Freedom News Freedom News writes and shares posts that are of Interest to a broad demographic . Articles are to be taken on a individual basis and not under the assumption that different Authors and content providers and Horwich Nationalist as well share the same opinions. Articles copied are fully attributed to Authors under international fair use acts. .
Tuesday 24 December 2013
Monday 23 December 2013
tolerance linked to evil
THE SIN OF TOLERATING EVIL
In their blindness, they fail to see that neither tolerance nor intolerance are intrinsically evil, yet both can be used for evil. A tolerance that allows sin to prosper (because it refuses to condemn and punish evil) is just as evil as an intolerance that condemns people for the color of their skin, or because they speak out against evil. The Bible tells us that God not only condemned Sodom and Gomorra for tolerating evil, but also condemned Babylon, Gibeah, Egypt, and other nations for the same reason (Judges 19:15-30, Genesis 19). Therefore, tolerating evil is not a virtue, no matter how hard Satan wants you to believe that it is. The same God that condemned Eli, because he was tolerant of the vile behavior of his sons, still condemns those who are tolerant of evil. We are not to tolerate it, nor are we to be intolerant of those who condemn it (1Samuel 3:12-13, Jeremiah 23:14, Ezekiel 3:18 and 33:8, Isaiah 5:20).
WHAT DOES THE BIBLE SAY
One serious problem that we face in dealing with this error stems from the ambiguous nature of the word “tolerance.” At one time that word meant essentially the same thing as hating the sin, but not the sinner. However, the anti-Christian element in our society now portrays all who condemn sin as intolerant, and that is where Christians must draw the line. Because people must see their sin before they will be able to see their need for a Savior, condemning sin goes hand in hand with bringing people to Christ. That being the case, love requires us to condemn every evil, including adultery and homosexuality, while those who tell the guilty that they have no need to repent are guilty of satanic hatred.
By doing nothing to restrain or punish his sons, Eli sent them to hell. Therefore, had he really loved them, he would have made certain that they not only knew that their behavior was evil but regretted ever behaving that way. By failing to act in accordance with love, he not only lost his sons but also brought God’s condemnation on himself (read 1Samuel chapters 2 and 3).
Because some in our society would like to see all religions worship together, they want Christians to tolerate falsehood and condone those who contradict God’s Word. However, that would not be the loving thing to do, for the Bible makes it perfectly clear that there is no salvation apart from faith in Christ. If we deny that fact (by our tolerance of false religion) souls could be lost (Acts 4:12). In fact, we could not even be true to our God if we refused to condemn false gods, for God is not about to tolerate false gods. He never has, and He never will! As far as He is concerned, those who regard Him as one God among many are idolaters, no matter how tolerant they appear to be (2Kings 17:6-35).
When the children of Israel first entered the land of Cannan, God ordered the people of that land destroyed because they were tolerant of human sacrifice (abortion), immorality, and false religion (Deuteronomy 20:17). Some time later, God’s wrath was poured out on the children of Benjamin because they had become tolerant of evil (Judges 19:22-30 and 20:1-48). The Apostle Paul rebuked the congregation at Corinth because it tolerated fornication, and he pronounced a curse on those who pervert the gospel (1Corinthians 5:1-13, Galatians 1:6-9). Therefore, it should be perfectly clear that we are not to tolerate sin, but are rather to condemn and rebuke it.
THE REAL BIGOTS
Just as “multiculturalists” smear and demonize Christians today, the ancient Romans smeared and demonized the Christians of their day, calling them haters of mankind and persecuting them unmercifully because they were intolerant of their gods. Like modern-day secularists, “The Romans were a syncretistic people who saw value in all religious beliefs; they wanted to be “inclusive” as multiculturalists would say today. They were proud of the Pantheon in Rome that displayed and honored all gods. They would gladly have welcomed the addition of Jesus Christ to the Pantheon if the Christians would only have agreed to give at least some obeisance to the Roman gods. To do this, however, would have been idolatrous, unthinkable to the early Christians who unequivocally held to God's commandment; “You shall have no other gods before me” (Exodus 20:3)” [Under The Influence, by Alvin J. Schmidt, page 25]
Because the situation that exists today has so many similarities with the situation in ancient Rome, I want to emphasize the fact that it was not the “intolerant” Christians, but the “tolerant” Romans who tortured those who disagreed with them. Moreover, just as the ancient Romans were intolerant, I have yet to meet a modern advocate of “tolerance” who really wants to understand my point of view. In fact, it is the tolerant “multiculturalists” who are trying to force Christianity out of the Public forum, while penalizing individuals that disagree with them as to what should be tolerated. [For documentation read, “Persecution” by David Limbaugh, and “Child Abuse in the Classroom” by Phyllis Schlafly.]
FALSE RELIGION
Since every false religion has been brought into existence by Satan, he could care less which one people follow, just as long as they follow one of them (Leviticus 17:7, 1Corinthians 10:20). At the same time, he wants to sow strife and disunity among Christians, while creating an atmosphere in which those who want peace can be led to tolerate soul destroying error. Therefore, he is delighted when Christians fall for the idea that it is wrong to condemn evil.
During the last three hundred years the cult of Freemasonry has played a major role in promoting religious syncretism, and its adherents have infiltrated most denominations by soliciting members for their organization within Christian churches. At the same time, the fact that many of its members come from a Christian background helps to conceal some of the more unsavory aspects of that organization. Nevertheless, all is not as it appears. By teaching that all religions lead to God Freemasonry contradicts Scripture, by urging its members to value what is good in every religion it denies that those religions lead to hell, and by urging its members to worship with those of other religions it promotes idolatry (2Corinthians 11:13-15, Galatians 1:6-9).
Even though the Masonic religion claims to honor God, because it denies that Jesus is God it is not honoring the Triune God. In fact, it is tolerant of both paganism and occultism. Moreover, you do not have to take my word for it. Get a copy of the book, “Morals and Dogma of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite.” That book, which was written by a 33rd degree Mason and it is widely regarded by Masons as authoritative, says on page 729, “The occult philosophy seems to have been the nurse or the godmother of all religions.” On page 422 we read, “Zeus is the primitive source of all things; there is one God; one power, and one rule over all.” Furthermore, many similar statements are found throughout that book. Every false religion is defended, while Christians who condemn false religion are denounced as intolerant. In regard to that sort of tolerance, the Bible says, “But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils. Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils” (1Corinthians 10:20-21).
The very fact that the Masonic lodge opens its doors to members of non-Christian religions while officially forbidding prayer to be offered in the name of Jesus, reveals both its pagan nature and its hostility to the God of the Bible.
CONCLUSION
Since we are to tolerate all that is good (Amos 5:15) and to detest all that is evil (Romans 12:9), our contempt for evil must never be twisted into an excuse to do evil. Therefore, while we should be intolerant of abortion in the sense that we want to see it made illegal, a man who shoots an abortion doctor is guilty of (and therefore tolerant of) the very crime that he condemns. While God wants us to condemn sin, He does not want us to be nasty to those who are guilty, as if we were more righteous than they, and He certainly does not want us to commit crimes.
Oh, tolerance of evil is Satan's delight
And wherever we go
We will carry on the fight
And the truth of the Lord
Shall be known, shall be known
And the truth of the Lord
Shall be known.
[To an arrangement of the tune, “They Will Know We Are Christians By Our Love.”]
Sunday 22 December 2013
Friday 20 December 2013
Tuesday 10 December 2013
The Truth About Nelson Mandela A Lesson for all Liberals
 |
| This was one of mandelas victims of so called "lacing" where a tyre is put over someone filled with petrol and set alight ! Maybe all the fools out there who think he was a great man should look at the facts ! He was a murdering terrorist bastard .nothing more nothing less. All you Liberals especially you women realise that in South Africa 50% of all women will be raped and that it is now the murder capitol of the world!!!! |
Saturday 7 December 2013
Nelson Mandela - communist, terrorist, rabble-rouser ! Typical Left Wing Icon
From http://www.hnp.org.za/site/index.php?id=67
Nelson Mandela - communist, terrorist, rabble-rouser !
- Nelson Mandela, founded MK, which was defined as a terrorist organisation by the US government and by Amnesty International.
- Historian and former deputy leader of the HNP - Dr Pieter Möller - wrote this biography of Nelson Mandela.
The Mandela Legend:
Webster defines a legend as “a story generally of a
marvellous character, told respecting a saint”. It has an historical
background, but is often padded and tainted by fantasy. In Mandela’s
case, when the facts are viewed realistically and objectively, any
sensible person will no longer see a saint, but a fantasy blown up to
something supernatural. It will become clear that a false image of the
so-called beloved Madiba is being presented to the world. He is by no
means the peace-loving, gentle daddy he is made out to be, but nothing
less than a tyrant. He did not spend 27 years in jail for no reason, as
continuously maintained. One example of these untruthful presentations
appeared in the London Independent, May 1993: “Nelson Mandela is
a noble man ... imprisoned for 27 years for his dedication to the cause
of Black majority in South Africa”.
How much of such misrepresentation could be
ascribed to naive parrot-talk and how much to deliberate communist
propaganda cannot easily be determined. The truth is that he was not
imprisoned on Robben Island without reason – not even because he was
merely an opponent of apartheid. He was there because he planned to
overthrow a government and in the process, cause the violent deaths of
thousands of innocent people (including blacks) – a crime which deserved
the death penalty, and he must consider himself fortunate that the
so-called apartheid-regime did not press for it. In his auto-biography Long Walk to Freedom,
het admits inter alia that he gave the order to plant the Church Street
bomb during the 80's, which killed 11 innocent people and injured many
more.
In spite of this he was built up to an icon and held
up as “a man of reconciliation”, as “essentially moderate, a man of
special discernment, a courageous freedom fighter”. His international
praise singers went as far as comparing him to Moses and George
Washington. Topping them all was the American negro, Jesse Jackson, who
blasphemously lifted him to the level of Jesus Christ. What is equally
dumbfounding is that the post-1966 SA government hardly ever tried to
unmask the real Mandela or his share in the Rivonia complot or his close
bonds with the ANC/SACP, or to enlighten the public as to the aims of
this alliance.
- This enormous soviet flag was displayed at ANC mass rallies. Communist leaders such as Joe Slovo were not only present as dignitaries, but later occupied key posts within the ANC government.
Pre-History of Mandela:
Rolihlahla Dalibungu (“Nelson” was added later)
Mandela was born on 18 July 1918 at Mvezo (according to the biography
published by the Nelson Mandela Foundation) or at Qunu (according to Aida Parker),
near Umtata in the Transkei, as a member of the royal Thembu family.
His education started in the local mission school, from where he was
sent to the Clarkebury Boarding Institute for his Junior Certificate.
Then to the Healdtown Wesleyan High School where he matriculated.
According to the biography of the Mandela Foundation (hereinafter
referred to as the Biography) he then entered the Fort Hare
University as a BA-student, but was expelled for taking part in a
protest boycott. In 1941 he moved to Johannesburg, as he says, to
escape from an arranged marriage. There Walter Sisulu took him under
his wing, housed him in his mother’s house, supported him financially
and encouraged him to join the ANC, which he did in 1943. According to
the Biography Sisulu arranged for him to do his clerkship at the
law firm of Lazar Sidelsky. He completed his BA degree at Unisa in
1942 and shortly afterwards enrolled at the University of the
Witwatersrand for an LL.B degree which he had not passed by the time he
left in 1948. A few years later though he did pass the entrance
examination and started a legal practice in Johannesburg in August 1952.
In 1944 he became a founder member, probably with
Sisulu and Oliver Tambo, of the ANC Youth League, which soon developed
into militant organisation designed to canvas potential communists and
apply pressure on the ANC to opt for more violence. Five years later
these three were in total control of the Youth League and thus
effectively also of the ANC. Mandela was elected in 1949 to the
National Executive Committee of the ANC and became president of the
Youth League the following year. In 1952 he was nominated as voluntary
head of the “Defiance Campaign”, formed to incite opponents of the
apartheid policy to civil disobedience. These undermining activities
regularly landed him into trouble and he received several suspended
sentences which restricted his freedom of movement. Later, in 1952, he
was elected Provincial President of the ANC in Transvaal and Deputy
President of the ANC. Meanwhile, his patron, Sisulu, had become the
first full time Secretary-General of the ANC. After the events at
Sharpeville on 21 March 1960, the organisation was banned and went
underground. Since then Mandela emerged as the leading proponent of
the violence option to overthrow the SA government. The current image
of a “man of peace” does not fit the man who in 1961, with Joe Slovo,
founded Umkhonto we Sizwe (MK), the military wing of the ANC, as
the main instrument to launch a communist revolution in SA. In the
same year Mandela became chief commander and, according to Joe Slovo in
his book South Africa – No Middle Road, shortly afterwards left
for Africa and Europe to muster support for an armed struggle and
training facilities for ANC cadres. He also personally underwent
military training in Algeria in 1962. Towards the end of that year,
thanks to Mandela’s efforts, there were already hundreds of ANC youths
in revolutionary training in Cuba, Algeria, Egypt, Ethiopia, North
Korea, Russia, China, East Germany and Czecho-Slovakia. In the same
year Mandela was arrested for undermining activities and jailed for five
years. In the Rivonia trial (1963-1964) he was found guilty and jailed
for life.
Mandela was married three times and divorced twice. His first marriage was to Evelyn Mase (according to the Biography) or Ntoko (according to Aida Parker)
from which four children were born. From his second marriage with
Winnie Madikizela in June 1958 two daughters were born. On his 80th birthday in 1998 he married Graca Machel, widow of Samora Machel of Mocambique.
- "Long live the Cuban Revolution. Long live comrade Fidel Castro" - Nelson Mandela
Exalted to Symbol of the ANC Struggle
Reportedly it was decided in 1976 to “personalise”
the so-called struggle, which resulted in Mandela being glorified to a
symbol of the struggle as well as a martyr. Why him, is difficult to
determine, as both Walter Sisulu and Govan Mbeki, who were also serving
sentences on Robben Island, were his seniors in all respects. It would
appear as if Winnie Mandela’s image, which was also being polished at
the time, had something to do with it. With appellations like “Mother
of the Nation” (Mama Wetu), “Warrior Queen”, “Black Evita” and
”The Madonna of the Left” the local and international media boosted her
reputation to almost that of a goddess. In contrast, Albertina Sisulu,
Walter’s wife and a cousin of Mandela, was reportedly rather humdrum.
Author is not aware that Mbeki’s wife ever featured in the public eye.
It is equally not clear where this idea of image
building originated. Dr Igor Glagolev, who was for years instrumental
in obtaining Soviet support for South African terrorist movements but
later deviated to the West, states that the Russian (USSR) Politburo had
decided towards the end of 1950 to start a campaign to take over South
Africa. That in itself was not new, because the International Communist
Congress of 1928 had already instructed the Communist Party of South
Africa (SACP) to give special attention to the ANC and to convert the
organisation to a national revolutionary movement in order to overthrow
the White administration. Yusuf Dadoo, then chairman of the SACP, would
play an important role in these plans, as he had been in control of not
only the SACP but also of the ANC, since 1950. The USSR was of course
also behind the civil wars in Angola and Mocambique as well as terrorism
in the rest of Southern Africa.
Ironically it was the Western countries like
England, America and the Scandinavian countries that financed the
terrorist movements in Southern Africa in later years. They also
actively participated with the international Communist network in
building the Mandela image, referring to him as the man who would save
South Africa – the black Messiah to come. This active support of the
ANC by the Western powers was thus also the reason why, worldwide, there
was hardly any criticism against the ANC’s campaign of violence. How
deeply the West was involved is borne out by the fact that the ANC
headquarters were not in a Communist country, but in London.
- This child was a "necklace" murder victim. Take a car tire, some fuel, binding wire to keep the victim cooperative - and a match. The ANC's sole contribution to modern warfare.
- "With our boxes of matches and our necklaces we shall liberate this country" - Winnie Mandela.
Rivonia: a Diabolical Complot to Overthrow the SA Government
Even before the advent of the Republic the enemies
of the Whites in South Africa were intensively busy with undermining
activities. In 1960, the ANC was banned and went underground. When it
became known that South Africa would become a republic, the ANC convened
the All African Conference where it was decided to insist on a national
convention, representative of all South Africans, before it became a
reality. Should it be denied, a countrywide strike would be staged.
This did take place in May 1961 but was effectively squashed by the
government. The ANC then decided to continue its protest by means of
violence and for this reason MK (Spear of the Nation) was established.
On 16 December 1961 the ANC issued a manifest, displayed mostly on posts
in the black areas, in which it detailed its strategy for violence
against government institutions by means of sabotage. On the same day
the country was rocked by sabotage attacks, which escalated
progressively in the years to come. During 1963 pamphlets were even
distributed amongst Whites. Most of the early acts of sabotage were
planned and coordinated from Ronnie Kasrils’ flat in Johannesburg with
Nelson Mandela and Joe Slovo actively involved.
Initially the South African Police were unaware of
the existence of MK but in due course they determined that this
organisation was responsible for the sabotage attacks. Although they
managed to arrest many of the insurgents who had received military
training outside South Africa, often as soon as they re-entered the
country, they were in the dark as to who the leaders were. Meanwhile
the ANC became more arrogant and started with revolutionary broadcasts
on Radio Freedom from mid-1963. The situation changed overnight
when an informant supplied theJohannesburg Security Police with details
of the whereabouts of the MK leaders. On 11 July 1963 in broad
daylight, 15 policemen commanded by a Lt van Wyk raided Liliesleaf, the
28ha farm of Arthur Goldreich in Rivonia, 16km north of Johannesburg,
and rounded up the surprised bunch of communists consisting of eight
Jews, four blacks and one Indian. Since Mandela was already in jail,
Goldreich had taken over as the main conspirator. With him and his wife
Hazel, the listed communist Lionel Bernstein, adv Bob Hepple, Dennis
Goldberg, attorney James Kantor and his brother-in-law and partner
Harold Wolpe, dr Fernstein, Govan Mbeki, Walter Sisulu, Raymond Mhlaba
and Ahmed Kathrada were arrested. Goldreich, Wolpe and Hepple managed
to skip the country. The SACP moved its underground headquarters from
Lilliesleaf to London.
Thanks to more information gained the police were
able to swoop on another farm, Travallyn, 14km from Lilliesleaf, a few
weeks later. This turned out to be not only a second hideaway but an
arms factory as well. A third hide-out was uncovered in Mountain View,
Pretoria.
These raids rendered many incriminating documents, the most important being the one which described Operation Mayibuye
(“come back”) in detail – the master plan for subverting the South
African government. The documents revealed ample evidence that Mandela
was the chief conspirator. Some of Mandela’s diaries were found,
containing evidence of his subversive activities, his involvement with
sabotage, his visits to and discussions with African leaders, his
participation in meetings of the Organisation of African Unity in Addis
Abeba and his speech imploring these states to become involved in his
struggle against White rule in South Africa. In addition a large
collection of equipment to be used in the launching of Operation Mayibuye.
The accused first appeared in court on 9 October
1963 and again on 29 October and 25 November, but due to legal
technicalities the case only started in earnest on 3 December 1963. The
accused were Mandela, Sisulu, Goldberg, Mbeki, Bernstein, Hepple,
Mhlaba, Kantor, Elias Motsoaledi and Andrew Mlangeni. To save his own
skin Hepple turned state witness but escaped overseas before the session
on 3 December, after he and his family received all sorts of threats.
Vernon Ezra, Julius First (brother of Slovo’s first wife Ruth), Kasrils,
Slovo, Oliver Tambo (first president of the ANC) and Strachan also fled
the country before they could be accused.
The accused faced charges of sabotage, including
deeds of sabotage, committing of illegal deeds, canvassing persons for
training in warfare, manufacture and use of explosives with the aim to
commit violence and cause destruction (altogether 153 acts of violence
were listed) and conspiracy to engage in guerrilla-warfare with the aid
of foreign armies. Plans included the manufacture of 48 000 land mines
and large quantities of hand grenades, pipe, petrol and bottle bombs.
These were to be unscrupulously applied; camouflaged in the most
innocent packages like fruit boxes, coffee and jam tins and placed in
soft spots like footpaths and entrances to gardens, with the aim to
achieve maximum deaths, maiming and destruction.
Dr Percy Yutar appeared for the state, while Justice
Quartus de Wet, Justice President of Transvaal presided. The accused
were represented by advocates A (Braam) Fischer, VC Berrange, both
listed communists, A Chaskalson, G Bizos and JF Coaker (for Kantor). JJ
Joffe was the counselling attorney. Although the state identified 270
witnesses, it was only necessary to summon 173 of them, since the
documentary evidence was so damning and at no stage during the trial did
the accused ever challenge the authenticity of the documents seized,
nor their revolutionary aims. Amongst the documents were 10 papers in
Mandela’s own handwriting, explaining basic warfare, Chinese guerrilla
warfare, Israeli-Philippine underground military operations and how the
Witwatersrand locations were to be divided into four groups. Further
divisions into zones were to facilitate the formation of underground
cells.
An alarming scheme unfolded itself during the hearing. Operation Mayibuye
was without doubt a master plan for full scale war and it was clear
that the designers were experts in revolutionary warfare. Most
probably it originated in some communist country like Russia, Red China,
Cuba or Algeria, which already had a history of revolution. Both
Mandela and Goldreich were regular visitors to these countries, where
many ANC conscripts were trained in the manufacture and application of
destructive instruments. For example, Goldreich, the author of Operation Mayibuye,
was trained in explosive techniques in Russia, China and Germany, and
several other of his accomplices received training in the use of various
weapons, map and compass reading, radio communication, signalling and
the setting of ambushes.
In the detailed strategy all relevant matters such
as logistic planning and transport were fully dealt with. The attacks
would take place mainly in the platteland and to this end the country
was divided into four regions. Each region would be invaded by a
guerrilla force which had to be self supportive for about a month. On
arrival they were to split up into three smaller groups of 10 men each
and then, by deception and intimidation, influence the locals to join
them. It also came to light that the ANC grossly deceived their
ordinary members as later directives were issued directly from the
SACP. Mandela also stated in one of his papers that South Africa under
communist rule would be a land of milk and honey.
While the local cadres carried on with their
undermining activities an external force of 7 000 strong would be
equipped and on standby to invade the country. An interim government
were to be appointed, which could rely on the support of international
labour unions to isolate the Republic. The supreme command of Operation Mayibuye
(Mandela, Slovo and Joe Modise) were convinced that if the plan could
be finalised successfully within six months, a wave of murder and grand
scale carnage would follow, which would eventually lead to the
achievement of their aim.
Organisations which cooperated in the planning of this diabolical scheme formed part of the Congress Alliance and included the ANC, SACP, SA Congress of Trade Unions, the Coloured People’s Congress and the Congress of Democrats.
Most witnesses refused to testify under oath, thus
avoiding cross examination. Mandela, as accused number one, had a typed
speech of 60 pages, which was distributed beforehand through leftist
channels in order to rouse sympathy for the accused, and which he
dramatically recited at conclusion of the court proceedings.
During an interview in 1990 it was revealed that the “I am prepared to die”
speech was not written by himself, but that all the accused and most
probably their legal representatives had a hand in it, and that Anthony
Sampson, former editor of Drum magazine and good friend of
archbishop Trevor Huddleston, at the request of Braam Fischer, was
responsible for the final editing.
On 4 March 1964 the state closed its case and the
court went into recession for a month to give the defence time to
prepare their case. On 11 June 1964, exactly 11 months after the raid
on Lilliesleaf, justice De Wet delivered his verdict in three
minutes flat. The final version given later comprised 72 pages. Only
Bernstein was found not guilty but he was arrested again as he left the
court, on charges under the Suppression of Communism Act. Even the editor of the Rand Daily Mail,
fierce opponent of apartheid, had to agree that “the sentences
pronounced by Mr Justice de Wet yesterday at the conclusion of the
Rivonia trial were both wise and just”.
This did not conclude the police investigation.
Within a month after the case they closed in on more than 100 homes and
arrested another 40 persons, 30 of them Whites.
Although this was a classic case of high treason and
punishable under the law of the day by death, the whole world was
surprised when dr Yutar announced at the start of the trial that the
state had decided to lay charges of sabotage only. To this day it is
not known why – no one has ever offered an explanation for this
decision. Justice De Wet also stated that although the accused were
guilty of high treason he could only pass sentence on the charge of
conspiracy, the maximum for which was life imprisonment.
The verdict set in motion a world-wide vitriolic
reaction and even the UN insisted that the accused should be indemnified
because they were only opposing apartheid, yet Amnesty International
declared that Mandela could not claim to be a political prisoner, since
he was guilty of sabotage and violence. The South African government
did not yield to any pressure and dr HF Verwoerd severely criticised the
world for their double standards, using several examples to prove his
stance. He made this prophetic statement: “When they say they are glad
Mandela was not sentenced to death and he may still, like Kenyatta [the
Mau-Mau leader of Kenya] become the leader in the future – then I say:
God forbid.”
- Church
street bomb carnage - Nelson Mandela created the terrorist group called
"Mkhonto we sizwe" (MK for short). MK murdered far more black people
than white, and far more civilians than police or military, as in the
Church street bomb shown above.
Mandela and Communism
One of the documents, in his own handwriting, handed in as evidence in trial was titled How to be a Good Communist,
in which he states categorically that the transition from capitalism to
socialism could not be brought about by the slow methods proposed by
the liberals, but only by revolution. He further maintains that
studying the Marxist philosophy is necessary to get firmer control over
revolutionary mass action (struggle) and continues: “The Communist
movement still faces powerful enemies which must be completely crushed
and wiped from the face of the earth before a Communist world can be
realised.” This view was later endorsed by every local communist.
However, not all ANC’s were impressed with
Mandela’s communist sympathies. The Anti-Marxists amongst them were
“infuriated at the manner in which Mandela and other ANC leaders have
allowed the former Black nationalist movement to be hijacked by the
SACP”. How right they were was confirmed in an article by Angela Davis,
Communist party leader in the USA, published December 1991 in the
official organ of the American Communist Party. She quotes Brian
Dunning, a veteran member of the SACP, who reveals that every member of
the SACP is also a member of the ANC.
Equally the ambitious young ANC leader and Secretary General of the National Union of Mineworkers,
Cyril Ramaphosa, was at loggerheads with Walter Sisulu, in this case,
over the future leadership of the ANC. At the Lusaka council held in
January 1990 he openly declared that many others continued the struggle
while Mandela was imprisoned and “Mr Mandela should not expect to vault
over the heads of those who have carried on the struggle”. This
explains why Ramaphosa was side-tracked by both Mandela and Mbeki, and
thus never considered for the ANC presidency.
Mandela never made any secret of the close ties
between the ANC and the SACP. In his first speech after his release in
1990 he referred to his friend and brother-in-arms, Joe Slovo, as “one
of our finest patriots”. Apart from his co-conspirators at Rivonia and
co-prisoners on Robben Island his preference for communists clearly
showed in his cabinet and other appointments after 10 May 1994. Steve
Tshwete, Joel Netshitendze, Sidney Mufamadi, Valli Moosa, Trevor Manuel,
Alfred Nzo, Cheril Carolus, John Nkadimeng and Tito Mboweni were all
communists, according to Aida Parker Newsletter. Chris Hani
declared that Mandela never took decisions on his own but always first
consulted with his confidants, thus making sure that he had the support
of most of his comrades. Hani puts it this way in the International Express,
4-10 February 1993: “However much the West may admire and fete him as a
brave individual, Mandela has debts to pay and forces to placate”.
Mandela has never Denounced Violence
Mandela pretends to be a proponent of peace who
bears no thoughts of vengeance towards his opponents, but the realities
belies this image. Apart from the communists and Afrikaner-haters
which, thanks to his efforts, have been placed in prominent positions,
his promotion of Peter Mokaba (of Kill the Farmer, Kill te Boer
fame) to deputy minister speaks unquestionably of his hatred for the
Afrikaner. Equally, the appointment of the so-called Truth and
Reconciliation Commission, loaded with opponents of the previous
government, reflects his attitude towards the Afrikaner people. No
truth and no reconciliation ensued from this circus chaired by Desmond
Tutu and its sole purpose was to humiliate the Afrikaner.
It is clear that his “peace” comes from the barrel of an AK47. Aida Parker
says that “compassion or feeling for the human condition have seldom if
ever played any role in his actions”. As early as 1961 Mandela
declared: “I and some colleagues came to the conclusion that as violence
in this country was inevitable, it would be wrong and unrealistic for
African leaders to continue preaching peace and non-violence at a time
when the government met our peaceful demands with force.” This
statement about government action is also not true. Should terrorists,
saboteurs and subverters be treated with kid gloves? The government
acted in accordance with the barbarous realities it was confronted
with. Any other government would have done the same.
Many similar statements by Mandela brought millions
of young blacks under the impression that the ANC/SACP ideal would be
achieved by violence only. In order to mobilise them Mandela himself
told them that if they wanted weapons, they must join MK. This
recommendation of violence was a free pass to anarchy, and Mandela
should take full blame for the violence which erupted over South Africa,
and persists to this day. The extent of the carnage is illustrated by
these statistics for the five years September 1984 to August 1989: 1 770
schools, 7 187 homes of black owners suspected to be non-members of the
ANC, 10 318 buses, 152 trains, 12 188 private vehicles,1 256 shops and
factories, 60 post offices, 47 churches and 30 clinics were destroyed.
During the same period, 300 blacks were murdered, mostly by the
barbarous “necklace” method. The killing and mayhem has never stopped
and latest statistics show that 56 persons per day are being murdered in
South Africa, not to mention the rapes, armed and transito robberies,
hijackings and house breaking. Two million crimes are being committed
annually of which less than half are ever solved, because the police are
incompetent and themselves corrupt.
That crime is rife was acknowledged as early as 2001
by the then Commissioner of Police, Jackie Selebi. A newspaper reported
at the time that he admitted that 600 crime syndicates are active in
South Africa. Since then regular reports informed us that the Russian
and Sicilian Mafia, as well as drug lords from Nigeria and elsewhere are
thriving in South Africa, and that this country has indeed become the
crime Mecca of the world. That is the wonderful heritage of Mandela and
the ANC/SACP. Meanwhile the poor, black and white, are poorer than ever
before while a few elitist blacks are getting stinking rich.
After it became known that Mandela was to receive
the Nobel prize for peace, the ANC published a statement to the effect
that Mandela has always liberally supported the armed wing of the ANC
financially, it is likely that he would donate a sizable portion of his
R3,1 million to MK. That is the man who, according to the international
media, is an ardent promoter of peace!
- This child was an ANC landmine victim. Smuggling in thousands of landmines was one of the charges which landed Mandela in prison.
The National Party (NP) and Mandela
On 2 February 1990 FW de Klerk delivered his now
notorious Red Friday speech in which he announced that Mandela would be
released, despite the continuing violence in the country. Interesting
to note that while so many tears are being shed about Mandela’s 27
wasted years in jail, Aida Parker reports that John Vorster
suggested, as early as 1976, that he could be released if he would
settle in the Transkei with his brother-in-law Kaiser Matanzima.
Mandela refused the offer – he thought it would be an acceptance of the
NP’s homeland policy. Aida Parker also reveals that, shortly
after that the Marxist MPLA offered to exchange a Major of the South
African Forces, who had been captured in Cabinda, for Mandela’s
release. Mandela also refused that.
In March 1982 he was transferred to Pollsmoor prison
in Cape Town. In 1984 there were serious discussions within the NP to
release him, but the revolutionary climate that had moved in over South
Africa did not allow it. It appears that Mandela knew all about these
discussions and that encouraged him to take the initiative to write a
letter to Kobie Coetzee, Minister of Justice. Thereafter he was
transferred to a single cell and discussions between him and Coetzee
started in 1986. It is reported that the government went as far as to
secretly move him to the luxurious three bedroomed house, until then
occupied by the Chief of Pollsmoor prison, and provide him with all the
necessary facilities to communicate with the ANC’s in exile. Even a
chef was appointed to cook to his desire. During December 1988 he was
transferred to the Victor Verster prison, near the Paarl. Chris Hani, a
hardened communist and commander of MK who, like Mao Tse Tsung,
believed that power comes from the barrel of a gun, revealed during the
years immediately prior to the De Klerk capitulation that he had free
access to Mandela and needed only to pick up the phone to make an
appointment when he felt like it.
PW Botha was also eager to free Mandela and invited
him to Tuynhuis for discussions on 5 July 1989. Botha was willing to
release him the moment he denounced violence. Although Mandela
indicated that he would like to contribute towards the creation of a
climate of peace, it is doubtful whether he is to be believed, as this
would not have fitted his revolutionary character and future plans. It
would also have been a repudiation of the ANC’s violence option which
led to the founding of MK. Mandela never denounced violence, yet De
Klerk released him on 11 February 1990, and at the same time un-banned
organisations like the ANC and SACP.
During a visit to the USA, on invitation of the CP
of that country, Hani predicted that South Africa will get a communist
government. It is unthinkable that the SA government did not take
notice. Yet it appears that De Klerk was so eager to negotiate with
this terrorist organisation that he did not want the Whites be informed
about the true nature of the ANC or similar statements by Hani and other
radicals in the ANC/SACP. Thus the NP did everything in its power to
present a moderate image of the ANC to the electorate. Even the
Intelligence Service received orders not to investigate or expose any
ANC activities which would impair this image. When the Aida Parker Newsletter
wanted to publish the horrid details of the ANC’s hell camps, they
tried to prevent it, fortunately without success. Naturally the NP also
hushed the details of the revolutionary plans foreseen by Operation Mayibuye that came to light in the Rivonia trial; the fewer people that knew about it, the better.
We are still enjoying the results of this surrender
politics. Not only has the country been destroyed and transformed from a
first world country to a third world dump, but the process is
unabated. It now appears as if the reigning anarchy caused by strikes
and violent protests against poor service levels (mostly by people who
do not even pay for those services!) is but a smoke screen, and in fact
is purposefully directing us towards the start of the second revolution,
as planned by the ANC/SACP. As Dr Verwoerd said: God forbid.
Even foreign observers have pointed out that the ANC
regime is corrupt and incompetent. Shortly after the ANC takeover,
British historian Paul Johnson expressed the view in The Spectator
of February 1995: “South Africa is a country afflicted by crime and
corruption, with tumbling standards and a population doomed to a poverty
stricken and carnal existence”. Under a socialist-communist regime
Mandela’s promise of a land of milk and honey has come to nought! How
can such a terrorist be regarded as a hero?
Conclusion
Not only has the deterioration on all levels
escalated since 1994, but 30 000 Whites have been murdered, often in the
most ghastly manner. The policy of “affirmative action” is the most
inhumane discrimination against Whites. The fact that so many
Afrikaners have lost their jobs, and by law cannot find new employment,
has caused untold misery, while black millionaires increase annually.
It is estimated that 10% of Afrikaners have been reduced to beggary in
squatter camps, with all the social and other evils ensuing from that.
All the result of the De Klerk treason which put Mandela into power.
It is ironic that people should clamour to declare
18 July as international Mandela-day, almost as ironic as awarding the
Nobel Peace prize to Mandela and De Klerk. Now one understands why God
revealed in the Bible that there will be difficult times ahead for the
Christian, times in which men would rather “not endure sound doctrine;
but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers,
having itching ears; and they shall turn away their ears from the truth,
and shall be turned unto fable”, when wrong will be right and the lie
will be the truth.
Dr Pieter Möller (July 2009).
English translation by Hennie Kasselman
www.adequacy.org
Interesting comment from a neutral website:
"So there we have it. Mandela. Blew up a
few buildings, went to prison for years, came out and destroyed his
country's economy. Quite a record. Ironically, he was probably
responsible for more deaths through his disastrous stewardship of the
economy than Umkhonto we Sizwe ever managed to knock off during the
armed struggle."
Friday 6 December 2013
Saturday 30 November 2013
So Iran is Britain’s enemy…( for a Price?)
So Iran is Britain’s enemy…
Cameron’s pledge to his Jewish friends: “An enemy of Israel is an enemy of mine. A threat to Israel is a threat to us all”
By Stuart Littlewood @Whenever a Western leader expresses adoration and undying support for the Zionist state the Jewish Chronicle (JC) can be relied on to make the most of it. This week it reports on UK Prime Minister David Cameron’s Chanucah/Hanukkah reception in Downing Street when he lit a menorah (that elegant nine-branch candlestick) with the chief rabbi.
According to the JC, Cameron took the opportunity to say he didn’t have much faith in the interim nuclear agreement struck with Iran. He told assembled Jewish leaders: “I know there will be great scepticism, I know there will be great worry. I share that scepticism, I share that worry. I don’t have any starry-eyed view of what this Iranian regime offers.”
He went on to announce: “I am with you and with the Israeli people, genuinely. As far as I’m concerned, an enemy of Israel is an enemy of mine. A threat to Israel is a threat to us all.
Cameron is a self-declared Zionist and, from his various remarks,
thinks nothing of putting Israel’s interests, no matter how unlawful and
menacing, ahead of the UK’s…
“I can promise you this: Britain will stand with Israel, Britain will
support Israel, Britain will keep the pressure up on Iran. We do not
want you to have a nuclear-armed near-neighbour, a nuclear threat facing
your country… We share that feeling and show you our solidarity.”Who on earth is he speaking for? Has he consulted the British people on this pledge of servitude to the criminal Zionist project? Was it in his election manifesto? This isn’t the first time Cameron has ‘mis-spoken’. He does it regularly.
And why has he got it in for Iran, which has no nuclear weapons and is no threat to us? Shouldn’t he instead be saying to Iran: “We share your anxiety about having a nuclear armed neighbour like Israel, with its 400 warheads, menacing your country. You have our solidarity.”
Cameron is a self-declared Zionist and, from his various remarks, thinks nothing of putting Israel’s interests, no matter how unlawful and menacing, ahead of the UK’s and allowing us to be drawn into conflict with Israel’s enemies such as Iran and Syria.
No respectable nation can operate a foreign policy on such a twisted basis. How many more of our young men have to shed blood, limbs and life to serve the foolish ambitions, ill-advised friendships and private commitments of our politicians?
Hysterical Iran-bashing
The ludicrous idea that Iran is the enemy was spouted several years ago by Liam Fox while shadow secretary of state for defence: “We must remember that in the battle for the values that we stand for – for democracy against theocracy, for democratic liberal values against repression – Israel’s enemies are our enemies and this is a battle in which we all stand together or we will all fall divided.” After Cameron appointed him defence secretary, Fox came to grief over the scandal of his close relationship with Adam Werritty, his so-called adviser. It was revealed that Werrity, among other misdeeds, had been involved in secret meetings with Mossad agents for the purpose of enlisting British support for an Israeli attack on Iran.By no stretch of the imagination is Iran an enemy of the British people, but could soon be if Cameron and his foreign secretary, William Hague, persist with economic sanctions that needlessly hurt the Iranian people and inflict the kind of suffering heaped upon Iraq’s women and children for 12 years before we bombed them to hell and back. Is that what they are trying to engineer?
Israel, as people are beginning to realize, has a vast nuclear arsenal, won’t sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (but Iran has done so) and won’t submit to UN inspection and safeguards. Moreover Cameron is comfortable about rewarding Israel for its crimes against humanity. He even provides a safe haven for its criminals, contrary to the UK’s solemn obligation under the Geneva Conventions.
Israel flag waving
Pro-Israel politicians here still repeat the big lie that Iran threatened to wipe Israel off the map. Former Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad actually said, rather poetically, that the regime in Jerusalem (i.e. the Zionist regime) must vanish from the page of time. As Western powers regularly use regime change as an excuse to make wa, either directly or by proxy, against any country they don’t like… why is Ahmadinejad’s remark so objectionable?Cameron’s senior partner in the UK government’s hysterical Iran-bashing campaign, William Hague, has been an avid admirer of Israel since his schooldays. In 2011, in a keynote address on the theme “Sixty Years of British-Israeli Diplomatic Relations”, Hague said the UK’s relationship with Israel went far beyond the realm of diplomatic relations. “It is based on bonds between families and communities as well as shared values and common interests… This government is firmly opposed to those who seek to deligitimize Israel, and… we are firmly opposed to boycotts…“
Is aiding and defending a belligerent foreign power, land thief
and serial abuser of human rights a listed policy in the Conservative
Party manifesto?
His speech included the usual attempt to demonize Iran. “Iran’s
treatment of its own people, as well as its attitude to Israel and
posturing in the region show that it would be a disaster to let Iran
acquire nuclear weapons.” He omitted to mention the hundreds of nuclear
warheads at the fingertips of Israel’s delinquent leaders. “Iran should
therefore not doubt the resolve of the international community to
address the concerns about its nuclear programme…“I never forget,” said Hague, “that Israel is a country that has been repeatedly attacked through its brief history, that has been at war with all its neighbours for some of its history and with some of its neighbours for all of its history.”
And whose fault is that?
Is aiding and defending a belligerent foreign power, land thief and serial abuser of human rights a listed policy in the Conservative Party manifesto? No. It is a private agenda for which Hague and Cameron have no popular mandate. And is terrorizing Iranian civilians with economic ruination, just for the hell of it (or because Israel wants it), Conservative policy? Well, I suppose it must be, otherwise Hague and Cameron would have been slapped down.
A friend dubbed the pair “Agent” Cameron and “Agent” Hague and the names have stuck. We can see why.
Wednesday 27 November 2013
Tuesday 26 November 2013
Sunday 24 November 2013
A Post to David Camerons facebook page
Somebody posted this on David Cameron's facebook page.
Dear Mr. Cameron, I'm planning to move my family and extended family to Pakistan for my health and I would
like to ask you to assist me with this. We're planning to simply fly
from Britain to Pakistan and we'll need your help to make a few
arrangements. We plan to skip all of the legal stuff like visas,
passports, immigration quotas and laws. I'm sure they handle those
things in the same way you do here. So, would you mind telling your
buddy, President Asif Ali Zardari, that I'm on my way over? Please let
him know that I will be expecting the following: 1. Free medical care
for my entire family. 2. English-speaking government bureaucrats for all
services I might need, whether I use them or not. 3. All Pakistani
Government forms must be printed in English. 4. I want my grandkids to
be taught Urdu by English speaking (bi-lingual) teachers. 5. Tell their
schools they need to include classes on British culture and history. 6. I
want my grandkids to see the British flag on one of the flag poles at
their school. 7. Please plan to feed my grandkids at school for both
breakfast (Bacon & Eggs) and lunch. 8. I will need a local Pakistani
driver's license so I can get easy access to government services. 9. I
do plan to get a car and drive in Pakistan, but I don't plan to purchase
car insurance, and I probably won't make any special effort to learn
local traffic laws. 10. In case one of the Pakistani police officers
does not get the memo from President Zardari to leave me alone, please
be sure that every patrol car has at least one English-speaking officer.
11. I plan to fly the British flag from my housetop, put British Flag
decals on my car, and have a gigantic celebration on December 25th. I do
not want any complaints or negative comments from the locals. 12. I
would also like to have a nice job without paying any taxes, or have any
labour or tax laws enforced on any business I may start. 13. Please
have President Zardari tell all of the Pakistani people to be extremely
nice and never say critical things about me or my family, or about the
strain we might place on their economy. 14. I want to receive free food
stamps. 15. Naturally, I'll expect free rent subsidies. 16. I'll need
income tax credits so that although I won't pay Pakistani taxes, I'll
receive money from the government. 17. Please arrange it so that the
Pakistan Government pays me £4,500.00 to help me buy a new car. 18. Oh
yes, I almost forgot, please enrol me free into the Pakistan Social
Security program so that I'll get a monthly pension cheque in
retirement. I know this is an easy request because you already do all
these things for all of his people who fly to Britain from Pakistan. I
am sure that President Zardari won't mind returning the favour if you
ask him nicely. Thank you so much for your kind help.
HOW WE BECAME A SLAVE TO THE BANKERS!
HOW YOU BECAME A SLAVE TO THE BANKERS!
Simple!
Click for larger image
Banks existed, of course. But they were kept off to one side, and use of the banks was optional
for the people of the United States. It was possible to go through
one's entire life without dealing with a bank if one chose to do so.
Click for larger image
This system not only reserved the choice whether to use the bank to
the people, but it was a stable system, because as debt increased, the
people could voluntarily choose to stop borrowing from the bank! That
was one of the most important freedoms won during the revolution; the
freedom to say "no" to the banks! 
Click for larger image
Then, in 1913, a corrupt Congress and a corrupt President changed
the structure of the nation's economy and stole your freedom to say
"no"! The economic system was reverted to a mirror of that same system
the nation fought a
revolution to be free of. The power to issue money was taken away from
the government and given to the bankers and from that day onward, ALL
money in circulation was created as the result of a loan at interest
from the bankers to the government, to business, and to the people.
There is no exception. Every dollar paid in salary, spent to purchase
food or gas, or paid in taxes, began as an interest bearing loan. There
is no money in circulation in the United States that did not start out
as a loan at interest from the bankers at the privately-owned Federal
Reserve system.
Click for larger image
From that moment on, the freedom of the people to refuse to borrow
from the banks and to refuse to pay interest was stripped away. To
participate in the commerce of the United States at all means being
forced to use money loaned at interest,
to the profit of the bankers and the impoverishment of the public. Your
freedom to say "no" was stolen by Congress in 1913, without your
permission and before you were born. When you have lost the freedom to say "no", when you have no choice but to pay a percentage of your earnings as interest to the bankers whether in private debt or taxes to cover the gargantuan debts by the US Government itself, you are a slave to the bankers. And because more money is owed to the bankers than actually exists, because of the interest charged on the loan that created the money, the debt-slavery is permanent! No matter how hard you work, no matter how much you sacrifice, the debt can never be paid off. The system is intentionally designed to trap the nation's population permantly in unpayable debt, to make them slaves to that debt and to the bankers. This is the purpose behind the design of the Federal Reserve, the International Monitary Fund, the European Central Bank, and indeed every private central bank issuing the public currency as a loan at interest. This is why today every nation is drowning in created debt, and slaved to the private bankers. That is the reason for ever increasing taxes and decresing benefits; to pay the bankers their unpayable interest on the public currency.
For that enslavement to succeed, your right and freedom to refuse that bank's interest-bearing money must be stripped away. The government must force you to use that private central bank's currency, loaned to you at interest, via the Legal Tender Laws. Therein lies your slave chains. You are ordered by the government, on pain of prison, to use the banker's money, and to pay the interest charged by the bankers through your taxes.
Free people have the right to say "no." Free people have a right to decide for themselves what medium of exchange they will use and to choose not to involve the bankers!
There is no freedom without the freedom to say "no." Slaves cannot say "no" when ordered to surrender the products of their labor to their masters.
You are a slave.
"I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is now controlled by its system of credit.We are no longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men." -- Woodrow Wilson 1919
Slavery exists only because the slaves have been taught to believe that slavery is the way the world is supposed to be. Beliefs are chains used to enslave free people. No chains of steel ever bound a human tighter than the chains made of the beliefs with which we are indoctrinated while young in the state schools and the churches.
Slaves used to be held prisoner by their belief in rule by divine right. Then the slaves regained their freedom when they realized that divine right is only an illusion created by the enslavers to trick the people into obedient servitude.
Then slaves were held prisoner by their belief in rule by chattel ownership of one's body. Then the slaves regained their freedom when they realized that one person owning another is an illusion created by the enslavers to trick the people into obedient servitude.
Today the modern slaves (that is YOU) are held prisoner by their belief in compound interest; that they owe money that never existed to repay money created out of thin air. And you modern slaves will regain your freedoms when you realize that private central banking is just another illusion created by the enslavers to trick you into obedient servitude.
Stop believing. Cry freedom!
For More excellent studies on the subject of banking slavery visit
http://whatreallyhappened.com/
Tuesday 19 November 2013
The Role of the BBC in the Syrian Conflict
This is how the BBC website introduces a report by its BBC Panorama’s
Syria correspondents Ian Pannell and Darren Conway on August the 30th,
2013. The story contained a video, ostensibly shot near Aleppo, Northern
Syria, by an anonymous school headmaster, and documenting the aftermath
of a napalm attack on his school, supposedly perpetrated by the Syrian
armed forces on August 26th. According to the story, the “evil” forces
of Bashar al-Assad, at a time when they had just about established their
strategic advantage over the anti-government rebel forces and the
foreign mercenaries they had been fighting for over two years, had found
nothing better to do than attack a school, a target which presented no
military interest whatsoever, with napalm – no less – just so the
international media, and BBC Panorama in particular, could pick the
story and broadcast it to Western audiences, in perfect timing to
coincide with the British Parliament’s vote
Sunday 17 November 2013
Friday 15 November 2013
Wednesday 13 November 2013
Tuesday 12 November 2013
Wednesday 6 November 2013
Tuesday 29 October 2013
Sunday 27 October 2013
Saturday 26 October 2013
Understanding How Modern Liberals Think
Cicero traitor at the gate comes to mind , this guy sums up the modern Liberal mindset excellently . But pro Israel. the war mongers of the world ?
Monday 21 October 2013
Saturday 19 October 2013
JFK Vs The Federal Reserve
By John P. Curran
4-19-7
- On June 4, 1963, a virtually unknown Presidential decree,
Executive Order 11110, was signed with the authority to basically strip the Federal Reserve Bank of its power to loan money to the United States Federal Government at interest. With the stroke of a pen, President Kennedy declared that the privately owned Federal Reserve Bank would soon be out of business. The Christian Law Fellowship has exhaustively researched this matter through the Federal Register and Library of Congress. We can now safely conclude that this Executive Order has never been repealed, amended, or superceded by any subsequent Executive Order. In simple terms, it is still valid. - When President John Fitzgerald Kennedy - the author of Profiles in Courage -signed this Order, it returned to the federal government, specifically the Treasury Department, the Constitutional power to create and issue currency -money - without going through the privately owned Federal Reserve Bank. President Kennedy's Executive Order 11110 [the full text is displayed further below] gave the Treasury Department the explicit authority: "to issue silver certificates against any silver bullion, silver, or standard silver dollars in the Treasury." This means that for every ounce of silver in the U.S. Treasury's vault, the government could introduce new money into circulation based on the silver bullion physically held there. As a result, more than $4 billion in United States Notes were brought into circulation in $2 and $5 denominations. $10 and $20 United States Notes were never circulated but were being printed by the Treasury Department when Kennedy was assassinated. It appears obvious that President Kennedy knew the Federal Reserve Notes being used as the purported legal currency were contrary to the Constitution of the United States of America.
- "United States Notes" were issued as an interest-free and debt-free currency backed by silver reserves in the U.S. Treasury. We compared a "Federal Reserve Note" issued from the private central bank of the United States (the Federal Reserve Bank a/k/a Federal Reserve System), with a "United States Note" from the U.S. Treasury issued by President Kennedy's Executive Order. They almost look alike, except one says "Federal Reserve Note" on the top while the other says "United States Note". Also, the Federal Reserve Note has a green seal and serial number while the United States Note has a red seal and serial number.
- President Kennedy was assassinated on November 22, 1963 and the United States Notes he had issued were immediately taken out of circulation. Federal Reserve Notes continued to serve as the legal currency of the nation. According to the United States Secret Service, 99% of all U.S. paper "currency" circulating in 1999 are Federal Reserve Notes.
- Kennedy knew that if the silver-backed United States Notes were widely circulated, they would have eliminated the demand for Federal Reserve Notes. This is a very simple matter of economics. The USN was backed by silver and the FRN was not backed by anything of intrinsic value. Executive Order 11110 should have prevented the national debt from reaching its current level (virtually all of the nearly $9 trillion in federal debt has been created since 1963) if LBJ or any subsequent President were to enforce it. It would have almost immediately given the U.S. Government the ability to repay its debt without going to the private Federal Reserve Banks and being charged interest to create new "money". Executive Order 11110 gave the U.S.A. the ability to, once again, create its own money backed by silver and realm value worth something.
- Again, according to our own research, just five months after Kennedy was assassinated, no more of the Series 1958 "Silver Certificates" were issued either, and they were subsequently removed from circulation. Perhaps the assassination of JFK was a warning to all future presidents not to interfere with the private Federal Reserve's control over the creation of money. It seems very apparent that President Kennedy challenged the "powers that exist behind U.S. and world finance". With true patriotic courage, JFK boldly faced the two most successful vehicles that have ever been used to drive up debt:
- 1) war (Viet Nam); and,
- 2) the creation of money by a privately owned central bank. His efforts to have all U.S. troops out of Vietnam by 1965 combined with Executive Order 11110 would have destroyed the profits and control of the private Federal Reserve Bank.
- Executive Order 11110
- AMENDMENT OF EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 10289 AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE PERFORMANCE OF CERTAIN FUNCTIONS AFFECTING THE DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY. By virtue of the authority vested in me by section 301 of title 3 of the United States Code, it is ordered as follows:
- SECTION 1. Executive Order No. 10289 of September 19, 1951, as amended, is hereby further amended - (a) By adding at the end of paragraph 1 thereof the following subparagraph (j): "(j) The authority vested in the President by paragraph (b) of section 43 of the Act of May 12, 1933, as amended (31 U.S.C. 821 (b)), to issue silver certificates against any silver bullion, silver, or standard silver dollars in the Treasury not then held for redemption of any outstanding silver certificates, to prescribe the denominations of such silver certificates, and to coin standard silver dollars and subsidiary silver currency for their redemption," and (b) By revoking subparagraphs (b) and (c) of paragraph 2 thereof. SECTION 2. The amendment made by this Order shall not affect any act done, or any right accruing or accrued or any suit or proceeding had or commenced in any civil or criminal cause prior to the date of this Order but all such liabilities shall continue and may be enforced as if said amendments had not been made.
- JOHN F. KENNEDY THE WHITE HOUSE, June 4, 1963
- Once again, Executive Order 11110 is still valid. According to Title 3, United States Code, Section 301 dated January 26, 1998:
- Executive Order (EO) 10289 dated Sept. 17, 1951, 16 F.R. 9499, was as amended by:
- EO 10583, dated December 18, 1954, 19 F.R. 8725;
- EO 10882 dated July 18, 1960, 25 F.R. 6869;
- EO 11110 dated June 4, 1963, 28 F.R. 5605;
- EO 11825 dated December 31, 1974, 40 F.R. 1003;
- EO 12608 dated September 9, 1987, 52 F.R. 34617
- The 1974 and 1987 amendments, added after Kennedy's 1963 amendment, did not change or alter any part of Kennedy's EO 11110. A search of Clinton's 1998 and 1999 EO's and Presidential Directives has also shown no reference to any alterations, suspensions, or changes to EO 11110.
- The Federal Reserve Bank, a.k.a Federal Reserve System, is a Private Corporation. Black's Law Dictionary defines the "Federal Reserve System" as: "Network of twelve central banks to which most national banks belong and to which state chartered banks may belong. Membership rules require investment of stock and minimum reserves." Privately-owned banks own the stock of the FED. This was explained in more detail in the case of Lewis v. United States, Federal Reporter, 2nd Series, Vol. 680, Pages 1239, 1241 (1982), where the court said: "Each Federal Reserve Bank is a separate corporation owned by commercial banks in its region. The stock-holding commercial banks elect two thirds of each Bank's nine member board of directors".
- The Federal Reserve Banks are locally controlled by their member banks. Once again, according to Black's Law Dictionary, we find that these privately owned banks actually issue money:
- "Federal Reserve Act. Law which created Federal Reserve banks which act as agents in maintaining money reserves, issuing money in the form of bank notes, lending money to banks, and supervising banks. Administered by Federal Reserve Board (q.v.)".
- The privately owned Federal Reserve (FED) banks actually issue (create) the "money" we use. In 1964, the House Committee on Banking and Currency, Subcommittee on Domestic Finance, at the second session of the 88th Congress, put out a study entitled Money Facts which contains a good description of what the FED is: "The Federal Reserve is a total money-making machine. It can issue money or checks. And it never has a problem of making its checks good because it can obtain the $5 and $10 bills necessary to cover its check simply by asking the Treasury Department's Bureau of Engraving to print them".
- Any one person or any closely knit group who has a lot of money has a lot of power. Now imagine a group of people who have the power to create money. Imagine the power these people would have. This is exactly what the privately owned FED is!
- No man did more to expose the power of the FED than Louis T. McFadden, who was the Chairman of the House Banking Committee back in the 1930s. In describing the FED, he remarked in the Congressional Record, House pages 1295 and 1296 on June 10, 1932:
- "Mr. Chairman, we have in this country one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever known. I refer to the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal reserve banks. The Federal Reserve Board, a Government Board, has cheated the Government of the United States and he people of the United States out of enough money to pay the national debt. The depredations and the iniquities of the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal reserve banks acting together have cost this country enough money to pay the national debt several times over. This evil institution has impoverished and ruined the people of the United States; has bankrupted itself, and has practically bankrupted our Government. It has done this through the maladministration of that law by which the Federal Reserve Board, and through the corrupt practices of the moneyed vultures who control it".
- Some people think the Federal Reserve Banks are United States Government institutions. They are not Government institutions, departments, or agencies. They are private credit monopolies which prey upon the people of the United States for the benefit of themselves and their foreign customers. Those 12 private credit monopolies were deceitfully placed upon this country by bankers who came here from Europe and who repaid us for our hospitality by undermining our American institutions.
- The FED basically works like this: The government granted its power to create money to the FED banks. They create money, then loan it back to the government charging interest. The government levies income taxes to pay the interest on the debt. On this point, it's interesting to note that the Federal Reserve Act and the sixteenth amendment, which gave congress the power to collect income taxes, were both passed in 1913. The incredible power of the FED over the economy is universally admitted. Some people, especially in the banking and academic communities, even support it. On the other hand, there are those, such as President John Fitzgerald Kennedy, that have spoken out against it. His efforts were spoken about in Jim Marrs' 1990 book Crossfire:"
- Another overlooked aspect of Kennedy's attempt to reform American society involves money. Kennedy apparently reasoned that by returning to the constitution, which states that only Congress shall coin and regulate money, the soaring national debt could be reduced by not paying interest to the bankers of the Federal Reserve System, who print paper money then loan it to the government at interest. He moved in this area on June 4, 1963, by signing Executive Order 11110 which called for the issuance of $4,292,893,815 in United States Notes through the U.S. Treasury rather than the traditional Federal Reserve System. That same day, Kennedy signed a bill changing the backing of one and two dollar bills from silver to gold, adding strength to the weakened U.S. currency.
- Kennedy's comptroller of the currency, James J. Saxon, had been at odds with the powerful Federal Reserve Board for some time, encouraging broader investment and lending powers for banks that were not part of the Federal Reserve system. Saxon also had decided that non-Reserve banks could underwrite state and local general obligation bonds, again weakening the dominant Federal Reserve banks".
- In a comment made to a Columbia University class on Nov. 12, 1963,
- Ten days before his assassination, President John Fitzgerald Kennedy allegedly said:
- "The high office of the President has been used to foment a plot to destroy the American's freedom and before I leave office, I must inform the citizen of this plight."
- In this matter, John Fitzgerald Kennedy appears to be the subject of his own book... a true Profile of Courage.
- This research report was compiled for Lawgiver. Org. by Anthony Wayne
- What is the Federal Reserve Bank?
- What is the Federal Reserve Bank (FED) and why do we have it?
- by Greg Hobbs November 1, 1999
- The FED is a central bank. Central banks are supposed to implement a country's fiscal policies. They monitor commercial banks to ensure that they maintain sufficient assets, like cash, so as to remain solvent and stable. Central banks also do business, such as currency exchanges and gold transactions, with other central banks. In theory, a central bank should be good for a country, and they might be if it wasn't for the fact that they are not owned or controlled by the government of the country they are serving. Private central banks, including our FED, operate not in the interest of the public good but for profit.
- There have been three central banks in our nation's history. The first two, while deceptive and fraudulent, pale in comparison to the scope and size of the fraud being perpetrated by our current FED. What they all have in common is an insidious practice known as "fractional banking."
- Fractional banking or fractional lending is the ability to create money from nothing, lend it to the government or someone else and charge interest to boot. The practice evolved before banks existed. Goldsmiths rented out space in their vaults to individuals and merchants for storage of their gold or silver. The goldsmiths gave these "depositors" a certificate that showed the amount of gold stored. These certificates were then used to conduct business.
- In time the goldsmiths noticed that the gold in their vaults was rarely withdrawn. Small amounts would move in and out but the large majority never moved. Sensing a profit opportunity, the goldsmiths issued double receipts for the gold, in effect creating money (certificates) from nothing and then lending those certificates (creating debt) to depositors and charging them interest as well.
- Since the certificates represented more gold than actually existed, the certificates were "fractionally" backed by gold. Eventually some of these vault operations were transformed into banks and the practice of fractional banking continued.
- Keep that fractional banking concept in mind as we examine our first central bank, the First Bank of the United States (BUS). It was created, after bitter dissent in the Congress, in 1791 and chartered for 20 years. A scam not unlike the current FED, the BUS used its control of the currency to defraud the public and establish a legal form of usury.
- This bank practiced fractional lending at a 10:1 rate, ten dollars of loans for each dollar they had on deposit. This misuse and abuse of their public charter continued for the entire 20 years of their existence. Public outrage over these abuses was such that the charter was not renewed and the bank ceased to exist in 1811.
- The war of 1812 left the country in economic chaos, seen by bankers as another opportunity for easy profits. They influenced Congress to charter the second central bank, the Second Bank of the United States (SBUS), in 1816.
- The SBUS was more expansive than the BUS. The SBUS sold franchises and literally doubled the number of banks in a short period of time. The country began to boom and move westward, which required money. Using fractional lending at the 10:1 rate, the central bank and their franchisees created the debt/money for the expansion.
- Things boomed for a while, then the banks decided to shut off the debt/money, citing the need to control inflation. This action on the part of the SBUS caused bankruptcies and foreclosures. The banks then took control of the assets that were used as security against the loans.
- Closely examine how the SBUS engineered this cycle of prosperity and depression. The central bank caused inflation by creating debt/money for loans and credit and making these funds readily available. The economy boomed. Then they used the inflation which they created as an excuse to shut off the loans/credit/money.
- The resulting shortage of cash caused the economy to falter or slow dramatically and large numbers of business and personal bankruptcies resulted. The central bank then seized the assets used as security for the loans. The wealth created by the borrowers during the boom was then transferred to the central bank during the bust. And you always wondered how the big guys ended up with all the marbles.
- Now, who do you think is responsible for all of the ups and downs in our economy over the last 85 years? Think about the depression of the late '20s and all through the '30s. The FED could have pumped lots of debt/money into the market to stimulate the economy and get the country back on track, but did they? No; in fact, they restricted the money supply quite severely. We all know the results that occurred from that action, don't we?
- Why would the FED do this? During that period asset values and stocks were at rock bottom prices. Who do you think was buying everything at 10 cents on the dollar? I believe that it is referred to as consolidating the wealth. How many times have they already done this in the last 85 years?
- Do you think they will do it again?
- Just as an aside at this point, look at today's economy. Markets are declining. Why? Because the FED has been very liberal with its debt/credit/money. The market was hyper inflated. Who creates inflation? The FED. How does the FED deal with inflation? They restrict the debt/credit/money. What happens when they do that? The market collapses.
- Several months back, after certain central banks said they would be selling large quantities of gold, the price of gold fell to a 25-year low of about $260 per ounce. The central banks then bought gold. After buying at the bottom, a group of 15 central banks announced that they would be restricting the amount of gold released into the market for the next five years. The price of gold went up $75.00 per ounce in just a few days. How many hundreds of billions of dollars did the central banks make with those two press releases?
- Gold is generally considered to be a hedge against more severe economic conditions. Do you think that the private banking families that own the FED are buying or selling equities at this time? (Remember: buy low, sell high.) How much money do you think these FED owners have made since they restricted the money supply at the top of this last current cycle?
- Alan Greenspan has said publicly on several occasions that he thinks the market is overvalued, or words to that effect. Just a hint that he will raise interest rates (restrict the money supply), and equity markets have a negative reaction. Governments and politicians do not rule central banks, central banks rule governments and politicians. President Andrew Jackson won the presidency in 1828 with the promise to end the national debt and eliminate the SBUS. During his second term President Jackson withdrew all government funds from the bank and on January 8, 1835, paid off the national debt. He is the only president in history to have this distinction. The charter of the SBUS expired in 1836.
- Without a central bank to manipulate the supply of money, the United States experienced unprecedented growth for 60 or 70 years, and the resulting wealth was too much for bankers to endure. They had to get back into the game. So, in 1910 Senator Nelson Aldrich, then Chairman of the National Monetary Commission, in collusion with representatives of the European central banks, devised a plan to pressure and deceive Congress into enacting legislation that would covertly establish a private central bank.
- This bank would assume control over the American economy by controlling the issuance of its money. After a huge public relations campaign, engineered by the foreign central banks, the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 was slipped through Congress during the Christmas recess, with many members of the Congress absent. President Woodrow Wilson, pressured by his political and financial backers, signed it on December 23, 1913.
- The act created the Federal Reserve System, a name carefully selected and designed to deceive. "Federal" would lead one to believe that this is a government organization. "Reserve" would lead one to believe that the currency is being backed by gold and silver. "System" was used in lieu of the word "bank" so that one would not conclude that a new central bank had been created.
- In reality, the act created a private, for profit, central banking corporation owned by a cartel of private banks. Who owns the FED? The Rothschilds of London and Berlin; Lazard Brothers of Paris; Israel Moses Seif of Italy; Kuhn, Loeb and Warburg of Germany; and the Lehman Brothers, Goldman, Sachs and the Rockefeller families of New York.
- Did you know that the FED is the only for-profit corporation in America that is exempt from both federal and state taxes? The FED takes in about one trillion dollars per year tax free! The banking families listed above get all that money.
- Almost everyone thinks that the money they pay in taxes goes to the US Treasury to pay for the expenses of the government. Do you want to know where your tax dollars really go? If you look at the back of any check made payable to the IRS you will see that it has been endorsed as "Pay Any F.R.B. Branch or Gen. Depository for Credit U.S. Treas. This is in Payment of U.S. Oblig." Yes, that's right, every dime you pay in income taxes is given to those private banking families, commonly known as the FED, tax free.
- Like many of you, I had some difficulty with the concept of creating money from nothing. You may have heard the term "monetizing the debt," which is kind of the same thing. As an example, if the US Government wants to borrow $1 million ó the government does borrow every dollar it spends ó they go to the FED to borrow the money. The FED calls the Treasury and says print 10,000 Federal Reserve Notes (FRN) in units of one hundred dollars.
- The Treasury charges the FED 2.3 cents for each note, for a total of $230 for the 10,000 FRNs. The FED then lends the $1 million to the government at face value plus interest. To add insult to injury, the government has to create a bond for $1 million as security for the loan. And the rich get richer. The above was just an example, because in reality the FED does not even print the money; it's just a computer entry in their accounting system. To put this on a more personal level, let's use another example.
- Today's banks are members of the Federal Reserve Banking System. This membership makes it legal for them to create money from nothing and lend it to you. Today's banks, like the goldsmiths of old, realize that only a small fraction of the money deposited in their banks is ever actually withdrawn in the form of cash. Only about 4 percent of all the money that exists is in the form of currency. The rest of it is simply a computer entry.
- Let's say you're approved to borrow $10,000 to do some home improvements. You know that the bank didn't actually take $10,000 from its pile of cash and put it into your pile? They simply went to their computer and input an entry of $10,000 into your account. They created, from thin air, a debt which you have to secure with an asset and repay with interest. The bank is allowed to create and lend as much debt as they want as long as they do not exceed the 10:1 ratio imposed by the FED.
- It sort of puts a new slant on how you view your friendly bank, doesn't it? How about those loan committees that scrutinize you with a microscope before approving the loan they created from thin air. What a hoot! They make it complex for a reason. They don't want you to understand what they are doing. People fear what they do not understand. You are easier to delude and control when you are ignorant and afraid.
- Now to put the frosting on this cake. When was the income tax created? If you guessed 1913, the same year that the FED was created, you get a gold star. Coincidence? What are the odds? If you are going to use the FED to create debt, who is going to repay that debt? The income tax was created to complete the illusion that real money had been lent and therefore real money had to be repaid. And you thought Houdini was good.
- So, what can be done? My father taught me that you should always stand up for what is right, even if you have to stand up alone.
- If "We the People" don't take some action now, there may come a time when "We the People" are no more. You should write a letter or send an email to each of your elected representatives. Many of our elected representatives do not understand the FED. Once informed they will not be able to plead ignorance and remain silent.
- Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution specifically says that Congress is the only body that can "coin money and regulate the value thereof." The US Constitution has never been amended to allow anyone other than Congress to coin and regulate currency.
- Ask your representative, in light of that information, how it is possible for the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, and the Federal Reserve Bank that it created, to be constitutional. Ask them why this private banking cartel is allowed to reap trillions of dollars in profits without paying taxes. Insist on an answer.
- Thomas Jefferson said, "If the America people ever allow private banks to control the issuance of their currencies, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all their prosperity until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."
- Jefferson saw it coming 150 years ago. The question is, "Can you now see what is in store for us if we allow the FED to continue controlling our country?"
- "The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he breaks, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime, and the punishment of his guilt."
- John P. Curran
- Source: http://www.roc-grp.org/jfk.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)