BONO OF U2 "CHRISTIAN" GROUP PRAISES CATHOLIC IRELAND'S VOTE FOR GAY MARRIAGE~PUSHING EUGENICS BY REDEFINING MARRIAGE~THINKING OF MOVING OR STORING GOLD THERE?~THINK AGAIN

FALLOUT FROM POPE FRANCIS: 

"WHO AM I TO JUDGE?"

THIS, EVEN IN HYPER CATHOLIC IRELAND?

DON'T STORE YOUR PRECIOUS METALS HERE

U2-HATERS OF CHRISTIAN FUNDAMENTALISTS

1 John 4:5-"They are from the world; therefore they speak as from the world, and the world listens to them."

John 15:18-19-"If the world hates you, you know that it has hated Me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, because of this the world hates you."

IRISH VOTERS APPROVE GAY “MARRIAGE” 

(Friday Church News Notes, May 29, 2015,www.wayoflife.orgfbns@wayoflife.org, 866-295-4143) - 

In a major sign of the times, by a margin of 60%, voters in the Republic of Ireland (not to be confused with Northern Ireland, which is part of the United Kingdom) backed a measure to amend its constitution to allow gay “marriage.” Ireland is a Roman Catholic country. Leo Varadkar, a Cabinet minister, said, “We’re the first country in the world to enshrine marriage equality in our constitution and do so by popular mandate. That makes us a beacon, a light to the rest of the world, of liberty and equality. So it’s a very proud day to be Irish” (“Ireland Has Voted,” CNSNews.com, May 23, 2015). Mr. Varadkar doesn’t believe the Bible. The move to legalize gay “marriage” is not light, but darkness. Marriage was created by a holy God as the first human institution, and it cannot be shaped by human whim like a nose of wax. The God who created marriage is not dead, and every man will give account to Him. The supporters of gay “marriage” frame the issue in terms of human rights and equality, but the issue is actually about the nature of marriage. This proud generation thinks it is wise enough to change 6,000 years of human tradition based on God’s Word, but the result will be confusion and the destruction of all standards of morality.“Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!” (Isaiah 5:20).

____________________________________________________

AGENDA 21 ENABLERS

BONO: PAL OF GLOBALISTS & ENVIRONMENTALISTS

VERY CLOSE FRIENDS OF 

LIBERAL RICH, POWERFUL, 

AND "CHRISTIAN" LEADERS LIKE THE POPE (DEFENDER OF THE POOR) WHO WANT SOCIALIST REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH, CARBON TAXES;

TIES TO EUGENICS PROPONENTS;

NEO-COLONIALIST "SAVING THE EARTH" 

BY KILLING UGANDANS

THE WORLD LOVES ITS OWN:

FRIEND OF THE GATES & THEIR "EUGENIC" VACCINATIONS

EUGENICISTS WITH THE MONEY FRONTING BONO:

FUSION OF ONE WORLD "RELIGION" & GOVERNMENT TO ENSLAVE & MURDER MILLIONS; THE FUNDAMENTALISTS ARE THE FIRST TO DIE:

FRIEND OF SINNERS DOESN'T MAKE HIM JESUS: 

HOMOSEXUAL ELTON JOHN & BONO; NEITHER ARE REPENTANT:

U2 PROMOTES HOMOSEXUAL “MARRIAGE” 

(Friday Church News Notes, May 29, 2015, www.wayoflife.org fbns@wayoflife.org, 866-295-4143) - The rock band U2 posted an Instagram note in support of same-sex “marriage” in Ireland’s recent referendum. The note said, “In the name of love vote yes.” The phrase is a reference to their song “Pride (in the Name of Love)” which is supposed to be about the life and death of Jesus Christ. Three members of the band (Bono, The Edge, and Larry Mullen, Jr.) profess to be Christians and have a great influence in evangelicalism, the emerging church, and the contemporary worship movement. Phil Johnson calls Bono “the chief theologian of the Emerging Church Movement” (Absolutely Not! Exposing the Post-modern Errors of the Emerging Church, p. 9). Eugene Peterson, author of The Message, says that Bono is a prophet like John the Baptist (foreword to Get Up Off Your Knees: Preaching the U2 Catalog). Brian McLaren and Tony Campolo say that Bono is moving the world toward the kingdom of God (Adventures in Missing the Point, 2003, pp. 50, 51). Bill Hybels interviewed Bono at Willowcreek Community Church’s Leadership Summit in 2006, and Rick Warren invited Bono to Saddleback Church to help launch his P.E.A.C.E. program. But when judged biblically, U2 is destitute of spiritual truth, and the fact that the band is wildly popular with contemporary Christians is a fulfillment of the apostasy described in 2 Timothy 4:3-4. Joseph Schimmel observes that “Bono has led people into a version of Christianity that is slippery, undefinable, and liberal (The Submerging Church, DVD, 2012). The members of U2 rarely attend church, and “Sundays find them in a pub rather than in a pew” (U2: The Rolling Stone Files, p. 14). In a wide-ranging interview with music reporter Michka Assayas, Bono never gives a scriptural testimony of having been born again (Bono on Bono). Bono says that he believes Jesus is the Messiah and that He died on the cross for his sins and that “he is holding out for grace,” but Bono’s “grace” is a grace that does not result in radical conversion and a new way of life. It is a grace without repentance, a grace that does not produce holiness. Nowhere does he warn his myriads of listeners to turn to Christ before it is too late and before they pass from this life into eternal hell. In fact, the only thing he says about heaven or hell is that both are on earth (Bono on Bono, p. 254). The members of U2 do not believe Christianity should have rules and regulations. “I’m really interested in and influenced by the spiritual side of Christianity, rather than the legislative side, the rules and regulations” (The Edge,U2: The Rolling Stone Files, p. 21). Yet there are more than 80 specific commandments in the book of Ephesians alone, the same book that says we are saved by grace without works. Though salvation is by grace, it always produces a zeal for holiness and obedience to God’s commands, for we are “saved unto good works” (Ephesians 2:8-10). According to Titus 2, the grace of God teaches the believer to deny ungodliness and worldly lusts and to live soberly, righteously, and godly in this present world. Bono says that the older he gets the more comfort he finds in Roman Catholicism (Bono on Bono, p. 201). Though he speaks positively of Romanism, Bono has nothing good to say about “fundamentalism,” falsely claiming that it is a denial that God is love (Bono on Bono, p. 167) and calling it vile names (p. 147). Bono defines love by the rock & roll dictionary rather than by the Bible, which says, “For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous” (1 John 5:3).

____________________________________________________

The Emerging Church and the Bono-Screwtape Connection (Official DVD Trailer)

Published on Sep 5, 2014

Many Emergents view Bono, frontman of the popular rock band U2, as their "prophet" and main icon in the Emergent Church movement. Bono has stated that his stage persona's during U2's Zoo TV tour were inspired by C.S. Lewis' "Screwtape Letters," but in what way and for what purpose? Is this how the bible teaches us to conduct ourselves as Christians? How is Bono continuing to influence the church today? Learn why truth is sometimes stranger than fiction as we reveal the shocking truth behind what inspires this Emergent rocker.

To learn more about our ministry, please visit:
http://www.goodfight.org

Bono's Hidden Eugenics Agenda

Published on May 30, 2012

The scale of fraud perpetrated by U2′s Bono and the globalist cabal he fronts for is staggering. The likes of Bono, Queen Elizabeth, Al Gore and other top globalist fronts revel in guilting the public all while advancing their semi-covert eugenics and global control operation.

Bono's Secret: Frontman for Genocide

Published on May 28, 2012

The scale of fraud perpetrated by U2's Bono and the globalist cabal he fronts for is staggering.
THE BONO ONE FOUNDATION:

SEE: http://www.one.org/us/person/bono/
Bono's ONE foundation under fire for giving little over 1% of funds to charity
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/artic...
Costly Red Campaign Reaps Meager $18 Million
http://adage.com/article/news/costly-...
Bono, Facebook and the Challenge of Following the Jesus of the Poor
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kristi-...
FACEBOOK BILLIONAIRE: Bono's investment firm rocks Facebook IPO to the tune of $1.5 billion
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/music...
20 Steps Ahead, 3 Steps Back: U2's Bono could lose $342 million after Facebook shares plummet
http://www.nme.com/news/u2/63985
Elevation's Investment Partners
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silver_L...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blacksto...
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jam...
http://www.nationalreview.com/planet-...
Queen to make William Knight of the Thistle to mark his 30th birthday
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/art...
http://www.elevation.com/EP_IT_FLASH.asp

Bono's One Foundation Keeps 98% of Charity Funds

NEW HAMPSHIRE PROPOSES GOLD & SILVER CURRENCY BILLS~WILL STATES NULLIFY THE FED'S MONEY MONOPOLY?

EDWIN VIEIRA: 

CONSTITUTIONAL ATTORNEY & SCHOLAR

Gold and Silver Currency Bills: 

Will States Nullify the Fed's Money Monopoly?

BY Joe Wolverton, II, J.D.

SEE: http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/20946-gold-and-silver-currency-bills-will-states-nullify-the-fed-s-money-monopoly; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

The New Hampshire state legislature will soon consider a bill making gold and silver legal currency in that state.

The bill was drafted by constitutional scholar and contributor to The New American Edwin Vieira, Jr. Vieira’s measure would reduce New Hampshire’s dependence on the Federal Reserve, ultimately leading to its complete independence from the unconstitutional central bank and its fiat Federal Reserve notes that masquerade as money.

Sponsors of the bill describe the process that will restore sound money to the Granite State:

The idea is to use the state as the “pump” to prime a transition and make the transition work in a systematic, relatively slow fashion, so the market can equilibrate to this new alternative currency. We don’t want to change the system over night — that would create chaos. We want to bring in a relatively small amount of the state’s revenue in gold as a tax.

New Hampshire has a tobacco tax. The tobacco tax reserve is about 7% to 9% of the state’s total revenue. This is a good amount because it’s not to much so that you scare people, but enough so that you get a sufficient amount of revenue to start integrating gold and silver into the system.

The New Hampshire Alternative Currency Statute states that the people who are taxed, the tobacco distributors, are going to be required to pay their taxes in gold. 

New Hampshire’s earlier effort to establish gold as the state’s sole currency met with opposition from the state treasurer, who issued a Fiscal Impact Statement wherein he laid out the obstacles he sees in the bill’s path to enactment.

The treasurer reported three objections: First, the bill did not provide for the safe storage of the gold; second, the cost of bonding state employees would be prohibitive; and, finally, the overall cost of implementing the system would be exorbitant.

Supporters say they have answers for all these previously filed fiscal concerns, specifically:

The New Hampshire Bill was modernized to used electronic gold currency. Electronic gold currency is exactly that — in a vault some place, your gold is there. And simply by “electronic check” you can transfer your gold to somebody else. There is a provision in the bill that that requires the electronic gold currency provider to allow the account holder to “cash out” in actual gold coins if they choose, so there we have the Constitutional problem solved. In this electronic gold currency system, you can go down to as low as 1/10,000 of a gram of gold, so it allows users to make very small change. This solves a common problem with coinage, that people could not make change. This is why we had pennies (i.e. token coinage). This is also why the Spanish Milled Dollar was cut into eight pieces. Electronic gold currency solves that whole problem. The treasury in New Hampshire was fine with the electronic gold currency system as it was just another computer account entry.

A website maintained by promoters of the proposal offers graphical representations of the entire process of moving from “money” to money.

The bill also provides a method of circulating the gold, obviating the need for a miniature Ft. Knox in every town and county in New Hampshire.

Over the past several years, at least eight states have considered or enacted some version of a sound currency bill. Others are debating proposals aimed at abolishing or auditing the Federal Reserve. 

By placing the lion’s share of the blame squarely at the feet of the federal government, particularly its unrepentant, unchecked, and (most importantly) unconstitutional manipulation of the monetary system of the United States through the creation and perpetuation of the Federal Reserve system, Vieira’s bill reasserts the sovereignty of the state of New Hampshire and re-enshrines the 10th Amendment to the Constitution wherein the Founding Fathers intended to erect an impregnable barricade around the self-determination of the sovereign states.

In 2011, then-Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Ben Bernanke, weighed in the issue of restoring gold and silver as legal currency.

"You need to be attentive to where the economy is and not move too quickly to reverse the policies that are helping the recovery," Bernanke said, apparently without being purposefully facetious.

The only hope of a recovery lies where hope for liberty has always lain: with the people and the states.

If any state authorizes gold and silver as an alternative to Federal Reserve notes, economists say that the economy of such a state would stabilize and increase. A happy side effect of such a system would be the weakening of the Federal Reserve notes and a strengthening of the appeal of gold and silver.

This genuine recovery (as opposed to the “boom and bust” pseudo-recovery espoused by Bernanke) would obliterate the fiat money monopoly exercised by the Federal Reserve. The history of that monstrosity was described most ably in G. Edward Griffin’s The Creature From Jekyll Island. Griffin writes:

The American Heritage Dictionary defines fiat money as "paper money decreed legal tender, not backed by gold or silver." The two characteristics of fiat money, therefore, are (1) it does not represent anything of intrinsic value and (2) it is decreed legal tender. Legal tender simply means that there is a law requiring everyone to accept the currency in commerce. The two always go together because, since the money really is worthless, it soon would be rejected by the public in favor of a more reliable medium of exchange, such as gold or silver coin."

And that is the key to restoring fiscal soundness to the once-enviable economy of the United States.

In 2008, Representative Ron Paul of Texas echoed Griffin’s predictions:

Gresham's Law states that bad money drives out good money. Meaning, if someone is forced to accept your bad money, it is to your advantage to pass it off, like a hot potato, in exchange for something of value. Any good money you have, you will hoard. Eventually, real money is driven out of circulation and under people's mattresses, so to speak. In the absence of legal tender laws, people are free to accept the medium of exchange of their choice, and are likely to insist on payment in something of real value.

Of course, despite the obvious benefits of a return to sound money, the federal government will not sit idly by and watch its monopoly be rendered irrelevant by state governments. In a host of issues, the plutocrats on the Potomac have demonstrated that they will go to any length to maintain their monolithic economic status.

There is some precedence, though, for support of sound money from one branch of the federal government.

A brief recitation of the facts of the case of Lane County v. Oregon (1868) is provided on the bill’s sponsor’s website:

At the end of the 19th century in Oregon, the state was collecting its taxes in gold, requiring payments of taxes in gold. There was a taxpayer who claimed they could pay in Greenbacks, because Greenbacks were “legal tender for all debts.” The Supreme Court gave two reasons why the taxpayer was wrong:

1) A tax is not a debt, a tax is an involuntary contribution to the government.

2) But even if that weren’t true, a State is a quasi-sovereign entity. It does not have all the sovereign powers it had at the War of Independence, because some powers have been limited by the Constitution. But it retains sovereign powers in the areas of taxation, borrowing, spending, eminent domain and judgements in the courts.

Regardless of past decisions and sound reasoning, the federal government will not back down and Americans should not rely on the federal courts to sustain state sovereignty, principally as they have shown that they will not commit political suicide by weakening the power of those that give them power.

The key to restoring sound money in the manner prescribed by the Constitution is to call on Congress to abolish the Federal Reserve and to elect state lawmakers committed to nullifying the Fed's fiat money monopoly by enacting gold and silver currency bills like the one being brought in New Hampshire. 

_____________________________________________________________

SEE: http://goldmoneybill.org/

SEE: http://edwinvieira.com/

The alternative currency movement in the states:

Uploaded on Jun 10, 2011

Watch the whole 44-minute video at http://www.goldmoney.com/vieira-inter.... Edwin Vieira, consitutional scholar and author of 'Pieces of Eight' and James Turk talk about sound money bills in New Hampshire, Utah, South Carolina, Indiana, Colorado, Montana and many other states. They comment on Utah's approval of their sound money bill and how their example will spread to many other states. Edwin expects at least a dozen states to approve alternative currencies, putting pressure on Federal tax authorities to prevent the IRS from taxing gold currency transactions.

WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION RULING BLASTS U.S. SOVEREIGNTY; TPP THREATENS MORE OF SAME

WTO Ruling Blasts U.S. Sovereignty; 

TPP Threatens More of Same

BY WILLIAM F. JASPER
SEE: http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/20954-wto-ruling-blasts-u-s-sovereignty-tpp-threatens-more-of-same;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

As the World Trade Organization delivers another blow against U.S. sovereignty, President Obama’s Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is poised to add more international judicial attacks against American liberty and independence.

The May 18 ruling by a WTO appellate tribunal declaring a U.S. federal law illegal should have caused giant shock waves across America and should have sunk any hopes of congressional passage of the TPP, which, twinned with the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), forms the centerpiece of the ObamaTrade globalist agenda.

Both the TPP and the TTIP would create international courts that could (and would) override American federal, state, and local laws, as well as federal and state court decisions, and even federal and state constitutions, as The New American has reported previously (see here and here).

The May 18 WTO ruling was the fourth time in three years the organization has struck down the United States’ country of origin labeling (COOL) law, ruling that it violates international trade laws.

In an article in March, we provided this summary of the WTO-COOL battle:

A few short months ago, on October 20, 2014, the World Trade Organization ruled that the U.S. Country Of Origin Labeling (COOL) law is illegal, even though a U.S. federal court had upheld the law. COOL, which requires imported foreign meat to carry a label naming the country of origin, was challenged as discriminatory by meat exporters from our NAFTA partners Mexico and Canada. It should be noted that the COOL law does not prohibit or restrict any product; it merely says American consumers have a right to know where foreign meat is coming from so they can make an informed decision on whether or not to buy it. To most Americans that probably sounds not only reasonable, but also an issue that we have a right to decide for ourselves, without international interference. That was also the opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The U.S. court ruled against Canada and Mexico and concluded that COOL complies with the U.S. Constitution and that Congress had authority to enact the law.

But WTO considers itself above the U.S. Constitution, above U.S. laws, and above U.S. courts. Not surprisingly, the WTO ruled against COOL and the right of Americans to know if the food they’re eating was produced in a foreign country.

“More cases are pending before NAFTA and WTO courts,” we noted. “And if the TPP is passed, we will, most assuredly, be afflicted with new TPP tribunals that will offer even more potential for subversive attacks on every aspect of our political and economic systems.”

Will Congress Surrender on COOL?

So, how has the U.S. Congress responded to the WTO ruling? Did our senators and representatives tell the international bureaucrats to go take a flying leap? No, the main response, thus far, has been to whimper and knuckle under. On May 19, the day after the WTO ruling, House Agriculture Committee Chair K. Michael Conaway (R-Texas), introduced H.R.2393, “To amend the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 to repeal country of origin labeling requirements with respect to beef, pork, and chicken, and for other purposes.”

“In light of the WTO’s decision and the certainty that we face significant retaliation by Canada and Mexico, we cannot afford to delay action,” Conaway said. “This bill is a targeted response that will remove uncertainty, provide stability, and bring us back into compliance. I appreciate the support of so many colleagues on both sides of the aisle as we work quickly to ensure our economy and a broad spectrum of U.S. Industries do not suffer the economic impacts of retaliation.”

Representative David Scott (D-Ga.), urged passage of the bill, claiming that a vote for H.R. 2393 would show strong support for American agricultural interests. “Retaliation is real,” said Scott. “We’re talking billions and billions of dollars.” The measure does indeed have the full support of corporate ag interests. The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, National Pork Producers Council, the American Meat Institute, the North American Meat Association, and the National Grocers Association — all dominated by mega-corporations — have praised the WTO ruling and support repeal of COOL. However, organizations more representative of family farms and ranches and consumers — U.S. Cattlemen’s Association, American Farm Bureau Federation, National Farmers Union, the Consumer Federation of America, and Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund United Stockgrowers of America (R-CALF USA) — support retaining COOL.

Speaking against repeal of COOL, Representative Collin Peterson (D-Minn.) pointed out the European Union has labeling rules that require indication of the country of birth, fattening, and slaughter. Imported beef can be labeled as “non-EU.” He asked the committee to slow down and investigate all options before rushing to repeal the law. “I just don’t think that repealing it two days after the ruling is going to get us the resolution all of us want,” Peterson stated.

Nevertheless, H.R. 2393 passed the committee May 20 by a vote of 38-6, and the bill is expected to be taken up by the House of Representatives in June.

Sovereignty, Liberty at Stake

R-CALF USA CEO Bill Bullard expressed the sentiments of many farmers and ranchers in a critical statement issued by the organization on May 18. “It is amazing that the WTO is accusing COOL of impeding live cattle imports when such imports from Canada and Mexico under the COOL rule hit a 7-year high in 2014 and when imported Canadian and Mexican cattle are commanding historically high prices,” said Bullard.

“It is equally amazing that after our U.S. court system has ruled that our U.S. COOL law is constitutional, the leadership of the U.S. House Agriculture Committee appears willing to surrender our COOL law to this international tribunal without even completing the WTO dispute process,” Bullard added.

The R-CALF executive said that because Congress decided to cede U.S. sovereignty by subjecting our domestic laws and regulations to an international tribunal, it should at least follow the WTO process all the way to the end. He said there is still an arbitration process where Canada and Mexico actually have to prove they have suffered financial harm before the WTO will authorize those countries to impose retaliatory tariffs.

“Surrendering our COOL law at this early juncture would be an unprecedented concession by Congress that it reveres preliminary actions by the WTO more than it reveres our nation’s Constitution,” Bullard said. He noted the WTO COOL ruling should dispel the myths that neither the Fast Track bill being considered by Congress nor the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) soon to be considered by Congress will undermine U.S. laws.

“This COOL ruling demonstrates that the consequence of ceding constitutional authority to the WTO through fast track and free trade agreements is that our domestic laws are undermined,” Bullard commented.   

He said another unintended consequence of capitulating to the WTO’s effort to weaken COOL is that when or if the ongoing efforts to begin importing live cattle from Australia, Brazil, and Argentina are successful, then the resulting beef from those much cheaper sources of livestock will sit indistinguishable from U.S. beef in our nation’s grocery stores. “This could cause the demise of the independent, commercial U.S. cattle producer, just as it has already devastated the independent, U.S. commercial sheep producer,” Bullard said.

“We are urging Congress to take no action as a result of this ruling and are encouraging the U.S. Trade Representative to continue defending the sovereign interests of the United States in the next step of the dispute process in which the U.S. can dispute Canada’s and Mexico’s claims of financial harm,” Bullard concluded.

The following day, May 19, the R-CALF exec took aim at the House Agriculture Committee Chairman. “Conaway is misleading Congress and the American people,” said Bullard, adding , “Conaway’s bill is nothing more than a Siren call by the one percent:  He is trying to coerce the public into supporting something that will ultimately cause them harm.”

Bullard made note of the fact that Conaway’s bill calls for the removal of chicken from COOL requirements even though the WTO ruling had nothing to do with the labeling of chicken meat. “This is proof that Conaway’s bill is not a ‘targeted response’ to the WTO; but rather, Conaway is exploiting the WTO ruling to support the multinational meatpackers’ decade-long effort to hide the origins of food from consumers,” Bullard said.

The Senate’s Republican leadership joined with the Obama White House to push the “Fast Track” Trade Promotion Authority through the Senate on Friday, May 22, just before the Memorial Day weekend. The Fast Track/TPA bill will now go to the House. If it passes there, the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) bill will soon follow, loaded with more judicial bombs aimed at blasting U.S. sovereignty to smithereens.

Related articles:

Senate Passage of "Fast-Track" Could Slide U.S. Further Downhill  

Leak of Secret Trade Document Reveals Sovereignty-Destroying Courts 

GOP-run Senate Rescues ObamaTrade, Puts TPA Back on Fast Track

“Living,” “Evolving” Dangers Are Hidden in ObamaTrade (TPP & TTIP) 

Senate Reversal Puts "Fast Track" Back on the Rails

Trading Away Their Oaths

Will GOP Use Kerry’s “We Didn’t Know” NAFTA Defense on TPP? 

YOUR DIGITAL GOVERNMENT BANK ACCOUNTS: SECRET MEETING IN LONDON TO “END CASH”~BANKS & COUNTRIES CONSPIRING

SECRET MEETING IN LONDON TO “END CASH”

Central banks aim to institute "governmental approval" for all purchases and sales

BY PAUL JOSEPH WATSON
SEE: http://www.infowars.com/secret-meeting-in-london-to-end-cash/

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

Economist Martin Armstrong claims there is a “secret meeting to end cash” set to take place in London before the end of the month involving representatives from the ECB and the Federal Reserve.

Armstrong, who is known for successfully predicting the 1987 Black Monday crash as well as the 1998 Russian financial collapse, expressed his shock that no news outlet has reported on this upcoming conference.


“I find it extremely perplexing that I have been the only one to report of the secret meeting in London. Kenneth Rogoff of Harvard University, and Willem Buiter, the Chief Economist at Citigroup, will address the central banks to advocate the elimination of all cash to bring to fruition the day when you cannot buy or sell anything without government approval,” writes Armstrong.

“When I googled the issue to see who else has picked it up, to my surprise, Armstrong Economics comes up first. Others are quoting me, and I even find it spreading as far as the Central Bank of Nigeria, but I have yet to find any reports on the meeting taking place in London, when my sources are direct.”


Armstrong first brought attention to the alleged meeting earlier this month when he revealed that representatives from the Federal Reserve, the ECB as well as participants from the Swiss and Danish central banks would all be attending a “major conference in London” at which Kenneth Rogoff of Harvard University, and Willem Buiter, the Chief Economist at Citigroup, would give presentations.

“We better keep one eye open at night for this birth of a cashless society that is coming in much faster than expected. Why the secret meeting? Something does not smell right here,” concludes Armstrong.

Discussions and moves towards banning cash have repeatedly cropped up in recent weeks.

Willem Buiter, who Armstrong claims is speaking at the secret meeting, recently advocatedabolishing cash altogether in order to “solve the world’s central banks’ problem with negative interest rates.”

Last year, Kenneth Rogoff also called for “abolishing physical currency” in order to stop “tax evasion and illegal activity” as well as preventing people from withdrawing money when interest rates are close to zero.



Striking a similar tone, former Bank of England economist Jim Leaviss penned an article for the London Telegraph earlier this month in which he said a cashless society would only be achieved by “forcing everyone to spend only by electronic means from an account held at a government-run bank,” which would be, “monitored, or even directly controlled by the government.”

Big banks in both the United Kingdom and the U.S. are already treating the withdrawal or depositing of moderately large amounts of cash as a suspicious activity. Reports emerged in March of how the Justice Department is ordering bank employees to consider calling the cops on customers who withdraw $5,000 dollars or more.

Meanwhile in France, new measures are set to come into force in September which will restrict French citizens from making cash payments over €1,000 euros. Armstrong suggests that “financial police” could enforce this new law by, “searching people on trains just passing through France to see if they are transporting cash, which they will now seize.”

As Armstrong notes, banning cash in order to eviscerate what little economic freedoms people have left to avoid disastrous Keynesian central bank policy is nothing short of economic totalitarianism.

“In the mind of an economic tyrant, banning cash represents the holy grail,” writes Michael Krieger. “Forcing the plebs onto a system of digital fiat currency transactions offers total control via a seamless tracking of all transactions in the economy, and the ability to block payments if an uppity citizen dares get out of line.”