Can you imagine if the entire world united against usury?
Wow I knew it, he won fair and square! I am learning to read between the lines it fits with the global ‘banksters’ agenda. How badly do they want a nwo? Iran cannot play their game due to their religious beliefs. Usury in Iran is a major sin, so much so that the government abolishes it. I always thought that America was all about spreading freedom, for religion, speech, etc... Yet I know there is a group of men who advocate those very principles all the while doing the opposite. These men reside worldwide they prey on the weak, make war on the strong. Anyway, I say stay far away from the mainstream media. Iran does not pose a threat unless we stay there in the region. I firmly believe we need to bring our troop’s home, all of them. If all of those countries just said enough is enough go home, what harm could happen?
“The documents prove that the CIA spend $400 million inside Iran to prop up a colorful-hollow revolution following the election” to incite regime change for a pro-Western government. He called Ahmadinejad’s victory “a decisive point in regional policy and if Pakistan and Afghanistan unite with Iran, the US has to leave the area, especially (from) occupied Afghanistan.”
“It’s not “realizable in Iran,” he said, “Because the workers and farmers, the millions who gave the lives of their children for the cause of independence and sovereignty, defend the Revolution and their real President who has frustrated the schemes and plots of the warmongers. (They’re proud that) Ahmadinejad has defied and resisted the war threats and sanctions by the same powers that have ruined the lives of millions throughout the world and want no part of it themselves.”
http://www.infowars.com/irans-election-and-us-iranian-relati...
Current War Funding Hall of shame:
Yvette Clarke, Steve Cohen, Jim Cooper, Jerry Costello, Barney Frank, Luis Gutierrez, Jay Inslee, Steve Kagen, Edward Markey, Doris Matsui, Jim McDermott, George Miller, Grace Napolitano, Richard Neal (MA), James Oberstar, Jan Schakowsky, Mike Thompson, Edolphus Towns, Nydia Velázquez, and Anthony Weiner.
http://www.infowars.com/the-responsible-left-funding-obamas-...
Latin usus meaning "used" and the word usuria which means demanding in
return for a loan a greater amount than was borrowed.
USURY and giving false measure is forbidden in the true Torah, Bible and the Quran (and other books).





















I used to believe
in the the so-called time value of money, which if I understand it correctly is the justification for usury / interest payments. Now it seems that inflation is the reason for an elevated time value of money - if money is not put to use at the current time, it loses value / purchasing power, presumably because of inflation. However now knowing that the source of inflation is the central banks, making it essentially an artifice, I'm not so sure of this theory of the time value of money. And the justification for usury is weakened.
Any comments on this?
It should be of particular
It should be of particular interest to you to know that the concept of interest arose prior to the use of money. It historically arose during the barter stages of markets, not the monetary stages. There is even evidence, sparse as it may be, that there was interest charged on bartered goods as early as the mid-Neolithic period. Obviously there is more to interest than simply a case of monetary disposition. Without interest there are a number of problems that are created within the market and there must be some sort of replacement for that interest. The problem of economic calculation will quickly arise without the presence of natural interest. Now, the problems arise when central planning and central banking manipulate interest rates to achieve both a political and social end, one that is not necessarily in the best interest of the People of this country. Additionally, in a free market economy, it is the market that determines the natural rate of interest, not the banks, not the government.
Please read the thread entitled: The Socialistic Interest Free Economy:
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/77618
http://www.1776solution.blogspot.com
“There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty.”-Adams
http://militantjeffersonian.com
"Men do not willingly read unpalatable truths of themselves. The People like those best who fool them most, by pandering to their vices and flattering their foibles" Raphael Semmes
time value
The time value of money exists because, all other things being equal, people prefer to have their needs met now to having them met a year from now. It is human nature. For example, all other things being equal, you would rather have a new car today than the same new car next year. That preference is the time value of money. If you loan someone the cost of the new car, you will need to postpone your enjoyment of the new car. For you to be wiling to do that, you need to be compensated. That is interest.
Inflation also adds to the interest rate, but for a different reason.
Outlaw central banking - not free markets!
In practice, Islamic banking laws merely change the *form* of investment rather than the *practice* of investing money for a return. Rather than lending money for profit - investors buy shares in a business.
Ron Paul is right that America should not involve itself in the internal affairs of other nations. He is also right to condemn the government practice of creating *central* banks.
"I believe the true significance of the Gold Commission is that the politicians and central bankers were so alarmed at such a thing that they made sure it was packed by an array of Keynesians and monetarists." (Ron Paul 1985)
That's the point...
we have many times over the course of our history, yet it always creeps back in. Always! We just can't trust them government, corporations, even churches are suspect.
Some churches worse of all.
Some churches worse of all. Borrow money to have a fancy building then beg for money to pay the mortgage and interest. Freaking perverts.
grant
Or fractional reserve banking
Charging interest, or usury is a way for a lender to mitigate risk. The real problem as I see it is with fractional reserve banking. This is the power to create money out of thin air. If the interest rate was set by the free market, you would see better uses of capital being charged lower rates of interest.
If you outlaw usury, you outlaw savings accounts. It's the savings of others that finance the ideas that move us forward.
It's not about usury
It's about a monopoly power over the money supply. There's nothing evil about lending money and making a return, assuming you also don't have a government-enforced monopoly on money.
Or a gov't mandated and
Or a gov't mandated and taxpayer funded safety net when banks fail.
http://FlipFlopRomney.blogspot.com
If
If you don't like usury, don't pay it. Just don't borrow any money. Problem solved. Now if what you want to do is use force to prevent other people from borrowing or lending to each other at interest, then YOU are an enemy of liberty.
rephrased
Now if what you want to do is use force to collect taxes that are used to bail out failed financial companies that paid obscene bonuses, then YOU are an enemy of liberty.
http://FlipFlopRomney.blogspot.com
?
Huh?
You are getting your concepts all in a bunch.
If you want to use a word like usury and give it a different meaning than it has had historically, you need to be careful to define your terms.
The Righteous do not charge interest.
Well then to put it another way, the government should not make laws permitting or restricting interest. Which in effect means that banks and bankers would not be protected under the law.
What you do as an individual with another individual is your business. But to legalize banking is nothing more than legalizing organized crime.
grant
I will rephrase
Using force to prevent borrowing is of course wrong. Using force to take taxes to backstop banks so they can lend/fail/lend is also wrong.
Let banks lend, but don't forcibly take taxes from me to backstop those loans (fannie, freddie, ginnie, tarp, talf). Those monies were forcibly taken from me to allow further lending.
http://FlipFlopRomney.blogspot.com
Our goal is to control government, not individuals.
I agree, being against the charging of interest for the use of money does not mean the want of laws to prevent individuals from doing so. It would be as difficult as preventing prostitution.
But even so that doesn't mean the government should be involved in the business.
grant
Gun backed military notes.
Easy, just abolish our socialist military. If we want to know how bad socialized medicine will be, just look at the military waste. How many illnesses will be engineered to feed the future medical pentagon?
grant
I think the biggest argument
I think the biggest argument is that as citizens of the government we are forced to borrow money, since the government is allow to borrow money and therefore we are force to pay interest.
No need to have a law prohibiting individuals from the evils of usury, just need to change the law allowing the government from usury.
grant
Government
If you want to prohibit government from borrowing money and prohibit government from forcing people to use a currency that is borrowed into existence, I agree with you. But if you want to prevent me from loaning you 100 ounces of gold and charging you interest on that, then I disagree with you.
We are here to control government, not individuals.
I don't give a sh!+ what you do with your money or if someone is stupid enough to borrow from you that is your business. But when the government gets involve in prostitution and I have to pay for it, then it is my business.
grant
Fine
But you should quit talking about usury because that has always been used to describe laws that prevent people from engaging in consensual economic acts with other people. If you are talking about limiting government power or the special privileges of the banks, you should say that.
I dont know how many people
I dont know how many people would lend money if we outlawed interest. I agree it would change the world, possibly for the better, but charging for a service seems to make sense, thats how capitalism works
Ha
I can tell you how many people would loan money if they couldn't charge interest. None. Except, perhaps, family members out of a kind of charity.
The rules would be different for sure.
It means they would have to spend their money, in order for it to have value.
grant
Depends
Money that is being saved has value because it is meeting the need of savings.
Also , a gold currency might slowly gain exchange value just sitting in the vault as a result of increasing demand.
The rule of a righteous man...
It says in the bible that a righteous man is a merciful creditor, and grants loans without interest.
Ezekiel 18:7-8
Unfortunately our country is not run by righteous men, but men of sloth.
grant
What Christ thought about interest.
Christ chased the money changers out of the temple.
Money Changers worked well with corrupt temple priests as both loved when people sinned. Why? Because that was how they were able to eat. Jews were and those who still follow the law are required to make animal sacrifices in order to pay for their sins. In those days, in the temple, if they didn't happen to have an animal at the moment or enough money to buy one, a money changer would lend them money at interest. Then they could buy their animal and make payment for their sins and with interest paid to the money changers.
Christ taught that it would no longer be necessary to make animal sacrifices for sins and as it turned out the curtain was torn, meaning that no longer is it necessary for men need a Priest to mediate before God.
The death of Jesus set the Jews free from the practice of animal sacrifice, and for those Jews who believed, they became the first Christians as followers of Christ. The Jews first, then the Gentiles.
grant
so, then can we say...
Time or US News and World Report ran a front page article
a few years ago where they say Jesus over turning the
money changers in the temple may have been a event
that happened near the end of his ministry rather than
the beginning as most people think... the same article
went on to say this event may have been the point at
which the authorities and power of the time determined
in their own mind to have him put to death, and I think
a close reading of the scripture bares this out.
So then, can we say the Christ died because of usury?
Sure, we often hear Jesus died to set the sinner free
from the punishment of sin, but could it not also be said
that he literally died (was killed) as a direct result of his
attempts to set people free from the burden of usury?
Following this thought, if we had more Christians today
who did what they claim to do (i.e., follow Jesus' example)
then it seems to me we'd have a lot more of people who
would oppose the current banking system. But as it is,
it seems those in the faith of Islam do a better job of
following Jesus on this point.
=========================
www.reclaim.org
==============
unSpy.info
Ceasar tried and got killed...
Lincloln tried and got killed, Pres Jackson tried and won until 1913, Pres Wilson sold out, also tried in europe in 1930's- it went badly
http://www.iamthewitness.com/books/Andrew.Carrington.Hitchco...
My karma ran over your dogma~
Google video Money Masters!
My karma ran over your dogma~
I loved money masters...
that was one of the first movies that woke me up three years ago. Have you heard of JOHN PERKINS: Well, what we've done -- we use many techniques, but probably the most common is that we'll go to a country that has resources that our corporations covet, like oil, and we'll arrange a huge loan to that country from an organization like the World Bank or one of its sisters, but almost all of the money goes to the U.S. corporations, not to the country itself, corporations like Bechtel and Halliburton, General Motors, General Electric, these types of organizations, and they build huge infrastructure projects in that country: power plants, highways, ports, industrial parks, things that serve the very rich and seldom even reach the poor. In fact, the poor suffer, because the loans have to be repaid, and they're huge loans, and the repayment of them means that the poor won't get education, health, and other social services, and the country is left holding a huge debt, by intention. We go back, we economic hit men, to this country and say, “Look, you owe us a lot of money. You can't repay your debts, so give us a pound of flesh. Sell our oil companies your oil real cheap or vote with us at the next U.N. vote or send troops in support of ours to some place in the World such as Iraq.” And in that way, we've managed to build a World empire with very few people actually knowing that we've done this. If you’ve seen George Clooney’s movie Syriana, and Hotel Rwanda and Good night and Good luck, you’ll get the picture John Perkins is describing.
First let me apologize...
I followed the link you provided and did not realize there was already a discussion going on about this issue. Thanks for the link and encouragement I appreciate it.
From my research this is not about religion, race or creed this is about usury. This is the oldest form of evil in my opinion. Those that choose to use it negatively create divisions among the people to obtain their goals. This issue is a major one since it spans a millennia and throughout the world regardless of who the people are.
To think that USURY and giving false measure is forbidden in the true Torah, Bible and the Quran (and other books). Historically speaking how many things from all the holy books binds all the major religions together?
I personally feel banning usury would be beneficial for the world, then we would see the true culprits of this whole chaotic mess. We have to rout them out somehow, would it not be better to go by the holy books? Let's say hypothetically someone puts it into law that usury was banned here in the states, I see a war right off the bat literally. We would then know who we were fighting.