thought processes going on in his head. There he is, at the top of his profession, with a national, indeed international, reputation for wisdom. This is the man who was the founding president of Australia’s Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission. In 1987 he headed the Commission’s enquiry into the living conditions of aborigines in the border area of New South Wales and Queensland and he wept openly at evidence that a young aboriginal boy who had been denied a proper rugby ball had played instead with an old shoe.
Those were famous tears, and there is every reason to think that they were sincerely felt. As a judge of great matters of justice, Marcus Einfeld had deservedly been revered for many years. He had a right to think of himself as the very incarnation of the law. Now here he was, with a speeding ticket in his hand, facing a fine of a paltry £36 for havingexceeded the speed limit by a lousy 6mph. And right there the fatal error begins to take form. It wasn’t so much the £36 fine. He could afford that. It was that the penalty points would bring him closer to losing his licence. Somehow the top judge and national treasure didn’t see himself in a position where he was not allowed to drive.
Unusual, that. Many 70 year old men of his exalted rank are very content to be driven, rather than having to do the driving. They have a man with a cap to drive them, so they can say, from the back seat: watch out for the speed cameras, Bruce. Perhaps Marcus Einfeld is one of those strange men – there are thousands of them in every country and they are nearly always men – who need to have a driving licence just so that they can get points on it, who think that the whole purpose of driving is to drive as far over the limit as they can and still get away with it, and still keep going for as long as the licence lasts even if they don’t get away with it.
But the judge was only 6mph over the limit, which scarcely made him a boy racer. He must have thought the prospect of getting yet more points on an already point-scarred licence was an awful lot of inconvenience for practically nothing, and he must also have thought – and here the other half of the fateful mental pattern comes into play – he must also have thought of how easy it would be to get out of it. All he had to do was say that someone else was driving the silver Lexus that day. So he said he had lent the car to an American friend, Professor Theresa Brennan. Satisfied, the magistrate dismissed the case, and the judge walked free. In just such a way, King Oedipus believed himself to be in the clear when he left Corinth.
If he – I mean the judge, not King Oedipus --had said that he had lent the car to an Australian government secret agent whom he could not name without rendering him vulnerable to attack by terrorists, Marcus Einfeld might still be enjoying his place at the top of the heap, admired by all. But Professor Theresa Brennan was an actual figure, who could be traced. When a newspaper did trace her, it turned out that she was no longer in existence. At the time of the speeding incident she had already been dead for three years.
It was probably already too late for Marcus Einfeld to save his career. Yet he might conceivably have climbed relatively unbesmirched out of the hole he was occupying, and even drawn some sympathy for the depth to which he had dug himself in by telling one of those little fibs that almost everyone tells over small matters. But like president Nixon in the Watergate scandal, the judge, although trying to cover up an infinitely smaller crime – dodging a £36 fine instead of okaying acts of black-bag espionage against a rival party in clear defiance of the Constitution of the United States – the judge chose to go on digging himself further towards the centre of the earth.
He said he didn’t mean that Theresa Brennan. He meant another Theresa Brennan. A Greek chorus at this point might have said that the Judge was anything but a natural liar, because he lied so very badly, just like most of us. Further proofs of his amateur status followed in quick succession. Finally, in a skein of inventions that we needn’t bother to unravel, he managed to implicate his own mother, aged 94, when he claimed to have been using her Toyota Corolla that day, so he couldn’t have been at the wheel of his silver Lexus.
Alas, there was security camera footage to prove that his mother’s Toyota Corolla had not emerged from the garage of her apartment block between daylight and dusk. We were left with the thought picture of a team of trained investigators examining a whole day’s worth of CCTV footage to establish that a Toyota Corolla had remained stationary throughout. With that thought picture, and with the thought picture of a man of true stature with his life in ruins.
Did any of this really matter? Well, obviously the original offence didn’t matter much. At 6 mph over the limit, the judge wasn’t going to hurt anyone. And the first lie shouldn’t have mattered much either. People really do lie all the time. Often they lie to protect themselves, sometimes they lie to protect their loved ones, and there is even such a thing as a saving lie, a lie that wards off the dreadful consequences of the truth. Ibsen wrote a play about that, called The Wild Duck. None of this means that lying is a virtue. Almost always, it’s a vice, to be avoided. But it’s a universal vice, and its prevalence is the very reason why any properly functioning legal system has a harsh law against perjury, because a court is where the lies have to stop, or there can be no justice.
And what the judge did was knowingly to put himself on the road to perjury. He was on the road at only 6mph over the limit and he could have stopped himself by coughing up 36 quid, but there was an inner momentum. Just why that should have been so is a question he’ll be occupying himself with for the next two years at least. Everyone else will be thinking about it too, but his will be easily the finest mind concerned with the subject. He doesn’t need me or anyone else to tell him that a judge who commits perjury, over no matter how trivial a matter, has sinned against the spirit of his profession.
That’s why his case really is a tragedy, and not just a farce. It’s a tragedy because he not only fell from high degree, there really was a tragic flaw: a capacity to forget, at the critical moment, the central ethical precept of the calling to which he had given his life. Suddenly, belatedly, and for almost no reason, he put himself in the position of a doctor who is arraigned for selling body parts, and, because he was selling only fingernails, defends himself by saying it hadn’t been him that sold the fingernails, it was Professor Theresa Brennan, or another Theresa Brennan, or his mother at the wheel of a Toyota Corolla. The doctor wasn’t supposed to be selling anything, so he should have owned up.
But the Judge doesn’t need to hear that from me, or from any other of the thousands of Australian experts – editorial writers, television commentators and philosophers of all descriptions – who are now picking this matter over. The Judge is already hearing about it from himself. He’s hearing about the fatal road that led from the speed camera to the truly tragic climax, which wasn’t the moment when one of his fellow judges had to send him down for three years, two of them without parole. The tragic climax came when the distinguished Judge Marcus Einfeld found himself on the telephone to his mother saying: “Mum, remember how you lent me your Toyota that day?” and she said “Marcus, what have you got yourself into?” And suddenly he was a little boy again, as all men are when the truth they must face is about a mess of their own making.
Friday, April 10, 2009
Maxgxl is it a panacea? Does it work on everyone?
I have been taking Maxgxl for about 45 days...I started as of pain in my heart every day that was excruciating and very scary....after about two weeks my pain disappeared and has not returned...my upline, Giselle Jones, used to suffer horribly with Fibro Myalgia and Asthma and was almost finished with her marriage as a result..
After taking Maxgxl for less than a month her pain subsided and her moods softened the asthma went dormant....Her marriage was saved and her pain disappeared as of this amazing Glutathione boosting product!!
Bloodtests prove it works on everyone!!! http://www.maxgxlscam.com
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS ABOUT MAXGXL
I have received many questions about Maxgxl and have decided to keep an ongoing list so that when asked a particular question which I have already answered one can find the answer below.
1.Can Maxgxl be taken by patients undergoing chemotherapy and radiation therapy?
Yes….Maxgxl can be used by patients undergoing chemotherapy and radiation therapy. The only slight contraindication is that those who are on a chemotherapy which involves a Platinum derived agent such as Cis-Platinum they should not take their Maxgxl 24hours before or 24 hours after receiving their Platinum based chemotherapeutic agent. Once the 24 hours is over they may resume the Maxgxl and it is only this one particular chemotherapeutic drug.
2. A patient recently has developed canker sores in his mouth and throat while taking Maxgxl and wonders is this might be an allergic reaction. The sore disappeared after stopping the Maxgxl.
Canker sores are usually caused by viruses and can be single lesions or a collection of many throughout the mucous membranes of the mouth. I see these frequently in the office and would think that it is very unlikely that the patient’s symptoms are related to the Maxgxl. When something new like this occurs the best approach is to stop the Maxgxl until the symptoms have completely cleared up and then reintroduce the Maxgxl once again. If the sores were to come back immediately then I would consider that the person is having a reaction to the Maxgxl however if the sores come back in several weeks or months then I can say that the person’s canker sores are just part of the normal attacks viruses have against our bodies..
3.Can patients who have had a transplant take Maxgxl?
Patients who have received a transplant organ are in a particularly precarious situation. They are constantly being monitored for “rejection” of the donor organ. Sometimes one can go for years before an organ is rejected. Since we have no studies whatsoever using Maxgxl in transplant patients it is contraindicated to give Maxgxl to anyone who has received a donor organ.
4. Can patients who are taking blood thinners also take Maxgxl?
Many patients are now taking “blood thinners” as part of their prescription drugs. The commonest blood thinners are low dose aspirin and a drug called Plavix.
Maxgxl does not interfere with these medications in any way. The more complex question involves the drug called Warfarin or Coumadin. This is a more complex blood thinner and patients on this product need to go to the lab every 1 to 4 weeks to measure how thin their blood is. This test is called the INR. It measures how thin one’s blood is with the higher the number indicating the thinner the blood. The INR level can vary considerably depending on one’s diet and any other medications that one is on. Even for healthy patients the INR will vary month to month. Maxgxl is not known to affect the INR however it is simply good medical practice to repeat one’s INR about 7 to 10 days after starting Maxgxl as a precaution to see what the INR level is. It is not uncommon for the doctors to adjust the dosage of Warfarin after the patient has an INR done but certainly being on Warfarin does not mean you cannot take Maxgxl. It just means looking more closely at the INR for the first few weeks to make sure there is no major change in the level.
5. Some people have developed “heartburn” while taking Maxgxl and can Maxgxl be taking by someone with stomach ulcers?
Maxgxl does have an irritant effect on some people with “sensitive stomachs”. You know who you are and already you get heartburn from pizza, tomato sauce, alcohol, spicy food etc. I am one of those people and so I do not ever take Maxgxl on an empty stomach. It you have a sensitive stomach it is better to take Maxgxl after a meal. If it is the middle of the afternoon perhaps a yogurt may be enough to coat your stomach prior to taking the Maxgxl. For those who claim to have ulcers one should get more information. Was the ulcer actually noted on a gastroscopy exam or upper intestinal Xray? We now know that ulcers are caused by the H.Pylori bacteria in the stomach and if that is the case one should take the 7 day course of medication (the HP Pac) from your doctor to treat the ulcer and then follow the above instructions to guard against further stomach upset. Dr. Keller did mention the product Gaviscon which is an antacid which foams up in the stomach to cover the lower esophagus and it can also be used to combat the heartburn which sometimes comes with Maxgxl.
6. I have a customer who is on the following medications from their doctor. These medications include: Lipitor, Glyburide, Altace, Plavix, Indocid, Plaquinal, Norvasc, Aricept…and any other meds you can think of. The customer is suffering from: Diabetes, Hypertension, Alzheimers, ALS, Multiple Sclerosis, Cancer, Hypothyroidism, Depression….and any other disease you can think of.
Maxgxl is a nutritional supplement. It works to increase the Glutathione is every cell of the body. Glutathione is essential for the life and energy of our cells and drugs such as those mentioned above are not influenced by Maxgxl in any way. Also those suffering from any disease should not worry about Maxgxl affecting them in any untoward way. It is very safe to take Maxgxl when you are taking any and all of the drugs listed above. It is important to note that the sicker one is the more Maxgxl they may need. If one does not notice a significant improvement in wellbeing after 2 or 3 weeks on the product then one should increase by an extra package per week until one reaches 5 or 6 packages or until the person feels much better. When taking Maxgxl it is important to “listen to your body” and take additional product when your body is asking for more.
7.When one has a prolonged “cold” should they cut back on their dosage of Maxgxl?
This question was recently asked of me and I wanted to clear up some confusion that may occur here. Sometimes when one starts on Maxgxl there can be a rapid period of detoxification. This detoxification can present with symptoms similar to a “cold” with nasal congestion, headache, muscular aches and pains and general fatigue. If this is prolonged then most likely detoxification is taking place and one should reduce their consumption of Maxgxl to as little as 1 capsule per day for the first 10 days and gradually increase by 1 capsule per day every 10 days. On the other hand if the person genuinely has a viral infection presenting with a “cold” with fever and nasal congestion the appropriate thing to do would be to at least double their dosage of Maxgxl.
8. I recently had a question about a patient with a weak heart on oxygen therapy who was worried about how his heart would react to Maxgxl. He was at the time on 17 prescription medications. He is overweight and can walk only very short distances before he is very short of breath and must sit down and rest.
In Dr. Keller’s CD he mentions Congestive Heart Failure as an example of health challenges which can affect us. The heart has millions of muscle cells and the function of each cell is to contract in unison to allow the heart to pump blood properly. In Congestive Heart Failure the heart is floppy and does not pump properly. The 17 medications that the patient is on would not interfere with Maxgxl. Maxgxl has a different mode of action as it will work on each heart muscle cell to make it more efficient in its ability to pump blood properly. The Maxgxl can only enhance the quality of life and improve the heart’s performance.
9. A patient with Lou Gehrig’s disease (ALS) was wondering about the use of Maxgxl and if it might interfere with ongoing treatments he is receiving and if the product would help him.
Lou Gehrig’s disease is a poorly understood progressive degenerative neurological disease which has no cure. There are treatments available which may slow down the progression of the disease however I am not aware of any pharmaceutical product which arrests the disease into complete remission. There are no clinical studies on the use of Maxgxl in the treatment of Lou Gehrig’s disease at this time however I have heard many anecdotal reports of Maxgxl being effective in other neurological diseases such as Multiple Sclerosis and Parkinson’s Disease. The product certainly cannot hurt the patient and may improve the quality of life that remains. The disease is however a major challenge and the sicker one is the more Maxgxl they require. I would start with the usual 2 packages per day and if no untoward effects with detoxification I would gradually increase the dose of Maxgxl by one package every 2 weeks until the patient experiences an improvement in general wellbeing or until one reaches at least 2 packages 3 times per day.
10. Can women who are breast feeding take Maxgxl.
When any new product which is ingested applies to any regulatory body such as the FDA in the United States or Health Canada they supply the regulatory bodies with their clinical data to show that the product is safe to take. Most pharmaceutical companies do research on the persons who are most likely to take the product. In the case of most drugs the product is studied on those over 12 years of age, but they usually restrict the study from including pregnant women and nursing mothers. Because Maxgxl was not studied on children, pregnant women and nursing mothers we do not have permission to use the product on this group. As noted above in item number 3 the product was not studied in transplant patients. For this reason Max International does not give permission to distributors to promote the product in this group of people.
11.A person who has just started on Maxgxl indicated that she now has problems sleeping. What can this be caused by?
I found this to be an interesting question since I see people in the office each day who present with sleep disturbance. I remember the first convention meeting I had with Dr. Keller addressing the audience and asked “how many people feel that the Maxgxl product is not doing much for them”. I would estimate that 90 hands may have gone up out of the 500+ in attendance. He then asked “of those people with their hands up, how many of you are starting to dream once again”. This time many of those people put their hands up again. In effect Maxgxl helps put one into REM Sleep (rapid eye movement sleep). This simply means that the person is having a more restful restorative sleep and that is something that many people will say happens when they take Maxgxl. So for the person who says that Maxgxl is affecting their sleep they should not take the product within 5 hours of sleeping. They should then do their own study of 5 days on the product and 5 days off and then repeat this to truly understand if it is connected with their insomnia since insomnia is a very common condition and I am not convinced that Maxgxl is causing the insomnia. If indeed there does appear to be a connection to the insomnia then I would cut back on the dosage and take 1 capsule per day for 2 weeks and gradually increase by an extra capsule every 14 days.
12.Patients who are about to undergo surgery often ask if they can stay on Maxgxl up to the time of surgery.
Any surgical procedure results in the cutting through of tissue in the body. This cutting process activates several systems in our bodies one of which is the clotting system to stop the bleeding and allow healing of the tissues which need to reunite. Again on a microscopic level we are looking at tissues that want to heal and rejoin to repair the tissue which has been cut by the surgeon. Maxgxl can only enhance the healing process and allow the tissue to repair itself in a more timely fashion but also activate our immune system to help keep the wound clean and avoid infections.
13. A 76 year old patient with Polymyalgia Rhuematica (it is an inflammatory condition affecting muscles and joints) had been on prednisone and her pains were under control however when she began the usual dose of Maxgxl of 1 package in the am and another in the pm she could hardly walk and the pain was extremely high in the next 2 days. Is there a relationship between the prednisone and the detoxification that would explain her symptoms?
One must remember that the longer we are alive the more toxins we can ingest from the air we breathe, the water we drink and the foods that we eat. Toxins are also being absorbed through our skin from a host of chemicals and cosmetics that we use daily in our environment. I have seen cases of extreme lethargy, muscle pains and weakness that can occur within the first few days of taking the usual dose of Maxgxl and at this time the only explanation that I can give would be that we are suddenly releasing stored up toxins into the blood stream which cause these symptoms. The cause of Polymyalgia Rheumatica is like many conditions we see in medicine that are very poorly understood so the condition itself might even be caused by some as yet unrecognized toxins in our system or cells and again Maxgxl is helping to clear this. In such cases one would cut back drastically in the dose and might even consider 1 capsule daily for 2 weeks and gradually increase or even do as low as 1 capsule Monday. Wednesday and Friday and gradually increase the dosage.
14. A distributor wanted to know if Maxgxl could help a young person with leukemia.
Leukemia is a type of blood cancer where the bone marrow starts to produce cells in a very abnormal fashion. One can have a huge increase in white blood cells and at the same time a decrease in red blood cells. The disease is often fatal however some treatments have been successful with newer chemotherapies and with aggressive treatments like bone marrow transplants after total body radiation.
We do not have any studies at this point in time to talk about the use of Maxgxl in treating any disease. It will certainly help every cell live to its full potential and on a theoretical basis it would make sense that it could be of help to the bone marrow but without studies we simply do not know what it can do. Also if a bone marrow transplant is under way this would be considered a “transplant” and Maxgxl is not sanctioned for use in transplant patients. I do know of one patient who has had a bone marrow transplant for leukemia and is doing well and who has decided to use Maxgxl despite the company not sanctioning its use in such situations however they are doing so against our advice. The patient says that the Maxgxl has improved her sense of wellbeing despite her bone marrow transplant for leukemia.
15. A distributor has asked if Maxgxl could be of help in a patient with Cystic Fibrosis.
Until this past decade many persons afflicted with cystic fibrosis did not live past their teenage years because of the constant risk of lung infections which eventually prove fatal. These patients are treated with long term antibiotics and special inhaled concoctions of medications to help support their lung functions which are constantly under challenge from infections as the lungs have extreme difficulty in keeping clear because of the constant buildup of mucus in the lungs. The second highest area of concentration of Glutathione in our bodies is in our lungs with the highest level of concentration being in our liver. It would only make sense that by taking Maxgxl and increasing our Glutathione level we would have a better immune system working in our lungs to help keep infection at bay. Each lung cell would work to its maximum potential by improving the “cellular health” of the lung tissue. I did ask this question to Dr. Keller more than a year ago and he indicated that Maxgxl should of help in this condition.
This information is predicated with the statement that Maxgxl is not intended to diagnose or treat any condition at this time until we have completed clinical trials on specific health challenges.
16. A young person has some difficulty in swallowing tablets and wondered how Maxgxl can be taken?
The absorption of Maxgxl does not seem to be affected by the presence of food. For that reason the Maxgxl capsules can be opened and put into soft foods such as ice cream, applesauce, or yogurt. The dosage of Maxgxl in children has not been studied. It would probably be best to simply start with 1 capsule in the morning after breakfast and only increase the dosage every 3 weeks after observing the person’s behaviour. One would then take 1 capsule in the morning and 1 capsule in the afternoon. If the child’s weight approaches 110 pounds then one could eventually go as high at 1 package twice a day.
17.
Does Maxgxl help women with the symptoms of Menopause?
Maxgxl is not intended to “diagnose or treat any medical problems” however there are anecdotal reports of it helping with hot flashes and insomnia during menopause. I have recently learned that Cordyceps has been used to treat menopausal flushing in women for many years and this may explain why Maxgxl has a positive effect on hot flashes in some women.
17.
Does Maxgxl have an effect on Diabetes?
Once again Maxgxl is not intended to “diagnose or treat any medical conditions” however the anecdotal reports seem to indicate that those with Diabetes have higher blood sugars for about 3 weeks on the product and then afterwards the diabetes appears to be in better control.
17.
When one is taking chemotherapy what would be the appropriate dosage of Maxgxl?
The general rule for the use of Maxgxl is that the sicker one is the more Maxgxl that is required!! Healthy persons with minor health challenges seem to do well on 1 package of Maxgxl (3 capsules) in the morning and 1 package (3 capsules) in the afternoon. Those who are very ill can significantly increase this dosage however the sicker one is the more toxins they may already have in their body. In this case the chance of some adverse reaction is quite high as many toxins begin to be mobilized from the deep tissues and may flood the body causing nausea, weakness, sinus congestion and muscle pains. If this should happen one needs to start at a very low dose of 1 capsule per day and gradually work up by increasing an extra capsule every 7 to 14 days. I would think it would be reasonable to slowly increase one’s dosage to 2 packages three times a day.
Again as Dr. Keller has said, always listen to your body and see how you are feeling.
Remember if the chemotherapy is Cis-Platinum one should not take Maxgxl for 24 hours before or after that particular chemotherapy.
17.
A patient has visited her doctor and after describing symptoms of muscle aches and pains and breathing problems, is told that she has severe inflammation in her body and wonders about the dosage of Maxgxl.
The effect of Maxgxl appears to be dose related. As a general rule one should take 1 package of Maxgxl in the morning and a second package of Maxgxl in the afternoon. Those who are very ill should gradually increase the dosage and “listen to their body” as to how they are feeling. It is very reasonable to increase the dosage of Maxgxl by an extra package every 7 to 10 days until they are taking 2 packages 3 times per day. If the desired improvement is found one should stay on the increased dosage for a month or two and then slowly decrease the dosage and again “listening to their body” as to how they feel will know what dosage to stay at.
17.
A distributor has recently asked if Maxgxl can be given to persons with Hemochromatosis and Thalasemia.
Hemochromatosis is a condition where the body stores Iron in large amounts in the liver and bone marrow. In many cases there are no symptoms though if left untreated it can cause eventual disease when the Iron stores are very high. Thalasemia is a hereditary problem with the production of blood cells and most people with this disorder are asymptomatic from the mild anemia that is associated with the disease. I do not feel that Maxgxl will have any effect on these 2 conditions and certainly will not cause any ill effects to take Maxgxl when one has these diseases. I believe that Maxgxl can improve the general well being of individuals who have these diseases and certainly improve their “cellular health” which has many positive benefits for the own health.
I hope that this is helpful and answers your question…..Dr. John Kindle M.D.
Last Updated on October 7th 2008
After taking Maxgxl for less than a month her pain subsided and her moods softened the asthma went dormant....Her marriage was saved and her pain disappeared as of this amazing Glutathione boosting product!!
Bloodtests prove it works on everyone!!! http://www.maxgxlscam.com
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS ABOUT MAXGXL
I have received many questions about Maxgxl and have decided to keep an ongoing list so that when asked a particular question which I have already answered one can find the answer below.
1.Can Maxgxl be taken by patients undergoing chemotherapy and radiation therapy?
Yes….Maxgxl can be used by patients undergoing chemotherapy and radiation therapy. The only slight contraindication is that those who are on a chemotherapy which involves a Platinum derived agent such as Cis-Platinum they should not take their Maxgxl 24hours before or 24 hours after receiving their Platinum based chemotherapeutic agent. Once the 24 hours is over they may resume the Maxgxl and it is only this one particular chemotherapeutic drug.
2. A patient recently has developed canker sores in his mouth and throat while taking Maxgxl and wonders is this might be an allergic reaction. The sore disappeared after stopping the Maxgxl.
Canker sores are usually caused by viruses and can be single lesions or a collection of many throughout the mucous membranes of the mouth. I see these frequently in the office and would think that it is very unlikely that the patient’s symptoms are related to the Maxgxl. When something new like this occurs the best approach is to stop the Maxgxl until the symptoms have completely cleared up and then reintroduce the Maxgxl once again. If the sores were to come back immediately then I would consider that the person is having a reaction to the Maxgxl however if the sores come back in several weeks or months then I can say that the person’s canker sores are just part of the normal attacks viruses have against our bodies..
3.Can patients who have had a transplant take Maxgxl?
Patients who have received a transplant organ are in a particularly precarious situation. They are constantly being monitored for “rejection” of the donor organ. Sometimes one can go for years before an organ is rejected. Since we have no studies whatsoever using Maxgxl in transplant patients it is contraindicated to give Maxgxl to anyone who has received a donor organ.
4. Can patients who are taking blood thinners also take Maxgxl?
Many patients are now taking “blood thinners” as part of their prescription drugs. The commonest blood thinners are low dose aspirin and a drug called Plavix.
Maxgxl does not interfere with these medications in any way. The more complex question involves the drug called Warfarin or Coumadin. This is a more complex blood thinner and patients on this product need to go to the lab every 1 to 4 weeks to measure how thin their blood is. This test is called the INR. It measures how thin one’s blood is with the higher the number indicating the thinner the blood. The INR level can vary considerably depending on one’s diet and any other medications that one is on. Even for healthy patients the INR will vary month to month. Maxgxl is not known to affect the INR however it is simply good medical practice to repeat one’s INR about 7 to 10 days after starting Maxgxl as a precaution to see what the INR level is. It is not uncommon for the doctors to adjust the dosage of Warfarin after the patient has an INR done but certainly being on Warfarin does not mean you cannot take Maxgxl. It just means looking more closely at the INR for the first few weeks to make sure there is no major change in the level.
5. Some people have developed “heartburn” while taking Maxgxl and can Maxgxl be taking by someone with stomach ulcers?
Maxgxl does have an irritant effect on some people with “sensitive stomachs”. You know who you are and already you get heartburn from pizza, tomato sauce, alcohol, spicy food etc. I am one of those people and so I do not ever take Maxgxl on an empty stomach. It you have a sensitive stomach it is better to take Maxgxl after a meal. If it is the middle of the afternoon perhaps a yogurt may be enough to coat your stomach prior to taking the Maxgxl. For those who claim to have ulcers one should get more information. Was the ulcer actually noted on a gastroscopy exam or upper intestinal Xray? We now know that ulcers are caused by the H.Pylori bacteria in the stomach and if that is the case one should take the 7 day course of medication (the HP Pac) from your doctor to treat the ulcer and then follow the above instructions to guard against further stomach upset. Dr. Keller did mention the product Gaviscon which is an antacid which foams up in the stomach to cover the lower esophagus and it can also be used to combat the heartburn which sometimes comes with Maxgxl.
6. I have a customer who is on the following medications from their doctor. These medications include: Lipitor, Glyburide, Altace, Plavix, Indocid, Plaquinal, Norvasc, Aricept…and any other meds you can think of. The customer is suffering from: Diabetes, Hypertension, Alzheimers, ALS, Multiple Sclerosis, Cancer, Hypothyroidism, Depression….and any other disease you can think of.
Maxgxl is a nutritional supplement. It works to increase the Glutathione is every cell of the body. Glutathione is essential for the life and energy of our cells and drugs such as those mentioned above are not influenced by Maxgxl in any way. Also those suffering from any disease should not worry about Maxgxl affecting them in any untoward way. It is very safe to take Maxgxl when you are taking any and all of the drugs listed above. It is important to note that the sicker one is the more Maxgxl they may need. If one does not notice a significant improvement in wellbeing after 2 or 3 weeks on the product then one should increase by an extra package per week until one reaches 5 or 6 packages or until the person feels much better. When taking Maxgxl it is important to “listen to your body” and take additional product when your body is asking for more.
7.When one has a prolonged “cold” should they cut back on their dosage of Maxgxl?
This question was recently asked of me and I wanted to clear up some confusion that may occur here. Sometimes when one starts on Maxgxl there can be a rapid period of detoxification. This detoxification can present with symptoms similar to a “cold” with nasal congestion, headache, muscular aches and pains and general fatigue. If this is prolonged then most likely detoxification is taking place and one should reduce their consumption of Maxgxl to as little as 1 capsule per day for the first 10 days and gradually increase by 1 capsule per day every 10 days. On the other hand if the person genuinely has a viral infection presenting with a “cold” with fever and nasal congestion the appropriate thing to do would be to at least double their dosage of Maxgxl.
8. I recently had a question about a patient with a weak heart on oxygen therapy who was worried about how his heart would react to Maxgxl. He was at the time on 17 prescription medications. He is overweight and can walk only very short distances before he is very short of breath and must sit down and rest.
In Dr. Keller’s CD he mentions Congestive Heart Failure as an example of health challenges which can affect us. The heart has millions of muscle cells and the function of each cell is to contract in unison to allow the heart to pump blood properly. In Congestive Heart Failure the heart is floppy and does not pump properly. The 17 medications that the patient is on would not interfere with Maxgxl. Maxgxl has a different mode of action as it will work on each heart muscle cell to make it more efficient in its ability to pump blood properly. The Maxgxl can only enhance the quality of life and improve the heart’s performance.
9. A patient with Lou Gehrig’s disease (ALS) was wondering about the use of Maxgxl and if it might interfere with ongoing treatments he is receiving and if the product would help him.
Lou Gehrig’s disease is a poorly understood progressive degenerative neurological disease which has no cure. There are treatments available which may slow down the progression of the disease however I am not aware of any pharmaceutical product which arrests the disease into complete remission. There are no clinical studies on the use of Maxgxl in the treatment of Lou Gehrig’s disease at this time however I have heard many anecdotal reports of Maxgxl being effective in other neurological diseases such as Multiple Sclerosis and Parkinson’s Disease. The product certainly cannot hurt the patient and may improve the quality of life that remains. The disease is however a major challenge and the sicker one is the more Maxgxl they require. I would start with the usual 2 packages per day and if no untoward effects with detoxification I would gradually increase the dose of Maxgxl by one package every 2 weeks until the patient experiences an improvement in general wellbeing or until one reaches at least 2 packages 3 times per day.
10. Can women who are breast feeding take Maxgxl.
When any new product which is ingested applies to any regulatory body such as the FDA in the United States or Health Canada they supply the regulatory bodies with their clinical data to show that the product is safe to take. Most pharmaceutical companies do research on the persons who are most likely to take the product. In the case of most drugs the product is studied on those over 12 years of age, but they usually restrict the study from including pregnant women and nursing mothers. Because Maxgxl was not studied on children, pregnant women and nursing mothers we do not have permission to use the product on this group. As noted above in item number 3 the product was not studied in transplant patients. For this reason Max International does not give permission to distributors to promote the product in this group of people.
11.A person who has just started on Maxgxl indicated that she now has problems sleeping. What can this be caused by?
I found this to be an interesting question since I see people in the office each day who present with sleep disturbance. I remember the first convention meeting I had with Dr. Keller addressing the audience and asked “how many people feel that the Maxgxl product is not doing much for them”. I would estimate that 90 hands may have gone up out of the 500+ in attendance. He then asked “of those people with their hands up, how many of you are starting to dream once again”. This time many of those people put their hands up again. In effect Maxgxl helps put one into REM Sleep (rapid eye movement sleep). This simply means that the person is having a more restful restorative sleep and that is something that many people will say happens when they take Maxgxl. So for the person who says that Maxgxl is affecting their sleep they should not take the product within 5 hours of sleeping. They should then do their own study of 5 days on the product and 5 days off and then repeat this to truly understand if it is connected with their insomnia since insomnia is a very common condition and I am not convinced that Maxgxl is causing the insomnia. If indeed there does appear to be a connection to the insomnia then I would cut back on the dosage and take 1 capsule per day for 2 weeks and gradually increase by an extra capsule every 14 days.
12.Patients who are about to undergo surgery often ask if they can stay on Maxgxl up to the time of surgery.
Any surgical procedure results in the cutting through of tissue in the body. This cutting process activates several systems in our bodies one of which is the clotting system to stop the bleeding and allow healing of the tissues which need to reunite. Again on a microscopic level we are looking at tissues that want to heal and rejoin to repair the tissue which has been cut by the surgeon. Maxgxl can only enhance the healing process and allow the tissue to repair itself in a more timely fashion but also activate our immune system to help keep the wound clean and avoid infections.
13. A 76 year old patient with Polymyalgia Rhuematica (it is an inflammatory condition affecting muscles and joints) had been on prednisone and her pains were under control however when she began the usual dose of Maxgxl of 1 package in the am and another in the pm she could hardly walk and the pain was extremely high in the next 2 days. Is there a relationship between the prednisone and the detoxification that would explain her symptoms?
One must remember that the longer we are alive the more toxins we can ingest from the air we breathe, the water we drink and the foods that we eat. Toxins are also being absorbed through our skin from a host of chemicals and cosmetics that we use daily in our environment. I have seen cases of extreme lethargy, muscle pains and weakness that can occur within the first few days of taking the usual dose of Maxgxl and at this time the only explanation that I can give would be that we are suddenly releasing stored up toxins into the blood stream which cause these symptoms. The cause of Polymyalgia Rheumatica is like many conditions we see in medicine that are very poorly understood so the condition itself might even be caused by some as yet unrecognized toxins in our system or cells and again Maxgxl is helping to clear this. In such cases one would cut back drastically in the dose and might even consider 1 capsule daily for 2 weeks and gradually increase or even do as low as 1 capsule Monday. Wednesday and Friday and gradually increase the dosage.
14. A distributor wanted to know if Maxgxl could help a young person with leukemia.
Leukemia is a type of blood cancer where the bone marrow starts to produce cells in a very abnormal fashion. One can have a huge increase in white blood cells and at the same time a decrease in red blood cells. The disease is often fatal however some treatments have been successful with newer chemotherapies and with aggressive treatments like bone marrow transplants after total body radiation.
We do not have any studies at this point in time to talk about the use of Maxgxl in treating any disease. It will certainly help every cell live to its full potential and on a theoretical basis it would make sense that it could be of help to the bone marrow but without studies we simply do not know what it can do. Also if a bone marrow transplant is under way this would be considered a “transplant” and Maxgxl is not sanctioned for use in transplant patients. I do know of one patient who has had a bone marrow transplant for leukemia and is doing well and who has decided to use Maxgxl despite the company not sanctioning its use in such situations however they are doing so against our advice. The patient says that the Maxgxl has improved her sense of wellbeing despite her bone marrow transplant for leukemia.
15. A distributor has asked if Maxgxl could be of help in a patient with Cystic Fibrosis.
Until this past decade many persons afflicted with cystic fibrosis did not live past their teenage years because of the constant risk of lung infections which eventually prove fatal. These patients are treated with long term antibiotics and special inhaled concoctions of medications to help support their lung functions which are constantly under challenge from infections as the lungs have extreme difficulty in keeping clear because of the constant buildup of mucus in the lungs. The second highest area of concentration of Glutathione in our bodies is in our lungs with the highest level of concentration being in our liver. It would only make sense that by taking Maxgxl and increasing our Glutathione level we would have a better immune system working in our lungs to help keep infection at bay. Each lung cell would work to its maximum potential by improving the “cellular health” of the lung tissue. I did ask this question to Dr. Keller more than a year ago and he indicated that Maxgxl should of help in this condition.
This information is predicated with the statement that Maxgxl is not intended to diagnose or treat any condition at this time until we have completed clinical trials on specific health challenges.
16. A young person has some difficulty in swallowing tablets and wondered how Maxgxl can be taken?
The absorption of Maxgxl does not seem to be affected by the presence of food. For that reason the Maxgxl capsules can be opened and put into soft foods such as ice cream, applesauce, or yogurt. The dosage of Maxgxl in children has not been studied. It would probably be best to simply start with 1 capsule in the morning after breakfast and only increase the dosage every 3 weeks after observing the person’s behaviour. One would then take 1 capsule in the morning and 1 capsule in the afternoon. If the child’s weight approaches 110 pounds then one could eventually go as high at 1 package twice a day.
17.
Does Maxgxl help women with the symptoms of Menopause?
Maxgxl is not intended to “diagnose or treat any medical problems” however there are anecdotal reports of it helping with hot flashes and insomnia during menopause. I have recently learned that Cordyceps has been used to treat menopausal flushing in women for many years and this may explain why Maxgxl has a positive effect on hot flashes in some women.
17.
Does Maxgxl have an effect on Diabetes?
Once again Maxgxl is not intended to “diagnose or treat any medical conditions” however the anecdotal reports seem to indicate that those with Diabetes have higher blood sugars for about 3 weeks on the product and then afterwards the diabetes appears to be in better control.
17.
When one is taking chemotherapy what would be the appropriate dosage of Maxgxl?
The general rule for the use of Maxgxl is that the sicker one is the more Maxgxl that is required!! Healthy persons with minor health challenges seem to do well on 1 package of Maxgxl (3 capsules) in the morning and 1 package (3 capsules) in the afternoon. Those who are very ill can significantly increase this dosage however the sicker one is the more toxins they may already have in their body. In this case the chance of some adverse reaction is quite high as many toxins begin to be mobilized from the deep tissues and may flood the body causing nausea, weakness, sinus congestion and muscle pains. If this should happen one needs to start at a very low dose of 1 capsule per day and gradually work up by increasing an extra capsule every 7 to 14 days. I would think it would be reasonable to slowly increase one’s dosage to 2 packages three times a day.
Again as Dr. Keller has said, always listen to your body and see how you are feeling.
Remember if the chemotherapy is Cis-Platinum one should not take Maxgxl for 24 hours before or after that particular chemotherapy.
17.
A patient has visited her doctor and after describing symptoms of muscle aches and pains and breathing problems, is told that she has severe inflammation in her body and wonders about the dosage of Maxgxl.
The effect of Maxgxl appears to be dose related. As a general rule one should take 1 package of Maxgxl in the morning and a second package of Maxgxl in the afternoon. Those who are very ill should gradually increase the dosage and “listen to their body” as to how they are feeling. It is very reasonable to increase the dosage of Maxgxl by an extra package every 7 to 10 days until they are taking 2 packages 3 times per day. If the desired improvement is found one should stay on the increased dosage for a month or two and then slowly decrease the dosage and again “listening to their body” as to how they feel will know what dosage to stay at.
17.
A distributor has recently asked if Maxgxl can be given to persons with Hemochromatosis and Thalasemia.
Hemochromatosis is a condition where the body stores Iron in large amounts in the liver and bone marrow. In many cases there are no symptoms though if left untreated it can cause eventual disease when the Iron stores are very high. Thalasemia is a hereditary problem with the production of blood cells and most people with this disorder are asymptomatic from the mild anemia that is associated with the disease. I do not feel that Maxgxl will have any effect on these 2 conditions and certainly will not cause any ill effects to take Maxgxl when one has these diseases. I believe that Maxgxl can improve the general well being of individuals who have these diseases and certainly improve their “cellular health” which has many positive benefits for the own health.
I hope that this is helpful and answers your question…..Dr. John Kindle M.D.
Last Updated on October 7th 2008
Won`t get fooled again?? The oilmen are magicians!
3 to 4.3 Billion Barrels of Technically Recoverable Oil Assessed in North Dakota and Montana’s Bakken Formation—25 Times More Than 1995 Estimate—
Released: 4/10/2008 2:25:36 PM
Contact Information:
U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey
Office of Communication
119 National Center
Reston, VA 20192
Phone: N/A
* Read FAQs about the Bakken Formation.
* Listen to a podcast with the lead scientist on this topic.
Reston, VA - North Dakota and Montana have an estimated 3.0 to 4.3 billion barrels of undiscovered, technically recoverable oil in an area known as the Bakken Formation.
A U.S. Geological Survey assessment, released April 10, shows a 25-fold increase in the amount of oil that can be recovered compared to the agency's 1995 estimate of 151 million barrels of oil.
Related Podcasts
3 to 4.3 Billion Barrels of Oil in North Dakota and Montana
download Download directly | Details
podcast icon itunes icon
or subscribe by e-mail.
Technically recoverable oil resources are those producible using currently available technology and industry practices. USGS is the only provider of publicly available estimates of undiscovered technically recoverable oil and gas resources.
New geologic models applied to the Bakken Formation, advances in drilling and production technologies, and recent oil discoveries have resulted in these substantially larger technically recoverable oil volumes. About 105 million barrels of oil were produced from the Bakken Formation by the end of 2007.
The USGS Bakken study was undertaken as part of a nationwide project assessing domestic petroleum basins using standardized methodology and protocol as required by the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 2000.
The Bakken Formation estimate is larger than all other current USGS oil assessments of the lower 48 states and is the largest "continuous" oil accumulation ever assessed by the USGS. A "continuous" oil accumulation means that the oil resource is dispersed throughout a geologic formation rather than existing as discrete, localized occurrences. The next largest "continuous" oil accumulation in the U.S. is in the Austin Chalk of Texas and Louisiana, with an undiscovered estimate of 1.0 billions of barrels of technically recoverable oil.
"It is clear that the Bakken formation contains a significant amount of oil - the question is how much of that oil is recoverable using today's technology?" said Senator Byron Dorgan, of North Dakota. "To get an answer to this important question, I requested that the U.S. Geological Survey complete this study, which will provide an up-to-date estimate on the amount of technically recoverable oil resources in the Bakken Shale formation."
The USGS estimate of 3.0 to 4.3 billion barrels of technically recoverable oil has a mean value of 3.65 billion barrels. Scientists conducted detailed studies in stratigraphy and structural geology and the modeling of petroleum geochemistry. They also combined their findings with historical exploration and production analyses to determine the undiscovered, technically recoverable oil estimates.
USGS worked with the North Dakota Geological Survey, a number of petroleum industry companies and independents, universities and other experts to develop a geological understanding of the Bakken Formation. These groups provided critical information and feedback on geological and engineering concepts important to building the geologic and production models used in the assessment.
Five continuous assessment units (AU) were identified and assessed in the Bakken Formation of North Dakota and Montana - the Elm Coulee-Billings Nose AU, the Central Basin-Poplar Dome AU, the Nesson-Little Knife Structural AU, the Eastern Expulsion Threshold AU, and the Northwest Expulsion Threshold AU.
At the time of the assessment, a limited number of wells have produced oil from three of the assessments units in Central Basin-Poplar Dome, Eastern Expulsion Threshold, and Northwest Expulsion Threshold.
The Elm Coulee oil field in Montana, discovered in 2000, has produced about 65 million barrels of the 105 million barrels of oil recovered from the Bakken Formation.
Results of the assessment can be found at http://energy.usgs.gov.
For a podcast interview with scientists about the Bakken Formation, listen to episode 38 of CoreCast at http://www.usgs.gov/corecast/.
Released: 4/10/2008 2:25:36 PM
Contact Information:
U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey
Office of Communication
119 National Center
Reston, VA 20192
Phone: N/A
* Read FAQs about the Bakken Formation.
* Listen to a podcast with the lead scientist on this topic.
Reston, VA - North Dakota and Montana have an estimated 3.0 to 4.3 billion barrels of undiscovered, technically recoverable oil in an area known as the Bakken Formation.
A U.S. Geological Survey assessment, released April 10, shows a 25-fold increase in the amount of oil that can be recovered compared to the agency's 1995 estimate of 151 million barrels of oil.
Related Podcasts
3 to 4.3 Billion Barrels of Oil in North Dakota and Montana
download Download directly | Details
podcast icon itunes icon
or subscribe by e-mail.
Technically recoverable oil resources are those producible using currently available technology and industry practices. USGS is the only provider of publicly available estimates of undiscovered technically recoverable oil and gas resources.
New geologic models applied to the Bakken Formation, advances in drilling and production technologies, and recent oil discoveries have resulted in these substantially larger technically recoverable oil volumes. About 105 million barrels of oil were produced from the Bakken Formation by the end of 2007.
The USGS Bakken study was undertaken as part of a nationwide project assessing domestic petroleum basins using standardized methodology and protocol as required by the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 2000.
The Bakken Formation estimate is larger than all other current USGS oil assessments of the lower 48 states and is the largest "continuous" oil accumulation ever assessed by the USGS. A "continuous" oil accumulation means that the oil resource is dispersed throughout a geologic formation rather than existing as discrete, localized occurrences. The next largest "continuous" oil accumulation in the U.S. is in the Austin Chalk of Texas and Louisiana, with an undiscovered estimate of 1.0 billions of barrels of technically recoverable oil.
"It is clear that the Bakken formation contains a significant amount of oil - the question is how much of that oil is recoverable using today's technology?" said Senator Byron Dorgan, of North Dakota. "To get an answer to this important question, I requested that the U.S. Geological Survey complete this study, which will provide an up-to-date estimate on the amount of technically recoverable oil resources in the Bakken Shale formation."
The USGS estimate of 3.0 to 4.3 billion barrels of technically recoverable oil has a mean value of 3.65 billion barrels. Scientists conducted detailed studies in stratigraphy and structural geology and the modeling of petroleum geochemistry. They also combined their findings with historical exploration and production analyses to determine the undiscovered, technically recoverable oil estimates.
USGS worked with the North Dakota Geological Survey, a number of petroleum industry companies and independents, universities and other experts to develop a geological understanding of the Bakken Formation. These groups provided critical information and feedback on geological and engineering concepts important to building the geologic and production models used in the assessment.
Five continuous assessment units (AU) were identified and assessed in the Bakken Formation of North Dakota and Montana - the Elm Coulee-Billings Nose AU, the Central Basin-Poplar Dome AU, the Nesson-Little Knife Structural AU, the Eastern Expulsion Threshold AU, and the Northwest Expulsion Threshold AU.
At the time of the assessment, a limited number of wells have produced oil from three of the assessments units in Central Basin-Poplar Dome, Eastern Expulsion Threshold, and Northwest Expulsion Threshold.
The Elm Coulee oil field in Montana, discovered in 2000, has produced about 65 million barrels of the 105 million barrels of oil recovered from the Bakken Formation.
Results of the assessment can be found at http://energy.usgs.gov.
For a podcast interview with scientists about the Bakken Formation, listen to episode 38 of CoreCast at http://www.usgs.gov/corecast/.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
