One vital question you need to be asking about Syria

From the New York Times online, Aug. 28: 

Syria’s ambassador to the United Nations, Bashar Jaafari repeated the Syrian government’s denials that it had ever used chemical weapons in the conflict with the insurgents, and said the accusations were a conspiracy by Western nations acting on Israel’s behalf.

The ambassador rejected assertions by the United States, Britain and other Western allies that there was persuasive evidence of Syrian government culpability in the use of the banned weapons.

Mr. Jaafari added a new level of complexity to the issue on Wednesday, Aug. 28, announcing that he had submitted evidence of three previously unreported instances of chemical weapons use in Syria, which he asserted had been carried out by Syrian rebels. Mr. Jaafari said the Syrian government had requested that the United Nations investigators expand their inquiry to include those events as well.

Michael Hoffman:

The Syrian ambassador is correct in stating that the threats of an attack on his government are part of the Israeli geo-political strategy. The Israelis, with their symbiotic allies the Saudis, seek the overthrow of the governments of Syria and Iran. The war fever being unconscionably generated in the U.S. buttresses the role of America acting as proxy for Israeli interests.

Notice that the corporate media are not reporting the estimated financial cost of a U.S. attack on Syria in the midst of the “sequester” cut-backs, and the looming shut down of the government in October due to the on-going budget crisis. For some perverse reason, the budget-busting aspect of the rumored, forthcoming Obama-Kerry military adventure in Syria is not being reported in any significant way.

Hammer home to your favorite blog, local newspaper editor, or talk radio host this one vital question: How much is it going to add to our budget deficit to fund a U.S. attack on Syria?

***

Read More

Russian Orthodox Church: US seeking to act as “executioners" in Syria

Moscow Patriarchate:

Acting as "international executioners," the US is sacrificing Muslims and Christians in Syria

August 27, 2013 - Moscow (AsiaNews) - As Western military intervention against the regime of Bashar al-Assad appears increasingly likely, the Russian Orthodox Church expresses "strong concern" about possible developments of the crisis, this following US charges that the regime used chemical weapons against civilians.

"Once again, as was the case in Iraq, the United States is acting as an international executioner", said Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk, head of the Department for External Relations of the Moscow Patriarchate.

Speaking to AsiaNews, the representative of the Russian Orthodox Church strongly criticized the US position, which is "completely one-sided."

"Without the endorsement of the United Nations, they want to decide the fate of a whole country of millions of inhabitants."

"Once again," Hilarion warned, "thousands of lives will be sacrificed on the altar of an imaginary democracy;" among them, according to the Metropolitan, there are, first of all, "Christians, about whose fate no one cares."

They are at "risk of becoming hostages to the situation and the main victims of radical extremist forces, who, with the help of the United States, will come to power."

"The international community," he concluded, "must do everything to avoid that events develop in this direction." 

*** 

Read More

Listen now to today's Hoffman call-in radio interview

My interview by journalist Mark Anderson on his call-in radio program has been archived and is available for listening online free of charge, as a public service. The program is approximately two hours in duration. It is centered on a discussion of the book, Usury in Christendom: The Mortal Sin that Was and Now is Not.

Saying the broadcast is "free of charge" is somewhat misleading in that my appearance on the program was made possible by donations from truth-seekers whose gifts fund our research and public activism. Without those donations I could not afford to take two hours to speak on a workday morning analyzing the revolutionary history of how the just relations among human beings that Jesus Christ instituted have been sacrificed on the altar of avarice and situation ethics.

Click on the link to listen:

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/americanfreepress/2013/08/26/beyond-exposure

***

Read More

Ten years after WMD hoax in Iraq, US government spins another one in Syria

Who could believe that only ten years after the last US government WMD hoax centered on the government of Iraq, we have John Kerry, instead of Colin Powell, pushing a weapons-of-mass-destruction claim against the government of Syria on the evidence of what — trial by media? One’s “conscience”?

 Why the rush to judgment?

Why the need to bomb a sovereign nation and intervene in Muslim civil wars, even as “our ally” Egypt killed 1500 people with no response from the US other than the cancellation of joint military exercises?

Of course, the junta in Egypt is little threat to Israeli suzerainty over Palestine, whereas the Syrian government is actively opposed, hence Assad must go, and his exit will be paid for by the US treasury that we are told is too depleted to sustain Social Security for much longer.

***

Read More

Michael Hoffman on the radio Monday Aug. 26 talking about Usury in Christendom

Radio program: Hoffman to discuss Usury 

Your editor will be discussing the thesis of his book Usury in Christendom: The Mortal Sin that Was and Now is Not, on the American Free Press radio network beginning at 10 a.m eastern time, on Monday, August 26.

The program is hosted by  journalist Mark Anderson.

The show will be heard online at this link:

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/americanfreepress

_________________

Read More

Questions for Hoffman concerning his book about usury

Questions on Usury

From D.L., Omaha, Nebraska:

Michael,

I have just completed reading your excellent book Usury in Christendom: The Mortal Sin that Was and Now is Not, and am re-reading and researching various sections for further clarity. Here are questions and comments which I hope you can assist me with in whatever spare time may allow.

1. If the popes from 1515 were manifest heretics on the issue of allowing, condoning and promoting the practice of usury in any form whatsoever, from the standpoint of it being mortally sinful, then the Catholic Church was absent of s valid papacy all these centuries.  Exceptions most likely, would be popes who served brief reigns e.g.: Adrian VI, Marcellus II, Urban VII, Innocent IX and Leo XI.

2. Pius VIII served only 20 months and near the end of his office was troubled by revolutionary activities in France and Italy.  Could these events have led to a hasty and not well thought out decision given to the Bishop of Rheims?  Perhaps those advisors in the Curia advised him falsely, and through ignorance and bad trust/judgment he sinned lacking due diligence, but not by way of heresy?

3. Do you see exceptions of heresy with regard to Pius VI and Pius X?  The Church cannot err in Canonizations which would violate Her principle of Indefectibility.

4. Trent and Vatican I would have been promulgated by two antipopes, Pius V and Pius IX.  Do you see these councils partially or entirely illegitimate?

Thank you.

Dear Mr. L:

I write history. I am not a theologian, nor do I contemplate the theological consequences of my historical research, which is based solely on the pursuit of truth wherever it leads, on the basis that where there is truth there is Jesus Christ. If my book Usury in Christendom is true, then it is of Christ.

Remaining faithful to the True Church of All Time, the ecclesia of SS. Basil, Chrysostom, Aquinas, Anthony of Padua, King Edward the Confessor, Pope Innocent IV, etc., does not make one a traitor. Treason to traitors is no treason. The Catholic Church cannot nullify sacred dogma, or betray Christ, but rather, the post-Renaissance Church of Rome, or "newchurch," as some term it, appears to have done so. The bane of Christian society is their situation ethics, their substitution of human financial standards relative to the circumstances and context of the times, for immutable divine law against interest on loans. No pope after Leo X reversed the tide of usury in the Church. Even the famous "Vix Pervenit" of Benedict XIV consisted of toothless semantics. It had no provision for enforcement. Usury among Catholics flourished in the wake of it.

Any pope after Leo X had the power to enforce the immemorial Catholic dogma on what usury is and the mortal sinfulness of it. Any pope after Leo could have promulgated the following as law, as it had been law for fifteen hundred years: 

"All interest on loans of money is a grave transgression against the law of God. In order to obtain absolution, reception of the Eucharist and a Catholic burial, all usurers must confess their mortal sin, avoid the near occasion of sin by halting their involvement in usurious trade and operations, and make restitution for the interest they took. Practicing usurers are not to receive the Eucharist and are to be refused a Catholic burial. In Catholic nations, the civil authorities are urged to seize the assets of usurers after death to repay interest to debtors. Obstinate usurers are excommunicated." -Pontifex Maximus.

No such statement (or anything approximating it), has ever been issued in the past 498 years by any pope since a form of usurious operation was incrementally empowered by Medici Pope Leo X's Bull Inter multiplices of May, 1515.

Ergo, despite whatever pious, nostalgic or sentimental feelings one may have for any pope from Leo X onward, it grieves me to say that whatever good those popes may have done cannot override their condonation of the worst of all sins. By their papal permission (by silence, inaction, apathy or active conspiracy) for the love of money that is usury --said love being, according to the Gospel the root of all evil (as it is, by its sterility and the plague of situation ethics that must accompany it in order to justify it) they acted as wolves, not shepherds . We cannot say "he was a good pope but he permitted adultery. He was a good pope but he permitted idolatry. He was a good pope but he allowed for robbery." Any permission for any one of those grave sins renders the pope involved a devil in the shape of a pontiff, and this is true of permission for the root of all evil, the love of money, which is what very obviously motivated the Church of Rome in letting the Catholic usurers ply their trade.

Moreover, in the wake of the exposure of the child molestation rings in the Catholic hierarchy, which predate Vatican II, we must wonder about the extent to which even supposed "hero" popes of the past may have shielded malefactors by means of the terrible secrecy in which the Vatican bureaucracy and curia have dwelled these many centuries. Many questions are now being raised of the extent of sodomy in the hierarchy of Rome long before Vatican II. The true history of the papacy from the Renaissance onward, has yet to be written.

As for Pius X, recall that the Code of Canon Law of 1917, which permitted usury, though promulgated by Benedict XV, was largely composed during Pope Pius X's papacy.

As for the infallibility of canonizations, I wonder. Alphonsus Liguori argued for the rights of those who charge interest on loans, and advocated a most devious form of lying, and he is esteemed by "traditionalists" as one of the most eminent and holy of all Catholic saints.

The winds of truth are only beginning to blow through the Church of Rome. Let us hope that the sum effect is more than the Cryptocracy's notorious Revelation of the Method.

Yours truly,

Michael Hoffman

___________

Read More

Video of civilian gunned down in Cairo while helping a wounded man

According to the Wall Street Journal of August 14, 2013, top members of the Egyptian military junta now ruling that nation after the coup are Israeli assets.

The U.S. media are not calling the murder of more than 500 protestors a massacre because the killers are Israeli allies.

In the eyes of the American media, everything that happens in the Middle East is weighed on the Talmudic scale of whether the action or event benefits or harms the Israeli government.

Morsi was an ally of Hamas, therefore the military that overthrew Morsi, a man elected in a democratic vote, cannot be that bad. Hence, it’s not a massacre but a “crackdown.”

Israeli tactics are being employed against Egyptian civilians. The recent massacre is a typical Israeli tactic. It can only breed more violence. Many Israelis despise Arabs. They love to see them die. The Egyptian civil war being stoked by Israeli agents in the Egyptian military and al Qaeda agents on the street fulfills the Talmudic bloodlust.

Michael Hoffman

_______________

Read More