moo-4

READERS’ FORUM

Comments under 300 words, please. We cannot engage in correspondence but do appreciate your contribution. We do not publish insults or attacks against other readers. Points should stand on their own merits. You are welcome to express your religious views but not to criticize the views of others. Our mission is to unify our readers, not divide them. Send comments here.

_____________________________

WHY BANKS CHARGE NEGATIVE INTEREST
Posted 2016 May 26 from Chris Read
Dear GEG,
There’s so much talk in the media these days about “negative interest rates.” You’d think the banks were losing money or something! If I read your book Creature from Jekyll Island correctly, then it’s obvious that the banks are still making a fair bit of money even at negative rates. I think it would be very interesting to your readers if you did an example of how, with fractional reserve banking, banks could still make money even at “negative X%” or whatever the number is.

REPLY FROM GEG:
Hello Chris. Negative interest rates is merely banker talk for bank fees charged to depositors based on a percentage of their deposits. It has little to do with fractional reserves. By using the term “negative interest rates”, it diverts attention away from the reality that banks are socking it to their depositors by simply taking money out of deposit-account balances to make up for bank losses when they occur. The extra twist in this is that governments and their partner central banks are going to great lengths to make the process entirely legal so depositors cannot sue them when the theft occurs.

When people finally wake up to the reality of this legalized theft, those with large deposits will want to remove their money from banks. That is why the banks and their partners in government are working hard now to eliminate cash. That will force everyone to leave their money in banks where it can readily be taken in the form of negative interest rates.

_____________________________

SHARIA LAW
Posted 2016 May 25 from Sharron Albaugh
When people immigrate to any country they are expected to assimilate, that means living by that country’s laws and customs. Sharia is meant for a different country and if you want this to be your law go to a country where it is practiced. We like our laws the way they are. Don’t try and change our country. That would be totally unfair.

_____________________________

SHARIA LAW WILL NEVER BE VOLUNTARY
Posted 2016 May 25 from Don Chinnici
The simple difference is how I live my life, vs. how others want me to live my life. Sharia is not about some peaceful “zen”, it’s about control. You can bet your bottom dollar that nothing about Sharia will ever be voluntary.

The real issue is, ultimately, which one supersedes? National or Sharia law? And in these courts, again, you can bet that they consider national law to be an inconvenient non-entity — and, when they get enough of a majority, those who now follow national law will be compelled to follow Sharia dictates.

_____________________________

SHARIA LAW IS BARBARIC
Posted 2016 May 25 from Graeme Howarth
Hello Mr. Griffin.
This is in response to your request for opinions over the Shariah Courts in the UK.

Firstly, I trained as a cross-cultural missionary and have a Bachelors & Masters degree focussing on Islam. I have a recently set-up blog here:~ www.IslamAndKiwis.com.

The reality is that it is the women who will be most disadvantaged by Sharia courts. Suppose a woman wants to leave her violent husband? Verses in the Qur’an such as 4.34 state “beat those wives of yours that you fear are disobedient”. The man need only suspect or fear disobedience, not prove it. Even if he could prove disobedience, just exactly what does that word mean? It can mean something that, to we Westerners, is merely the wife acting in a Western way – leaving the house unaccompanied by a male relative, not having sex every time her husband wants it, or not wearing a headscarf.

According to Sharia, if a woman is granted a divorce, any children are to remain under the custody of the father – a father who may well be proven to be violent and abusive. What kind of choice is it for a mother to save herself yet abandon her children to this brute?

A woman’s testimony in court is worth only half that of a man’s. Under Shariah a woman must have four male witnesses to confirm that her claim of rape is correct, otherwise she will be convicted of Zinna – adultery – and imprisoned or lashed. There are cases where western women have been thus punished in Islamic countries. Recently, an Australian woman was drugged and raped by several colleagues in a Gulf State country and, when she finally managed to drag herself to the Police, was charged with adultery, convicted, and imprisoned.

Several women’s rights groups in Pakistan say that between 2/3 and 80% of all women in Pakistan’s prisons are there because they have been raped but did not have the requisite number of male witnesses to prove it. Shariah is a barbaric and utterly repellent legal system, alien to the West and in opposition to its understanding of rights and freedoms. It should be opposed as strongly as possible.

_____________________________

SHARIA LAW VOLUNTARY OR ENFORCED?
Posted 2016 May 25 from Christina Sophia
If Sharia law were to only apply to those who VOLUNTARILY embrace it, then it would NOT be any different [from laws voluntarily followed by other religions that are outside government jusrisdiction]. But, based on FORCED COMPLIANCE, there is no comparison.

Also, in this case we are talking about a separate court system which metes out punishment, and I don’t think that Christian groups (that I know of) have a COURT SYSTEM that intends potentially to compete with the laws of the land. It does not follow that those who voluntarily choose to comply with a religious ‘law’ or rule, and who do not seek to forcefully impose it on others, should be “forbidden” from doing so. The difference between voluntary compliance to a religious rule & forced or threatened compliance thru a separate court system is HUGE.

But then, some Christian groups do have their own means of coercion along psychological lines to get their adherents to do things – brain washing, guilt trippin, and the like. Can or should this be “forbidden” ? Don’t see how it could be done, and it’s generally not a threat to other laws of the land, so then why try to create yet another law to forbid people from making their own choices concerning their religious beliefs?

_____________________________

RELIGIOUS WARS, POPULATION REDUCTION
Posted 2016 May 25 from Robert Green
It seems that there is a major effort to push Sharia Law onto non-Muslims by circumventing the laws of the nation. … Then there is the Illuminati whose intent is to reduce the population of the world to, at this time, a billion people. I’ve read that this has been a goal for 600 years to cut back humanity. Don’t think for a minute that religions are not participating in this. The tools being used, as most of us have seen, are wars, pestilence, abortions, pharmaceuticals, gangs who fight each other, chemicals, and GMO’s to name a few.

I was once told by a good source that there are Neutron bombs planted in many of our major cities. The thought occurs that if they want to create another war; with Russia for example; they can claim Russia has sent nuclear bombs our way; then detonate some of the sites here; killing the masses to include both people and animals without destroying the infrastructure of those cities. Kind of akin to Pearl Harbor that allowed Franklin Delano Roosevelt to declare war on Japan. It was a setup so Roosevelt could get into that war.

If your city fathers disappear one day, they may on their way to underground cities that have been built for just this reason. Think of the millions of people that could be (or would be) annihilated, providing the reduction of populations just here in the USA! Who knows how many others are in the rest of the world! One thing for sure, few would be untouched. and many destroyed.

_____________________________

THORIUM AN ENERGY SOURCE?
Posted 2016 May 25 from James J Asztalos
Dear G. Edward Griffin:
For about a year I have had a fascination with alternatives to nuclear energy coming up with wind, solar for example, Most fascinating is thorium, discovered in the 60″s, has had some applications and I believe needs to be availed to the world. However, it may not have the monetary interest of those in control of taking our money.

For example, Henry Ford produced automobiles that were made from hemp plastic that he hit with a pick axe, and it would not damage. Back at that time the steel industry was in a big growth spurt, and making hemp illegal to grow was a way to put a stop to it. Henry Ford was growing hemp in Dearborn to produce Ethanol, and a stop was put to that also. Dr. Diesel joined him in petitioning the government to keep hemp legal for the hemp oil to run the diesel engines which, otherwise, had to run on petroleum.

Nuclear-powered concept cars from the Atomic Age. Atomic-powered cars have long been a fascination of the auto industry. We look back at the height of the fixation here.

With that being said, are we facing the same sanctions against thorium and other fuels? As you search through the internet you will find cars powered with thorium, and accusations that President Clinton and his partner accepted big money to funnel the uranium from the US to a Canadian company that is partly owned by Putin. That’s what I keep finding. Nuclear waste is good to make weapons with, but thorium cannot be made into weapons. Thorium is one of the rare earth metals.

_____________________________

PROBLEMS WITH NUCLEAR POWER
Posted 2016 May 25 from Jerry Hewes
Ed, nuclear never was a wise choice for power. Even in my ignorant youth (50 years ago) I saw the disposal of waste as an irresolvable problem! Not only do we have leaks, obsolescence, melt downs, terrorists targets, demolition costs, enormous used fuel storage systems requiring constant cooling, earthquakes, or more simply the whole north American continent loaded with enough radioactive elements to destroy mankind, and it is not getting better, but worse. I wonder what in hell goes on in the minds of pronuclear activists? Yes, I know it is the accumulation of money, the goal of all materialists.

_____________________________

WHAT’S YOUR TAKE ON TRUMP?
2016 May 23 from Jerry
G. Edward, while visiting Daytona Beach, FL, last week-end,I bought a t-shirt [showing Trump on a motorcycle in a leather jacket] because I found it amusing and I am a Trump supporter. But now I read that he met with the #1 spokeman of the ‘power elite’ [Henry Kissinger] and he did not try to hide it.

What’s your take on this? Do you think he is giving in to the ‘new world order’ elite? He campaigned against the establishment and now he has met with the top one. Do you think that they got to him already?

REPLY FROM GEG:
Jerry, my take on all this is best expressed in Article Seven of The Creed of Freedom. By the way, this applies to all the presidential candidates, not just Trump. I can’t get excited over trying to choose the least tyrannical dictator of the Republic. Thanks for writing.