Feast of Trumpets / Yom Teruah (2019) Scripture reading and Shofar blowing (how to)

Live Stream - 09/30/2019 - Yom Teruah Service; 10:45am CST

 

The Day of Trumpets and Hebrew Wedding Connection

HOLY DAY BROADCAST | YOM TERUAH 2019

New Moon was spotted in Israel, Yom Teruah starts this evening at Sundown

Per Michael Rood, new moon was spotted in Israel:

HIGH HOLY DAY
STARTS AT SUNSET SUNDAY, SEPTEMBER 29

Yom Teruah starts at the sighting of the first sliver of the renewed moon for the 7th biblical month (which was seen earlier today in Israel). Thus, Yom Teruah and the fall feast season begins at sunset TODAY, September 29 and will end at sunset September 30.

Live Stream - 09/28/2019 - Shabbat Service

Yom Kippurim Update 2019 - "Takin' It To The Streets!"

 

The Law of Christ (2019)

Yom Teruah will be either 9/30 or 10/01 for 2019

For those of you that follow the sighted moon calendar that Judea followed at the time of Yeshua, the moon will be 1.36% illuminated the night of 09/28 in Jerusalem.  With such a low level of illumination, I suspect it will not be seen, which means that Yom Teruah should fall on 10/01/2019.  But since there is a chance it will be seen, we can't call it at this time - that's why this Mo'ed is called the Mo'ed that "no one knows the day or the hour."  We therefore want to be ready which ever day it falls on.

Remember that Yom Kippurim is the 10th day of the Seventh month, followed by Sukkot.  So if Yom Teruah falls on October 1st, then Yom Kippurim will be on October 10th and Sukkot on October 15th.  Yom Kippurim is the day of Atonements, or Judgement Day.  Interestingly, the Federal Reserve will stop its REPO operations on October 10th, so we may well hear some shouting across the entire country on that day!

Some of you may wonder why Jews refer to this Mo'ed as Rosh Hashanah, or the Head of the Year.  They picked this saying up during their Babylonian captivity.  Nehemia Gordon did a great study on this topic years ago, which I have posted before.  Here it is again:

How Yom Teruah Became Rosh Hashanah

Posted on September 22, 2019

On the 1st day of the Seventh Month (Tishrei) the Torah commands us to observe the holy day of Yom Teruah which means “Day of Shouting” (Leviticus 23:23-25; Numbers 29:1-6). Yom Teruah is a day of rest on which work is forbidden.

One of the unique things about Yom Teruah is that the Torah does not say what the purpose of this holy day is. The Torah gives at least one reason for all the other holy days and two reasons for some. The Feast of Matzot (Unleavened Bread) commemorates the Exodus from Egypt, but it is also a celebration of the beginning of the barley harvest (Exodus 23:15; Leviticus 23:4–14). The Feast of Shavuot (Weeks) is a celebration of the wheat harvest (Exodus 23:16; 34:22). Yom Ha-Kippurim is a national day of atonement as described in great detail in Leviticus 16. Finally, the Feast of Sukkot (Booths) commemorates the wandering of the Israelites in the desert and is also a celebration of the ingathering of agricultural produce (Exodus 23:16). In contrast to all these Torah festivals, Yom Teruah has no clear purpose other than that we are commended to rest on this day. 

Nevertheless, the name of Yom Teruah provides a clue as to its purpose. Teruah literally means to make a loud noise. This word can describe the noise made by a trumpet but it also describes the noise made by a large gathering of people shouting in unison (Numbers 10:5–6). For example, 

“And it shall come to pass when the ram’s horn makes a long blast, when you hear the sound of the shofar, the entire nation will shout a great shout, and the wall of the city shall fall in its place, and the people shall go up as one man against it.”

- Joshua 6:5

In this verse the word “shout” appears twice, once as the verb form of Teruah and a second time as the noun form of Teruah. Although this verse mentions the sound of the shofar (ram’s horn), the two instances of Teruah do not refer to the shofar. In fact, in this verse, Teruah refers to the shouting of the Israelites which was followed by the fall of the walls of Jericho.

While the Torah does not explicitly tell us the purpose of Yom Teruah, its name may indicate that it is intended as a day of public prayer. The verb form of Teruah often refers to the noise made by a gathering of the faithful calling out to the Almighty in unison. For example:

• “Clap hands, all nations, shout to God, with a singing voice!” (Psalms 47:2)
• “Shout to God, all the earth!” (Psalms 66:1)
• “Sing to God, our strength, shout to the God of Jacob!” (Psalms 81:2)
• “Shout to Yehovah, all the earth!” (Psalms 100:1)

In Leviticus 23:24, Yom Teruah is also referred to as Zichron Teruah. The word Zichron is sometimes translated as “memorial”, but this Hebrew word also means to “mention”, often in reference to speaking the name of Yehovah. For example, Exodus 3:15; Isaiah 12:4; Isaiah 26:13; Psalms 45:17[Heb. 18]. The day of Zichron Teruah, the “Mentioning Shout”, may refer to a day of gathering in public prayer in which the crowd of the faithful shouts the name of Yehovah in unison. 

Today, few people remember the biblical name of Yom Teruah and instead it is widely known as "Rosh Hashanah" which literally means “head of the year” and hence also “New Years”. The transformation of Yom Teruah (Day of Shouting) into Rosh Hashanah (New Years) is the result of pagan Babylonian influence upon the Jewish nation. The first stage in the transformation was the adoption of the Babylonian month names. In the Torah, the months are numbered as First Month, Second Month, Third Month, etc (Leviticus 23; Numbers 28). During their sojourn in Babylonia our ancestors began to use the pagan Babylonian month names, a fact readily admitted in the Talmud:

“The names of the months came up with them from Babylonia.” (Jerusalem Talmud, Rosh Hashanah 1:2 56d)

The pagan nature of the Babylonian month names is epitomized by the fourth month known as Tammuz. In the Babylonian religion, Tammuz was the god of grain whose annual death and resurrection brought fertility to the world. In the book of Ezekiel, the prophet described a journey to Jerusalem in which he saw the Jewish women sitting in the Temple “weeping over Tammuz” (Ezekiel 8:14). The reason they were weeping over Tammuz is that, according to Babylonian mythology, Tammuz had been slain but had not yet been resurrected. In ancient Babylonia, the time for weeping over Tammuz was the early summer, when the rains cease throughout the Middle East and green vegetation is burnt by the unrelenting sun. To this day the Fourth Month in the rabbinical calendar is known as the month of Tammuz and it is still a time for weeping and mourning. 

Some of the Babylonian month names found their way into the later books of the Tanakh, but they always appear alongside the Torah month names. For example, Esther 3:7 says:

“In the First Month, which is the month of Nissan, in the twelfth year of King Achashverosh.”

This verse starts off by giving the Torah name for the month (“First Month”) and then translates this month into its pagan equivalent (“which is the month of Nissan”). By the time of Esther, all the Jews lived within the boundaries of the Persian Empire and the Persians had adopted the Babylonian calendar for the civil administration of their realm. At first, the Jews used these Babylonian month names alongside the Torah month names, but over time the Torah month names fell into disuse. 

As the Jewish People became more comfortable with the Babylonian month names, they became more susceptible to other Babylonian influences. This is similar to the way that American Jews observe  Hanukkah as a Jewish version of Christmas. This influence began with the seemingly harmless custom of giving gifts on Hanukkah. Until the Jews arrived in America this custom was unknown and it is still a rarity in Israel where Hanukkah does not need to compete with Christmas for the hearts and minds of the Jewish youth. Once Hanukkah took on this relatively trivial aspect of Christmas, it became ripe for more significant influences. Today, many American Jews have established the custom of setting up a “Hanukkah bush” as a Jewish alternative to the Christmas tree. These Jews did not want to adopt Christmas outright so they “Judaized” the Christmas tree and incorporated into Hanukkah. This example shows how easy it is to be influenced by the practices of a foreign religion, especially when there is some similarity to begin with. The fact that Hanukkah often falls out around the same time as Christmas made it natural for American Jews to incorporate elements of Christmas into their observance of Hanukkah. 

Just as the Jews of America have been influenced by Christmas, the ancient Rabbis were influenced by the pagan Babylonian religion. Although many Jews returned to Judea when the Exile officially ended in 516 BCE, the forebears of the Rabbis remained behind in Babylonia where rabbinical Judaism gradually took shape. Many of the earliest known Rabbis such as Hillel I were born and educated in Babylonia. Indeed, Babylonia remained the heartland of Rabbinical Judaism until the fall of the Gaonate in the 11th Century CE. The Babylonian Talmud abounds with the influences of Babylonian paganism. Indeed, pagan deities even appear in the Talmud recycled as "Jewish" angels and demons.¹

One field of Babylonian religious influence was in the observance of Yom Teruah as a New Years celebration. From very early times the Babylonians had a lunar-solar calendar very similar to the biblical calendar. The result was that Yom Teruah often fell out on the same day as the Babylonian New Years festival of “Akitu”. The Babylonian Akitu fell out on the 1st day of Tishrei which coincided with Yom Teruah on the 1st day of the Seventh Month. When Jews started calling the "Seventh Month" by the Babylonian name "Tishrei", it paved the way for turning Yom Teruah into a Jewish Akitu. At the same time, the Rabbis did not want to adopt Akitu outright so they Judaized it by changing the name of Yom Teruah (Day of Shouting) to Rosh Hashanah (New Years). The fact that the Torah did not give a reason for Yom Teruah no doubt made it easier for the Rabbis to proclaim it the Jewish New Years. 

It is outright bizarre to celebrate Yom Teruah as New Years. This biblical festival falls out on the first day of the Seventh Month. However, in the context of Babylonian culture this was perfectly natural. The Babylonians actually celebrated Akitu, New Years, twice every year, once on the first of Tishrei and again six months later on the first of Nissan. The first Babylonian Akitu celebration coincided with Yom Teruah and the second Akitu coincided with the actual New Years in the Torah on the first day of the First Month. While the Rabbis proclaimed Yom Teruah to be New Years, they still recognized that the 1st day of the “First Month” in the Torah was, as its name implied, also a New Years. They could hardly deny this based on Exodus 12:2 which says: 

“This month shall be for you the beginning of months; it is first of the months of the year.”

The context of this verse speaks about the celebration of the Feast of Unleavened Bread which falls out in the First Month. In light of this verse, the Rabbis could not deny that the first day of the First Month was a biblical New Years. But in the cultural context of Babylonia, where Akitu was celebrated as New Years twice a year, it made perfect sense that Yom Teruah could be a second New Years even though it was in the Seventh Month. 

In contrast to Babylonian paganism, the Torah does not say or imply that Yom Teruah has anything to do with New Years. On the contrary, the Feast of Sukkot (Booths), which takes place exactly two weeks after Yom Teruah, is referred to in one verse as “the going out of the year” (Exodus 23:16). This would be like calling January 15 in the modern Western calendar “the going out of the year”. the Torah would not describe Sukkot in this manner if it intended Yom Teruah to be celebrated as a New Years. 

Some modern Rabbis have argued that Yom Teruah is actually referred to as Rosh Hashanah in Ezekiel 40:1, which describes a vision that the prophet had, “At the beginning of the year (Rosh Hashanah) on the tenth of the month”. In fact, Ezekiel 40:1 proves that the phrase "Rosh Hashanah" does not mean “New Years”. Instead, it retains its literal sense of “the head of the year” referring to the First Month in the Torah calendar. The 10th day of Rosh Hashanah in Ezekiel 40:1 refers to the 10th day of the First Month. 

Yom Teruah is mentioned in the following biblical passages:

• "And Yehovah spoke unto Moses saying, Speak to the Children of Israel saying, In the Seventh month on the first of the month will be a day of rest (Shabbaton) for you, a Remembrance Shouting, a holy convocation. You shall do no work and you will bring a fire sacrifice to Yehovah." Leviticus 23:23-25
  
• "And in the Seventh month on the first of the month will be a holy convocation for you; you shall do no work, it will be a Day of Shouting for you..." Numbers 29:1-6
  

Q: What about Leviticus 25:9? 

A: Some people have argued that Yom Teruah should be considered New Years because it is the beginning of the Sabbatical year. However, the Torah does not say that Yom Teruah is the beginning of the Sabbatical year and all indications are that the Sabbatical year begins on the 1st day of the First Month. The Torah does say the following:

“And you shall pass a shofar of blasting in the Seventh Month on the tenth of the month; on the Day of Atonement, you shall pass a shofar throughout all your land.” (Leviticus 25:9)

This verse is saying that a shofar should be used to announce the arrival of the Jubilee year, the 50th year in the Sabbatical system. It does not say that the Jubilee begins on the Day of Atonement, only that the impending arrival of the Jubilee year is announced on the Day of Atonement. The shofar is to be passed throughout the land on Yom Kippur of the 49th year, six months before the beginning of the coming Jubilee year. This interpretation is supported by the immediate context in Leviticus 25. Verse 8 says to count forty nine years, verse 9 says to pass the shofar throughout the land, and verse 10 says to proclaim the 50th year as the Jubilee. This shows that the shofar announcing the coming Jubilee in verse 9 is passed through the land before the Jubilee is actually proclaimed in verse 10. 

Q: Isn’t the Seventh Month the beginning of the agricultural cycle?

A: In the Torah the middle of the Seventh Month is actually the end of the agriculture cycle, specifically of the grain cycle. In the Land of Israel, grains are planted in Autumn and harvested in Spring. The new agricultural cycle would not actually begin until the plowing of the fields. This would not take place until the first light rains which moisten the ground enough to be broken by iron and wooden plows. In the Land of Israel, this could be as early as the middle of the Seventh Month but is usually in the Eighth Month or later. By the above logic, the Eighth Month should be considered the beginning of the year, not the Seventh Month. 

1 Zvi Cahn, The Rise of the Karaite Sect, New York 1937, pages 98–101. Cahn’s central thesis is that the refusal of rabbinical leaders to repudiate the deep-rooted Babylonian paganism that had infiltrated Babylonian Judaism led to the rise of the Karaite back-to-the-Bible movement in the early Middle Ages. In this context, Cahn gives a detailed list of various pagan influences in rabbinical Judaism.

Why Are THEY Impeaching Now?

The Fed Created The Everything Bubble And A Liquidity Crisis - What Happens Next?

This article was written by Brandon Smith and originally published at Alt-Market.com.

It's an interesting dynamic that the Federal Reserve has conjured in the decade after the 2008 credit crash. They spent several years using artificial stimulus measures to inflate perhaps the largest financial bubble in the history of the US, and then a couple years ago something changed. They addicted markets and investors to easy cash only to then cut off the flow of monetary heroin. The system was so dependent on the Fed's “China White” that all it took to give everyone the shakes was interest rate hikes to the neutral rate of inflation and a moderate balance sheet selloff. Now, the system is dying from shock and it's too late for intravenous stimulus to save it.

For many this might seem unprecedented, but it's really rather common. The Fed has a long history of inflating bubbles using easy liquidity and then imploding those bubbles with the tightening of credit. It also has a long history of pretending like it is trying to save the economy from crisis when it is actually the source of the crisis. As Congressman Charles Lindbergh Sr. warned after the panic of 1920:

"Under the Federal Reserve Act, panics are scientifically created; the present panic is the first scientifically created one, worked out as we figure a mathematical problem..." 

In the latest theatrics of the Fed, a new trend has emerged – The “disappointing Fed”. In order to understand this disappointment, we have to define exactly what markets want from the central bank. Obviously, they want QE4; a massive liquidity program. For the past year at least they have been clamoring for it, and they still have yet to get it. But what does QE4 entail? In order to institute a new QE marathon the Fed would have to:

1) Lower the Fed funds rate to zero.

2) Lower the overnight repo lending rate to zero.

3) Stop balance sheet cuts. 

4) Launch permanent asset purchases, NOT just overnight lending backed by collateral.

If the Fed was planning to kick the can on the collapse of the Everything Bubble, they would have initiated all of these steps and they would have done it at least 6-8 months ago.  So far, only one of these things has been done (the end of balance sheet cuts). Here we see why the mainstream economic world is continually on the verge of a conniption fit. The implosion of the financial bubble is becoming obvious, most major corporate institutions and banks are stretched thin by historic levels of debt and dollar liquidity has become so tight globally that interbank lending rates are skyrocketing well above the Fed's set interest rates. Yet, after every Fed meeting, the central bank gives the investment world a bare bones response.

Here is the question people should be asking but almost no one is:  Why? Why didn't the Fed just open the floodgates on QE4 back in November/December when it was obvious that a liquidity crunch was forming? Why did the Fed hike interest rates and cut their balance sheet at all? The only thing it achieved was to spark crash conditions.

Ah, but there is the key to answering our conundrum...

Since around November of last year the Fed has entered into a rather consistent pattern in which it does the bare minimum to make it appear as though it plans to support markets and defuse any crisis event while actually not doing much of anything. There comes a point where “kicking the can” on economic collapse becomes impossible, and I believe we have now reached that point according to the evidence. As I've noted in past articles, the Fed would not loosen the noose on liquidity until the crash starts to hit the consciousness of the general public. In other words, the Fed will not unleash QE4 until we are on the verge of another “Lehman Moment”. That time has nearly come.

Today, almost half of all Americans are worried about a recession striking in the next year, and 38% of fund managers expect a recession in the next year. The public is growing increasingly aware of the threat, but many still believe the Fed and government will act to mitigate the damage.

The liquidity crisis forming in overnight loans and the accelerating “repo panic” is a sign that crash conditions are about to hit mainstreet. Repo lending is a Fed mechanism for increasing the flow of credit within the banking system (hypothetically). Repo interest rates are the interest rates banks and other institutions charge each other for borrowing cash. Usually, repo interest rates follow the overnight lending rates set by the Fed, as well as the Fed Funds rate. But, recently, interbank rates have spiked far beyond the level the Fed has set.

Why is this important? Because it means that there is a supply/demand shortfall. Multiple banks and corporations need to borrow money on a short term basis to keep their operations functioning. This makes sense; US companies are currently weighed down by more debt than they were before the crash of 2008. The problem is, no one wants to lend that cash to them right now. There is, essentially, a dollar and credit shortage, and the demand is causing rates to skyrocket. The higher the rates, the more expensive it is for EVERYONE to borrow, including small businesses.

Confusion has erupted as to why banks and companies with large cash reserves won't lend that money out, even at the high interest rates of the panic spike. Warren Buffet's company, Berkshire Hathaway, for example, is holding a record $122 billion in cash. What do Berkshire and other cash heavy companies know that we do not? Generally, companies hoard cash when they are expecting an economic crisis, and, in a way, this cash hoarding can actually contribute to an exponential credit collapse. This is what happens when the lifeblood of your economy is based on debt on-demand.
Without anyone willing to lend at current interbank rates, the lender of last resort is the Fed, but the Fed's response has been decidedly underwhelming for most investors.

Some see the Fed purchases for repo overnight lending as a sign that the Fed will soon step in with QE. Some people even believe that the repo spending is QE. Unfortunately, as with much of what the Fed does, not everything is what it seems and the repo situation is complex enough that I don't think many people understand it. As one of my readers recently asked:

“The New York Fed said on Friday it would continue to offer to add at least $75 billion daily to the financial system through Oct. 10, prolonging its efforts to relieve pressure in money markets....Counting from today that's 20 X 75B = 1.5 Trillion. Is this a form of QE? And would it avert the impending crash...?”

This is a common misconception about Fed overnight loans and repos. To put it in the simplest terms I am able – Repos are not generally cumulative long term purchases like QE is. Repos are usually OVERNIGHT LOANS that institutions like banks borrow from the Fed while offering collateral in return (secure financial assets).

Repos create TEMPORARY reserve balances, which are paid back and erased. Meaning, the Fed may offer Repos until October 10th, but this will not add $1.5 trillion to the Fed's balance sheet. On the contrary, the Fed's balance sheet will move relatively little as the Fed sells back the collateral it purchased, often with a haircut attached that feeds extra capital into the central bank.

Answer: No, repos are not QE. QE is not temporary, nor is it based on collateral purchases that are sold back daily. Also, as almost every economist, even in the mainstream, has been pointing out, the Fed would have to institute REAL QE and FAR MORE liquidity to relieve tight financial conditions, yet, they are not doing this. They are calling the Fed repo action a "bandaid", and I tend to agree. The Fed is keeping conditions tight for as long as possible. Again, what people need to start asking is "why"?

From Reuters:

“What’s more, an IOER cut is simply a temporary bandaid for the solution and the Fed will need to come up with a more permanent solution going forward. Expanding the Fed balance sheet features in the menu of possible solutions, and Powell made a strong effort to communicate clearly that it should not be interpreted as quantitative easing, aka policy stimulus, rather than a technical tool to increase currency in circulation.”

As another of my readers argued this week:

“I'm so tired of seeing people in the alt-media community call the repo lending "QE" when it absolutely is not QE. All they have to do is a little research to understand that the fed has been dodging QE and they've been keeping conditions tight. Like you've been saying for a while now, the bankers created the bubble, now they're bursting the bubble by restricting liquidity. Maybe they'll have QE4 in the future, but only when it's too late to do anything about the liquidity crisis...”

That just about sums up the problem and the misconceptions bouncing around lately. The Fed has been well aware of the brewing liquidity crisis for quite some time. The US dollar LIBOR rate witnessed the biggest jump in a decade in early 2018, and the global dollar shortage has been consistent since then.  With a dollar shortage comes greater demand by banks around the world for high cost short term debt - hence, repo rates skyrocket.

For several years the Fed was not shy at all about pumping vast amounts of fiat into the banking system; why are they shy about it now? And why aren't we in the middle of QE4 yet?

A startling factor in short term interbank lending is that as repo rates inflate they can actually cancel out the effects of Fed stimulus measures. The Fed would have to dramatically increase its level of purchases to outpace the explosion in rates. They have not done this, and this is why their repo response has done little to stop interbank lending volatility.

To put the Fed repo response in perspective for those that want to treat overnight loans as cumulative, the audit of the TARP program alone shows the Fed injected around $16 trillion into the global economy, and much of that was in overnight loans. This is not even counting Fed QE programs post-TARP. The current Fed repo activity is a drop in the ocean by comparison.

I assert that the Fed is deliberately maintaining the liquidity crisis while trying to make it look like they are “taking action”. The Fed creates bubbles and then pops those bubbles by tightening liquidity into economic weakness. When they do ease credit conditions, it is almost always well after the avalanche has already started.

They did the same thing at the onset of the Great Depression, causing the crash to expand rather than retreat, as Ben Bernanke publicly admitted in 2002. They also kept crash conditions in credit markets hidden when Alan Greenspan shut down all conversation with the public on the housing bubble. And, today the Fed continues to fraudulently claim the US economy is strong and in recovery, and has even fired Simon Potter, the official most equipped to handle a repo lending crisis – the same official that warned the Fed response is basically too little too late.

The Fed can't even claim that it "had no idea" what was about to happen.  Jerome Powell, now Fed chairman, warned of these EXACT consequences if the Fed tightened liquidity back in 2012.   But, of course, very few people in the public are aware of this, and whoever the Fed and the media blame for the crash will be who the majority of the public blames for the crash.

I don't think it's a coincidence that the crash of the Everything Bubble is accelerating around the same time that geopolitical chaos is erupting.  We have a trade war that is unlikely to end, with a US/China meeting in October that will probably produce little to no results.  We have a Brexit circus which is supposed to play out in October.  We have a crisis with Iran as the US is set to move troops into Saudi Arabia and the UAE in the next month. And now we have an "impeachment inquiry" circus erupting over Trump, Biden and the Ukraine.  That sure is a lot of distractions for the general public as their economy crumbles around them...

To understand why the Fed would deliberately engineer an economic crisis, I suggest reading my article on the economic end game HERE. It is important to realize that the Fed has not “lost control” of the situation, nor is the Fed the bumbling and witless institution some alternative analysts make it out to be. Rather, the Fed is perfectly aware of the damage it is causing, and it is perfectly aware of how much this chaos will benefit certain globalist organizations.

E200 A Time To Speak And A Time To Be SILENT

From the Horses Mouth, " A measure of wheat for a penny, and three measures of barley for a penny; and see thou hurt not the oil and the wine."

From THE FEDERAL RESERVE BANK of NEW YORK

OPERATING POLICY

Statement Regarding Repurchase Operations

September 20, 2019

In accordance with the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) directive issued September 18, 2019, the Open Market Trading Desk (the Desk) at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York will conduct a series of overnight and term repurchase agreement (repo) operations to help maintain the federal funds rate within the target range.

The Desk will offer three 14-day term repo operations for an aggregate amount of at least $30 billion each, as indicated in the schedule below. The Desk also will offer daily overnight repo operations for an aggregate amount of at least $75 billion each, until Thursday, October 10, 2019. Awarded amounts may be less than the amount offered, depending on the total quantity of eligible propositions submitted. Securities eligible as collateral include Treasury, agency debt, and agency mortgage-backed securities. Additional details about the operations will be released each afternoon for the following day’s operation(s).

After October 10, 2019, the Desk will conduct operations as necessary to help maintain the federal funds rate in the target range, the amounts and timing of which have not yet been determined.

Schedule of Overnight and Term Repurchase Agreement Operations

OPERATION DATE	OVERNIGHT	14-DAY TERM	TERM MATURITY DATE
Monday, 9/23/2019	$75 billion	No term operation
Tuesday, 9/24/2019	At least $75 billion	At least $30 billion	Tuesday, 10/08/2019
Wednesday, 9/25/2019	At least $75 billion	No term operation
Thursday, 9/26/2019	At least $75 billion	At least $30 billion	Thursday, 10/10/2019
Friday, 9/27/2019	At least $75 billion	At least $30 billion	Friday, 10/11/2019
Monday, 9/30/2019 – Thursday, 10/10/2019	At least $75 billion	No term operations

For Monday, September 23, 2019, the Desk will conduct an overnight repo operation for an aggregate amount of up to $75 billion. The operation will be conducted from 8:15 AM ET to 8:30 AM ET. Primary Dealers will be permitted to submit up to two propositions per security type. There will be a limit of $10 billion per proposition submitted in this operation. Propositions will be awarded based on their attractiveness relative to a benchmark rate for each collateral type, and are subject to a minimum bid rate of 1.80 percent.

Book of Jubilees: Noah, Abraham vs. Satan and his Demons (Ch.10-12) Part 4

Live Stream - 09/21/2019 - Shabbat Service

Prophecy Update - Israel, Iran & The Spiritual Shift

Repo Red Alert: Public Ignores Fed’s Worsening Liquidity Emergency

Storm Clouds on the Horizon

Taxing America To Death: 545 Responsible Who Unite In Common Con Job While Americans Tolerate It!

The HIDDEN Parable You’ve Never Seen (2019)

SUBVERTED --- Part 1

The Gospel According to the Rainbow

The Word Revealed

Sheep Among Wolves Volume II (Official Feature Film)

 

Live Stream - 09/14/2019 - Shabbat Service

 

Shabbat Night Live

Red Flag Gun Laws Are Rooted In Communist Methods Of Oppression

This article was written by Brandon Smith and originally published at Alt-Market.com.

This week government officials are set to come back from their summer recess, and I have heard from a couple different sources that the US Senate in particular is seeking to fast track legislation on Red Flag gun laws as well as a possible ban on private party transfers of firearms and a possible ban on high capacity magazines. I can only hope that these are just rumors, but I suspect they are accurate.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has publicly vowed to pursue any new gun control legislation that the Trump Administration supports, and Donald Trump has openly called for Red Flag gun laws involving mental health guidelines. The mainstream media now claims that a majority of Americans on both sides of the political divide support red flag legislation, but we all know how rigged such polls can be. The real question is, does the average American even know what red flag laws would entail? I think they do not.

Red flag gun laws are a method of gun control by which a family member or law enforcement can petition the court to confiscate a person's firearms on the SUSPICION that the person may present a danger to themselves or others. But it doesn't necessarily stop there. Some reports indicate that Trump is seriously considering using big tech companies like Amazon and Apple to monitor people's behavior and link this data to a social credit system similar to the system that already exists in China. Your gun rights could then be determined by algorithms that mark you as a potential risk simply by what you post online.

Prosecution using the public to spy on itself is a hallmark of these kinds of laws. It is also nothing new. The Puritans in early America used intangible evidence, such as “spectral evidence” to punish people of various crimes including witchcraft. This encouraged extreme collectivism and conformity, for anyone stepping outside the lines of what the group saw as righteous behavior could find themselves secretly accused using rhetorical evidence and unable to defend themselves. Their only option was to admit to the crime, whether they were guilty or not, and then repent.

But in a social or political witch hunt, you are not repenting to get in God's good graces, but to get in the good graces of the collective. You are supposed to sublimate yourself for the group and beg their forgiveness; not for the crime you are accused, but for the crime of acting as an individual. The message is clear – There is no way to fight back. Just give in and if you are lucky the collective will let you continue living, under their watchful eye, of course.

This might sound like something that could never happen in the US today, but it already has. The existence of the No Fly List, which is generated in secret, is often politically motivated and is based on evidence that the accused is never allowed to see.  It is a perfect example of a “law” that is similar to Red Flag legislation. While the no fly list has been confronted in court numerous times, it still endures and is little changed since its inception. Once ingrained, these laws are rarely ever removed.

It is likely that Red Flag gun laws will operate in the same way. One day you may walk into the sporting goods store and be denied a gun purchase by the ATF. There will be no explanation, only the denial of your rights.

Accusations can come from anywhere, even complete strangers using anonymous online applications (this is how the Chinese social credit system works). They could be based on legitimate behavior, such as suicide or murder threats, or they could be based on a political statement you wrote or said years ago. It doesn't matter. The goal will be to take gun rights away from as many people as possible while the government still claims to support the 2^nd Amendment. It's about the back door destruction of gun rights, not public safety.  It's also about silencing public dissent.

The bottom line is, if you allow pre-crime judgment based on hearsay evidence for one person, then you are allowing it for ALL people including yourself. And, it might not stop with whether or not a person is allowed to buy or own a gun. These systems of control expand into every facet of life. Again, simply look at what is happening in China.

The method of using “mental health” or social disruption as an excuse to silence dissent was not actually mastered by China, however.  It was standardized in communist Russia during the reign of the Soviets.  The mental health excuse was exploited on a regular basis in order to quietly sweep government critics and dissidents under the rug never to be seen again. The metal hospitals where these deplorables were kept were called “Psikhushka”, an ironic diminutive label. The hospitals worked hand in hand with the Cheka secret police and their vast networks of civilian informants.

'See Something Say Something' began under communists in the East.  It's only being recycled today in the West.

For the Soviets, the methodology made sense. The message they were sending was that anyone who criticized socialism/communism MUST be crazy. And, in a way, this is how Red Flag laws function. For if you are put on the list, or denied gun rights, then there MUST be something mentally wrong with you. And, by extension, if you are placed on the list for political reasons, then your political beliefs or convictions MUST also be psychologically disturbed. You see how this works?

Red Flag laws and social credit systems take the Psikhushka and flip it around. They don't need mental health prisons, they simply turn the whole country into a mental health prison. The wardens and guards of this prison will be the citizenry, and they will police each other.

Make no mistake, the mainstream media and the government have been conditioning the public for years to the concept that certain ideals and political activists are on the “fringe”. They are “conspiracy theorists”. They are exhibiting “defiance disorders”. They are not right in the head. Red Flag gun laws are meant for people like me, or perhaps people like you.

Precursor testing of denial of gun rights based on mental health accusations has already taken place against war veterans in the US based on PTSD (post traumatic stress disorder).  It makes sense that the government would seek to disarm trained combat experienced veterans first, as they tend to present the biggest source of resistance to a totalitarian shift.

I can't say that Trump's open support of Red Flag laws surprises me in the slightest. Trump's long term business relationships and debts to the Rothschild banking elites as well as his many dubious cabinet choices including Pompeo, Ross, Mnuchin, Kudlow, Lightheizer, etc., indicate to me that Trump is not on the side of liberty activists.

John Bolton's recent exit from the White House does not impress me.  It is clearly a crumb thrown to conservatives as a means to keep them close to the Neo-Con table.  The goal of the elites to lure conservatives into blind adulation of the Trump Admin. is starting to fail, and they had to do something.  Also, it is not uncommon for elitist members to jump ship from an administration right before their agenda's are implemented so that they get none of the blame for the consequences.

Bolton should never have been in Trump's cabinet to begin with, he was there for years, and just because Bolton is leaving doesn't mean his agendas will be leaving.  Trump has many elitist handlers, and I'm sure Bolton will be replaced with yet another reprehensible ghoul in due course.

In my recent article 'The Real Reasons Why The Media Is Suddenly Admitting To The Recession Threat', I noted that if an economic crisis strikes in the next year, then it's highly unlikely that Trump is slated to be president after the 2020 elections. If he supports Red Flag laws, then it is almost assured that he will not be president for another term.

In our controlled political machine in which presidents from both parties are merely puppets for elitist interests, these kinds of liberty crushing laws are not generally designed for the current Administration's use. Rather, they are supported by one president or party, and then exploited by the next president or party in power. In this way, conservatives could be tricked into backing unconstitutional laws in the name of “helping their side win”, only to discover that the laws they supported (or ignored) are being used against them by Democrats a few years later.

I think this would be especially true for Red Flag legislation. If conservatives do not raise hell in response to these laws just because they don't want to derail the Trump train, then they will find themselves complicit in their own disarmament if markets tank and the Dems take over in 2020. The socialist front runners will say that we “asked for this” under Trump, and now we're getting what we wanted. And, once these laws are in the books, expect that a majority of police will comply with them and enforce them.

Of course, this leads to an inevitable outcome – War. There are millions of people in the US that are not going to fold to the dismantling of gun rights or gun confiscation. No doubt, we would all be labeled terrorists, and our defiance would be held up as further proof of our mental instability. So be it.

Once the Pandora's box of pre-crime and hearsay evidence is opened, the sky is truly the limit for the violation of American constitutional rights.

For whatever it's worth, now would be a good time for gun rights advocates to contact their representatives and warn them that Red Flag laws are unacceptable. Also keep in mind that the government may push a long list of new gun control restrictions on top of Red Flag laws as a means to frighten the public. They will then rescind many of the items on the list (except the red flag legislation) in order to make it appear as though we “got lucky”. The real goal here is the mental health restrictions and the ability for government to deny your rights according to hearsay evidence.

Gun ownership is as integral to a free society as free speech and property rights. Without firearms ownership, the public is at the mercy of any criminal or criminal government that seeks to oppress them. Remember, if your "military style" rifle was not a threat to the elites then they would not constantly seek to take it away. Never let it go.

------------------

“We don't let them have ideas. Why would we let them have guns?”  ― Joseph Stalin

Mark of the Beast

You Aren't Taking Our Guns

School For Revolution: Were Hong Kong Protest “Actors” Recruited in 2012?

The Secret History of the Monopolization of Welfare by the State

Authored by Richard Ebeling via The American Institute for Economic Research

The fundamental political issue always confronting society is whether human relationships shall be based on free association and voluntary choice, or on governmental compulsion and command. Of course, in most societies there are elements of both, often called the interventionist state or the “mixed economy.” But, nonetheless, the basic institutional alternatives are liberty or coercion. 

This often seems difficult for people to fully appreciate or understand. We select where we live, we accept or not accept a job offering, we decide on the furniture in our home and what (if anything) we will read in terms of books or magazines, or to watch on television. We pick our friends and choose the clubs and associations we want to join. A thousand other everyday choices and decisions reflect our freedom in still much of what we do. 

Political Interference in Market Affairs

Yet, at the same time, we take for granted many aspects and facets of our lives where such decision-making is narrowed or co-opted for us by those in political authority. We are compelled to pay into the government pension system called Social Security; we are taxed to pay for types and degrees of medical and health care that we may or may not desire or consider worth what the government garnishes from our salaries to pay for it before we even see a penny of our earned incomes. 

The government regulates how business is done, under what terms and conditions an employer may hire a worker, what products may be produced and with what qualities, features and characteristics, and sometimes the price at which the good or service may be sold. 

These, too, are taken for granted and presumed to be the appropriate and necessary tasks of government in modern society. Indeed, in many if not most instances, the majority of Americans and the citizens of other countries, as well, don’t or rarely think twice about these roles for the political authority in our daily affairs. In fact, when they are challenged, a good number of people are shocked that it should be even questioned. 

Yet, all these government activities inescapably reduce and restrict our free choices. Think of medical and health care. Increasingly government prevents people from deciding on the health insurance and medical treatment they may receive or purchase on their own. Practically all of the candidates vying for the Democratic Party presidential nomination have said they want to see implemented some form of a “single-payer” system, which, in reality, is socialized medicine under which government centrally plans all medical matters for everyone in society. 

What Of Politically Mandated Euthanasia? 

Buy the author's book

When friends of freedom raise serious questions about this, including government being handed control over life and death decisions for all of us, in terms of type and duration of medical treatment, they are often scoffed at. Yet, this danger has been warned about for more than a century. In 1916, in the midst of the First World War, a fairly well known British lawyer and classical liberal, E. S. P. Haynes (1877-1949), published a book called The Decline of Liberty in England. He explained how the British government had been encroaching on people’s personal, social and economic freedom in Great Britain for nearly 40 years, and the wartime emergency had merely exacerbated this trend. He wondered how much of all this could or might be reversed once the war was over. 

Haynes reprinted as an appendix a brief article that had appeared in a magazine called, The Free Woman, shortly before the publication of his own book in 1916. The article was on, “Home Life in A.D 2000.” It tells the tale of an old and ill gentleman in the far off future year of 2000, who is waiting for the government to enforce mandatory euthanasia, since government planned and managed medical care dictate treatments and termination of life. 

The gentleman says to his son in this imagined future:

“It really seems a pity that the Medical Control Board won't let me live a little longer. Of course, there is a good deal of pain for one hour out of the twenty-four, which requires a certain amount of medical attention, but I should not mind paying a little extra for that if the State allowed any doctor or nurse to have a private practice. (However, I daresay I should never have been born under the new Inspection of Parents Act.) The point is that I am quite interested in the morning paper and talking to all of you and seeing a friend sometimes . . . and in old days I could have gone on indefinitely." 

The son comments that, yes, some are wistful for the “anarchy” of the old days, of around 1900, when people could make those decisions for themselves. But had not his father commented about how excited people were with the Voluntary Euthanasia Act of 1940? The elderly gentleman admits that that is so, “but, of course, it had to become compulsory soon . . .The expenses of the State medical service have been considerably reduced by the power of the Local Board to decide when a patient is not worth further attention.” He then asked his son, “By the way, did you see the official form? Did it give me a week or a fortnight,” before his mandatory termination?

His son read him the official government notice that had arrived:  


“I regret to inform you that my Board have decided to allow you no further medical service after a week from this date, and they are of opinion that you would save yourself and your relations much inconvenience and pain by availing yourself of Section 3 subsection (1) of the Compulsory Euthanasia Act of 1980. Everything can be done at your house, if suitable preparations are made, as our Travelling Euthanasia expert will be in London at that date. You are probably aware that in cases like yours the Board will allow a grant of five pounds towards the cremation expenses, and will accept a preliminary Probate affidavit from yourself for the purpose of assessing death duties. For your guidance I enclose a special form which you must forward within three days to the Inland Revenue Department.”

The old gentlemen tells his son that there was a time when people would have considered such a compulsory ending to human life at the command of the State as against the very idea of a society of free individuals. However, such people who believed in liberty “were all ultimately secluded under the third Mental Deficiency Act,” that is, placed in mental institutions for those with the insane idea that freedom mattered.  

How long ago, he reflects, was that bygone time when people, “swore, drank alcoholic preparations at meals, married without medical permission . . . Why, they actually owned houses and land in perpetuity, and read books which were excluded from the British Museum Catalogue, and wrote quite scurrilously about the Government. Those were indeed turbulent times. Everything was so casual and unforeseen.” 

Finally, the gentleman thinks that he better make sure his will is in order before his mandatory termination, and he mentions to his son that as part of any eulogy, they might mention his important work on legislation relating to the “Better Regulation of Female Underclothing Act,” of which he is clearly very proud. 

British National Health Care Can be an Indirect Euthanasia 

In the first decades of the 20th century, this must have seemed all a fantasyland of “reactionaries” and “anti-social,” old fashioned laissez-faire liberal types. But, in fact, in the years before the First World War, the British government introduced the first legislative elements that eventually became the “single-payer” system under the inspiration of the welfare state already established in Imperial Germany, the very country with which Great Britain was then at war. Britain’s socialized healthcare system only was fully implemented following the Second World War under a socialist government. 

Under the current British system, the government may not order your death after some point due to age or illness, but the stories are notorious concerning the wait times for seriously sick individuals to have access to doctor’s appointments or to the possible treatment that could cure them or at least noticeably prolong their lives. It is merely compulsory euthanasia through indirect means. 

The Friendly Societies Provided Voluntary Social Safety Nets

Throughout the 19th century, a primary means for the provision of what today we call the “social safety nets” was by the private sector outside of government. The British Friendly Societies were mutual assistance associations that emerged to provide death benefits for the wives and children of the breadwinner who had passed away. But they soon offered a wide array of other mutual insurance services, including health care coverage, retirement pension programs, unemployment insurance, savings clubs to purchase a family house, and a variety of others.

A number of scholars who have devoted time to researching the lost history of the Friendly Societies estimate that by the end of the 19th century around two-thirds to three-quarters of the entire British population was covered by one or more of their programs and insurances. The research also discovered that a large majority of the subscribers were in the lower income brackets of the time; precisely because of their more modest financial circumstances, the “working poor” and the lower middle class were very conscious of the need to set aside a certain sum of their limited budgets to anticipate unexpected circumstances, as well as those situations that were inescapable for anyone, such as old age.  

What stands out is that these were all private and voluntary associations and exchanges, in which the government paid little or no role. One part of this system of freedom was charity and philanthropy; that is, the voluntary giving by those better off to assist those who were financially worse off and deserved a helping hand. 

The Generosity of Private Charity was Criticized!

How pervasive was such philanthropy and charity? William Stanley Jevons (1835-1882), one of the leading British economists of the second half of the 19th century, and one of the developers of marginal utility theory, called for the end to private charity and its replacement with a full government system. This was not due to the paucity of private benevolence, but rather due to what he considered its excessive generosity. 

At a meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science in September 1870, Jevons criticize the open-handedness of the wealthy and better off in voluntarily helping the poor through various philanthropic endeavors. Private charity was creating a class of permanent poor, he said, which resulted in “the casual paupers [having] their London season and their country season, following the movements of those on whom they feed.” 

The government programs for caring for the poor are “frustrated by the over-abundant charity of private persons, or religious societies.” He even was critical of the over-generosity of the private sector in the voluntary funding of hospitals for the poor and less fortunate. There were so many such charity hospitals, Jevons lamented, that these private medical establishments “compete with each other in offering the freest possible medical aid to all who come.” 

Here was the heart of the problem. Rather than fear that private benevolence would not be enough to assist those unable to fully pay for food or medical treatment, there was too much of it! Jevons prayed, “that we are rapidly approaching the time when the whole of these pernicious charities will be swept away.” Instead, all such charitable matters needed to be shifted to “the supervision of the [government] Poor Law Board,” so bureaucrats could make wiser decisions concerning how much assistance and support the less well off should receive, rather than the uncontrolled generosity of individuals and private associations. 

According to William Stanley Jevons, Great Britain needed more government responsibility for the poor and the unfortunate to bring a halt to the excessive voluntary giving of a free people. Central planning of charity was needed to replace the spontaneous giving of non-governmental civil society. Jevons wanted government imposed welfare austerity, if you will, in place of private philanthropic abundance. So much for the constant hue and cry by those on “the left” that if not for compulsory government welfarism, “the poor” would die in the streets!

Perverse Incentives of the British Poor Law Welfare System

Of course, Great Britain had had a form of the welfare state since the time of Queen Elizabeth I (1533-1603) in the 16th century. But the excessive waste of government redistribution and its perverse incentive effects had become clearly known by the 19th century, and became a point of criticism by the classical liberals of that period, and the basis of their case for reform in the private sector instead, in spite of the type of criticisms made by someone like Jevons. 

For instance, one of the last of the important British classical economists, Henry Fawcett (1833-1884), explained the perverse consequences under the government system of social safety nets in his book, Pauperism: Its Causes and Remedies (1871). Investigations were made in the first half of the 19th century concerning the impact of the Poor Laws, under which taxed wealth was redistributed through the Church of England parishes. 

Fawcett pointed out that illegitimacy was fostered under the government’s welfare state, that government redistribution became viewed as an “entitlement,” and that it created an attitude that taking the money of others through the State was as honest and acceptable as wages earned from a day’s work. Explained Fawcett: 

“Men were virtually told that no amount of recklessness, self-indulgence, or improvidence would in the slightest degree affect their claim to be maintained at other people’s expense. If they married when they had no reasonable chance to being able to maintain a family, they were treated as if they had performed a meritorious act, for the more children they had the greater was the amount of relief obtained. All the most evident teachings of commonsense were completely set to naught . . .

“Population was also fostered by a still more immoral stimulus. A woman obtained from the parish a larger allowance for an illegitimate than for a legitimate child. From one end of the kingdom to the other people were in fact told not only to marry with utter recklessness and let others bear the consequences, but it was also said, especially to the women of the country, the greater is your immorality the greater will be your pecuniary reward. Can it excite surprise that from such a system we should have had handed down to us a vast inheritance of vice and poverty? . . .

“Pauperism often came to be regarded as a paying profession, which was followed by successive generations of the same family.  Thus the Commissioners [of the Poor Laws] tell us of three generations of the same family simultaneously receiving relief . . . The feeling soon became general that pauperism was no disgrace, and that allowance which was obtained from the parish was just as much the rightful property of those who received it, as the wages of ordinary industry. Indolence was directly encouraged, and a spirit of lawlessness and discontent resulted.”

The Logic and Facts about Welfare Statism Cannot be Denied

Now, a liberal economist such as Henry Fawcett was not a proponent of strict laissez-faire in welfare matters, any more than he was in a number of other government policy issues. But logic and facts were what they are, and could not be wished away. If you pay people not to work, you have more people not working; if you do this long enough a system of intergenerational dependency emerges and recipients used to receiving such redistributed wealth start considering it a “right,” equal to a wage earned from employment in the marketplace. 

Furthermore, if you reward people with larger welfare benefits for having more children including, especially, children out of wedlock, don’t be surprised if those women on welfare become less concerned about the more traditional notions of family responsibility in deciding how many children to have. 

These were some of the consequences that classical liberals in 19th century Great Britain became concerned about, and wished to see alleviated and improved through the private sector alternatives to government compulsion through taxes for redistribution under the older Poor Law system.

Jevons’ Misplaced Concerns and Understandings about Welfare

In response to Jevons’ arguments, we all, no doubt, know parents who are excessively indulgent of their children’s wishes and wants. This sometimes creates an irresponsible attitude on the part of the child that they can and should have anything they want with no thought to the cost or the possibly negative impact on others. A few such children grow up thinking they can get away with murder. 

But this is not generally the case in private households. Even with errors and mistakes along the way, most parents attempt to bring up their children with notions of responsibility and self-supporting habits for their later adult life. It would be absurd and dangerous for the State to declare that it will “plan” the upbringing of children within family households with schedules, detailed procedures, and surveillance of what is going on inside the family all day and night. 

The same is true with private charity and philanthropy by individuals and voluntary associations. First, there is an ethical dimension not really touched upon by Jevons, and that is the morality of those who have honestly earned income and accumulated wealth being considered the rightful owners of it, and who should have the liberty to use and dispose of it as they think fit as a matter of individual right. 

Second, Jevons seemed to be disturbed by the multitude of competing private charities serving the poor in the Great Britain of his time – and, by the way, this was before any notion of a charitable deduction on one’s income tax; it was guided simply by the idea that it was “the right thing to do.” What Jevons missed is that the charitable competition that he considered misplaced wasteful duplication is in fact the very avenue, like all other forms of peaceful rivalry, to discover the best and most efficient means and methods to reach an end or goal in mind. 

And, third, it never seemed to enter Jevons’ mind that those who man and manage government welfare programs are not only as imperfect as the rest of us about how best to assist those in financial and other forms of need, but that those in political power in elected office and in the appointed bureaucracy have their own agendas and purposes that have nothing to do with the stated goals of any government program implemented. 

The self-interests of those administering the government welfare system of that time resisted all change into a less compulsory paternalistic direction.  A leading liberal reformer of the 1830s, Thomas Chalmers, pointed out the resistance to any reduction to government redistributive actions by the administrators of the relevant programs. The proponent of voluntarism, he said, “comes into collision with the prejudices and partialities of those who at present have the right and power of management” of the then-existing Poor Law system. 

That is why it always comes down to that fundamental issue of voluntary choice and free association, including for purposes of social benevolence as well as decision-making in the marketplace, versus, instead, politically imposed force through taxes and compulsory redistribution and regulation of human affairs. 

The tragedy of contemporary politics in America and abroad is that the debates and decisions all concern in what forms and for what purposes compulsion in social and personal affairs will be imposed. Left out of today’s public discourse is the issue that guided classical liberals in the 19th century: should people be free or shall they be coerced to do what others consider to be “the right thing”?