Anti-Semites, ethnic bigots more correctly termed anti-Hebrews, jump all over international bankers and international financiers. However, many Jews are Libertarian Capitalists who themselves are vehemently opposed to the Federal Reserve, which many ethnic bigots against Jews claim is the tool of Jews.
The truth is that the Federal Reserve is a tool of only some Jews who also work in cooperation with many astronomically wealthy non-Jews.
It is true that as a percentage of the total population of humanity, Jews occupy positions of astronomical wealth at a very high rate. Much of that is due to laws that historically precluded Jews from being members of medieval guilds of craftsmen. It also stems from the long tradition of money-changing and usury in general, something not unique to the Jew.
Hiding Behind Ethnic Bigots
Now, just because ethnic bigots rail against the Federal Reserve does not mean that the Federal Reserve is okay or that international bankers are saints or international financiers are the second coming. It also doesn't mean that the Federal Reserve, international bankers, and international financiers are above rebuke. It doesn't mean that Israel is above reproach. It doesn't mean that anyone stating the truth is a holocaust denier. It doesn't mean he or she is a closet Nazi.
People Hating All Jews Is No Excuse
There are Jews who are paranoid. That doesn't mean that there aren't ethnic bigots who if they had a button to push to eliminate every Jew wouldn't push it. The way though to deal with the problem is not by preemptively striking out. That's just pushing the button first against others. It's a direct violation of the Golden Rule. Also, it's often done under a pretext. It's often done against those who have no intention of ever doing what they are falsely accused of planning. It's just transferring paranoia onto others, or it's just a complete lie masking an even worse motivation. Either way, it's evil. Either way, it's counter-productive. Censoring ethnic bigots isn't the proper approach either. Just show them wrong. If they say you are this, that, or the other, then just be sure not to fit their characterizations. Then any desire to push that button will diminish. Regardless, it is better to be killed in the flesh standing for the Golden Rule than it is to live a while dead of the spirit and only to die in the flesh into that dead spirit. The proper way isn't anti-proselytizing law either, in spite of the history of false-Christians forcing Jews to convert under coercive threats, which isn't real conversion anyway.
Bless Your Brother and Son Jesus
The right way is to live the Golden Rule that is in the Old Testament without hypocrisy. Bless those who have come and still come in the name of the LORD. That's the right way.
Don't Blame Jesus
Don't blame Jesus for what apostates did or do in his name. Jesus didn't cause Hitler. Jesus's enemy caused Hitler. Jesus never killed a Jew. Jesus never called for the killing of any Jew. Jesus never called for the punishment of any Jew. He only called Jews to remove all hypocrisy from their hearts, which removal never violates the law in letter because it never violates it in spirit. Jesus broke no law of Moses, because he kept to the spirit, which is the calling.
Moses sought to raise the people from their lower position. That's the spirit. Going higher is never to be seen as against the law. Anyone who interprets the law to preclude greater righteousness is misinterpreting and is violating the real law.
Anyone who believes that Moses would have condemned Jesus doesn't get it. Moses would have deferred to Jesus had Moses heard Jesus's teaching. He would have fallen on his face.
Now, isn't the following true?
Contrary to assertions, Abraham Lincoln wasn't motivated by under cutting the gold standard by issuing paper money not backed by gold but was primarily avoiding paying interest to private bankers on the currency to finance the Civil War. The bankers (domestic and international) were holding out for huge war profits in the form of interest on the loans they were offering. They didn't like missing out on those war profits.
The Federal Reserve System and U.S. Income Tax
Also, Abraham Kuhn and Solomon Loeb were general merchandisers in Lafayette, Indiana, in the 1850's and 60's. They went into banking. In 1867, they established Kuhn, Loeb and Co. in New York City. They made Jacob Schiff, a German immigrant, their partner. Jacob Schiff ended up head of the company. He obtained capital from the Rothschilds. M. M. Warburg Company of Hamburg and Amsterdam worked closely with him and through this the Rothschilds capitalized John D. Rockefeller of Standard Oil, Edward Harriman in railroads, Andrew Carnegie in steel, and J. P. Morgan in railroads and steel.
In 1902, Paul Warburg was sent to New York to work at Kuhn, Loeb and Co. He had studied banking in Hamburg, London, and Paris.
In 1907, Jacob Schiff, warned the New York Chamber of Commerce saying, "unless we have a Central Bank with adequate control of credit resources, this country is going to undergo the most severe and far reaching money panic in its history."
Paul Warburg told the Banking and Currency Committee, "In the Panic of 1907, the first suggestion I made was let us have a national clearing house. The Aldrich Plan contains many things that are simply fundamental rules of banking." The Aldrich Plan was a plan for a private Central Bank. Out of that plan came the Federal Reserve System, a private money monopoly. Paul Warburg was the first chairman.
Weren't these same people behind the Federal Income Tax?
Why Interest? Why Taxes?
Why do people pay income taxes to pay interest to private bankers for printing dollar notes? Why hasn't the government been at least issuing interest-free currency itself pegged only to domestic production?
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)