The UsuryFree Eye Opener

The UsuryFree Eye Opener is the electronic arm of the UsuryFree Network. It seeks active usuryfree creatives to help advance our mission of creating a usuryfree lifestyle for everyone on this planet. Our motto is 'peace and plenty before 2020.' The UsuryFree Eye Opener publishes not only articles related to the problems associated with our orthodox, usury-based 1/(s-i) system but also to the solutions as offered by active usuryfree creatives - and much more for your re-education.

Saturday, September 27, 2014

Oswald Dismissed As Lone Gunman in JFK Killing


By Jerome R. Corsi
Forensic pathologist calls single-bullet theory 'pure nonsense'


WASHINGTON, D.C. – Forensic pathologist Cyril Wecht kicked off the second day of the Assassination Archive and Research Center, or AARC, conference on the John F. Kennedy slaying by insisting Lee Harvey Oswald could not have been the lone shooter.

“I think the single-bullet theory is pure nonsense,” Wecht told an all-star cast of JFK assassination “conspiracy theorists” at the conference commemorating the 50th anniversary of the publication of the Warren Commission Report.

Wecht proceeded to explain the gyrations and changes in direction required for one bullet to have hit JFK, passing up through JFK’s body from the entrance wound in the back, to exit through JFK’s neck (moving upward at an 11 degree angle), to enter Connelly’s back, break a rib, exit Connelly’s chest and break Connelly’s right wrist, only to end embedded in Connelly’s left thigh.

“The explanations are ridiculous,” Wecht challenged. “Was JFK bending over tying his shoe when he got shot? Not if you look at the Zapruder film. JFK was sitting upright, and the entrance wound in his back was lower than the supposed exit wound in this throat. How is it possible that a bullet fired from the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository moved in an upward direction transiting through JFK’s body?”

Secret details of JFK’s assassination are unlocked in Jerome Corsi’s “Who Really Killed Kennedy?”

Wecht insisted the burden of proof rested with the prosecution.

“All the defense has to show is that Lee Harvey Oswald could not possibly have been the sole gunman, and that can be established by science,” he insisted. “We do not need to prove who did the shooting to prove the government is lying. I’ll let you assume Oswald was a shooter if you want. The point is that if Oswald was not the sole shooter, the Warren Commission Report is a cover-up and the government has been lying to us for 50 years.”

Wecht concluded by insisting the RFK shooting was also an assassination.

“Again the case is settled by forensic pathology,” he again insisted. “The shot that killed RFK was fired from the back at a distance of approximately 1.5 inches from his head, when it’s clear Sirhan Sirhan was standing in front of RFK at a distance greater than 1.5 inches during the shooting.”

Autopsy “junk science”

Dr. Gary Aguilar, an ophthalmologist by training, pointed out that neither James Hume, the senior pathologist and director of laboratories at Bethesda Hospital, nor Navy pathologist J. Thornton Boswell, who assisted Hume at the JFK autopsy, had ever conducted an autopsy of someone shot by a gunshot wound prior to undertaking the JFK assassination, perhaps the most historically important autopsy in U.S. history.

Aguilar went through a detailed analysis of the JFK autopsy evidence, pointing out that Hume allowed their forensic analysis to be strongly influenced by the hearsay testimony provided by government officials attending the autopsy that JFK was hit from behind and that his head was thrown violently forward as a result.

He demonstrated evidence subsequently developed from examination of the autopsy photographs and notes makes clear Hume and Boswell missed key facts that would have influenced their conclusions had they been known on the evening of Nov. 22, 1963, when the autopsy was conducted, including numerous bullet fragments found in the rear portion of the skull and measurements that show JFK’s back wound was not at the base of the neck but below the shoulder some two inches from the spine.
“The conclusions of the Bethesda autopsy are best classified as ‘junk science,’” Aguilar insisted, not the type of professional forensic pathology required in an autopsy trying to determine the cause of death of a U.S. president assassinated by gunfire.

Gunshots recorded

Acoustical expert Dr. Don Thomas presented evidence from his 2013 book “Hear No Evil: Politics, Science, and Forensic Evidence in the Kennedy Assassination,” that the National Academy of Sciences panel was severely flawed in dismissing a police dictabelt recording that provided proof of a fourth shot from the grassy knoll – evidence that persuaded the House Select Committee on Assassinations to conclude Oswald was not the lone gunman.

Thomas had presented his analysis initially in a peer-reviewed article in “Science and Justice,” a quarterly publication of Britain’s Forensic Science Society.

The sounds of the JFK assassination were recorded at Dallas police headquarters when a motorcycle policeman in the JFK motorcade accidently left his microphone switch “on,” recording the sounds from Dealey Plaza as JFK was being shot.

Thomas played for the conference the sounds recorded by the dictabelt on which the gunshots can be heard, recorded in real time, as JFK was being assassinated.

Thomas explained how “cross-talk” on two different police channels recorded during the assassination and “test shots” fired in Dealey Plaza at the time of the initial HCSA analysis provided evidence the shots discernable through the static of the recording confirms the initial HCSA conclusions: a fourth shot was fired from the grassy knoll during the assassination. (snip) ...

NOTE: Read the complete article at this website:
http://www.wnd.com/2014/09/oswald-dismissed-as-lone-gunman-in-jfk-killing

CA Canadian Domain Name Registration and Web Site Hosting

Wednesday, September 24, 2014

Leonard Cohen and MKULTRA - Military Mind Control at McGill and Columbia

 By Ann Diamond
The man in the photo, taken at McGill University in 1951, is 17-year-old Leonard Cohen. He's wearing a blindfold, and his ears, fingers and hands are encased in padded restraints which prevent movement and cut off all sensory stimulation. This is one of Dr. Donald Hebb's famous/notorious sensory isolation experiments, for which student volunteers were paid the then-princely sum of $20 a day. Some of the volunteers were unable to stand this torture for more than a few hours. Some tore off the bandages and banged on the door of the isolation chamber, screaming and crying to be released.

Back in the 1980s, when I lived next door to him, Leonard Cohen once told me he enjoyed these experiments. He said he learned to dissociate, leave his body, and go on long voyages through the universe. The experience was so pleasant that later he volunteered to be placed in a flotation tank while on LSD. He enjoyed that, too.

We now know that D.O. Hebb's sensory isolation experiments became the foundation for torture techniques used by the CIA etc. in its secret prisons around the planet. Hebb, a neurologist, had CIA clearance, and also allegedly experimented on small children, mainly orphans and aboriginal children who arrived in his laboratory courtesy of McGill and the RCMP. Having access to human guinea pigs made Hebb's research that much more impressive. He also, of course, worked with rats and monkeys. It seems quite likely that his famous "rat" study on the effects of sensory isolation on IQ, would have been based on his experiments with children. McGill, at the time, was controlled by a network that included many British-trained, mind-controlled pedophiles with an interest in eugenics – and probably still is today.

In 1951, when this photo was taken, Leonard Cohen was 17, i.e. still a minor. One wonders who signed the permission slip – his mother? Or perhaps they just didn't bother with those little details, back then.

Leonard Cohen went on to become a poet of note. In fact, that same year, 1951, he published his first book, Let Us Compare Mythologies. It would be interesting to do a textual analysis of all of Cohen's writing – someday when I have more time I plan to do that (: – combing his poetry and novels for references to the secret program that he has been part of for most of his life. Up to now, his biographers seem to have overlooked all the references to hospitals, (Nazi) doctors, psychiatric experiments, electroshock, etc. They also have failed to adequately explain the missing years (mid-1950s, i.e. peak years of the MKULTRA program) when Cohen did some sort of graduate work at Columbia University in New York.

McGill and Columbia happened to be co-epicentres of MKULTRA research into mind control. As were certain studios and film-making teams at the NFB, the arm of British intelligence that brought our Leonard to national attention in 1966, with the film Ladies and Gentlemen… Mr. Leonard Cohen. As was the Silva Mind Control organization, where Leonard met Suzanne in the late 1960s. As was Nashville, where his musical career took him later. 

And let's not forget the Chelsea Hotel, where he hobnobbed with musicians and CIA programmers like Kris Kristofferson, always mentioned whenever Cohen introduces his song "Chelsea Hotel" about the time he had sex with mind-controlled singer Janis Joplin. That night, Janis was apparently looking for Kristofferson, one of the "handsome men" she preferred, according to the song – one of the creepiest in Cohen's repertoire, in my opinion.

It's very obvious to anyone who happens to have followed Cohen's career, that the singer-songwriter who composed "I'm Your Man" has spent most of his life surfing the mind control circuit that took him from McGill to New York and then Europe where he connected with the Rothschilds.

Let's just say that early on, he "volunteered" – and the rest is musical history. This is a topic for a long article, but for now I'll keep it small and personal. Lately, I've been thinking back to times when I witnessed Leonard Cohen's programming either in operation, or failing to operate properly. That is, when I lived next door to him and one or more of his handlers. By the mid-'80s, many people had grouped around him who seemed to be there to smooth things over. He also once told me that he depended heavily on doctors and psychiatrists at the (notorious MKULTRA hospital) Allan Memorial Institute, a half hour walk from his house near Saint Lawrence Boulevard. In fact, during those years, he frequented the swimming pool behind the Allan, where doctors, nurses, and other hospital staffers hung out with people from the Entertainment scene – I was told by a former orderly that the purest cocaine from the hospital pharmacy could be bought beside the pool on just about any summer day.

It is one thing to meet and get to know Leonard Cohen. It would be hard to imagine or find a more charming, generous, affable, funny guy to have as a neighbour. Unfortunately, though, that's only one of many personae, or "alters" – Cohen has many. I wouldn't like to guess how many. I suspect there may be hundreds. What this means is, getting to know him is virtually impossible, because his various alters are not necessarily aware of one another. This explains why, while living next door, I witnessed events that sometimes made no sense, and would have been impossible if Cohen were a normal person, with a single core personality. 

Mind-controlled entertainers and public figures – and this also applies to certain mind-controlled politicians, like Pierre Trudeau, a friend of Cohen's – require handlers to help them manage situations caused by their having various alters that don't all work together. These handlers, e.g. Kris Kristofferson, who likely was Janis Joplin's programmer – are there to coordinate and conceal the fact that these public figures are "programmed multiples."

An incident comes to mind that occurred in about 1985, when I had been living next door to Cohen for two years. During that time, I had rarely seen him – I was busy, in those days, making a living by writing and editing. I also had a weekly program on local community radio, went out with friends most evenings. I had little to do with my neighbours who, in many ways, behaved like members of an exclusive club. The incident I'm thinking of happened out of the blue, one day. I got a phone call from Leonard, whom I hadn't seen in several months. He invited me next door for tea. Cautiously pleased with the invitation, which seemed to suggest we were back on a friendly footing, I rang his doorbell, he opened the door, and we drank tea in his kitchen. We chatted, he may have played me a new song or two, or showed me a drawing. Just like in the old days when we'd been friends.

Then he said he had an appointment somewhere and needed to take a bath. I offered to leave. He said: no, just sit here for a few minutes in case the phone rings. He got in the bath, I sat in the kitchen, and sure enough, the phone rings. It's Hazel, the woman next door. I tell her Leonard is in the bath, and to please call back in a few minutes, which she does. At this point, the story becomes a bit extraordinary. I am standing a few feet from the phone, and I can hear Hazel shouting. I can't make out what she's saying, but she is screaming what appears to be verbal abuse, and Leonard, who has his ear to the phone, becomes rigid and just listens. The screaming goes on for, maybe, half a minute during which he does not move, does not respond, or react. When the screaming stops, he says "OK" and hangs up. The phone rings again; he picks it up. More of the same shouting. Once again, he listens without affect, without moving, and says "OK." Then he hangs up, turns to me, and in a blank tone says "You'd better go now." Which I do.

But I'm upset with Hazel, so I phone her when I get home, and leave a one-line message on her answering machine suggesting that she stop doing whatever it was she was doing when she phoned him, shouting like a drill sergeant.

Later that night, there is a meeting in his front room. I happen to walk by, and unusually, the blinds are up and I see Leonard, encircled by the people I thought of as his "cult followers." He is speaking to them, gesturing dramatic. I only get a glimpse of this meeting as I pass the window, but my snapshot impression is that he is asking for their help in some difficult matter that is causing him great anxiety.

And sure enough, half an hour later, I get a phone call, from a woman called Birgit, whom I know quite well, but consider to be a fairly hardcore Cohen groupie. She has come from the meeting. She arrives as I'm cooking supper, sits in my kitchen, and goes straight to the point. I have to move from the neighbourhood, she says, and stop harassing Leonard Cohen. I'm, well, stunned. It's the first time anyone has spoken to me in two years about how I came to be living next door. The first time anyone has suggested it might be a problem. But I'm not stupid. I'm quite aware that my presence in the neighbourhood has caused concern for certain people. The fact, however, is that I am there as the result of a peculiar coincidence. That there is no way I could have found this apartment on my own – I'm there, and I can't really explain how it happens, in a city of 1 million people, I manage to move in next door to Leonard Cohen – it just happened. That's it, that's all.

I also knew, back then and today, that nobody in Cohen's circle believed this. And neither do I, to this day, really understand how things like that happen. But that day, he had invited me over, as if letting bygones be bygones, and it had appeared, for about an hour, that relations were back to normal – until Hazel called, that is, and shouted into the phone, and he went numb.

And who called the meeting? And what was it about? No explanation was ever given. Another cult member, Charlie, phoned me the next day and invited me across the street to his place, for tea. We sat in silence. I didn't feel like talking until someone explained to me what was going on on that block.

No one ever did.

Looking back, in the light of what I know now, but had no notion of back then, I would say: yes, there was a cult. Leonard seemed to be at the head of it. His word held great weight, then and now. But the man who invited me over for tea and chatted normally earlier that day, was not the same man who addressed the meeting later that evening.

These were separate "alters" that might not have known of each other's existence. The alter that addressed the meeting did not recall having phoned me that day, and may not have recalled the two phone calls that came from Hazel – which was when they "switched" –
 
A few years later, when I had all but forgotten this incident, Leonard phoned me again from next door. This time, he told me, he was in very bad shape. "I can't get from one second to the next," he said. "Can you come over? You're the only one who understands me."

Worried, I rang his doorbell and he let me in. He asked me to go shopping for him, to buy food because he didn't feel able to leave his house. "I'm on this new anti-depressant, but it's not working. I'm in an incredible state of anxiety."

Remembering that other day, five years earlier, I said "You must be doing something wrong. You need to be in some kind of therapy to figure it out."

That suggestion just seemed to alarm him. "The doctors at the Allan are doing everything they can for me. Drugs are the only solution."

That was in about 1990. It was one of the last times I saw Leonard in person. Every so often, I'd read an interview with him, but over the next 20 years it seemed he just kept giving the same interview over and over.

We live in an age of totalitarian Mind Control, and entertainers like Leonard are front-line soldiers – as well as victims. We listen to them at our own risk.

NOTE: This article is originally published at this website - where there are additional pictures, some video clips from Youtube and various noteworthy comments from readers:
http://www.abeldanger.net/2014/04/leonard-cohen-and-mkultra-military-mind.html

NOTE: Henry Makow has also published a shortened version at this website:
http://henrymakow.com/2014/09/Leonard%20Cohen-Product-of-Illuminati-Mind-Control.html

CA Canadian Domain Name Registration and Web Site Hosting

Introducing Sibername



The UsuryFree Eye Opener is pleased to establish a working relationship with Sibername - a well-established and locally-owned business in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

SiberName is an Ottawa-based, fully Canadian website services provider. Sibername offers a wide range of web services including domain registration, website hosting and to help you get started a website builder.

Sibername can register your domain name, help you design and maintain your website, and provide first class website hosting in Canada.

Sibername is your one-stop-shop for all your website needs -you only need to manage one relationship. Click on the banner below and you'll learn lots that you didn't know you didn't know AND when you purchase your product/service, The UsuryFree Eye Opener earns a small commission.

Many thanks to Sibername for becoming the first advertising partner with The UsuryFree Eye Opener.

CA Canadian Domain Name Registration and Web Site Hosting


Monday, September 08, 2014

Real Freedom vs Fake Freedom


Real freedom vs. fake freedom. Truth as evidenced in the operations of nature vs. mental constructs antithetical to that holy principle. The hierarchy of man has been inverted since the beginning of rulership by Kings and today this upside down, backwards creation persists in the form of ANY government outside the self. Collectivism vs. Individual dominion - an understanding of philosophy is necessary to understand this complex distortion.

REAL FREEDOM and the NEW WORLD ORDER

There exists two Freedoms. Real freedom and Fake freedom. Real freedom corresponds to responsibility, taking responsibility, being responsible, and acting responsibly.

From this Real freedom stems autonomy, self-governance, determination, and conscious decision making in accord with causing no harm. Being responsible entails being responsible for the propagation of the best interest of oneself as well as the defense of oneself from harm; making choices that are not antithetical toward the self and having the capability to discern the difference between truth and falsehood and be capable to deal with falsehoods being propagated as reality in a stress-free manner – this involves self-mastery and discipline as well as courage. Not only does this benefit the self but it overtly benefits those in society because confidence radiates encouragement in a system based on original truth.

While on the other hand, is the Fake freedom which is the prevalent “freedom” touted in America today. Two hundred plus years ago, the inhabitants of what is today called TheCanada, a great lot of them, knew real freedom and the example I draw from is

“The Articles of Confederation”, the Declaration of Independence, the orations of Patrick Henry, and the writings of Thomas Paine from his pamphlet entitled “Common Sense”. These are Men, and many others from that generation, who were staunch individualists in tune with both physical and non-physical reality, mind and matter.

FAKE FREEDOM and the OLD WORLD ORDER

Fake freedom is the freedom to consume anything, regardless of how unhealthy it is for the person, or how much grief it causes to the conscious thoughts of the person consuming that garbage.

Fake freedom is the “freedom” to be lazy; to do the least amount of thinking possible and rely on so called “experts” to figure all things out. Fake freedom is the “freedom” to be an unfulfilled human who prefers to sit back and watch others live.

He spends endless hours in undiscriminating television viewing. Fake freedom is using violence and coercion to propagate something called "freedom".

I have news for the advocates of this false freedom notion. It's called look at the damage you have done to the spirit of your fellow men and women.

Are you "happy" yet? Or should I ask if you are fake happy or real happy and do you discern the difference?

Real freedom is having the free-will ability to choose something without fear.

Fake freedom is being coerced into pre-designated options under duress. Real freedom is being truly educated; given the tools to learn how to learn for oneself, on ones own, confidently while fake assed freedom is being told what is true and going along with it; being told a declarative sentence and accepting it without question.

My issue with fake assed freedom is that it is not truth and leads to destruction. It is a master deception.

A lie. The lie is that if you surrender, or sacrifice, some of your liberty, someone else will take on your responsibility to decide what is best for you and society as a group. An obvious example of this is legislators. At all times, legislators will to remove “individual” freedom for the best interest of “the group”. In the process, individuals ALWAYS suffer by way of coercion, threats of violence, and duress.

Though, it “sounds” like a noble thing to do, sacrifice a little liberty so that “the group” may prosper, it is an unsound idea simply because “the group” does not exist.

The group ONLY exists within the mind as a construct. And, within this construct of “the group” exists what IS actually true, real, and existent… the individual. There is no group. You may belong to a group of people who work on the same project, but there is no “group benefit”, each is paid according to their “individual” talent and ambition. What “the group” seeks to do is CONFORM all minds into one standardized musical note humming the same tune. This is called collectivism and it is conformity to a low standard.

COLLECTIVISM

Collectivism is the age old idea that “some” are meant to rule while others are meant to be ruled. Leonard Piekoff illustrated this point beautifully in his book The Objectivist, “The philosophy of collectivism upholds the existence of a mystic (and unperceivable) social organism, while denying the reality of perceived individuals—a view which implies that man’s senses are not a valid instrument for perceiving reality.

Collectivism maintains that an elite endowed with special mystic insight should rule men—which implies the existence of an elite source of knowledge, a fund of revelations inaccessible to logic and transcending the mind.

Collectivism denies that men should deal with one another by voluntary means, settling their disputes by a process of rational persuasion; it declares that men should live under the reign of physical force (as wielded by the dictator of the omnipotent state)—a position which jettisons reason as the guide and arbiter of human relationships.

From every aspect, the theory of collectivism points to the same conclusion: collectivism and the advocacy of reason are philosophically antithetical; it is one or the other.”

I would only disagree with his calling collectivism a philosophy because collectivism is actually the absence of philosophy, the destruction of sound reason, which in turn flows toward foolishness, not wisdom.

And yes, that IS a declarative statement… but it’s true. And at this point I would en-courage you to please involve yourself in the study of that truth and come to your own understanding and promote that understanding far and wide to assist others in the inquiry necessary in gaining accuracy of navigation throughout our shared reality.

“NEW” “WORLD” “ORDER”

This idea of a “new world order” of globalism is a two-fold extremity.

The word “new” implies that it is something that has not occurred in the past, a revolutionary idea that will change the paradigm or status quo, and something that has not yet been tested in physical reality.

But on the contrary, what we refer to as new world order is a sugar-coated delusion to insist that something is “new” when it has only been re-packaged, re-formulated, re-animated from “old” ideas that HAVE existed and do still persist.

The collectivism of the group is merely the Feudalism of history.

Feudalism has been re-engineered, re-designed, and re-packaged toward an audience of “consumers”/ "employees"/ "human resources" who do not possess the adequate context of history (the route in which we've arrived to the point in time in which we are now present – the present moment) – And how are we to navigate forward, into the future, with accuracy, and arrive at a suitable destination, if we do not have an accurate understanding of the map from whence we began sail?

To know where we are heading, as a “collective group”, on the sea of life, we must have a map of the terrain. Point A is the past, Point B is the present, and point C is the destination. If we are presently experiencing tumultuous storms, hurricanes, and whirlwinds we must know how we have arrived at this point. Because, it is obvious that the captain of the ship (you) were not paying attention. You were hoodwinked and your attention was placed elsewhere through careful manipulation.

The globalists are correct in their rhetoric depicting the necessity of a "new world order" to usher in an age of peace.

Everyone wants peace unless you're a psychopathic, selfish, little ego driven narcissist, the want is in alignment with empathy and compassion. But the context in which the idea of the new world order will become manifested is the point that must be distinguished between.

The global elitists have an undying thirst for wealth and power, and through the illusion of prestige, the end shall justify the means in achieving their life long aspirations.

Therefore the context in which this supposed "age of peace" is broadcast-ed in is a positive one. However, under careful examination of the motives and deeds they use to catapult the world into this so called "new order", we find Orwellian double-think to be one of the most absolute truths ever to be understood.

REAL NEW WORLD ORDER VS. FAKE NEW WORLD ORDER

It is critical to understand that the “new” world order was the founding of the United States of America. Never before in history was “individual” liberty fought for and actually established. With individual liberty stems the gracious fellowship with nature that enables mankind to expand consciousness toward greater and greater heights of possibility. The founders and framers of this “new” revolutionary idea drew from nature the common sense of it's principles and applied it toward mankind. The government, for the people and BY THE PEOPLE recognized the principle in nature that each individual is sovereign and RESPONSIBLE for their dominion. And with this responsibility there is only two roads to go down – down the road of truth or down the road of error. To preserve Life, liberty, and property or to degrade life, make liberty conditional, and tax privately owned property.

At this point, it is important to recognize that when this nation was founded there were still being perpetuated ideologies, structures, and frames of thinking that led to error. All the governments of history and existing governments, at that time, were ALL based on fallacious, erroneous models – meaning they were not consistent with nature and her rules. The people themselves, which consisted of this “new world” had to adjust to becoming free. So, we can contend that the people, at the dawn of this new revolutionary idea were now making a transition from one state into the other. From being ruled into being masters – determining their own individual course. It was the ultimate Hegelian dialectic where the thinking habits of the people were not squarely in alignment with self-government, in fact a great majority actually insisted upon George Washington being their new King. This intermingling of falsehood and truth has, over the past 250 years resulted in falsehood clearly being the victor of the two because as it is said, you must pluck the weeds otherwise they will take for themselves all of the nourishment from the flowers and overcome them completely. Well, that is firmly the case.

WHY WE ARE EQUAL

All Men are created equal – meaning we are all equally responsible for our thoughts and deeds. The laws of the Universe are equally distributed among ALL men and we will all equally atone for our mistakes. This is evident upon our creations. We create something, like government, we breathe life into it, and magically believe that the consequences of the actions government takes will be distributed solely upon government. ERR WRONG. Any individual, giving away their consent to be governed by it's creation (government) will be subjected to the misery of it's erroneous fruits. The same is true for sculptors who create statues of Gods who the people idolize as God himself; the sculptor reaps what he sows by way of those around him consenting to error. If you think we escape the effects, you are wrong. Yes, we created this tree and we called it government. That tree is producing fruit that the creators all partake and eat from and as a result of the law of cause and effect, the ill situation we call "freedom" is manifested in our life as decay. True freedom is not a creation of the mind of man, rather it is derived from nature NOT government. We all have this natural law of consequences governing our behaviors equally. This is an established, known, and understood principle of nature and is absolutely crucial/ vital to grasp and understand in order to comprehend the foundation upon which individual liberty, rights, and dominion spring.


NOTE: This article is re-posted from this group at Facebook - (not sure who the original author is): https://www.facebook.com/travelordrive

CA Canadian Domain Name Registration and Web Site Hosting

Friday, September 05, 2014

The UsuryFree Eye Opener Celebrates 5,000,000 Visitors



Just reached the magic number of 5 million visitors to my blog - The UsuryFree Eye Opener during the day on Friday, September, 5, 2014 - just 5 weeks after we reached the goal of 4,000,000 visitors.

Though I opened The UsuryFree Eye Opener in 2005, I did not make many postings until 2009. So to reach the first one million readers it took about 5 years. The amazing statistic is that the milestone of 3,000,000 visitors took less than two months after I had reached 2,000,000 visitors - and I have not used any SEO tools - all readers are by way of referral.

I do not know who was the visitor who was number 5,000, 000 BUT many thanks to the new readers and the regular readers at The UsuryFree Eye Opener. You inspire me to keep researching and sharing information that the mainstream media dismisses as "not newsworthy" and that "formal education neglects to teach."

Readers come from all over the world. This chart shows the readers for the past 24 hours. Countries with less than 500 visitors are not shown on the chart.

United States       60831
France                   32050
Germany                 6386
United Kingdom   5506
Netherlands           2698
Ukraine                   2143
Russia                       885
Poland                       849
Indonesia                  730
China                         534

Readers are reminded that there is a twin blog titled "The SDI (Self Directed Income) Eye Opener" that focuses on (a) health and wellness issues and topics and (b) the SDI (Self Directed Income) industry - otherwise referred to as network marketing, multi-level marketing, referral marketing or consumer-direct marketing.

And readers are invited to "Like" "The UsuryFree Network" at Facebook and "Join" the group - UsuryFree Creatives at Facebook and likewise readers are invited to "Follow" Tom J Kennedy (Tommy UsuryFree Kennedy) at Facebook.

NOTE: Way back on January 22, 2013, I was excited that for the very first time, The UsuryFree Eye Opener had recorded 1000+ visitors for a single day and I wrote about that milestone in this article: The UsuryFree Eye Opener.

On January 11, 2014 when The UsuryFree Eye Opener achieved the milestone of one million visitors I posted this article titled: The UsuryFree Eye Opener Celebrates 1,000,000 Visitors

On April 26, 2014 when The UsuryFree Eye Opener achieved the milestone of two million visitors I posted this article titled: The UsuryFree Eye Opener Celebrates 2,000,000 Visitors

On June 24, 2014 when the UsuryFree Eye Opener achieved the milestone of three million visitors I posted this article titled: The UsuryFree Eye Opener Celebrates 3,000,000 Visitors.

On August 1, 2014, when the UsuryFree Eye Opener achieved the milestone of four million visitors I posted this article titled: The UsuryFree Eye Opener Celebrates 4,000,000 Visitors.


On September 5, 2014, 5 weeks after achieving the milestone of 4,000,000 visitors we now
have reached the milestone of 5,000,000 visitors with 903,073 visitors in the month of August 2014 - the highest number of visitors ever.

Just by the increasing number of visitors from all over the world who are visiting my blog there is evidence of "awakening" and "consciousness raising." The chart below shows a summary of the daily number of visitors for the past month - ranging from 39,370 on August 7th to a low day on August 27th of 8,615. Most days registered visitors well beyond the number of 20,000. 
Each day the count starts at 8:00 PM (EST).


BTW - of the 874 posted articles at The UsuryFree Eye Opener - the two most popular article are:
1.  Life Without Usury - 30,816  readers
2. The Usury Battle - 26,572 readers

CA Canadian Domain Name Registration and Web Site Hosting

Thursday, September 04, 2014

Usury, Funds, And Banks: Or Lending At Interest


"Usury, Funds, And Banks: Or Lending At Interest" is a book that should be read by every man, especially every young man in the kingdom. I have gained more information from it than from any book big or little I ever read..." William Cobbett, author, "The Protestant Reformation in Ireland and England" 


This jewel of a book is about the tribulations of a humble 19th century Irish priest, and his comprehensive research on the topic of Usury, in pagan antiquity, Judaic law, and in Catholic decrees and canons. 



The book begins with the priest's personal narrative; how he is stripped of his ministry for challenging the local Bishop over the practice of usury in his diocese in Cork, Ireland. Without "a dog to lick his trousers", he somehow (in a series of small miracles) makes it to France, then the USA and Canada, and finally the Vatican, to verify his understanding of Catholic teachings, and ultimately has it confirmed to him in writing by the Holy See in Rome. 

The beauty of Father O' Callaghan's book is that it can be read as a story of a man who gave up what little he had to defend the truth; or as a proof of the destructive effects of usury upon France, England and Ireland, or as a primary reference for all authoritative and ecclesiastical writings on the practice of usury, under whatever name. 

Editor's note: the last few chapters, which covered subjects such as "pew rents" and "grave taxes" have been left out, since they seemed to be both tangential to the topic of usury, and irrelevant to our present culture.


NOTE: Do a search for this kindle edition of "Usury, Funds, And Banks: Or Lending At Interest" at http://www.amazon.com  CA Canadian Domain Name Registration and Web Site Hosting

Tuesday, September 02, 2014

Jean-Serge Brisson - Tea Party of One - Tours Western Canada


Front Cover

On June 28, 2014, Jean-Serge Brisson celebrated his 60th birthday with the launch of his new book titled: Tea Party of One - All Governments Invited. Now he is getting ready for his book-tour to Western Canada in September 2014.



1. From Jean-Serge Brisson's website:
"Jean-Serge Brisson was born in 1954 in Embrun, Ontario. He was raised on a dairy farm, attended high school and ultimately opened his own radiator repair business in 1974 in the same small Ontario town. He first became involved in politics in 1980, enticed by the compulsory metrification issue, joined the Libertarian Party in 1986 and ran for the party in the 1988 federal election. He was elected to the boards of both federal and provincial libertarian parties in the early 90’s and has remained active on both boards ever since.
In October 1990, Jean-Serge initiated a “Tax Collection Protest” levied against the Provincial Sales Tax of Ontario, as well as the GST with the federal government. The accusation levied against both levels of government was that “slavery” was being used against private business in the collection of these taxes for governments. To this day, there has been no action to contest this accusation in court, and Jean-Serge's business, "Independent Radiator", has legally "not" collected any taxes since October 1991.
Jean-Serge first became leader of the Libertarian Party of Canada during the 2000 party convention and was re-elected as leader in 2005. Prior to becoming leader, he ran as a candidate in the 1988 and 1993 federal elections, and in 1990 and 1995 in the Ontario provincial elections. He did not run in the 2004 federal election feeling that having just been elected a councilor, it would not have been right to run for another seat at a different level of government even though there was little chance of getting elected. He took his position as councilor seriously and wanted to concentrate on his new position.
He did not run in the 2005 federal election either because of his protest to the Adscam scandal that the Liberals were involved with and he challenged the validity of the election. In doing so, he could not validate his running in an election he did not feel was valid. He remained the National Leader till the convention of May 2008 which was held in Edmonton and did not run for re-election as Leader feeling that the time was appropriate for someone else to take the reins of the party. (snip) ...
Back Cover
2. From the Forward (pages ix and x) of the book “Tea Party of One” Dave Brown, Ottawa columnist (1965-2003) - now retired - writes: 

NOTE: This Forward is also posted at Jean-Serge Brisson's website:

"What would happen if you held a revolution and nobody showed up? It’s a gag question that has been hanging around for generations, and Jean-Serge Brisson is the only man I’ve met who is in a position to answer it.

Our first meeting happened in 1991 when he appeared in my office at the Ottawa Citizen. He was thirty-seven, president of the Libertarian Party of Canada, who punctuated much of what he said with a hearty laugh-and what he said included delightful one-liners.

I was a daily columnist mining material in the dark forest-that area where reporters seldom go. The forest has no roads, few trails, zero signposts, and it takes up most of the time and space we live in. It’s heavily populated by average people, and many of them are strange critters. For the most part they’re powerless, so of little interest to the news-chasers who focus on power and high profiles.

Here was a middle-aged operator of a struggling radiator repair shop in Embrun, a satellite community about thirty kilometres east of Parliament Hill, who likened humans to lemmings, but at the same time was proud to be one of them. His only difference, he claimed, was that he stopped to ask: “Where are we going?”

“There’s a precipice out there, someplace,” he said, and he knew it because when lawmakers make laws, governments get more power. When that happens, we forest creatures lose freedom. The balance point is the cliff.

Mr. Brisson wanted to use column space to announce the start of his revolution against “slavery” in present day Canada. He tied it to the GST (goods and service tax), saying that he, as a businessman, had been ordered to start collecting it. He figured he was being ordered to work without pay. That’s slavery. He figured the extra work would take four hours a week, and wanted to be paid at the going rate of a tax collector.

The bureaucratic answer boiled down to this: Everybody else is doing it. Get back in the pack, and keep your head down.

Lemming Brisson broke ranks.

Over the next twenty-three years-and as many columns-I was the one-man press corps covering this one-man war. Both the rebel and the reporter kept it light. Brisson started as an irritant, but wouldn’t bend, instead finding new ways to harass The Man. He earned a verbal promotion, from thorn-in-the-side to full fledged haemorrhoid. Just when his opponents started to get comfortable, he would flare up again.

He tossed around lines like: “Giving money and power to government is like giving whisky and car keys to teenage boys.” Here’s how he once described his duties as vice-president of the Libertarian Party of Canada: “To step in when the president gets assassinated.” His resistance to lemming behaviour earned him trips to jail for attitude adjustment. Instead, he appointed himself the prison system’s food critic.

His revolution got him enough attention to send him on cross-country speaking tours. He could hold audiences and make them laugh at the bureaucratic stupidity that surrounds us, and the way we so easily fall into step. We’re Canadians, eh. He also earned enough credibility to get elected to municipal council.

One of the details that made it possible for him to launch his one-man war was that he has never married. If he had family responsibilities, his quixotic lifestyle wouldn’t have been supportable.

By giving Brisson so much ink over the years, critics have condemned me as frivolous. My response is that anybody willing to stand up for his principles, to the point this man has, is a story-with-legs. He’s worth running with.

Readers of this book can form their own opinions, and it’s a safe bet that in the reading they’ll find more than a few laughs, and some personal attitude adjustment. I know I have." (snip) 

Dave Brown, Ottawa columnist, 1965-2003
Retired
Ottawa, 2014
Jean-Serge signed my book :)


4.  We Are Change Victoria and CLEAR are co-sponsoring various events for Jean-Serge Brisson's Western Canada Tour. (see links below for complete details)


NOTE: Jean-Serge Brisson's website: http://www.jeansergebrisson.net
CA Canadian Domain Name Registration and Web Site Hosting

Hold Usury Unenforceable


David Wiley aka “David of Ohio” has recently authored an e-book titled: “New and Ancient Justice - The Epic Failure of Lawmaking” wherein the following message is written:
“This book is copyright protected simply so no one may monopolize its content. The e-book is made available in several formats for free electronic download. David places no restrictions upon any lawful use of the text or ideas presented herein. Anyone may copy, distribute, translate, or even profit from publishing this book, in whole or in part. The value of this book is to be realized from the truth it proclaims, and David hopes that it will benefit many people. If you have benefited from this information and want to make it more broadly available to others, please consider sending a donation in an amount that reflects your enthusiasm to help disseminate its message. Electronic donations may be made via PayPal at David’s website. Cash (for gold or silver, please insure delivery), checks, or money orders may be sent to.” ...
David of Ohio

P.O Box 422

Coshocton, Ohio 43812 USA 


David hopes that the information contained herein will salt and light the world by advancing the expansive benefits of justice and an economy of love. For additional information, opportunities to view comments, participate in discussions, or ask questions, please visit David’s website. The e-book can be downloaded from David’s website. 

On page 31 David of Ohio writes: “There are only three possible ways that property can change hands - (1) Gift (2) Transaction (3) Theft. Below is what he writes about “Theft.”
3) Theft. “Theft occurs when one person or a collective of persons (such as a corporation, mob, or government) acquire property to which they are not entitled. Every act of theft diminishes the life of the victim because each theft is actually an attack upon the person of the property owner. Opposite to the way a gift or free transaction blesses all parties, theft diminishes the lives of both the victim and the thief. Theft is always a wealth-destroying activity that harms individuals and society because it breaks the chain of goodwill by cutting off productive resources from an economy of service. Since God commands, You shall not steal, all theft is a violation of the will of God.”
Gifts and transactions work to increase individual wealth and improve the commonwealth, but theft always destroys wealth. Gifts and transactions are blessings, but theft is always a crime that conveys a curse, not a service. When property is stolen, the owner effectively bears the loss of whatever portion of his or another’s life was spent obtaining or producing the property. Theft defrauds the property owner, debases the thief and offends God who is the property owner of last resort. 
Since usury is “theft” David has devoted a whole chapter about usury titled: “Hold Usury Unenforceable.” pages 47 - 52 and I am re-posting “Hold Usury Unenforceable” here at The UsuryFree Eye Opener
As written above: If you have benefited from the information in the book titled: “New and Ancient Justice” and you want to make it more broadly available to others, please consider sending a donation in an amount that reflects your enthusiasm to help disseminate its message.
David of Ohio writes: “The subjects covered below are not the only areas where applied faith is needed, but they are specific matters that have been overlooked by church leaders. What follows below is obviously not a final word, but is intended to advance a constructive discussion of public and private repentance leading to a more just society. As I see it, the following issues represent things that must change before our nation can be redeemed from sin and inherit the blessings of liberty.”
1) Hold Usury Unenforceable.
God’s Law forbids charging usury or interest on debts. The following text is one of several in the Bible that make it clear that usury is contrary to the will of God.
If one of your brethren becomes poor, and falls into poverty among you, then you shall help him, like a stranger or a sojourner, that he may live with you. Take no usury or interest from him; but fear your God, that your brother may live with you. You shall not lend him your money for usury, nor lend him your food at a profit. (Leviticus 25:35-37
God’s Commandment against usury teaches part of what it means for us to love our neighbors. But Jesus challenges his people to even go further than merely to abstain from collecting interest, “Lend, hoping for nothing in return.” Like turning the other cheek, our Lord instructs us to do more than the bare minimum required by the Law, but in any case, we must never do less!
For fifteen hundred years the Church Fathers and Church councils in both the East and the West were unanimous in their opposition to usury. The orthodox Christian doctrine had always been that usury or interest in all its forms and at any rate is unlawful and is banned by Moses, the holy prophets and is forbidden by the command of Christ. Throughout Christendom the question of the unlawfulness of usury on loans of money was a settled issue. Usury was a serious sin for all Christians, and Roman Catholics universally categorized it as a mortal sin for nearly 1500 years.
Clearly, it is a much different picture today. The vast majority of churchgoers all over the world, including Protestants, Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics now practice usury on a 24/7 basis with no Sabbath rest and seemingly with no pangs of conscience. Usurers maximize their take and are even admired for their involvement in this sin. Church leaders are even known to teach that expert usurers are ‘good stewards’ of what God has entrusted to them!
When, how and why did the clear and consistent Church teaching about the sin of usury change? In the early 1500’s the revolutionary view that some usury could be lawful found a haven with some Roman Catholic teachers. The new view fundamentally contradicted the laws of Moses, the plain teachings of Christ, the Church Fathers and the established canon law. Also around this same time, some leaders of the Protestant Reformation, notability Calvin, accepted this new teaching through a process of rationalization. Even so, many of the Protestant reformers maintained the orthodox teaching that usury is a serious sin. But following the reasoning of the Catholics, Calvin and a few other reformers invented new exceptions for usury where none existed before.
Within the ruling and mercantile classes there was an overwhelming sentiment to minimize laws against usury. Jews were already practicing usury and realized that it brought them great riches. They operated without economic competition within a society that abstained from this practice. Because usury can tap the labor of many others all at the same time, it allowed moneylenders to operate at an increased scale of business without the need to produce more goods or services for others. Legitimizing usury was tempting for the upper classes because they sought to be served, not to serve. Under great pressure to please their patrons, scholars began to advance theoretical arguments to defend usury as a legitimate business practice.
As a result of this corruption of the law, disputes arose and more pressure was brought to bear upon the Church to loosen her staunch opposition to usury. The arguments were complex and subtle, but in the end they came down on the side of secular human reason instead of the obedience of faith. Church authorities failed to assess this radical change in the light of settled orthodox doctrine. The approach of the usury revolutionaries was essentially to assert that some new idea of ‘equity’ based upon ‘reason’ would now supplant the orthodox doctrine of the Church that was based upon God’s Law.
Some scholars advanced the theory that there is a difference between taking usury from a destitute poor man and taking ‘interest’ from a rich man. They further theorized that if a rich man used a loan to fund a commercial enterprise, then the lender was entitled to a share of the profits. These pragmatic distinctions of poor/rich or business/charitable were devised solely for the purpose of diverting the discussion from the legal ethics of taking usury to the philosophic issues of class distinctions, equity and rights.
This philosophic approach to classifying borrowers did not clarify the ethics of usury. What does it mean to be rich or poor? Can anyone precisely identify these classes of people so lenders will know with certainty when usury is permitted or when it is forbidden? None of those who advocate such views have provided accurate definitions of “rich” or “poor” borrowers. Is a car loan that enables a poor man to get to work a loan to the poor, or is it a commercial loan? Is lending to an American who has a big screen TV, iPhone, air conditioning and an automobile, but who by government standards remains below the poverty line, a loan to the poor or to the rich? Is a loan made to a needy businessman a commercial loan, or is it a loan to the poor? If usury is justified as a ‘share of profits,’ how could an interest rate be ascertained without accurate foreknowledge of the eventual profits? No usurer can possibly know in advance how much profit will result from a business that is to be financed by his loan. What if there are no profits and the commercial borrower suffers a loss instead? To be consistent it follows that if interest is justified as a share of the profits, then a usurer should also share in any losses. But because of the covetousness that rules in the hearts and minds of usurers, the justification for taking usury is only a one-way street.
God commands all people to judge the poor and the rich by the same standard. Although circumstances may change, a sin against one person is also a sin against others. Since economic or social circumstances do not erase sins or alter justice, the same standards for transgressions apply to all people regardless of their economic condition. The rich/poor and the commercial/personal distinctions that are advanced by self-justifying usurers can only advance injustice. You shall not show partiality in judgment; you shall hear the small as well as the great; you shall not be afraid in any man’s presence, for the judgment is God’s. The case that is too hard for you, bring to me, and I will hear it. (Deuteronomy 1:17)
Another modern tactic to confuse the subject was to introduce a new term as a basis to distinguish between unlawful usury vs. lawful ‘interest.’ Use of the word interest caught on quickly because it was fresh and it sounded better than plain old usury. It seemed more technically specific, so it supported a new concept of selling the practice of usury to nervous Christians who valued their souls more than worldly goods. The new dogma of ‘interest’ gave civil governments a pretext to distinguish usury vs. interest by limiting the rate of interest. If a maximum interest rate is set by ‘law,’ then any interest rate lower than the ‘legal’ limit may be legally charged to anyone, regardless of the use of the loan in question or economic status of the borrower. Thus, only rates beyond the legal limit were said to be usurious and unlawful. However, the arbitrary legalization of some rate of usury is nothing more than a vain exercise in false lawmaking. God’s Law is not confounded thereby.
Every attempt to justify “interest” or “legitimate usury” defies analysis and vanishes before the light of even the most cursory examination. All pro-usury arguments prove to be so arbitrary that eventually any usurious loan can be justified by the manipulation of the ‘allowable’ categories. This is not rocket science. It is plainly seen that usurers do not seek truth or justice. They seek only usury, not answers about how best to pursue righteousness or how to love their neighbor. This is why usurers quickly abandon any such argument of equity as soon as it is apparent that a borrower has become unprofitable. Then, the proud usurer can always be heard demanding loudly, “I’ll have my bond!”
Overall economic activity within a nation is affected to the degree that usury is practiced. The mathematics of usury forecloses a long-term stable and expanding economy because usury becomes one of the costs included within the stream of commerce. Because profitable businesses are positioned to pass along these costs with the goods they supply, consumers always pay all the costs of usury.
When usury is allowed, the cost-burden trickles down throughout the economy. The production/consumption ratio of poor consumers is unfavorable, so as a percentage of their total purchases the poor disproportionately pay the added cost of usury. But the trickle becomes a massive flood as the mathematics of usury expands. The Devil knows his business. The unnamed poor are trodden underfoot by anonymous usurers who have tapped the stream of goods and services.
Usury bites as much flesh as it is able, its character is without a conscience and its appetite is insatiable. This is no mere exaggeration or hyperbolae; the biblical Hebrew word translated into English as usury or interest is neshek, which literally means the bite of a serpent. Compound interest means this bite over time will spread its poison to become exponentially more damaging to the commonwealth and to individual souls.
Compound interest demands an ever-increasing supply of currency with which to repay loans. Therefore, a fixed and stable money supply cannot long support the practice of usury. In a vain attempt to meet usury’s demands, modern economists advise ‘expanding the money supply,’ which effect is known as inflation. But no amount of monetary inflation can effectively satisfy the growing demand for currency that accompanies widespread usury – especially when all new currency is loaned into circulation by a central bank as it is today. It is mathematically impossible to inflate currency to keep up with the demands of compounded interest. This scheme is simply unsustainable.
Compounding debt strips its victims of their wealth and adds material wealth to usurers through direct payments and foreclosures. Thus, usurers have ever more money to lend. Given enough time, the demands of usury will eventually outstrip any possible supply of money along with the value of all goods and assets. Usurers will get richer and those who labor will become poorer. Increasing the velocity of currency in commerce or the temporary economic development that moneylenders claim to foster cannot reverse this trend. Usury will eventually debase everything. Such practices corrupt social and commercial intercourse, monetary weights and measures, goodwill, peace, and love. All that is efficient, artful and beautiful is in jeopardy when usurers dictate economic policy and get their teeth into the masses.
The evil of usury could not be broadly practiced today if it were not for the implicit or explicit approval of those who claim to be priests and ministers of Christ our Lord. By their complicity international usury has grown to become a scourge upon every nation. They shall have their day of reckoning when the Lord of Righteousness comes knocking on the door of unrepentant usurers. Their fine vestments, liturgical traditions, or even the practice of holy sacraments cannot shield them from God’s wrath when it is kindled but a little. God will judge all those who support oppression. Warnings from James and Paul come down to us through the ages:
My brethren, let not many of you become teachers, knowing that we shall receive a stricter judgment. (James 3:1)
But those who desire to be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and harmful lusts which drown men in destruction and perdition.For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil, for which some have strayed from the faith in their greediness, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows. (1 Timothy 6:9-10)
Here are some practical steps to roll back the evil of usury. First, usurious contracts must not be enforced against anyone who is not a declared enemy. Government authorities must not enforce any unlawful, immoral usurious contract against citizens because to do so would turn law and justice upside down. Adding more and more regulations, taxes, inflation and police power to the mix cannot save a practice that is unsustainable and sinful by its very nature. All false laws that provide for usury must be abandoned.
Second, we must accept that according to God’s Law usury is sin, but debt is not. Debt may be unwise in many cases, but it is not a priori a sin to enter into debt. However once a person enters into voluntary debt, it is a sinful form of theft to shirk repayment. It should be obvious that loaned principal must be repaid to a lender. Given the unlawfulness of usury, no borrower owes usury, but this fact does not relieve the borrower from the obligation to repay the principal amount borrowed.
Third, since usury is a form of theft and is therefore immoral, justice demands that if borrowers have paid any usury or interest, this portion of their payments should be credited toward the principal amount still owed. Any usury paid in excess of the principal amount must be refunded.
Fourth, individuals who own usurious lending institutions, including stockholders, must be held personally liable for usury and fraud committed on their watch. If a lending business does not have the means to compensate victims, then justice requires that shareholders must proportionately compensate victims of usury as a percentage of ownership in the unrighteous corporation. Justice recognizes no limited liability from such damages and government cannot pass ‘laws’ to further any practice that is immoral. What will it profit a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul?
Saving faith requires the sinner to turn away from sin and it requires restitution for wrongs suffered. Without this kind of repentance one should not expect salvation. Usurers might falsely imagine they can commit frauds upon the innocent and extort usury with impunity, keep the booty and still inherit eternal life. They are wrong. If usurers remain unrepentant, church attendance and the practice of sacraments cannot save them. Usurers not only oppress real people, but they also offend the Lord by despising His Commandments. Thus, without repentance no sinner can escape God’s judgment. Since Jesus was judged in the place of His people, it is immeasurably better to trust in His forgiveness and identify with the Savior now, than it is to stand alone before God and be judged for one’s own sins on Judgment Day.
NOTE: The book "New and Ancient Justice" can be downloaded at this website:
CA Canadian Domain Name Registration and Web Site Hosting