Does your faith need strengthening? Are you confused and wondering if Jesus Christ is really "The Way, the Truth, and the Life?" "Fight for Your Faith" is a blog filled with interesting and thought provoking articles to help you find the answers you are seeking. Jesus said, "Seek and ye shall find." In Jeremiah we read, "Ye shall seek Me, and find Me, when ye shall seek for Me with all your heart." These articles and videos will help you in your search for the Truth.

Monday, February 29, 2016

Who killed Swedish Prime Minister Olaf thirty years ago?

By Dennis Edwards:

Swedish Prime Minister Olaf Palme may very well have signed His own death warrant, when on the 29th of September 1985 Swedish Customs Officials raided the Malmo offices of the arms-broker Karl-Erik Schmitz.[1]

It was thirty years ago from Sunday, on February 28, 1986, that the then charismatic Prime Minister of Sweden was gunned down, while walking home from a movie with his wife near to his home in Stockholm. Even though his security men were nearby, the death remains a mystery. 

As a result of the Custom raid, Palme was in possession of sensitive information in regards to activities of a secret international weapons cartel. The activities of the cartel had remained unknown for many years. Other government, military and business leaders privy to same information about the cartel that Palme had, who weren’t 100% on board to secrecy, had met the same fate as Palme, dying sudden violent deaths. 

At the time of his death, Palme was having an affair with Emma, the sister of one of the powerful Rothschild’s. Whether or not she was collecting information on Palme is not known, but she was never questioned by authorities after his death. We do know that the illegal arms cartel was working on both sides of the “Iron Curtain" and was making billions of dollars for their owners and may have been helping to supply the CIA and Mossad with their hidden illegal operation's budgets. 

Palme may have been assassinated because of his knowing, too much. In 1987 the head of Karl-Erik Schmitz said, "Everyone had kept this secret until the Swedish Customs went in like an elephant in a porcelain shop and destroyed it." Whether it was a blunder on Palme's part or not, he was held responsible.

Palme obvious had big enemies as he was quite vocal about his opposition to apartheid in South Africa. But he was also vocally pro Palestinian and compared Israel’s treatment of Palestinian children to Nazi Germany’s treatment of Jewish children.[2] Whether it was a South African who pulled the trigger or a Scandinavian, we do not know. One thing we can be sure, the powers that be behind the scenes were responsible for his death. We don’t know their names or telephone numbers, but we do know they are working for their spiritual Lord, the prince of darkness.

It is believed that Palme had worked to give Sweden a share in the illegal arms deals. His mistake was in allowing the Customs seizure, as now the cat would get out of the bag. Such a blunder could not go unpunished. Perhaps Emma was collecting data for the merchants of death and if Palme’s attitude, which may have been too independent, did not show sufficient repentance, a hit was ordered. Israel lost an opponent, as did South Africa, and other political figures around the world took notice and got themselves quickly in line.

[1] http://www.phoenixarchives.com/contact/1996/1196/111296.pdf
[2] http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/260876/sweden-no-friend-israel-joseph-puder

I see my old battalion assigned to Helmand again and I wonder: What is the point?

By Stephen Carlson, Washington Post, February 27, 2016:

The Pentagon recently announced that an undisclosed number of U.S. soldiers will be sent to Helmand province in southern Afghanistan in a “force protection” role. It’s a minor story, perhaps, considering the overall number of troops deployed to Afghanistan is not expected to increase beyond 9,800 and the troops will replace a unit already there. But it’s a shift at the tail end of a war most Americans do not even remember is happening anymore. The war is over, President Barack Obama said. Who cares about a lousy transfer of what’s been reported to be about 500 U.S. troops?

The soldiers in question are with the 2nd Battalion, 87th Infantry Regiment of the 10th Mountain Division, which is the unit I served with during two tours in Afghanistan. And they are heading towards one of the deadliest battlefields NATO endured in its never-ending mission in Afghanistan. U.S. Marines and the British military, in particular, paid a terrible price against intransigent locals and Taliban fighting hard to hold onto what they consider their homeland.

Nearly a thousand coalition troops lost their lives in Helmand, including hundreds of U.S. Marines. Now, after declaring a specious victory and leaving Helmand to the tender mercies of a corrupt government and the Taliban, the Pentagon is worried about the province, after pulling out and declaring victory. What kind of farce is this supposed to be? And remember, we’re not entirely sure just how many troops are heading there, or exactly what they’ll be doing. “Force protection” covers so much ground that it could mean practically anything.

In a teleconference earlier this month from Afghanistan, Brig. Gen. Wilson Shoffner, the deputy chief of staff for communications for the Operation Resolute mission, was vague in describing the mission.

“I’m not going to get into the details of the disposition of the particular units that are here, but I will say it is a normally scheduled unit rotation, and part of that unit will be operating in Helmand, and we are increasing the number of advisers that we have in Helmand province,” Shoffner said. “We’re also deploying soldiers, we’re positioning soldiers to provide force protection. And I’ll go as far as that.”

Obama was partly elected on the idea that he was going to end the wars that President Bush pushed us into. He partially succeeded. He accomplished most of his troop withdrawals, but now there has been an explosive revival of the Taliban in Afghanistan. It does not matter how much time passes, we still seem to be stuck in 2004. And now the Pentagon “surging” a few hundred troops back into Helmand province may be the greatest joke of all.

We might as well tattoo “We are here for appearances” on their foreheads. After 14 years, thousands of lives, and untold billions of dollars, now a battalion that had been deployed five times before and lost over a hundred lives is being held out as a fig leaf for a failed war. Soldiers from 10th Mountain have been in Afghanistan since the early days of Operation Anaconda in 2002. And it seems they will be there until the end, whenever that might be.

I served with 2-87 in the godforsaken mountains along the Pakistan border in Bermel in 2006 and again in 2009 to the volatile province of Wardak. Now I see my old battalion assigned to Helmand and wonder what is the point. What will a few hundred troops do now that tens of thousands of troops over many years could not before?

The Afghan National Army has been essentially rolled over by the Taliban in Helmand, among many other areas. The Afghan National Police are a grim, widely corrupt militia that includes child soldiers.

The town of Marjah in Helmand, where U.S. Marines paid a heavy price taking it from the Taliban following the troop surge, is now 90 percent controlled by the Taliban. Just last month, an American soldier was killed and two others wounded alongside heavy Afghan casualties there.

More than a hundred British soldiers lost their lives trying to secure the district of Sangin in Helmand. This endeavor they largely succeeded, but that is almost all gone now. The Afghan government controls a few government buildings and a couple small army outposts. The Taliban patrol the town’s center and own the countryside. On Feb. 6, the Afghan soldiers defending the government buildings suffered 9 dead, 7 wounded, and three captured. The day before, it was 4 dead and 7 wounded.

It is little more than a lopsided siege, and a single battalion of U.S. troops in a “non-combat” role are not going to reverse the collapse that is coming. By 2010 there were nearly 20,000 Marines in Helmand alongside thousands of British and other coalition troops, and it still took years to even moderately pacify the province.

A gradual disintegration is spreading across Afghanistan. According to the United Nations, 2015 saw over 11,000 civilian dead or wounded, the heaviest casualties suffered since the war began in 2001. Improvised explosive devices, suicide bombers, and hit-and-run attacks on soft targets are relatively cheap and easy for the Taliban, and they take a heavy toll on civilians simply at the wrong place at the wrong time. Afghan government forces are not exactly noted for their precision firepower either. As in every war, it is the innocent who suffer the most.

U.S. Army Gen. John Campbell, the outgoing commander of coalition forces in Afghanistan, testified to Congress on Feb. 4 that without changes “2016 is at risk of being no better, and possibly worse, than 2015.” He has recommended wider rules of engagement and more embedding with Afghan forces. These recommendations could have come from any testimony from the last 14 years.

It is clear that beyond some residual forces and already appropriated reconstruction and aid funds, the United States has essentially washed its hands of its Afghan venture. Troops, money, and occasionally blood, will continue to be spilled into Afghanistan for years to come, perhaps for decades, but it is difficult to see any scenario beyond a bloody, worsening deadlock that will only get worse by the year.

“Now more than ever,” Campbell said, “the United States should not waver on Afghanistan.”

We have already wavered, and 2-87’s deployment to Helmand is merely the window dressing trying to cover the mistakes of the past.

Stephen Carlson served two tours in Afghanistan as an infantryman with the 10th Mountain Division. He lives in Austin, Texas.

How Exercise May Lower Cancer Risk

By Gretchen Reynolds, NY Times, February 24, 2016:

The relationship between exercise and cancer has long both intrigued and puzzled oncologists and exercise physiologists.

Exercise is strongly associated with lowered risks for many types of cancer. In epidemiological studies, people who regularly exercise generally prove to be much less likely to develop or die from the disease than people who do not. At the same time, exercise involves biological stress, which typically leads to a short-term increase in inflammation throughout the body. Inflammation can contribute to elevated risks for many cancers.

Now, a new study in mice may offer some clues into the exercise-cancer paradox. It suggests that exercise may change how the immune system deals with cancer by boosting adrenaline, certain immune cells and other chemicals that, together, can reduce the severity of cancer or fight it off altogether.

But mice, obviously, are not people, and it is impossible to know from this study whether a similar process occurs in humans, although exercise, particularly moderately intense exercise such as jogging, has been shown to increase adrenaline and the production of natural killer immune cells in people, Dr. Hojman said.

“So the mechanisms,” she said, that seemed to partially protect the running mice in this study from malignancies, “can also happen in people,” perhaps providing one more incentive, if we still need it, to get up and move.

Saturday, February 27, 2016

IMF warns the global economy is “highly vulnerable”

BBC, 25 February 2016

         The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has said the global economy has weakened further and warned it was “highly vulnerable to adverse shocks”.

It said the weakening had come “amid increasing financial turbulence and falling asset prices”.

The IMF’s report comes before the meeting of G20 finance ministers and central bank governors in Shanghai later this week.

It said China’s slowdown was adding to global economic growth concerns.

China’s economy, the second-biggest in the world, is growing at the slowest rate in 25 years.

The IMF also noted any future prospects for global growth “could be derailed by market turbulence, the oil price crash and geopolitical conflicts”.

Comment by Dennis Edwards

We all understand that one day or another the financial system, even with all the maneuvering of the Federal Reserve Bank and the International Monetary Fund, could come tumbling down. Many highly accredited economists have written and spoken of the imminent financial crash. James Richards, in his compelling study on the internacional financial system's health, says quantitative easing has only prolonged the day of reckoning. 

In his book, The Death of Money, he proposes that it could very well be China's faulty financial practices, copying the West's bad example, that ultimately lead the world down the road to financial disaster. China's mistakes, coupled with the West's throwing money at their problems, will  lead to the final collapse of the dollar as an international reserve money. As a result the SDRs of the International Monetary Fund, a basket of currency with countries having buying rights internationally depending upon their real ability to pay, will become the bases of a new international financial system. 

America and other countries will not be able to send their problems abroad by printing more money. They printed money, or what they have called "quantitative easing," to save the bankers. But by doing so, they also wanted to cause inflation. By causing inflation, the national deficit, in real terms, goes down as the deficit is being paid with inflated money which has less real value. The economy, however, naturally wants to deflate. A deflation of the economy would be the true natural occurrence and would have occurred in 2008 had the government not implemented their inflationary printing of money through quantitative easing.

In Richard's opinion, all the financial maneuvering in the end won't save the sinking ship. The world is on the brink of a new international financial order and the Western nations are trying to maintain their dominance, while the BRICS and others want a more equal and fare share of the pie. Of course, to the Bible student, the financial crash could very well be the key event to further along the end-time prophecy scenario. 

The Bible predicts, after a short period of international peace, a new financial system will come into affect based on computerized money. Every man and woman will need to have a bio-chip implant in order to buy or sell. Thus will commence a period in history which Jesus called the Great Tribulation, consisting of wars and persecution of those who refuse to accept the new mandatory bio-chip implant. After three and a half years, the famous battle of Armageddon will take place in the Middle East and one third of the population of the world will die. Only the return of Christ to the planet will stop man from totally destroying humanity completely. 

The US is selling weapons to nearly half the countries in the world

Samuel Oakford, VICE News, Feb. 24, 2016

The global trade in arms continued to grow over the last half decade, buoyed by an appetite for weapons in the Middle East.

Figures released by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, a monitoring group, showed that even as the total trade in weapons grew by 14 percent between 2011 and 2015, the two largest exporters, Russia and the US, managed to capture even greater portions of the pie.

American exports made up a full third of the global trade, up from 29 percent between 2006 and 2010.

According to a congressional report, US arms sales increased by more than a third in 2014 alone, to $36.2 billion from 26.7 the year prior. SIPRI reported that over the last five years, the US sold “major” weapons to at least 96 countries–just a hair under half the total number of UN member states.

Russia meanwhile captured a quarter of all exports in SIPRI’s most recent assessment, up from 22 percent in the previous reporting period.

In line with longstanding security alliances in the Gulf, the US sent nearly 10 percent of its total exports between 2011 and 2015 to Saudi Arabia, and a further 9.1 percent to the United Arab Emirates.

Both countries are members of the coalition that has intervened militarily in Yemen for nearly a year, largely with American-supplied aircraft and munitions. According to the Congressional Research Service, the US sold them more than $90 billion in armaments and weapons systems since 2010.

Overall, imports to the Middle East rose by 61 percent; Saudi Arabia and the UAE were the second and fourth-biggest global importers between 2011 and 2015. Elsewhere in the region, Qatar’s imports grew by 279 percent, while Egypt’s increased by 37. Weapons purchases by Iraq, which is battling Islamic State militants, rose 83 percent more during the past five years than between 2006 and 2011, continuing a steady flow that began following the US-led invasion of the country in 2003.

“Despite low oil prices, large deliveries of arms to the Middle East are scheduled to continue as part of contracts signed in the past five years,” said Pieter Wezeman, Senior Researcher at SIPRI, in a statement.

Russia sent nearly 40 percent of all its exports to India, followed by sales to China and Vietnam. The latter increased its spending on foreign arms by a whopping 699 percent, catapulting their rank among importers from 43rd to eighth over the past five years. Nearly all of the weapons delivered to Vietnam came from Russia, including 8 combat aircraft, 4 submarines and 4 “fast attack craft.” SIPRI assessed that Vietnam’s stepped-up purchasing reflected fears of Beijing’s growing power in Asia and territorial claims in the South China Sea that overlap with its own.

While China still only accounts for 5.9 percent of global arms exports, its share is growing faster than practically any other state. Between 2006 and 2015, its share of exports rose 88 percent. Most were destined for other Asian countries, including Pakistan. SIPRI noted that Beijing “is increasingly capable of producing its own advanced weapons and has become less dependent on arms imports,” which fell 25 percent in the recent reporting period.

But China, wrote researchers, “remains partly dependent on imports for some key weapons and components, including large transport aircraft and helicopters, and engines for aircraft, vehicles and ships.”

For the first time, China’s weapons exports exceeded those of France, long one of Europe’s top arms sellers. From 7.1 percent of global exports between 2011 and 2015, France captured 5.6 percent in the last five years. Germany’s share fell even further, from 11 percent to 4.7. The UK’s share increased marginally, from 4.1 percent to 4.5 percent. Arms imports to Europe, meanwhile, fell by 41 percent.

Friday, February 26, 2016

On The Front Line With the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Battling Outside Aleppo

By Robert Fisk, The Independent, February 24, 2016:

We knew who they were the moment they approached us on the front line outside Aleppo. The Iranian Revolutionary Guards–no longer merely advisers but fighting troops alongside the Syrian army–emerged on the roadside in their grey-patterned camouflage fatigues, speaking good though not perfect Arabic but chatting happily in Persian when they knew we could understand them.

Why, they asked politely–they were courteous, but very suspicious in the first few minutes–were we filming this part of their line? A mortar exploded in a field to our right–sent over either by Isis or by Jabhat al-Nusra–and we had filmed its cloud of brown smoke as it drifted eastwards.

I told the Iranian commander, a tall, bespectacled and thoughtful man, that we were journalists. I got the impression that these men wanted to talk to us–which proved to be the case–but they were wary of us, as if we were dangerous aliens.

“When I heard that there was an English reporter asking for information in this area,” the man said, “I said to myself: ‘England is helping Isis and an English reporter is here asking for information’. The immediate thing in my mind was, ‘Where is this information going to go?’”

He apologised. We must not think he was hostile to us. “If you were in my place and you were fighting a harsh and brutal enemy like Isis in this location–and this is our front line–you would ask yourself this question: ‘What is the English reporter doing here–why should he be allowed here?’”

We explained that we were travelling with Syrian military personnel, and I showed the Iranian commander my press card–and he recognised my name and newspaper. There was much shaking of hands. The Independent was respected, he said. But he was still a very cautious man.

Down the dun-coloured road in front of us, across the flat plains to the south-east where the Nusra and Isis lines still held against the Syrian advance, there was an awful lot of rifle fire and the sound of bullets whizzing past the buildings. Outgoing, the Iranians assured us–I’m not sure I believed them, suspecting the fire was coming from their enemies–but the shooting continued throughout our strangely existential conversation.

“One of the problems of this place is that the enemy is very close,” the Iranian said, pointing through the dust haze. “You see those two silos over there? Well, that’s where Nusra are sitting right now and watching us at this moment. Any time, a mortar can arrive, you will be dead–and I will feel responsible, because in the last few hours I have already lost one man and had another wounded.” We were not there to die, I told the man. Reporters have to live to tell their tale.

He grinned at us. “We make a distinction between death and martyrdom,” he said. “In my view, because you are here and seeking the truth and bringing that truth to the world, if you die here in this spot, you are a martyr.”

The comment was intended to be kind. He was allowing a non-Muslim to become a martyr–which I had no intention of becoming. I told him how I had the very same conversation during the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war in a trench opposite Saddam’s front line. A soldier then had told me of the pleasure he would experience in dying for Islam and I had told him it was my intention to live, that death held no joys for me. Never the twain shall meet, I said to myself.

The Iranian officer–and seven others had gathered round him in the hot afternoon, the crack and zip of bullets still breaking up our conversation–insisted that “to fight in the way of justice is martyrdom”. But then a team of Iranian military IT men arrived, serious, courteous, and wanted to look at our camera. They looked at the pictures of the mortar explosion and concluded that we were telling the truth–we were not spies. They were frightened that we had filmed their own strategic locations.

Then another younger man arrived, bearded but smiling broadly. “This is not the right place for you to be,” he said. “If you want to show the truth of what is happening, you should go to the north of Aleppo and you should see villages and how they’ve been destroyed and how those who rejected the rule of al-Nusra were treated. They have lost everything–their homes have been smashed–and even if the war was to end now, the clean-up and preparations to rebuild will take at least a decade. That’s how badly damaged everything is.”

I realised at that moment that this young man must have fought to retake the Shia villages of Nubl and Zahra with other Revolutionary Guard forces three weeks earlier. “You should understand the kind of suffering these people have gone through–that’s what you should be writing about,” he said. He looked at us to see if we understood, and I suspect that for him this was a holy as well as a military mission–which may not be quite the way to win a war. But there they were, the Iranians in Syria chatting away to us on the battlefield–the “real thing”, as journalists like to say–and we took our leave.

“We would like you to write the truth about this place,” the commander said. “And I’m sorry we can’t allow you to see our lines.” There were more smiles from yet more Iranians who had turned up on motor cycles and in Toyotas. And then the commander went to his vehicle and came back with a large box of Arab sweets and handed them to us. How very Iranian of him. England supports Isis, it seems, but he was ready to feed the English reporter on his front line. But please, no more pictures.

They are sending home Iranian bodies at the rate of 10 a week from Aleppo military airport. Quite a price.

Thursday, February 25, 2016

We all know exercise makes you live longer. But this will actually get you off the couch.

By David Brown, Washington Post, February 22, 2016:

When someone dies in the intensive care unit, the first thing the nurse does is turn off the EKG monitor. That’s because the heart can go on depolarizing–writing its electrical signature on the screen, if not actually pumping blood–for many minutes after everything else stops. It’s creepy, but touching, too. The heart is the soldier who can’t bear to surrender until long after the battle is lost.

Because the heart is the last organ to die, it’s no surprise that medicine has expended much effort to get it to live longer. What’s surprising is that the best strategy is to work it harder, not go easy on it. The ceaselessly pumping organ is happiest if you test its limits in a controlled fashion on a regular basis.

In other words, if you exercise.

Exercise requires time and tolerance for discomfort, and you can’t store it up. For that reason, it lags behind other behaviors that doctors, the government and our consciences tell us to do (or not do). Only 50 percent of American adults get at least 150 minutes of aerobic exercise a week, which is the current recommendation. Larger fractions of people aren’t obese (65 percent), get at least seven hours of sleep a night (65 percent) and don’t smoke (83 percent).

Nevertheless, there’s no getting around the benefits of exercise. The evidence keeps piling up.

Over the past two decades, research has shown that exercise reduces the risk of heart attack, helps control weight, decreases inflammation, lowers the risk of developing diabetes and certain cancers, increases the chances of survival after a heart attack, lifts mood, slows the decline of sexual performance and prolongs independent living in the very old.

“It’s really hard to find something that is not improved with exercise,” said Michael J. Blaha, a preventive cardiologist at Johns Hopkins Hospital and a researcher in the field. “Everyone can benefit from it. Even at higher age, when you’re at increased risk of dying, exercise is able to add time to your life.”

Although many organs, and the body as a whole, are helped by exercise, the cardiovascular system–the heart and blood vessels–is helped the most.

Many people think exercise’s principal benefit operates through blood lipids, the compounds that contribute to artery-clogging atherosclerotic plaques. In fact, exercise alone has only a small effect on them. Total cholesterol, LDL (the dreaded “bad cholesterol”) and triglycerides go down a little, and HDL (“good cholesterol”) increases. However, the dramatic improvement in lipid profiles that many first-time exercisers report is more an effect of weight loss than exercise per se.

Instead, exercise’s action on the heart and the blood vessels is the sum of small benefits acting through many physiological pathways.

Exercise lowers blood pressure. It makes the body more sensitive to the action of insulin, which lowers blood glucose. It makes platelets–the mini-cells that trigger clots in strokes and heart attacks–less sticky, and increases the amount of clot-dissolving enzyme in the blood. It reduces some markers of body-wide inflammation, such as C-reactive protein. It slows the accumulation of calcium in arterial walls, a risk factor for heart attack. It increases the nitric oxide made by arteries, which allows them to expand and carry more blood when circumstances demand. Exercise also lowers the resting heart rate, which benefits the heart over the long run.

Studies in lab animals show that moderate-intensity exercise has measurable and even visible effects on the heart.

The body loses muscle mass with age, and the heart, being mostly muscle, isn’t spared. (A 70-year-old man has roughly 30 percent fewer heart muscle cells than a man in his 20s.) Exercise slows the process. It reduces the rate at which cells are lost both through wear and tear and through the programmed process of cell death called apoptosis. Aging rats forced to swim an hour a day have hearts far younger-looking–less thickened and scarred–than their sedentary brethren.

What it all adds up to is longer life.

But it isn’t an all-or-nothing relationship. Instead, the more a person exercises, the more the risk of heart attack and premature death goes down. Only at extreme and prolonged exercise do worrisome effects appear, and even then there’s no evidence that such behavior shortens life.

This “dose-response” relationship is apparent as soon as you get off the couch and do almost anything. It’s like a signing bonus.

A study of 221,000 Australians age 45 and older found that those who simply stood more than two hours a day had a death rate 10 percent lower than people who stood for less than two hours when followed over the course of four years. People on their feet for eight hours a day had a 24 percent lower death rate.

If you walk instead of stand, the payoff, not surprisingly, is bigger. A study of 1,239 Japanese men recruited at age 64 found that those who walked at least two hours a day had half the chance of dying over a 10-year period as those who walked less than 30 minutes a day.

In general, the greater a person’s exercise capacity, the lower the risk of dying. That became clear when researchers looked at the experience of 33,000 people (with an average age of 57) who took exercise stress tests at the Henry Ford Health System in Detroit.

Treadmills measured the intensity of their exertion in METs (metabolic equivalent of task). A MET is the ratio of energy expended during an activity to energy expended while sitting motionless. Working at a computer is 1.5 METs. Bicycling at less than 10 mph requires 4 METs, and very brisk walking requires 5 METs; both fall into the category of moderate-intensity activity. Playing basketball is 8 METs, and running at a 10-minutes-per-mile pace is 10 METs. They are considered vigorous-intensity activities.

In the 10 years after the stress tests, 41 percent of men and 23 percent of women who didn’t achieve 6 METs had died. However, for those who achieved more than 12 METs, mortality was only 3 percent for the men and 1 percent for the women.

Fitness paid off, even among people unlucky enough to suffer heart attacks. A study published this month using the same group of patients found that the risk of dying in the month after a heart attack was 14 percent in the under-6-METs group but only 6 percent in the over-12-METs group.

“Your baseline fitness now predicts your survival of that first heart attack. That’s an important message,” said Blaha, one of the authors of the new study.

Exercise’s ability to reduce a person’s chances of dying from cardiovascular disease extends well beyond the weekly 150 minutes of moderate exercise (or 75 minutes of vigorous exercise) currently recommended for adults.

An analysis of data from studies in the United States, Europe and Taiwan found the mortality risk bottomed out when a person did nine hours of moderate exercise or 4.8 hours of vigorous aerobic exercise per week (roughly 3 ½ times the recommended amount). At that point, a person’s risk of cardiovascular death was half that of someone who didn’t exercise at all.

So that’s the good news. The bad news is that exercise isn’t enough. You also have to stop sitting around when you’re not exercising. It turns out that sedentary behavior–defined as anything that takes less than 1.5 METs of effort–increases the risk of cardiovascular disease even if a person gets enough exercise.

A study of AARP members who got at least seven hours a week of moderate-to-vigorous exercise found that over an eight-year period, people who watched at least seven hours of TV per day were twice as likely to die of heart disease as people who watched less than an hour. Other studies have found similar effects.

The average American spends more than half of all waking hours in sedentary behavior, principally commuting or sitting in front of a computer screen or television. There are no government guidelines on the matter, but some experts say 10,000 footsteps a day–the equivalent of five miles of walking–should be the goal. (That would more than satisfy the exercise recommendation if done briskly enough.)

Taking that many steps is virtually impossible in an indoor job, even with standing desks and walking meetings. Nevertheless, people can make headway with the help of devices that count steps and chart them by hour, day, month and year.

“Tracking what’s happening is half the battle in pretty much everything that involves changing behavior,” said Haitham M. Ahmed, another preventive cardiologist at Hopkins. He advises his patients to use pedometers on wristwatches or smartphones, calling wearable activity tracking “a big breakthrough.”

So, if you don’t have one yet, there’s probably another screen in your future to obsess over, perhaps to better effect than Twitter and Instagram.

Wednesday, February 24, 2016

A Question of Values: Do You Cross the Line?



By Dennis Edwards:

Recently I was talking with my older son and he mentioned the subject of euthanasia and embryonic stem cell research. He was of the opinion that the most Christian position would be to support both euthanasia and embryonic stem cell research. Since euthanasia was relieving pain and with the consent of the individual involved, why should we not help death along? If the person is going to die anyway and endure prolonged suffering before hand, isn’t the most loving position the one which loves that person enough to put him out of his misery? My son’s position was, that since Christianity is love, if it’s anything, the most loving position in the hypothetical cases that he presented, was assisted suicide.

In the case of embryonic stem cell research, since the end was the saving of lives and since the embryonic stem cells were not going to develop into a child, why should we not support the research, which in the end, may save lives and lead to cures for genetic diseases and others? If through embryonic stem cell research man could grow organs and those organs could be used to save the life of a child, wouldn’t that justify the means? The embryonic stem cells, fertilized human eggs, were not ones that would be used to form a child. They were extra and just sitting on ice, so to speak. Why should we not allow science to do its thing in search for cures for human sickness and suffering?

I was quite shocked that he would take such a position as he had been raised in a Christian home and had studied under a Christian curriculum. I explained to him my position based on my belief that the Bible is the Word of God. Yes, God is love and love is the most important commandment and the sum of the law and the prophets. However, when asked by questioning religious leaders what was the most important commandment, Jesus did not respond, “Love thy neighbour as thyself.” He put first things first and responded,

“Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.”[1]

Yes, love is important. But the most important aspect of our faith is not loving our neighbour as ourselves. The most important aspect of our faith is to love the Lord our God with all our heart and with all our soul and with all our mind and with all our strength.[2] God want us to love Him, before anything else. He chose out the Jewish people to be an example of a nation that would love Him first. He tested Abraham, the father of faith, with the commandment to offer his beloved son Isaac by his beloved wife Sarah, as a sacrifice to God. It is not a very loving thing to kill your own son. God judged the heathen nations for their practice of infanticide and later chastened His own people for the same sin, even allowing Jerusalem to be conquered and destroyed by the Babylonians.

But at that moment, God was testing Abraham to see if he would do as God said, even if it seemed contrary to God’s own nature and Abraham’s natural understanding. In the end, God does not let Abraham go through with the act, but stops him just before. Abraham passes the test and is today considered the Father of Faith of three great religions: Judaism, Islam and Christianity. Later we see Moses lead God’s people out of Egypt and God gives them the Ten Commandments. The first four commandments have to do with our relationship with God.

“I am the Lord thy God, …, thou shalt have none other gods before me.”[3]

That’s the first commandment. Here’s the second:

“Thou shalt not make thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the waters beneath the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me, And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me and keep my commandments.”[4]

The third commandment you are familiar with says,

“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.”[5]

Wow, today’s modern generation needs to hear these things and television and movie producers. The fourth commandment is also quite easy to remember as the Seven Day Adventist have made it part of their main doctrine:

“Keep the Sabbath day to sanctify it, as the Lord thy God has commanded thee.”[6]

 All these first four commandments pertain to our relationship with God. He wants us to have Him in first place in our lives. He wants us to rest and take time with Him on a weekly bases. Since God is a spirit, he wants to be worshiped in spirit and in truth by the way we live our lives, by the words we say, by our actions and deeds.

The fifth commandment in fact has a blessing to those who obey it,

“Honour thy father and thy mother, as the Lord thy God has commanded thee; that thy days may be prolonged, and that it may go well with thee, in the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.”[7]

The structure of a society is built on the family unit. God had chosen Abraham because he said,

“For I know him, that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the Lord, to do justice and judgment; that the Lord may bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoken of him.”[8]

What was it that God had spoken of Abraham earlier? God had said,

“And I will make thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing: … and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.”[9]

But how did God know this future promise was going to come to pass. He knew Abraham would “command his children and his household after him.”[10] In other words, Abraham would instruct and teach them how to follow God, and they would.

However, later as God’s people had abandoned His precepts in Isaiah we read,

“As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths.”[11]

Today’s new generation has little respect for the older generation. We put them away in old folk’s homes so we can be free of the problem of taking care of them. Many fathers no longer have authority in the home. The wife and the children rule over him. These are symptoms of a degenerated society where the traditional family structure has been weakened. When you go to a third world country one of the first things you notice is the children still obey their parents. And the father is still an authoritative figure in the house.

The sixth commandment is “Thou shalt not kill.”[12] Traditionally the Judaic Christian philosophy has been that life is sacred. Pope John Paul II clarified that the Catholic Church does not support euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, the day after pill or abortion. Many evangelicals agree with the Catholic Churches position.

The problem of pain and suffering has been looked at by many philosophical thinkers and professors. C.S.Lewis wrote a book called “The Problem of Pain.” Here are some interesting quotes from Lewis:

“We can ignore even pleasure. But pain insists upon being attended to. God whispers to us in our pleasures, speaks in our conscience, but shouts in our pains: it is his megaphone to rouse a deaf world.”[13]

Lewis is saying God especially uses those times when we are in pain to speak with us as we yearn for solace and deliverance from pain. But modern man wants a pain free life. He takes pain-killers at the slightest sign or indication of pain. I’m really strange, as I hardly will take an aspirin. 

Last Christmas I had problem with my back after too many days working on my feet with little rest, I suddenly had so much pain I couldn’t walk. I started to faint as my body shut down to relieve the pain and stop me from further injuring my body. The sciatic nerve in my left upper leg gave a excruciating pain throughout my leg. I couldn’t put any pressure on that leg. I needed support to be able to walk. The first night, a friend of mine convinced me to take a pain-killer to rest better, and so I did. But afterwards, I refused to take the pill. I wanted to know if my body was recuperating and so, I did not want to take a pill as I would be tempted to continue working. Instead, I rested. I stayed in bed until noon and then stayed in bed until my body began to mend and heal itself. 

What was God teaching me? He was teaching me that He didn’t want me doing what all the volunteers were doing in the Christmas campaign. He wanted me to oversee and do less physical work, and more overseeing, more encouraging, more counselling. Lewis also wrote,

“Try to exclude the possibility of suffering which the order of nature and the existence of free-wills involve, and you find that you have excluded life itself.”[14]

As I was thinking back to other times when I had health problems, at each time God was trying to deepen my relationship with him and make a change in my habits or character. In fact some years ago, I attended a one day seminar on reaching ones potential as a human being. We learned that it was the problems in our lives which had had the biggest influence in our development as a person. 

In other words, problems meant development of character. My temper as a young child caused me to see my potential evil and seek for God to overcome. Later my shyness in public speaking caused me to develop my writing abilities and taught me to be sensitive to others. It also taught me that he who had the biggest mouth, doesn’t necessarily have the most loving heart. But power to sway and influence others comes through poignant public speaking. Those who could speak well, were those who gained significant influence over others whether or not they were morally superior or not. 

Going through a divorce and losing custody of my children were also two difficult events and periods in my life. However, it was during those times that my relationship with God deepened, as He was my only source of comfort and strength. The unexpected death of my 27 year-old son in a swimming accident and later the similar death of my 1 ½ year old grandson broke my hardened heart and re-establish the importance of love in my life.

Heart problems caused me to re-evaluate my diet, my schedule and my ability to handle stress. I started exercising more, working smart instead of stress-fully and watching my diet. King David of Israel wrote a beautiful song in which he says,

“In my distress I called upon the LORD, and cried unto my God: he heard my voice out of his temple, and my cry came before him, even into his ears.”[15]

In all the distresses of life, God has been my fortress and my strength, in Him I could surely trust.[16] I can only affirm what the Psalmist wrote,

“It is good for me to have been afflicted, that I might learn thy statutes.”[17]

Lewis also wrote,

“The problem of reconciling human suffering with the existence of a God who loves, is only insoluble so long as we attach a trivial meaning to the word "love", and look on things as if man were the centre of them. Man is not the centre. God does not exist for the sake of man. Man does not exist for his own sake. "Thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created." We were made not primarily that we may love God (though we were made for that too) but that God may love us, that we may become objects in which the divine love may rest "well pleased".”[18]

The Bible says,

“Many are the afflictions of the righteous, but the Lord delivers him out of them all.”[19]

Like the old poem “God has not promised.”[20]

God hath not promised skies always blue,
Flower-strewn pathways all our lives through;
God hath not promised sun without rain,
Joy without sorrow, peace without pain

But God hath promised strength for the day,
Rest for the labor, light for the way,
Grace for the trials, help from above,
Unfailing sympathy, undying love 

God hath not promised we shall not know
Toil and temptation, trouble and woe;
He hath not told us we shall not bear
Many a burden, many a care. 

But God hath promised strength for the day,
Rest for the labor, light for the way,
Grace for the trials, help from above,
Unfailing sympathy, undying love

God hath not promised smooth roads and wide,
Swift, easy travel, needing no guide;
Never a mountain, rocky and steep,
Never a river, turbid and deep.

But God hath promised strength for the day,
Rest for the labor, light for the way,
Grace for the trials, help from above,
Unfailing sympathy, undying love

After speaking with my son on the topic of euthanasia and embryonic stem cell research, I went to bed thinking about how I could have better answered his position. When I woke in the morning , the first thought that entered my mind was

“Jesus learned obedience through the things which he suffered.”[21]

Suffering wasn’t bad, we learn obedience to God through it. As C.S. Lewis acknowledged,

“If tribulation is a necessary element in redemption, we must anticipate that it will never cease till God sees the world to be either redeemed or no further redeemable.”[22]

Jana Harmon a Teaching Fellow at C.S. Lewis Institute in Atlanta writes the following about Lewis analysis of pain: 

“We all have some sense of justice. We all want evil to be punished, to be recognized for what it is, especially in others. Yet we deceive ourselves into thinking that all is well with us. Pain reveals the reality of our own evil and gives us a choice to either resist and rebel against the ultimate standard bearer or recognize our sin, repent, and surrender to Him. “Pain shatters the illusion that all is well . . . that what we have, whether good or bad in itself, is our own and enough for us.” Pain takes away our false sense of happiness, draws our attention to God and our need for Him. Even in “good, decent people,” the illusion of self-sufficiency must be shattered. And, like a good and loving Father, God is willing to accept whatever surrender and sacrifice we have to offer. Our desires must be changed from pleasing self to pleasing God, which in the end produces our greatest happiness. We must lose ourselves to find ourselves, truly satisfied, in God.

“Lewis does not dismiss the fact that pain is pain and it hurts. But he reminds us that the supreme act of self-surrender was found in the person and work of Jesus Christ. Christ knows pain and suffering, intimately, personally, profoundly. His loving sacrifice was for the redemption of us, the sinners whom He loves. His followers are similarly called to lives of submission, to “walk as Jesus did." Pain reminds us of our humility and utter dependence upon God, upon our true source of goodness, strength, and happiness in Christ. When pain is withdrawn, we tend to forget God and return toward self-sufficiency and sin. Pain does its work on those whose hearts are willing to receive, to grow, to love in greater and more godly ways—to surrender self to God.

"Pain, then, in and of itself is not completely bad or evil. It can come from the hand of a good, loving, and powerful God who desires the best for His creation, who genuinely allows for us to be free agents who make free choices. The possibility and reality of pain and suffering is palpable and at times devastating to both victim and perpetrator. Regardless, pain can and does serve redemptive purposes in the lives of those who turn toward God. In light of this, our constant prayer to our loving, good, and powerful Father in heaven should be that of the psalmist: “Deal with your servant according to your love.” 

"Yes, God is completely good.
Yes, God is completely powerful.
Yes, pain and suffering exists.

"The existence of pain does not negate the presence of an omnipotent, loving God. When understood in the fullness of its context, we realize that it is the very presence of God that provides meaning and hope amid the pain. Christ was the ultimate, innocent bearer of unjust suffering. In the face of abject pain, self-sacrificial love, goodness, and power are met on the cross.”[23]

Therefore, pain and suffering to the Christian psychic should not necessarily be looked as evil, because God has promised that all things will work together for good to them that love God.[24] Suffering for Christ’s sake is a Christian discipline. Christians throughout history and persecution have embraced suffering. Godly men of faith in the Old Testament also embraced suffering, ridicule and problems for God’s sake.

Paul tells us,

“And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.”[25]

He also notes,

“If we suffer, we shall also reign with him: if we deny him, he also will deny us.”[26]

Peter says something similar;

“For this is thank-worthy, if a man for conscience toward God endure grief, suffering wrongfully. For what glory is it, if, when ye be buffeted for your faults, ye shall take it patiently? but if, when ye do well, and suffer for it, ye take it patiently, this is acceptable with God. For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps.”[27]

Peter continues further and says,

“Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise with the same mind: for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin;”[28]

“Beloved, think it not strange concerning the fiery trial which is to try you, as though some strange thing happened unto you: But rejoice, inasmuch as ye are partakers of Christ's sufferings; that, when his glory shall be revealed, ye may be glad also with exceeding joy.”[29]

“Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf. … Wherefore let them that suffer according to the will of God commit the keeping of their souls to him in well doing, as unto a faithful Creator.”[30]

In the book of Hebrews we find a list of Old Testament saints who suffered for their faith:

“And others were tortured, not accepting deliverance; that they might obtain a better resurrection: and others had trial of cruel mockings and scourgings, yea, moreover of bonds and imprisonment.”[31]

The very next chapter in Hebrews tells of how suffering, though it doesn’t seem joyous when we are going through it,

“yields the peaceable fruit of righteousness., unto to them which are exercised thereby.”[32]

So suffering in fact equals good. 

The Greeks felt suffering helped to deepen one’s character. The Greek word “catharsis” has as one of its meanings as “a purification or purgation that brings about spiritual renewal.”[33] The main characters in the Greek tragedies usually personified the purification process through their suffering. Like C.S.Lewis expressed quite accurately and we have seen earlier,

“Try to exclude the possibility of suffering which the order of nature and the existence of free-wills involve, and you find that you have excluded life itself.”[34]

As Christians our life is bound up with suffering as Paul said,

“For unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for his sake.”[35]

Pain and suffering are not necessarily evil or bad, in themselves, in fact, they can be good, if they draw us closer to God. Just as we see in Joseph’s lecture to his brother’s who had sold him into slavery many years before. as recorded in the book of Genesis. He said,

“But as for you, ye thought evil against me, but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive.”[36]

In my own life, it was the possibility of going to Vietnam to kill and or be killed, that made me seek God. My friends at college who knew they were not headed for Vietnam after graduation ate, drank and were merry through the course of our college education, but I could not. My low lottery draft number assured me of induction into the military after graduation and forced me to seek His face. I am certain my draft problem led to the deepening of my character and in the end helped me to find God in my youth!

In this article, I have made a defense for life, a defense of God’s Word, and defense of suffering. But today’s pleasure generation sees anything that does not make them happy as undesirable. They see suffering as bad and to be avoided at all costs. They see the relieving of suffering in euthanasia as ethically correct, as the avoidance of suffering is one of the mantras of today’s generation. But life is sacred. God has said it in His Word. He has also given His own loving example for us to follow. His Word over and over again admonishes us that suffering is for our good to bring about the peaceable fruits of righteousness in our character. 

We should not take things into our own hands and commit murder in order to avoid suffering. Abortion, day-after pills, or assisted suicide and embryonic stem cell research are against God’s commandment to not kill. I can understand the seemingly good reason for an abortion. I have been there. When I was sixteen I helped to pay for the abortion my brother’s girlfriend had. I had been brought up in a strong Catholic home and my mother had instilled in us the strong Catholic stand against abortion. Nevertheless, when my 18 year old brother needed the money, which I had been saving for many years, I gave it to him without a doubt. I didn’t even think of talking to my mother about it. I needed to help my brother out of that mess, that problem he had, and so, a little child never saw the breath of day. 

But the problem is that God has drawn the line in the sand and told us not to cross it. Adam and Eve made the mistake and doubted God’s Word and crossed the line. Will we not learn from the mistakes of others? Can we not learn to embrace suffering? Can we not follow Christ’s example and learn obedience to God through the things that we suffer? Not crossing that line in the sand will cause us to suffer, but our conscience will be clean. God will use the suffering we experience, because we refused to cross the line, for our good. 

A true story found in Field Marshall Montgomery’s biography may make a good ending. Field Marshal Montgomery was 88 years old and he knew he was nearing the end of his life. Unable to sleep at night, he called for one of his closest friends to come and talk with him. His conscience was bothering him. He was soon to face God. How could Montgomery justify the deaths of all those English and Scottish lads who had died under his command in WWII? Montgomery’s conscience was causing him to suffer and bringing him to the point of accepting his sin, and seeing his and mankind’s vileness, in the presence of God. What at one point in time seemed justifiable in the eyes of man, suddenly seemed insufficient reason in the soon presence of God.[37]

Whether or not Montgomery’s friend helped him find consolation and forgiveness in the arms of Christ is not mentioned in the story. We know God's mercy is everlasting, as we have read earlier in one of the Ten Commandments:

“visiting iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me, and shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me and keep my commandments.”[38]

Will you love God and keep His commandments, which are not grievous to complete?[39] Will you refuse to cross the line? 

Footnotes:

[1] Matthew 22:36-40
[2] Mark 12:29-31
[3] Deuteronomy 5:5
[4] Deuteronomy 5:8-10
[5] Deuteronomy 5:
[6] Deuteronomy 5:
[7] Deuteronomy 5:
[8] Genesis 18:19
[9] Genesis 12:3-4
[10] Génesis 18:19
[11] Isaiah
[12] Deuteronomy 5:
[13] Lewis, C.S.; The Problem of Pain,
[14] Lewis, C.S.; The Problem of Pain,
[15] Psalm 18:6
[16] Psalm 18:2
[17] Psalm 119:165
[18] Lewis, C.S.; The Problem of Pain
[19] Psalm 34:18?
[20] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34LpvmJKAnI
[21] Hebrews 5:8
[22] Lewis, C.S.; The Problem of Pain,
[23] Hamon, http://www.cslewisinstitute.org/C_S_Lewis_on_the_Problem_of_Pain_FullArticle
[24] Romans 8:28
[25] Romans 8:17
[26] 2Timothy 2:12
[27] 1Peter 2:19-21
[28] 1Peter 4:1
[29] 1Peter 4:12-13
[30] 1Peter 4:16 & 19
[31] Hebrews 11:35-36
[32] Hebrews 12:11
[33] http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/catharsis
[34] Lewis, C.S.; The Problem of Pain,
[35] Philippians 1:29
[36] Génesis 50:20
[37] Spufford, Francis; Unapologetic: Why, Despite Everything, Christianity Can Still Make Surprising Emotional Sense
[38] Deuteronomy 5:9-10
[39] 1John 5:3

What is The Mandrake Mechanism?

By G. Edward Griffin

Editor's Note: The Federal Reserve Act was passed by 3 (THREE) bribed senators in a unanimous voice vote (all three of them) on 23 December 1913 - while everyone else was home for the holidays. 

Some people think of the Federal Reserve Banks as United States Government institutions. They are private monopolies which prey upon the people of these United States for the benefit of themselves and their foreign customers; foreign and domestic speculators and swindlers; and rich and predatory money lenders. 

The Fed has followed a consistent policy of flooding the economy with easy money, leading to a misallocation of resources and an artificial "boom" followed by a recession or depression when the Fed-created bubble bursts. From the Great Depression, to the stagflation of the seventies, to the burst of the dotcom bubble, to the housing market crisis, every economic downturn suffered by the country over the last 98 years can be traced to Federal Reserve policy.

In the following missive, G. Edward Griffin exposes the most blatant scam of all history. It's all here: the cause of wars, boom-bust cycles, inflation, depression, prosperity. It's just exactly what every American needs to know about the power of the central bank." Mr. Griffin is a graduate of the University of Michigan where he majored in Speech Communication. He is the recipient of the Telly Award for Excellence in TV Production. He is the founder of the Cancer Cure Foundation and has served on the board of directors of the National Health Federation and the International Association of Cancer Victims and Friends. He is a contributing editor for the New American Magazine and is President of American Media, a publishing and video production company in southern California.)

It's the most important financial lesson of your life!

The Mandrake Mechanism... What is it?

It is the method by which the Federal Reserve creates money out of nothing; the concept of usury as the payment of interest on pretended loans; the true cause of the hidden tax called inflation; the way in which the Fed creates boom-bust cycles.

In the 1940s, there was a comic strip character called Mandrake the Magician. His specialty was creating things out of nothing and, when appropriate, to make them disappear back into that same void. It is fitting, therefore, that the process to be described in this section should be named in his honor.

In the previous chapters, we examined the technique developed by the political and monetary scientists to create money out of nothing for the purpose of lending. This is not an entirely accurate description because it implies that money is created first and then waits for someone to borrow it.

On the other hand, textbooks on banking often state that money is created out of debt. This also is misleading because it implies that debt exists first and then is converted into money. In truth, money is not created until the instant it is borrowed. It is the act of borrowing which causes it to spring into existence. And, incidentally, it is the act of paying off the debt that causes it to vanish. There is no short phrase that perfectly describes that process. So, until one is invented along the way, we shall continue using the phrase "create money out of nothing" and occasionally add "for the purpose of lending" where necessary to further clarify the meaning.

So, let us now... see just how far this money/debt-creation process has been carried - and how it works.

The first fact that needs to be considered is that our money today has no gold or silver behind it whatsoever. The fraction is not 54% nor 15%. It is 0%. It has traveled the path of all previous fractional money in history and already has degenerated into pure fiat money. The fact that most of it is in the form of checkbook balances rather than paper currency is a mere technicality; and the fact that bankers speak about "reserve ratios" is eyewash. The so-called reserves to which they refer are, in fact, Treasury bonds and other certificates of debt.

Our money is "pure fiat" through and through.

The second fact that needs to be clearly understood is that, in spite of the technical jargon and seemingly complicated procedures, the actual mechanism by which the Federal Reserve creates money is quite simple. They do it exactly the same way the goldsmiths of old did except, of course, the goldsmiths were limited by the need to hold some precious metals in reserve, whereas the Fed has no such restriction.

The Federal Reserve is candid

The Federal Reserve itself is amazingly frank about this process.

A booklet published by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York tells us:

"Currency cannot be redeemed, or exchanged, for Treasury gold or any other asset used as backing. The question of just what assets 'back' Federal Reserve notes has little but bookkeeping significance."

Elsewhere in the same publication we are told:

"Banks are creating money based on a borrower's promise to pay (the IOU)... Banks create money by 'monetizing' the private debts of businesses and individuals."

In a booklet entitled Modern Money Mechanics, the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago says:

In the United States neither paper currency nor deposits have value as commodities. Intrinsically, a dollar bill is just a piece of paper. Deposits are merely book entries. Coins do have some intrinsic value as metal, but generally far less than their face amount.

What, then, makes these instruments - checks, paper money, and coins - acceptable at face value in payment of all debts and for other monetary uses? Mainly, it is the confidence people have that they will be able to exchange such money for other financial assets and real goods and services whenever they choose to do so. This partly is a matter of law; currency has been designated "legal tender" by the government - that is, it must be accepted.

In the fine print of a footnote in a bulletin of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, we find this surprisingly candid explanation:

Modern monetary systems have a fiat base - literally money by decree - with depository institutions, acting as fiduciaries, creating obligations against themselves with the fiat base acting in part as reserves. The decree appears on the currency notes:

"This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private."

While no individual could refuse to accept such money for debt repayment, exchange contracts could easily be composed to thwart its use in everyday commerce. However, a forceful explanation as to why money is accepted is that the federal government requires it as payment for tax liabilities. Anticipation of the need to clear this debt creates a demand for the pure fiat dollars. Money would vanish without debt

It is difficult for Americans to come to grips with the fact that their total money-supply is backed by nothing but debt, and it is even more mind boggling to visualize that, if everyone paid back all that was borrowed, there would be no money left in existence.

That's right, there would not be one penny in circulation - all coins and all paper currency would be returned to bank vaults - and there would be not one dollar in any one's checking account. In short, all money would disappear.

Marriner Eccles was the Governor of the Federal Reserve System in 1941. On September 30 of that year, Eccles was asked to give testimony before the House Committee on Banking and Currency. The purpose of the hearing was to obtain information regarding the role of the Federal Reserve in creating conditions that led to the depression of the 1930s.

Congressman Wright Patman, who was Chairman of that committee, asked how the Fed got the money to purchase two billion dollars worth of government bonds in 1933.

This is the exchange that followed.

Eccles: We created it.
Patman: Out of what?

Eccles: Out of the right to issue credit money.
Patman: And there is nothing behind it, is there, except our government's credit? 

Eccles: That is what our money system is. If there were no debts in our money system, there wouldn't be any money.

It must be realized that, while money may represent an asset to selected individuals, when it is considered as an aggregate of the total money supply, it is not an asset at all. A man who borrows $1,000 may think that he has increased his financial position by that amount but he has not. His $1,000 cash asset is offset by his $1,000 loan liability, and his net position is zero. Bank accounts are exactly the same on a larger scale. Add up all the bank accounts in the nation, and it would be easy to assume that all that money represents a gigantic pool of assets which support the economy. Yet, every bit of this money is owed by someone. Some will owe nothing. Others will owe many times what they possess. All added together, the national balance is zero. What we think is money is but a grand illusion. The reality is debt.

Robert Hemphill was the Credit Manager of the Federal Reserve Bank in Atlanta. In the foreword to a book by Irving Fisher, entitled 100% Money, Hemphill said this:

If all the bank loans were paid, no one could have a bank deposit, and there would not be a dollar of coin or currency in circulation. This is a staggering thought. We are completely dependent on the commercial banks. Someone has to borrow every dollar we have in circulation, cash, or credit.

If the banks create ample synthetic money we are prosperous; if not, we starve. We are absolutely without a permanent money system. When one gets a complete grasp of the picture, the tragic absurdity of our hopeless situation is almost incredible - but there it is.

With the knowledge that money in America is based on debt, it should not come as a surprise to learn that the Federal Reserve System is not the least interested in seeing a reduction in debt in this country, regardless of public utterances to the contrary.

Here is the bottom line from the System's own publications. The Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia says:

"A large and growing number of analysts, on the other hand, now regard the national debt as something useful, if not an actual blessing... [They believe] the national debt need not be reduced at all."

The Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago adds:

"Debt - public and private - is here to stay. It plays an essential role in economic processes... What is required is not the abolition of debt, but its prudent use and intelligent management."

What's wrong with a little debt?

There is a kind of fascinating appeal to this theory. It gives those who expound it an aura of intellectualism, the appearance of being able to grasp a complex economic principle that is beyond the comprehension of mere mortals. And, for the less academically minded, it offers the comfort of at least sounding moderate. After all, what's wrong with a little debt, prudently used and intelligently managed? The answer is nothing, provided the debt is based on an honest transaction. There is plenty wrong with it if it is "based upon fraud".

An honest transaction is one in which a borrower pays an agreed upon sum in return for the temporary use of a lender's asset. That asset could be anything of tangible value. If it were an automobile, for example, then the borrower would pay "rent." If it is money, then the rent is called "interest." Either way, the concept is the same.

When we go to a lender - either a bank or a private party - and receive a loan of money, we are willing to pay interest on the loan in recognition of the fact that the money we are borrowing is an asset which we want to use. It seems only fair to pay a rental fee for that asset to the person who owns it. It is not easy to acquire an automobile, and it is not easy to acquire money - real money, that is. If the money we are borrowing was earned by someone's labor and talent, they are fully entitled to receive interest on it. But what are we to think of money that is created by the mere stroke of a pen or the click of a computer key? Why should anyone collect a rental fee on that?

When banks place credits into your checking account, they are merely pretending to lend you money. In reality, they have nothing to lend. Even the money that non-indebted depositors have placed with them was originally created out of nothing in response to someone else's loan. So what entitles the banks to collect rent on nothing? It is immaterial that men everywhere are forced by law to accept these nothing certificates in exchange for real goods and services.We are talking here, not about what is legal, but what is moral. As Thomas Jefferson observed at the time of his protracted battle against central banking in the United States,

"No one has a natural right to the trade of money lender, but he who has money to lend."

Third reason to abolish the system

Centuries ago, usury was defined as any interest charged for a loan. Modern usage has redefined it as excessive interest. Certainly, any amount of interest charged for a pretended loan is excessive. The dictionary, therefore, needs a new definition.

Usury: The charging of any interest on a loan of fiat money.

Let us, therefore, look at debt and interest in this light. Thomas Edison summed up the immorality of the system when he said:

People who will not turn a shovel of dirt on the project [Muscle Shoals] nor contribute a pound of materials will collect more money... than will the people who will supply all the materials and do all the work.

Is that an exaggeration? Let us consider the purchase of a $100,000 home in which $30,000 represents the cost of the land, architect's fee, sales commissions, building permits, and that sort of thing and $70,000 is the cost of labor and building materials. If the home buyer puts up $30,000 as a down payment, then $70,000 must be borrowed. If the loan is issued at 11% over a 30-year period, the amount of interest paid will be $167,806. That means the amount paid to those who loan the money is about 2 1/2 times greater than paid to those who provide all the labor and all the materials. It is true that this figure represents the time-value of that money over thirty years and easily could be justified on the basis that a lender deserves to be compensated for surrendering the use of his capital for half a lifetime.

But that assumes the lender actually had something to surrender, that he had earned the capital, saved it, and then loaned it for construction of someone else's house. What are we to think, however, about a lender who did nothing to earn the money, had not saved it, and, in fact, simply created it out of thin air? 

What is the time-value of nothing?

As we have already shown, every dollar that exists today, either in the form of currency, checkbook money, or even credit card money - in other words, our entire money supply - exists only because it was borrowed by someone; perhaps not you, but someone.

That means all the American dollars in the entire world are earning daily and compounding interest for the banks which created them. A portion of every business venture, every investment, every profit, every transaction which involves money - and that even includes losses and the payment of taxes - a portion of all that is earmarked as payment to a bank.

And what did the banks do to earn this perpetually flowing river of wealth? Did they lend out their own capital obtained through investment of stockholders? Did they lend out the hard-earned savings of their depositors? No, neither of these were their major source of income. They simply waved the magic wand called fiat money.

The flow of such unearned wealth under the guise of interest can only be viewed as usury of the highest magnitude.Even if there were no other reasons to abolish the Fed, the fact that it is the supreme instrument of usury would be more than sufficient by itself.

Who creates the money to pay the interest?

One of the most perplexing questions associated with this process is "Where does the money come from to pay the interest?" If you borrow $10,000 from a bank at 9%, you owe $10,900. But the bank only manufactures $10,000 for the loan. It would seem, therefore, that there is no way that you - and all others with similar loans - can possibly pay off your indebtedness. The amount of money put into circulation just isn't enough to cover the total debt, including interest. This has led some to the conclusion that it is necessary for you to borrow the $900 for interest, and that, in turn, leads to still more interest. The assumption is that, the more we borrow, the more we have to borrow, and that debt based on fiat money is a never ending spiral leading inexorably to more and more debt.

This is a partial truth. It is true that there is not enough money created to include the interest, but it is a fallacy that the only way to pay it back is to borrow still more. The assumption fails to take into account the exchange value of labor. Let us assume that you pay back your $10,000 loan at the rate of approximately $900 per month and that about $80 of that represents interest. You realize you are hard pressed to make your payments so you decide to take on a part-time job.

The bank, on the other hand, is now making $80 profit each month on your loan. Since this amount is classified as "interest," it is not extinguished as is the larger portion which is a return of the loan itself. So this remains as spendable money in the account of the bank. The decision then is made to have the bank's floors waxed once a week. You respond to the ad in the paper and are hired at $80 per month to do the job. The result is that you earn the money to pay the interest on your loan, and - this is the point - the money you receive is the same money which you previously had paid. As long as you perform labor for the bank each month, the same dollars go into the bank as interest, then out of the revolving door as your wages, and then back into the bank as loan repayment.

It is not necessary that you work directly for the bank. No matter where you earn the money, its origin was a bank and its ultimate destination is a bank. The loop through which it travels can be large or small, but the fact remains all interest is paid eventually by human effort. And the significance of that fact is even more startling than the assumption that not enough money is created to pay back the interest. It is that the total of this human effort ultimately is for the benefit of those who create fiat money.

It is a form of modern serfdom in which the great mass of society works as indentured servants to a ruling class of financial nobility.

Understanding the Illusion... That's really all one needs to know about the operation of the banking cartel under the protection of the Federal Reserve. But it would be a shame to stop here without taking a look at the actual cogs, mirrors, and pulleys that make the magical mechanism work. It is a truly fascinating engine of mystery and deception.

Let us, therefore, turn our attention to the actual process by which the magicians create the illusion of modern money. First we shall stand back for a general view to see the overall action.

Then we shall move in closer and examine each component in detail.

The Mandrake Mechanism - An Overview

The entire function of this machine is to convert debt into money. It's just that simple. First, the Fed takes all the government bonds which the public does not buy and writes a check to Congress in exchange for them. (It acquires other debt obligations as well, but government bonds comprise most of its inventory.) There is no money to back up this check. These fiat dollars are created on the spot for that purpose. By calling those bonds "reserves," the Fed then uses them as the base for creating nine (9) additional dollars for every dollar created for the bonds themselves. The money created for the bonds is spent by the government, whereas the money created on top of those bonds is the source of all the bank loans made to the nation's businesses and individuals. The result of this process is the same as creating money on a printing press, but the illusion is based on an accounting trick rather than a printing trick.

The bottom line is that Congress and the banking cartel have entered into a partnership in which the cartel has the privilege of collecting interest on money which it creates out of nothing, a perpetual override on every American dollar that exists in the world.

Congress, on the other hand, has access to unlimited funding without having to tell the voters their taxes are being raised through the process of inflation. If you understand this paragraph, you understand the Federal Reserve System.

Now for a more detailed view. There are three general ways in which the Federal Reserve creates fiat money out of debt.

One is by making loans to the member banks through what is called the Discount Window.

The second is by purchasing Treasury bonds and other certificates of debt through what is called the Open Market Committee.

The third is by changing the so-called reserve ratio that member banks are required to hold. Each method is merely a different path to the same objective: taking IOUs and converting them into spendable money.

THE DISCOUNT WINDOW
The Discount Window is merely bankers' language for the loan window. When banks run short of money, the Federal Reserve stands ready as the "bankers' bank" to lend it. There are many reasons for them to need loans. Since they hold "reserves" of only about one or two per cent of their deposits in vault cash and eight or nine per cent in securities, their operating margin is extremely thin. It is common for them to experience temporary negative balances caused by unusual customer demand for cash or unusually large clusters of checks all clearing through other banks at the same time. Sometimes they make bad loans and, when these former "assets" are removed from their books, their "reserves" are also decreased and may, in fact, become negative. Finally, there is the profit motive. When banks borrow from the Federal Reserve at one interest rate and lend it out at a higher rate, there is an obvious advantage. But that is merely the beginning.

When a bank borrows a dollar from the Fed, it becomes a one-dollar reserve.

Since the banks are required to keep reserves of only about ten per cent, they actually can loan up to nine dollars for each dollar borrowed.

Let's take a look at the math. Assume the bank receives $1 million from the Fed at a rate of 8%. The total annual cost, therefore, is $80,000 (.08 X $1,000,000). The bank treats the loan as a cash deposit, which means it becomes the basis for manufacturing an additional $9 million to be lent to its customers. If we assume that it lends that money at 11% interest, its gross return would be $990,000 (.11 X $9,000,000).Subtract from this the bank's cost of $80,000 plus an appropriate share of its overhead, and we have a net return of about $900,000. In other words, the bank borrows a million and can almost double it in one year. That's leverage! But don't forget the source of that leverage: the manufacture of another $9 million which is added to the nation's money supply.

THE OPEN MARKET OPERATION
The most important method used by the Federal Reserve for the creation of fiat money is the purchase and sale of securities on the open market. But, before jumping into this, a word of warning. Don't expect what follows to make any sense. Just be prepared to know that this is how they do it.

The trick lies in the use of words and phrases which have technical meanings quite different from what they imply to the average citizen. So keep your eye on the words. They are not meant to explain but to deceive. In spite of first appearances, the process is not complicated.

It is just absurd.

THE MANDRAKE MECHANISM - A DETAILED VIEW

Start with...


GOVERNMENT DEBT
The federal government adds ink to a piece of paper, creates impressive designs around the edges, and calls it a bond or Treasury note. It is merely a promise to pay a specified sum at a specified interest on a specified date. As we shall see in the following steps, this debt eventually becomes the foundation for almost the entire nation's money supply. In reality, the government has created cash, but it doesn't yet look like cash. To convert these IOUs into paper bills and checkbook money is the function of the Federal Reserve System. To bring about that transformation, the bond is given to the Fed where it is then classified as a...

SECURITIES ASSET
An instrument of government debt is considered an asset because it is assumed the government will keep its promise to pay. This is based upon its ability to obtain whatever money it needs through taxation. Thus, the strength of this asset is the power to take back that which it gives. So the Federal Reserve now has an "asset" which can be used to offset a liability. It then creates this liability by adding ink to yet another piece of paper and exchanging that with the government in return for the asset. That second piece of paper is a...

FEDERAL RESERVE CHECK
There is no money in any account to cover this check. Anyone else doing that would be sent to prison. It is legal for the Fed, however, because Congress wants the money, and this is the easiest way to get it. (To raise taxes would be political suicide; to depend on the public to buy all the bonds would not be realistic, especially if interest rates are set artificially low; and to print very large quantities of currency would be obvious and controversial.) This way, the process is mysteriously wrapped up in the banking system. The end result, however, is the same as turning on government printing presses and simply manufacturing fiat money (money created by the order of government with nothing of tangible value backing it) to pay government expenses. Yet, in accounting terms, the books are said to be "balanced" because the liability of the money is offset by the "asset" of the IOU. The Federal Reserve check received by the government then is endorsed and sent back to one of the Federal Reserve banks where it now becomes a...

GOVERNMENT DEPOSIT
Once the Federal Reserve check has been deposited into the government's account, it is used to pay government expenses and, thus, is transformed into many...

GOVERNMENT CHECKS
These checks become the means by which the first wave of fiat money floods into the economy. Recipients now deposit them into their own bank accounts where they become...

COMMERCIAL BANK DEPOSITS
Commercial bank deposits immediately take on a split personality.

On the one hand, they are liabilities to the bank because they are owed back to the depositors. But, as long as they remain in the bank, they also are considered as assets because they are on hand. Once again, the books are balanced: the assets offset the liabilities. But the process does not stop there. Through the magic of fractional-reserve banking, the deposits are made to serve an additional and more lucrative purpose. To accomplish this, the on-hand deposits now become reclassified in the books and called...

BANK RESERVES
Reserves for what? Are these for paying off depositors should they want to close out of their accounts? No.That's the lowly function they served when they were classified as mere assets. Now that they have been given the name of "reserves," they become the magic wand to materialize even larger amounts of fiat money. This is where the real action is: at the level of the commercial banks. Here's how it works. The banks are permitted by the Fed to hold as little as 10% of their deposits in "reserve." That means, if they receive deposits of $1 million from the first wave of fiat money created by the Fed, they have $900,000 more than they are required to keep on hand ($1 million less 10% reserve). In bankers' language, that $900,000 is called...

EXCESS RESERVES
The word "excess" is a tip off that these so-called reserves have a special destiny. Now that they have been transmuted into an excess, they are considered as available for lending. And so in due course these excess reserves are converted into...

BANK LOANS
But wait a minute. How can this money be loaned out when it is owned by the original depositors who are still free to write checks and spend it any time they wish? The answer is that, when the new loans are made, they are not made with the same money at all. They are made with brand new money created out of thin air for that purpose. The nation's money supply simply increases by ninety per cent of the bank's deposits. Furthermore, this new money is far more interesting to the banks than the old. The old money, which they received from depositors, requires them to pay out interest or perform services for the privilege of using it. But, with the new money, the banks collect interest, instead, which is not too bad considering it cost them nothing to make. Nor is that the end of the process. When this second wave of fiat money moves into the economy, it comes right back into the banking system, just as the first wave did, in the form of...

MORE COMMERCIAL BANK DEPOSITS
The process now repeats but with slightly smaller numbers each time around. What was a "loan" on Friday comes back into the bank as a "deposit" on Monday. The deposit then is reclassified as a "reserve" and ninety per cent of that becomes an "excess" reserve which, once again, is available for a new "loan." Thus, the $1 million of first wave fiat money gives birth to $900,000 in the second wave, and that gives birth to $810,000 in the third wave ($900,000 less 10% reserve). It takes about twenty-eight times through the revolving door of deposits becoming loans becoming deposits becoming more loans until the process plays itself out to the maximum effect, which is...

BANK FIAT MONEY = UP TO 9 TIMES GOVERNMENT DEBT
The amount of fiat money created by the banking cartel is approximately nine times the amount of the original government debt which made the entire process possible. When the original debt itself is added to that figure, we finally have.. 

TOTAL FIAT MONEY = UP TO 10 TIMES GOVERNMENT
The total amount of fiat money created by the Federal Reserve and the commercial banks together is approximately ten times the amount of the underlying government debt. To the degree that this newly created money floods into the economy in excess of goods and services, it causes the purchasing power of all money, both old and new, to decline. Prices go up because the relative value of the money has gone down. The result is the same as if that purchasing power had been taken from us in taxes. The reality of this process, therefore, is that it is a... 

HIDDEN TAX = UP TO 10 TIMES THE NATIONAL DEBT
Without realizing it, Americans have paid over the years, in addition to their federal income taxes and excise taxes, a completely hidden tax equal to many times the national debt! And that still is not the end of the process. Since our money supply is purely an arbitrary entity with nothing behind it except debt, its quantity can go down as well as up. When people are going deeper into debt, the nation's money supply expands and prices go up, but when they pay off their debts and refuse to renew, the money supply contracts and prices tumble. That is exactly what happens in times of economic or political uncertainty.This alternation between period of expansion and contraction of the money supply is the underlying cause of...

BOOMS, BUSTS, AND DEPRESSIONS

Who benefits from all of this? Certainly not the average citizen.

The only beneficiaries are the political scientists in Congress who enjoy the effect of unlimited revenue to perpetuate their power, and the monetary scientists within the banking cartel called the Federal Reserve System who have been able to harness the American people, without their knowing it, to the yoke of modern feudalism.


RESERVE RATIOS
The previous figures are based on a "reserve" ratio of 10% (a money-expansion ratio of 10-to-1). It must be remembered, however, that this is purely arbitrary. Since the money is fiat with no previous-metal backing, there is no real limitation except what the politicians and money managers decide is expedient for the moment. Altering this ratio is the third way in which the Federal Reserve can influence the nation's supply of money. The numbers, therefore, must be considered as transient.

At any time there is a "need" for more money, the ratio can be increased to 20-to-1 or 50-to-1, or the pretense of a reserve can be dropped altogether.

There is virtually no limit to the amount of fiat money that can be manufactured under the present system.

NATIONAL DEBT NOT NECESSARY FOR INFLATION

Because the Federal Reserve can be counted on to "monetize" (convert into money) virtually any amount of government debt, and because this process of expanding the money supply is the primary cause of inflation, it is tempting to jump to the conclusion that federal debt and inflation are but two aspects of the same phenomenon. This, however, is not necessarily true. It is quite possible to have either one without the other.

The banking cartel holds a monopoly in the manufacture of money. Consequently, money is created only when IOUs are "monetized" by the Fed or by commercial banks. When private individuals, corporations, or institutions purchase government bonds, they must use money they have previously earned and saved. In other words, no new money is created, because they are using funds that are already in existence. Therefore, the sale of government bonds to the banking system is inflationary, but when sold to the private sector, it is not. That is the primary reason the United States avoided massive inflation during the 1980s when the federal government was going into debt at a greater rate than ever before in its history. By keeping interest rates high, these bonds became attractive to private investors, including those in other countries. Very little new money was created, because most of the bonds were purchased with American dollars already in existence. This, of course, was a temporary fix at best.

Today, those bonds are continually maturing and are being replaced by still more bonds to include the original debt plus accumulated interest. Eventually this process must come to an end and, when it does, the Fed will have no choice but to literally buy back all the debt of the '80s - that is, to replace all of the formerly invested private money with newly manufactured fiat money - plus a great deal more to cover the interest. Then we will understand the meaning of inflation.

On the other side of the coin, the Federal Reserve has the option of manufacturing money even if the federal government does not go deeper into debt. For example, the huge expansion of the money supply leading up to the stock market crash in 1929 occurred at a time when the national debt was being paid off. In every year from 1920 through 1930, federal revenue exceeded expenses, and there were relatively few government bonds being offered.The massive inflation of the money supply was made possible by converting commercial bank loans into "reserves" at the Fed's discount window and by the Fed's purchase of banker's acceptances, which are commercial contracts for the purchase of goods.

Now the options are even greater. The Monetary Control Act of 1980 has made it possible for the Creature to monetize virtually any debt instrument, including IOUs from foreign governments. The apparent purpose of this legislation is to make it possible to bail out those governments which are having trouble paying the interest on their loans from American banks. When the Fed creates fiat American dollars to give foreign governments in exchange for their worthless bonds, the money path is slightly longer and more twisted, but the effect is similar to the purchase of U.S. Treasury Bonds. The newly created dollars go to the foreign governments, then to the American banks where they become cash reserves. Finally, they flow back into the U.S money pool (multiplied by nine) in the form of additional loans. The cost of the operation once again is born by the American citizen through the loss of purchasing power. Expansion of the money supply, therefore, and the inflation that follows, no longer even require federal deficits.As long as someone is willing to borrow American dollars, the cartel will have the option of creating those dollars specifically to purchase their bonds and, by so doing, continue to expand the money supply.

We must not forget, however, that one of the reasons the Fed was created in the first place was to make it possible for Congress to spend without the public knowing it was being taxed. Americans have shown an amazing indifference to this fleecing, explained undoubtedly by their lack of understanding of how the Mandrake Mechanism works. Consequently, at the present time, this cozy contract between the banking cartel and the politicians is in little danger of being altered. As a practical matter, therefore, even though the Fed may also create fiat money in exchange for commercial debt and for bonds of foreign governments, its major concern likely will be to continue supplying Congress.

The implications of this fact are mind boggling. Since our money supply, at present at least, is tied to the national debt, to pay off that debt would cause money to disappear. Even to seriously reduce it would cripple the economy. Therefore, as long as the Federal Reserve exists, America will be, must be, in debt.

The purchase of bonds from other governments is accelerating in the present political climate of internationalism. Our own money supply increasingly is based upon their debt as well as ours, and they, too, will not be allowed to pay it off even if they are able.

Expansion Leads to Contraction 

While it is true that the Mandrake Mechanism is responsible for the expansion of the money supply, the process also works in reverse. Just as money is created when the Federal Reserve purchases bonds or other debt instruments, it is extinguished by the sale of those same items. When they are sold, the money is given back to the System and disappears into the inkwell or computer chip from which it came. Then, the same secondary ripple effect that created money through the commercial banking system causes it to be withdrawn from the economy. Furthermore, even if the Federal Reserve does not deliberately contract the money supply, the same result can and often does occur when the public decides to resist the availability of credit and reduce its debt. A man can only be tempted to borrow, he cannot be forced to do so.

There are many psychological factors involved in a decision to go into debt that can offset the easy availability of money and a low interest rate: A downturn in the economy, the threat of civil disorder, the fear of pending war, an uncertain political climate, to name just a few. Even though the Fed may try to pump money into the economy by making it abundantly available, the public can thwart that move simply by saying no, thank you. When this happens, the old debts that are being paid off are not replaced by new ones to take their place, and the entire amount of consumer and business debt will shrink. That means the money supply also will shrink, because, in modern America, debt is money. And it is this very expansion and contraction of the monetary pool - a phenomenon that could not occur if based upon the laws of supply and demand - that is at the very core of practically every boom and bust that has plagued mankind throughout history.

In conclusion, it can be said that modern money is a grand illusion conjured by the magicians of finance in politics. We are living in an age of fiat money, and it is sobering to realize that every previous nation in history that has adopted such money eventually was economically destroyed by it. Furthermore, there is nothing in our present monetary structure that offers any assurances that we may be exempted from that morbid roll call. Correction. There is one. It is still within the power of Congress to abolish the Federal Reserve System.

Summary

The American dollar has no intrinsic value. It is a classic example of fiat money with no limit to the quantity that can be produced. Its primary value lies in the willingness of people to accept it and, to that end, legal tender laws require them to do so.

It is true that our money is created out of nothing, but it is more accurate to say that it is based upon debt. In one sense, therefore, our money is created out of less than nothing. The entire money supply would vanish into the bank vaults and computer chips if all debts were repaid.

Under the present System, therefore, our leaders cannot allow a serious reduction in either the national or consumer debt. Charging interest on pretended loans is usury, and that has become institutionalized under the Federal Reserve System.

The Mandrake Mechanism by which the Fed converts debt into money may seem complicated at first, but it is simple if one remembers that the process is not intended to be logical but to confuse and deceive. The end product of the Mechanism is artificial expansion of the money supply, which is the root cause of the hidden tax called inflation.

This expansion then leads to contraction and, together, they produce the destructive boom-bust cycle that has plagued mankind throughout history wherever fiat money has existed.

Copyright © Fight for Your Faith