Monday, September 29, 2008
Dear ACLU Supporter,
Thirty courageous pastors defied the unconstitutional US ban on speaking out about politics from the pulpit yesterday. ... Its something at least!!
The 1st Amendment to the US Constitution specifically prohibits Congress from imposing ANY laws on our religious freedoms:
- "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
If a pastor speaks to his or her congregation and explains that one candidate supports their religious values and should be elected rather than his or her opponent, or that one candidate opposes their values and should therefore be rejected, the ministry is often attacked by relentless IRS henchmen and bankrupted. Such abuses are one reason why so many Christians plan to vote for Barrack Husein Obama despite his commitment to abortion and infanticide. Pastors are forbidden from explaining such vital issues to their flocks in direct violation of the 1st Amendment.
In some cases ministers who hold views that are not politically desirable by the state are framed and arrested by government operatives using this as a pretext as appears to be the case with Pastor Tony Alamo (See my blog on this) of Alamo Ministries.
But some few brave ministers took a stand on Sunday!
(For more AllFaith Comix Go Here!)
From All Things Considered:
Pastors To Preach Politics From The PulpitBarbara Bradley Hagerty
September 24, 2008 ·
On Sunday, more than 30 pastors across the country are expected to preach a sermon that endorses or opposes a political candidate by name. This would be a flagrant violation of a law that bans tax-exempt organizations from involvement in political campaigns.
Among the pastors expected to violate the ban is Pastor Gus Booth.
Booth will endorse Republican nominee John McCain — four months after delivering a sermon opposing the two main candidates seeking the Democratic presidential nomination.
In May, Booth told his 150 congregants of the Warroad Community Church in Warroad, Minn., that the next president will determine policy on issues like same-sex marriage and abortion.
"If you're a Christian, you cannot support a candidate like Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton," Booth said.
With that, Booth gleefully zipped by the line barring ministers from engaging in political campaigns. The IRS bars people from endorsing or opposing specific candidates from the pulpit. Booth sent an article about his sermon to the IRS so the agency wouldn't miss it. He and his elders knew he would be jeopardizing the church's tax-exempt status.
But, he says, it's his job to evaluate candidates in light of biblical teachings.
"Bottom line is, I'm a spiritual leader in this community, and spiritual leaders need to make decisions. We need to lead spiritually, and we need to be able to speak about the moral issues of the day. And right now, the moral issues of today are also the political issues of today," he said.
The Pulpit Initiative
On Sunday, 33 ministers will take part in a nationwide effort to violate the 54-year-old ban on political preaching and endorse or oppose a candidate from the pulpit. The effort is called the Pulpit Initiative.
Two weeks ago, more than 100 pastors squeezed into a hotel meeting room in Washington, D.C., to learn about the Pulpit Initiative, a brain child of the conservative legal group, Alliance Defense Fund. Attorney Erik Stanley walked them through it.
"If the IRS chooses to come after these churches, we will sue the IRS in federal court," Stanley said.
Stanley says pastors are fed up. In the past four years, the IRS has stepped up its investigations of clergy. It sent letters to 47 churches, including some liberal ones — not just for explicit endorsements, but also for using code words like pro-choice or pro-life in relation to candidates.
"What's been happening is that the government has been able to go into the pulpits of America, look over the pastor's shoulder, and parse the content of their sermon. And that's unconstitutional," Stanley said. "No government official should entangle itself with religion in that way."
Stanley says the pastors will try to take their challenge all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, hoping that the current conservative-leaning composition of the court, headed by Chief Justice John Roberts, will strike down the ban. He says the law infringes on the religious speech of ministers.
Celia Roady disagrees. Roady, a lawyer and expert on charities law, says there's nothing to stop pastors from talking about issues in light of scripture. But, she says, "You simply cannot say to your congregation, you should not vote for Candidate X because of Candidate X's position on this one issue. That's simply the line that has been drawn."
Roady says if a church can endorse a candidate, it is using tax-free dollars — taxpayer money — to subsidize a political campaign.
But it's not merely tax deductions that are at stake here, says Ohio Pastor Eric Williams. He says it's also the attempt of some churches to move aggressively into politics.
"I ask myself, 'Hmm. Why would a religious leader want to oppose a candidate? Why would a religious leader want to stand up and ask for my support for a candidate who's running for office?' They want to gain influence in the governmental process," Williams said.
Williams is senior minister of North Congregational United Church of Christ in Columbus. He says he's seen this before. Two years ago, he reported two conservative megachurches for allegedly endorsing a Republican candidate for governor. The IRS investigated one of the churches. Williams is also concerned that pastors in swing states like Ohio, Pennsylvania and Virginia will be telling their congregants how to vote.
"My concern is that an extreme segment of the Christian faith today is seeking to establish themselves as the public religion of our nation," Williams said.
Williams and some other ministers have filed a formal complaint with the IRS about the Pulpit Initiative. Several tax attorneys said they believe the churches will ultimately lose. They point out that in 1983, the Supreme Court upheld a ban on political endorsements by charities.
So what will happen if Booth's church in Minnesota loses its tax-exempt status?
"Big deal," he said. He added that he can get it back the next day because churches are automatically tax-exempt.
Besides, he said, electing "Godly people is more important than money."
From Fox News:
Pastors Preach Politics, Risk Tax-Exempt Status
WASHINGTON: Pastors in 22 states participate in "Pulpit Freedom Sunday" -- a protest of the 54-year-old Supreme Court ruling that spelled out the separation of church and state -- by telling parishioners what they expect from their presidential candidates.
For more than half a century, members of the clergy in the United States have been prevented by federal law from endorsing political candidates from the pulpit. But now, with five weeks to go until Election Day, some clergy are saying the 2008 presidential election is too important to remain publicly impartial, and they are openly breaking the ban.
On Sunday, the Rev. Wiley Drake, pastor of the First Southern Baptist Church in Buena Park, California, put his congregation at risk of losing its tax-exempt status by endorsing third-party candidate Alan Keyes for president.
"If I've been asked once, I've been asked a dozen or more times, why are you doing what you are doing," said Drake, who was once targeted by the IRS for supporting political candidates from the pulpit.
"Well I'm doing what I'm doing because I'm angry, I'm mad.
He is not alone. Thirty-two other pastors across the country participated over the weekend in a campaign called "Pulpit Freedom Sunday," organized by the Alliance Defense Fund, a socially conservative legal consortium based in Arizona.
"Pastors have a right to speak about Biblical truths from the pulpit without fear of punishment. No one should be able to use the government to intimidate pastors into giving up their constitutional rights," said ADF Senior Legal Counsel Erik Stanley.
"If you have a concern about pastors speaking about electoral candidates from the pulpit, ask yourself this: Should the church decide that question, or should the IRS?"
"ADF is not trying to get politics into the pulpit," Stanley continued. "Churches can decide for themselves that they either do or don't want their pastors to speak about electoral candidates. The point of the Pulpit Initiative is very simple: The IRS should not be the one making the decision by threatening to revoke a church tax-exempt status. We need to get the government out of the pulpit."
More information on the campaign can be found at www.telladf.org/church.
But not everyone agrees.
The Interfaith Alliance has launched a nationwide campaign to prevent clergy from endorsing political candidates. So far, nearly 200 members of the clergy have signed a pledge agreeing not to back a candidate on behalf of their house of worship.
"On the day after the election, whoever is in the White House will need a unified nation in order to accomplish his goals and to have the nation fulfill it's responsible role internationally," sad C. Welton Gaddy, president of the alliance, told FOXNews.com.
"Religion historically has been able to bring people together in that kind of unity.If religions in the United States are as divided as politics itself, they will not be able to make one of their greatest contributions to the nation."
The law against politics from the pulpit was introduced in 1954 by then Texas Sen. Lyndon Baines Johnson. Wiley says Johnson introduced the bill to silence his critics and never intended to stop churches from supporting candidates.
"It is time for us to challenge the IRS and to challenge this law that has been interpreted that a pastor cannot personally endorse somebody," Drake said. "That is an interpretation and it is a wrong interpretation, in my opinion."
Gaddy, who is also a pastor of a Baptist church in Louisiana, expressed disappointment in the clergy members who participated in the protest.
"They seem to have ignored completely what politicking would do to compromise the credibility and lessen the integrity of religion," he said."They would seem to place more emphasis on getting a particular candidate elected to office than on preserving the historic ability of religion to reconcile people's differences."
I think its about time!
Insult Obama Go To Jail!
Barack Husein Obama calls for anyone who speaks out against him to be arrested! Is this what we can expect if he becomes king?
Watch this news report!
I posted a while back about Barack Husein Obama's plan to establish a conscripted Youth Security Force (See Here or Here). This is just more of the same! Obama does not support our freedom! He is a globalist intent on enslaving us and doing away with our rights.
September 26, 2008
In Missouri, if you “lie” about Barack Obama the cops may arrest you. “The effort appeared to be part of a move by the Obama campaign to block advertisements to which it objects. The campaign also sent ‘threatening’ letters to several news agencies in Pennsylvania and Ohio demanding they stop airing ads exposing Obama’s gun stance, according to the National Rifle Association,” writes WorldNetDaily, never mind Obama is a gun-grabber who claims to support the Second Amendment.
Obama told ABC he supports the D.C. handgun ban. His campaign told the Chicago Tribune “Obama believes the D.C. handgun law is constitutional.” Obama served on the board of the Joyce Foundation, probably the largest private funder of anti-gun and pro-ban groups and research in the country. In addition, Obama voted for a bill that would “expand the definition of armor piercing ammunition” and “support[ed] banning the sale of ammunition for assault weapons,” including 223 and .308 caliber bullets, the most common rifle ammunition. He supported the Illinois Firearms Owners Identification (FOID) Card, mandatory for residents when they buy any firearm in the state. (For more information on Obama’s assault on the Second Amendment, see Analysis: Fact-Checkers Fall Short in Criticizing NRA’s Anti-Obama Ads.)
In other words, if you cite Obama’s voting record or his publicly stated opinions and this rubs his “truth squads” wrong, they will sic the cops on you. “We want to keep this campaign focused on issues,” Jennifer Joyce, a Missouri prosecutor, told told KMOV (see video). “We don’t want people to get distracted. Missourians don’t want to be distracted by the divisive character attacks,” that is to say she does not want the sheep distracted by the truth — Obama is a gun-grabber who pretends to respect the Second Amendment. In addition to Joyce’s warming, Obama lawyer Robert Bauer threatened Missouri television and radio station managers that he would rat them out to the Federal Communication Commission if they dared tell the truth.
This is precisely how political campaigns are run in despotic third world countries and dictatorships that pretend to be democracies. In Bolivia, Madagascar, Zimbabwe, Ethiopia, Burma, Georgia, Haiti — there is no shortage of recent examples — the opposition is routinely arrested, even killed, but we are supposedly above such tactics here in America. Instead, we just fix the voting machines and nix thousands of voters from the rolls.
It appears all of this has changed under Obama. Isn’t this the sort of behavior Hitler’s goons engaged in before he swept into power and killed millions of people, beginning with his political opponents? Isn’t this the sort of thing Stalin and Mao did, eventually graduating to mass murder and genocide? Didn’t East Germany’s Stasi encourage people to turn in their neighbors, even their family and friends, for holding the wrong political opinions?
Of course, Obama is no Stalin and his opponents are not showing up dead on the side of the road. But with this effort to silence the critics through coordinated police action we can see such fascism in a germination stage. Remember, Hitler’s brownshirts started out by intimidating communists, anarchists, and Social Democrats and then graduated to beatings, murder, and finally death camps.
Saturday, September 27, 2008
For more AllFaith Comix visit AllFaith.com!
Master Y'shua said, "The truth will set you free."
Sri Krsna said, "Abandon all varieties of religion and just surrender unto Me. I shall deliver you from all sinful reaction. Do not fear."
Prophet Muhammad said, "O Mankind! The Messenger hath come to you in truth from Allah: believe in him: It is best for you. But if ye reject Faith, to Allah belong all things in the heavens and on earth: And Allah is All-knowing, All-wise."
Gautama Buddha said, "Believe nothing, o monks,merely because you have been told it ...or because it is traditional,or because you yourselves have imagined it.Do not believe what your teacher tells you merely out of respect for the teacher.But whatsoever, after due examination and analysis,you find to be conducive to the good,the benefit, the welfare of all beings -that doctrine believe and cling to,and take it as your guide."
All religions claim to have the Truth... but... they all disagree about what it is... So
What is Truth?
Share your answers here!
What do you believe?
Who/what is God?
What does God require?
What happens after we die?
What religion if any are you?
Let's talk about it here!
Friday, September 26, 2008
This is interesting...
Paul Joseph Watson
Friday, September 26, 2008
martial law should civil unrest arise as the financial meltdown worsens.says that the bailout bill is likely to pass, heralding a 10-year plus economic depression for America and the potential for
|The Congressman said that Greenspan and Bernanke should be criminally charged but that such an effort would be largely symbolic. "Morally speaking, they're the culprits," said Paul.|
"When they say that if we don't do exactly as they say and turn over more of our money and more of our liberties and exempt themselves from any court in the whole nation, they're trying to intimidate us and lead us into doing the wrong thing," said Paul.
The Congressman added that serious problems would arise if nothing was done to address the problem, but that more serious consequences would follow should the bailout be passed.Paul warned that the only question was whether the meltdown would last one year or ten years and how much liberty would be lost in that time frame.
"It looks like from I see in Congress, that they're opting for a decade plus of depression rather than saying let's correct our ways, let's balance the budget, let's bring our troops home," said Paul, adding that the same course of printing money would continue - prolonging the agony and preventing a necessary correction.
Asked if civil unrest was a possibility in the midst of an economic depression, referencing a recent Army Times report concerning the use of active duty military being brought back from Iraq for "Homeland patrols" and "crowd control," Paul questioned, "Are we going to have martial law or are we going to have more freedoms? The more problems that we have, the more likely it is that we're going to have martial law, so I do think they anticipate and they plan for these things."Asked if criminal investigations and prosecutions of individuals on Wall Street should commence, Paul agreed but said that the main target of criminal inquiry should be the Federal Reserve board itself because, "That's where the fraud is."
"They want to be lawless, they don't want to be held accountable, " he added.
Paul said that grand juries should be convened to take on prosecutions rather than the FBI becoming involved, stating, "We have proper authority with that and experience with it and the Enron case is a good example."
The Congressman said that Greenspan and Bernanke should be criminally charged but that such an effort would be largely symbolic. "Morally speaking, they're the culprits," said Paul.
Asked what his solution to the crisis would be, Paul said, "I think the most important thing to do is to send the message that we're going to quit living beyond our means and the president can set the standard for that and he has the most control under the Constitution on foreign policy - he can say no more wars, we're done with the wars, we're not going to take on the Russians, we're not going to take on people in Venezuela, we're going to start talking to the Cubans and bring our troops home and save hundreds of billions of dollars - that would send a powerful message that the dollar would respond to and oil prices would come down."
Paul said that Americans had to accept a new idea of government that harked back to what the founders envisaged and that the welfare state would have to unravel along with aspirations of building a geopolitical empire.
"In the meantime the policy ought to be - shrink the size of government, decrease regulation, work towards sound money, remove the authority of the Fed to create money out of thin air and get tax reduction," stated the Congressman. Paul added that eliminating the income tax would mean everybody becoming a lot richer and more money would be ploughed into the economy.
"It will not solve the problem, it just delays the inevitable," said Paul of the bailout, adding that he expects the bill to pass in a move that would, "Defy the American people."
"I think they get to the point where they think they're like God and can control everything and they don't realize that the market really is more powerful than all the bankers and all the politicians…. Ultimately the underground economy is the real economy and I think they could over step themselves and hopefully we could come out with a better world afterwards," concluded the Congressman.
Video pt 1 http://www.youtube. com/watch? v=EfBURwloHsk
"Banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies" -Thomas Jefferson
"Politicians and diapers should be changed often - and for the same reason."
NO INCUMBENTS - NO MERCY - NO EXCEPTIONS!
Obama refused to answer the questions and when he did he kept showing his lack of insight into the various issues. When he said if elected he would send more troops to Afghanistan and "take out" Pakistan (or the terrorists hiding there -- I think his meaning is questionable) he wiped away the Democratic illusion that electing him would end the wars. An Obama administration would only increase them!
McCain made it clear that he still wants to work with Pakistan as allies and pursue methods that build relationships, not destroy them. Obama was completely out of line with that statement. Obama got owned on this subject!
McCain did, in my opinion say, "Senator Obama doesn't understand" etc. too often. After a while it started sounding too rehearsed, too much like a 'talking point," but that's the only issue I think McCain was weak on.
Obama seemed like a way too rehearsed politician who didn't really care about the questions asked, he was there to recite his lines. I've seen and heard him several times (videos, TV etc) and this was his worst performance to date.
And did you notice how Obama kept calling McCain "John" while McCain referred to Obama as "Senator Obama" showing respect for the office? Very telling! Obama was trying to cut down McCain's credibility by using his first name like that. I suppose its typical, but it looked cheap.
McCain seemed relaxed and just answered the questions he asked (with a couple of exceptions) calmly and clearly. I've seldom seen him do better.
When he said, "You all know me!" or something like that, I think that was very powerful:
There's things I like about McCain and things I don't like, but when he becomes president I don't think there will be any real surprises, like his positions or not. But after all this time we still don't know who Barack Husein Obama really is nor what he really believes in, if anything.
I think McCain ran away with this debate!
Fact checking the presidential debates
By CALVIN WOODWARD and JIM KUHNHENN, Associated Press Writers 12 minutes ago
Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain stretched the facts in accusing each other of kowtowing to the oil industry and sprinkled other dubious assertions across the landscape of public policy in their first presidential debate.
McCain's plan to cut the corporate tax rate to 25 percent from 35 percent across the board so as to spur job creation was boiled down by Obama into a $4 billion tax break for Big Oil, as if no other companies or workers would benefit.
McCain similarly cut corners with context when he accused Obama of voting for huge subsidies for the oil industry. Obama voted to strip away those subsidies and, when that failed, backed broad energy legislation that contained them.
So it went during 90 minutes of debate, a reality warp at times.
OBAMA: "Sen. McCain mentioned Henry Kissinger, who is one of his advisers, who along with five recent secretaries of state just said we should meet with Iran — guess what? — without preconditions."
MCCAIN: "Dr. Kissinger did not say that he would approve face-to-face meetings between the president of the United States and (Iranian President Mahmoud) Ahmadinejad. He did not say that. He said there could be secretary-level and lower-level meetings. I've always encouraged that."
THE FACTS: Obama was right that Kissinger called for meetings without preconditions. McCain was right that Kissinger did not call for such meetings to be between the two presidents.
In a foreign policy forum Saturday, Kissinger said: "I am in favor of negotiating with Iran." He went on to say, "I actually have preferred doing it at the secretary of state level" and the U.S. should go into the talks with "a clear understanding of what is it we're trying to prevent. What is it going to do if we can't achieve what we're talking about? But I do not believe that we can make conditions for the opening of negotiations. We ought, however, to be very clear about the content of negotiations and work it out with other countries and with our own government."
OBAMA: "John, you want to give oil companies another $4 billion" in tax breaks.
THE FACTS: The $4 billion in tax breaks for the oil companies is simply part of McCain's overall corporate tax reduction plan and does not represent an additional tax benefit. In other words, the corporate tax reduction applies to all corporations, oil companies included. Both Obama and McCain have proposed eliminating oil and gas tax loopholes.
MCCAIN: Said the country has lost the sense of accountability exemplified by Allied commander Dwight Eisenhower on the eve of D-Day. He said Eisenhower wrote one letter to be released in the event of victory, which praised the troops, "and he wrote out another letter, and that was a letter of resignation from the United States Army for the failure of the landings at Normandy."
THE FACTS: Eisenhower prepared to take responsibility in the note to be delivered in the event of D-Day disaster but did not offer to resign.
The full text:
"Our landings in the Cherbourg-Le Havre area have failed to gain a satisfactory foothold and I have withdrawn the troops. My decision to attack at this time and place was based on the best information available. The troops, the air and the navy did all that bravery and devotion to duty could do. If any blame or fault attaches to the attempt, it is mine alone."
OBAMA: Said he would make sure that the health care system "allows everyone to have basic coverage."
THE FACTS: If that sounds like universal health coverage, it's not. Obama picked his words carefully — stopping short of claiming outright that his plan provides health care for all. He promises to make health insurance affordable but would only require that children, not adults, have coverage. Estimates of how many would remain without insurance vary. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton said during the primaries that Obama's plan would leave 15 million people uninsured.
MCCAIN: "We had an energy bill before the United States Senate. It was festooned with Christmas tree ornaments. It had all kinds of breaks for the oil companies, I mean, billions of dollars worth. I voted against it; Sen. Obama voted for it."
THE FACTS: Obama did vote for a 2005 energy bill supported by President Bush that included billions in subsidies for oil and natural gas production. McCain opposed the bill on grounds it included unnecessary tax breaks for the oil industry. Obama voted to strip the legislation of the oil and gas industry tax breaks. When that failed, he voted for the overall measure. Obama has said he supported the legislation because it provided money for renewable energy.
OBAMA: "We're also going to have to look at, how is it that we shredded so many regulations? We did not set up a 21st-century regulatory framework to deal with these problems. And that in part has to do with an economic philosophy that says that regulation is always bad."
THE FACTS: Some of the abuses that occurred stemmed from the 1999 repeal of a Depression-era law that separated banks from brokerages. In legislation supported by former President Clinton and Robert Rubin, now a top Obama adviser and treasury secretary in the Clinton administration, this separation was ended — allowing banks and insurance companies to sell securities.
But while regular banks were strictly regulated by the government, Wall Street banks and other non-bank institutions — many of the same institutions whose abuses led to the current crisis — were allowed to operate with less regulation.
MCCAIN: McCain said Obama voted to cut off money for the troops in Iraq.
THE FACTS: Despite opposing the war, Obama has, with one exception, voted for Iraq troop financing. In 2007, he voted against a troop funding bill because it did not contain language calling for a troop withdrawal. The Illinois senator backed another bill that had such language — and money for the troops.
MCCAIN: In a discussion of how the government could shrink spending, he said: "Look, we are sending $700 billion a year overseas to countries that don't like us very much."
THE FACTS: The comment echoes one he made in his acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention earlier this month, when he was talking about money the U.S. spends on foreign oil. FactCheck.org says the U.S. this year is on track to spend $536 billion on imported oil — not $700 billion — and nearly one-third of that comes from friendly nations: Canada, Mexico and Britain.
MCCAIN: "Sen. Obama twice said in debates he would sit down with Ahmadinejad, (Venezuelan President Hugo) Chavez and (Cuban President) Raul Castro without precondition."
OBAMA: "Now, understand what this means, 'without preconditions.' It doesn't mean that you invite them over for tea one day. ... There's a difference between preconditions and preparation. Of course we've got to do preparations, starting with low-level diplomatic talks, and it may not work, because Iran is a rogue regime."
THE FACTS: Obama was asked in a July 2007 debate whether he would be willing to meet "without precondition" with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Cuba and other countries the U.S. regards as rogue nations. Obama replied, "I would," adding that it was ridiculous to think that America is punishing such nations by refusing to speak with them. Time and again since then he has been forced to defend the statement, both by Democrats during the primaries and by Republicans.
Obama has tried to draw a distinction between a precondition and preparation. He has argued that he wouldn't demand that a foreign leader give in on some fundamental issue before the two sides met to discuss the dispute. But he has said "preparations" would require diplomatic contacts to gauge whether a formal meeting would be useful and to lay the groundwork for those talks.
MCCAIN: "You know, we spent $3 million to study the DNA of bears in Montana. I don't know if that was a criminal issue or a paternal issue, but the fact is that it was $3 million of our taxpayers' money. And it has got to be brought under control."
THE FACTS: A study regularly mocked by McCain as pork barrel spending could help ease restrictions on logging, development and even the oil and gas drilling that McCain wants to expand. Montana ranchers, farmers and Republican leaders pushed for the study as a step toward taking the grizzly bear off the endangered species list. Former Montana Gov. Judy Martz, a Republican and a McCain supporter, said the bear had been used to block the use of the state's abundant natural resources, when all along the animal was plentiful. "If it is going to remove it from the list, it is money well spent," Martz said.
Associated Press writers Tom Raum, Lolita Baldor and Anne Gearan contributed to this report.
Code Pink, Ahmadinejad and Lady Europa
In this video notice how the women of Code Pink are dancing around their goddess while a priestess offers her sacrifices from a bowl. This is more than "women power," this was a direct act of public worship.
Goddess Europa and the Bull
The people who met with Ahmadinejad were coordinated by the interfaith peace group the Fellowship of Reconciliation. Their aim is broker negotiations, sister cities, bringing Iranians into the US and US citizens to Iran and so on. Under whose banner?
Because as the prophets foretold, Europa, the New Roman Empire, is now rising and from it the Rex Mundi will come.
According to the prophets the Rex Mundi will have a high priest. Of him we read:
Rev. 13:11 And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon.
12 And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed.
13 And he doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men,
14 And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live.
15 And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed.
16 And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:
17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.
18 Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.
The message of this high Luciferian priest will be interfaith, the belief that all religions are essentially one once they have been stripped of their "nonconformist" elements. And Goddess Europa will lead them in the worship of her son, the Beast.
Official release: CODEPINK activists and other peace organizations meet with Iranian president in New York
Posted by Jean -
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Leading CODEPINK activists and other peace organizations meet with Iranian president in New York
NEW YORK — Calling it a “major step forward” in relations between Iran and the United States, leading activists Medea Benjamin and Jodie Evans of CODEPINK Women for Peace — along with more than 150 other U.S. peace group representatives — met Wednesday afternoon with Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad here following his appearance at the United Nations General Assembly on Tuesday.
At the meeting at the Grand Hyatt Hotel, coordinated by interfaith peace group the Fellowship of Reconciliation, the peace activists talked to Ahmadinejad about their desire to strengthen people-to-people ties between the two countries. They presented several proposals for the Iranian government to consider and copies of a petition signed by 50 U.S. mayors all over the country calling for diplomatic engagement with Iran, not military action. The petition, promoted by CODEPINK, illustrates how local U.S. leaders are anxious to move national resources away from military intervention and into reinvestment in infrastructure, schools and health care. CODEPINK proposed taking a delegation of U.S. Mayors to Iran to create “sister cities.”
“U.S. government officials are quick to stir up hostilities with Iran, but the American people are tired of war,” said Benjamin, co-founder of the nonpartisan women’s peace group CODEPINK. “The peace movement represents the sentiment of the majority of Americans who want our two countries to find ways to work together and improve relations. We are modeling the behavior we want to see our government adopt.”
The CODEPINK women proposed inviting American and Iranian artists to build a “peace park” in Tehran, a memorial dedicated to people-to-people commitment to peace and diplomacy between our two countries.
They also proposed a plan to invest funds in an Iranian business, one that produces green and sustainable products, such as bicycles. This grassroots investment would be the opposite of efforts by the Bush administration and Congress to tighten sanctions, a move which CODEPINK thinks would only hurt ordinary, everyday Iranians. Such a symbolic CODEPINK investment in a green, sustainable business would challenge U.S. regulations blocking trade with Iran and would show how diplomacy and trade are preferable to war and sanctions.
The meeting, which took place in a cordial and positive atmosphere, was considered a great breakthrough.
“It’s rare for a head of state to take time during an official U.N. visit to meet with the peace community, especially in a situation where the host government—represented by the Bush administration—is so hostile,” said Evans, co-founder of CODEPINK. “The fact that the meeting took place and was so positive is, in itself, a major step forward.”
You are visitor number...
Who cares, I'm glad YOU'RE here!
Who cares, I'm glad YOU'RE here!
Thursday, September 25, 2008
For more AllFaith Comix, Go Here!
Traditionally Christians and Muslims have been very missionary minded. In some cases the missionaries have been good for the areas where they have worked, but often their influence has been bad.
Recently a new Calvary Chapel congregation opened in my area and we've been attending it. As I explain in the following letter, some of their missionary policies are disturbing.
First, I'll include an insightful PDF file about what missionaries are doing to India. Next will be my letter followed by the letter of another reader of Calvary Chapel Magazine who was as offended by what is there as I was. If you're a Christian who supports missionary work this information is worthy of your intention. If you are a Hindu I hope this shows that you are not alone in your outrage.
I grew up in a Christian (Missionary Baptist) family and accepted Jesus as my savior when I was 12 years old (in 1969). Through the years I have studied the Bible very seriously seeking to divide its holy truths from religious propaganda -- this is a difficult task! I also studied other religions very seriously including Hinduism even as the Bible orders us to 'Study to thyself approved approved unto God'. I take my salvation and my relationship with God very seriously.
In the late 1970's I was very involved in a Calvary Chapel congregation in Texas but moved to another area and plugged into other groups. My wife and I recently began attending services at a Calvary Chapel here in Northern California. Of course people seldom agree on every point of doctrine and to some decree we have to "agree to disagree" with one another.
So before going I assured her that one thing that makes Calvary Chapel different is your stress on biblical accuracy and fact checking, that while we may not agree with all of your interpretations, the differences would be matters of honest interpretation rather than bigotry and intentional deceptions as we have found in many other churches.
Last Sunday I picked up issue 37 - Fall 2008 of Calvary Chapel Magazine on our way home from services and was horrified and disgusted to read, on page 21, right hand column:
"Debbie explained, "The Hindus worship many gods and have many ceremonies. They actually invite Satan by name into the temple and put sacrifices on a statue where they say he sits." [emphasis mine].
This is a slanderous lie!
There is NO Hindu shrine to Satan! Hindus do not even believe in Satan! Hinduism doesn't even accept the concept of demons as conceived in Christianity!
This is an obvious attempt to garner support for your missionaries by intentional deception in what seems to be your flagship publication!
The piece goes on to lament that:
"The persecution of Christians there is phenomenal..."
I wonder why!!!
If Calvary Chapel is spreading such bald-faced lies and disinformation about Hindus and their far more ancient religion its no wonder the Hindus are earnestly opposing your Missionaries!
Needless to say, I don't plan to return to Calvary Chapel. Its sad to see that this denomination too is using the tools of deceit and divisiveness to beguile the religiously ignorant.
God's Church can not be established on lies! The "Synagogue of Satan" can be perhaps, but not the Church of the Living God!
Rev 3:14 And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;
15 I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.
16 So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.
17 Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked:
18 I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see.
19 As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.
This is an excellent PDF File that all Hindus and friends of Hinduism would do well to read. Also, those who seek to convert India and the Hindu people should read it as well.
This is especially relevant as we recall that one of the main Muslim prophecies is that in the Last Days Hinduism will be utterly destroyed from the Sub Continent!
WaMu Is Largest U.S. Bank Failure
My bank, Washington Mutual, just joined the collapsing banks. The Bilderberg Group is fast consolidating their stranglehold on the United States in preparation for our merging into the North American Union. I'm moving my account in the morning!
Who bought WaMu?
The king pin of the Federal Reserve Scam that stole control of all US currency from Congress!
Have you read The Creature From Jekyll Island?
Its a must read!
1994, American Media , 601 pages
A friend of mine—who is one of those rare fellows who actually worries about the national debt (which according to this link is ~$9 trillion and counting... fast)—laid Creature on me last time we broke bread together. In this tome, author Edward Griffin delivers a devastating expose on the background, execution, and remedies to the Federal Reserve Banking system (FRBS).
The system, which amounts to a national bank under control of (surprise) the money interests who dominate the government of the United States, was rather sneakily enacted into law by Congress just before Christmas recess in 1913. Creature shows how this surreptitious meeting on Jekyll Island, a private resort off the coast of Georgia owned by J.P. Morgan and associates, led to the FRBS and its seemingly unlimited license to steal continuously from the productive class.
The well-dressed thieves on the inside track were as follows:
• Nelson W. Aldrich, Republican Whip in the Senate, chairman of the National Monetary Commission, business associate of J.P. Morgan, father-in-law to John D. Rockefeller, Jr.
• Abraham Pitt Andrew, Assistant Secretary to the United States Treasury
• Frank A. Vanderlip, president of the National City Bank of New York, the most powerful of the banks at that time, representing William Rockefeller and the international investment banking house of Kuhn, Loeb, and Company
• Henry P. Davison, senior partner of the J.P. Morgan Company
• Charles D. Norton, president of J.P. Morgan's First National Bank of New York
• Benjamin Strong, head of J.P. Morgan's Bankers Trust Company
• Paul M. Warburg, a partner in Kuhn, Loeb & Company, a representative of the Rothschild banking dynasty in England and France, and brother to Max Warburg who was head of the Warburg banking consortium in Germany and the Netherlands
The men came to the island in November of 1910 courtesy of Aldrich's splendiferous private railway car; every effort was made to conceal their identities and the nature of their business. News did not leak until 1916 when a young financial reporter for Leslie's Weekly, B.C. Forbes (who later founded Forbes Magazine) wrote a story about the meeting... approvingly.
Griffin lays out the objectives of these less-than-magnificent seven straightforwardly:
1) Stop the growing influence of small, rival banks and ensure that control over the nation's financial resources remain in the hands of those present.
2) Make the money supply more elastic (i.e. available) in order to reverse the trend of private capital formation and to recapture the industrial loan market.
3) Pool the meager reserves of the nation's banks into one large reserve so that all banks are motivated to follow the same loan-to-deposit ratios; this protects at least some of them from currency drains and bank runs.
4) Should this cartelization approach lead ultimately to collapse of the whole banking system, shift the losses from the owners of the banks to the taxpayers.
What follows is history, as they say. And "history" should be the middle name of Griffin's fascinating book, which is largely a compendium of how the American and world economies developed from the dawn of the Industrial Revolution. Griffin makes everything so crystal clear, even I can comprehend it. (I can honestly assert that finally, after all the books I've read over the years on money and banking, I truly understand how the federales create money out of thin air.)
Now I see why Penn Central and Chrysler were bailed out, why Lockheed and New York City were rescued back in the day, how we got stiffed by the savings and loans debacle in the Reagan era, how both sides of virtually all wars are funded by the big banks (the Rothschild Formula). And I see the money-power rationale for sinking the Lusitania, for Pearl Harbor, and for 911—and dozens of other bonecrushing catastrophes.
War is not simply the health of the state it is the wealth of the state: it is the ultimate engine of human destruction stoked by the propensity of some men to steal from other men en masse under a fraudulent aura of civic virtue. When the war is over, they collect from the winners in tribute and the losers in reparations.
Recall the adage "he who owns the gold makes the rules." Well Creature is a story of "he who loans the gold makes the rules" (or rather loans the certificates that should represent gold but are only IOUs themselves). After reading this book, you realize that if the supply of Federal Reserve notes doubles tonight, your work tomorrow brings half as much bread to the table.
My friend insisted I never reveal who loaned me the book; I thought this a bit odd, is he truly worried that the authorities are going to come knocking on his door for dealing in state secrets?! Perhaps. But the cat is out of the bag. Naturally, Griffin proposes a quite reasonable program to pull the plug on this FRBS beast before it destroys us all.
And that's where we are. The latest antihuman thrust of the power-elite, of the Cartel if you will, has been thoroughly exhausted in Iraq and Afghanistan. Yet there are men looking to make huge fortunes through the invasion of Iran... even though that will destroy what's left of a potentially great country—ours! Such is the logic of the unconstitutional corporate state running amok.
Another salient virtue of Creature is you actually learn how honest banking might be accomplished, along with honest coinage, free from the state's giant penny in the economic fusebox. It's no accident that the leading verifiable human candidate for the presidential nomination today is Dr. Ron Paul, a wizard on the gold standard and the urgent need to eliminate the Federal Reserve, and a huge fan of Creature.
Also, check out my favorite community-money guru Thomas Greco and his bold life-giving ideas at ReinventingMoney.com. As Eckhart Tolle and other spiritual leaders attest, we're on the verge of a bold new evolution of human consciousness; we're going to need the best and the brightest of all fields to thread our way back to civilized existence... especially in the area of earning an honest buck. Creation is a great reference guide for so healthful a task.
2007 August 29
Copyright © Brian Wright | The Coffee Coaster™
Creature from Jekyll Island|G. Edward Griffin|Federal Reserve Act
WaMu is largest U.S. bank failure
By Elinor Comlay and Jonathan Stempel 12 minutes ago
Washington Mutual Inc was closed by the U.S. government in by far the largest failure of a U.S. bank, and its banking assets were sold to JPMorgan Chase & Co for $1.9 billion.
Thursday's seizure and sale is the latest historic step in U.S. government attempts to clean up a banking industry littered with toxic mortgage debt. Negotiations over a $700 billion bailout of the entire financial system stalled in Washington on Thursday.
Washington Mutual, the largest U.S. savings and loan, has been one of the lenders hardest hit by the nation's housing bust and credit crisis, and had already suffered from soaring mortgage losses.
Washington Mutual was shut by the federal Office of Thrift Supervision, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp was named receiver. This followed $16.7 billion of deposit outflows at the Seattle-based thrift since Sept 15, the OTS said.
"With insufficient liquidity to meet its obligations, WaMu was in an unsafe and unsound condition to transact business," the OTS said.
Customers should expect business as usual on Friday, and all depositors are fully protected, the FDIC said.
FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair said the bailout happened on Thursday night because of media leaks, and to calm customers. Usually, the FDIC takes control of failed institutions on Friday nights, giving it the weekend to go through the books and enable them to reopen smoothly the following Monday.
Washington Mutual has about $307 billion of assets and $188 billion of deposits, regulators said. The largest previous U.S. banking failure was Continental Illinois National Bank & Trust, which had $40 billion of assets when it collapsed in 1984.
JPMorgan said the transaction means it will now have 5,410 branches in 23 U.S. states from coast to coast, as well as the largest U.S. credit card business.
It vaults JPMorgan past Bank of America Corp to become the nation's second-largest bank, with $2.04 trillion of assets, just behind Citigroup Inc. Bank of America will go to No. 1 once it completes its planned purchase of Merrill Lynch & Co.
The bailout also fulfills JPMorgan Chief Executive Jamie Dimon's long-held goal of becoming a retail bank force in the western United States. It comes four months after JPMorgan acquired the failing investment bank Bear Stearns Cos at a fire-sale price through a government-financed transaction.
On a conference call, Dimon said the "risk here obviously is the asset values."
He added: "That's what created this opportunity."
JPMorgan expects to incur $1.5 billion of pre-tax costs, but realize an equal amount of annual savings, mostly by the end of 2010. It expects the transaction to add to earnings immediately, and increase earnings 70 cents per share by 2011.
It also plans to sell $8 billion of stock, and take a $31 billion write-down for the loans it bought, representing estimated future credit losses.
The FDIC said the acquisition does not cover claims of Washington Mutual equity, senior debt and subordinated debt holders. It also said the transaction will not affect its roughly $45.2 billion deposit insurance fund.
"Jamie Dimon is clearly feeling that he has an opportunity to grab market share, and get it at fire-sale prices," said Matt McCormick, a portfolio manager at Bahl & Gaynor Investment Counsel in Cincinnati. "He's becoming an acquisition machine."
The transaction came as Washington wrangles over the fate of a $700 billion bailout of the financial services industry, which has been battered by mortgage defaults and tight credit conditions, and evaporating investor confidence.
"It removes an uncertainty from the market," said Shane Oliver, head of investment strategy at AMP Capital in Sydney. "The problem is that markets are in a jittery stage. Washington Mutual provides another reminder how tenuous things are."
Washington Mutual's collapse is the latest of a series of takeovers and outright failures that have transformed the American financial landscape and wiped out hundreds of billions of dollars of shareholder wealth.
These include the disappearance of Bear, government takeovers of mortgage companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the insurer American International Group Inc, the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc, and Bank of America's purchase of Merrill.
JPMorgan, based in New York, ended June with $1.78 trillion of assets, $722.9 billion of deposits and 3,157 branches. Washington Mutual then had 2,239 branches and 43,198 employees. It is unclear how many people will lose their jobs.
Shares of Washington Mutual plunged $1.24 to 45 cents in after-hours trading after news of a JPMorgan transaction surfaced. JPMorgan shares rose $1.04 to $44.50 after hours, but before the stock offering was announced.
The transaction ends exactly 119 years of independence for Washington Mutual, whose predecessor was incorporated on September 25, 1889, "to offer its stockholders a safe and profitable vehicle for investing and lending," according to the thrift's website. This helped Seattle residents rebuild after a fire torched the city's downtown.
It also follows more than a week of sale talks in which Washington Mutual attracted interest from several suitors.
These included Banco Santander SA, Citigroup Inc, HSBC Holdings Plc, Toronto-Dominion Bank and Wells Fargo & Co, as well as private equity firms Blackstone Group LP and Carlyle Group, people familiar with the situation said.
Less than three weeks ago, Washington Mutual ousted Chief Executive Kerry Killinger, who drove the thrift's growth as well as its expansion in subprime and other risky mortgages. It replaced him with Alan Fishman, the former chief executive of Brooklyn, New York's Independence Community Bank Corp.
WaMu's board was surprised at the seizure, and had been working on alternatives, people familiar with the matter said.
More than half of Washington Mutual's roughly $227 billion book of real estate loans was in home equity loans, and in adjustable-rate mortgages and subprime mortgages that are now considered risky.
The transaction wipes out a $1.35 billion investment by David Bonderman's private equity firm TPG Inc, the lead investor in a $7 billion capital raising by the thrift in April.
A TPG spokesman said the firm is "dissatisfied with the loss," but that the investment "represented a very small portion of our assets."
The deal is the latest ambitious move by Dimon.
Once a golden child at Citigroup before his mentor Sanford "Sandy" Weill engineered his ouster in 1998, Dimon has carved for himself something of a role as a Wall Street savior.
Dimon joined JPMorgan in 2004 after selling his Bank One Corp to the bank for $56.9 billion, and became chief executive at the end of 2005.
Some historians see parallels between him and the legendary financier John Pierpont Morgan, who ran J.P. Morgan & Co and was credited with intervening to end a banking panic in 1907.
JPMorgan has suffered less than many rivals from the credit crisis, but has been hurt. It said on Thursday it has already taken $3 billion to $3.5 billion of write-downs this quarter on mortgages and leveraged loans.
Washington Mutual has a major presence in California and Florida, two of the states hardest hit by the housing crisis. It also has a big presence in the New York City area. The thrift lost $6.3 billion in the nine months ended June 30.
"It is surprising that it has hung on for as long as it has," said Nancy Bush, an analyst at NAB Research LLC.
(Additional reporting by Paritosh Bansal, Christian Plumb and Dan Wilchins; Jessica Hall in Philadelphia; John Poirier in Washington, D.C. and Kevin Lim in Singapore; Editing by Gary Hill and Carol Bishopric)
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
The following is from Biblelight.net
As per my usual disclaimer, the inclusion of this information does not mean I agree with this web site on everything. I do however find this to be very telling.
Reversing An Act Of God
With A Modern Tower of Babel
Gen 11:1 And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech.
Gen 11:2 And it came to pass, as they journeyed from the east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar; and they dwelt there.
Gen 11:3 And they said one to another, Go to, let us make brick, and burn them thoroughly. And they had brick for stone, and slime had they for mortar.
Gen 11:4 And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.
Gen 11:5 And the LORD came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded.
Gen 11:6 And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.
Gen 11:7 Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.
Gen 11:8 So the LORD scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city.
Gen 11:9 Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the LORD did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the LORD scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.
An Unfinished Tower
The flag of the European Union (EU)
Above is an illustration of the one of the buildings of the European Parliament in Strasbourg France, the Louise Weiss Building, which includes a tower that appears to be unfinished. Below on the left is a painting done in 1563 of the Tower of Babel, by Pieter Brueghel the Elder, a Flemish Northern Renaissance Painter. Below on the right is a poster produced by the European Union symbolically depicting their mission. It combines the 12 stars of the EU flag with the rebuilding of the tower of Babel with the motto Europe: Many Tongues One Voice. Note also that the stars are shown as inverted pentagrams, an occult symbol for Satan.
The tower of the Louise Weiss Building (shown below), although it looks unfinished, was designed with the expressed purpose of resembling the tower of Babel as depicted in Brueghel's painting!
The European Union Constitution
Capitoline Hill, Rome, October 29, 2004 - Signing the new EU constitution in the Appartamento dei Conservatori, Sala degli Orazi e Curiazi, before the bronze statue of Pope Innocent X by Alessandro Algardi.
The European Union is clearly saying symbolically that their goal is a defiant reversal of an act of God. The prophecy of Daniel chapter 2 tells us that this end-time attempt at unification will ultimately fail as an unfinished work, that it will soon be replaced by the Kingdom of God.
Dan 2:43 And whereas thou sawest iron mixed with miry clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men: but they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay.
Dan 2:44 And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.
The EU expanded from 15 members to 25 in 2004, making a new constitution necessary for practical governing. Before it could come into effect, the EU constitution had to be ratified by all 25 EU member states, either through a referendum or by a parliamentary vote. Nine countries already had done so: Austria, Hungary, Italy, Germany, Greece, Lithuania, Slovakia, Slovenia and Spain, however, rejection by even a single remaining country would prevent it from taking effect in November of 2006. The "no" vote that derailed the EU constitution happened on May 29th, 2005 in France. The Netherlands also voted "no" on June 1st, 2005 and the United Kingdom announced on June 6th, 2005 that it would not vote on the constitution. For all practical purposes, the EU constitution and its attempt at unity is dead.
As of January 1, 2007, the EU expanded to 27 nations with the addition of Bulgaria and Romania.
The European Union dropped plans for a constitution and decided to amend two existing treaties instead. Signed by the heads of state in Lisbon on December 13th, 2007, it still had be ratified by all 27 member nations to go into effect. Ireland, the only country to put the treaty to a public vote, defeated the Lisbon treaty proposition on June 12th, 2008.