Saturday, August 08, 2009

The Sabbath Ceremony



While God's professed people sit on the pews and are lulled to sleep by smooth preaching, Mrs. Sonia Sotomayor takes her oath of office as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
At 11 A.M. EDT in Washington D.C., while the children of God listen to lively "worship" music, watch hand puppets, and hear verses from the New International Version or The Message, the enemy of souls is preparing a trap for God's faithful few. While the usual "God is Love" sermons are pronounced the nation and the world are charmed oblivious to the fact that the enemy has almost achieved total control of their minds and souls; Yet, they clamor: "speak unto us smooth things".
.
.
9That this is a rebellious people, lying children, children that will not hear the law of the LORD:
10Which say to the seers, See not; and to the prophets, Prophesy not unto us right things, speak unto us smooth things, prophesy deceits:
11Get you out of the way, turn aside out of the path, cause the Holy One of Israel to cease from before us..... Isaiah 30:9-11.
.
.
6And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people,

7Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters.

8And there followed another angel, saying, Babylon is fallen, is fallen, that great city, because she made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication.

9And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand,

10The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb:

11And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.

12Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.
Revelation 14: 6-12.

Arsenio.
.

Friday, August 07, 2009

The Writing On The Wall


Daniel 5


1Belshazzar the king made a great feast to a thousand of his lords, and drank wine before the thousand.

2Belshazzar, whiles he tasted the wine, commanded to bring the golden and silver vessels which his father Nebuchadnezzar had taken out of the temple which was in Jerusalem; that the king, and his princes, his wives, and his concubines, might drink therein.

3Then they brought the golden vessels that were taken out of the temple of the house of God which was at Jerusalem; and the king, and his princes, his wives, and his concubines, drank in them.

4They drank wine, and praised the gods of gold, and of silver, of brass, of iron, of wood, and of stone.

5In the same hour came forth fingers of a man's hand, and wrote over against the candlestick upon the plaister of the wall of the king's palace: and the king saw the part of the hand that wrote.

6Then the king's countenance was changed, and his thoughts troubled him, so that the joints of his loins were loosed, and his knees smote one against another.

7The king cried aloud to bring in the astrologers, the Chaldeans, and the soothsayers. And the king spake, and said to the wise men of Babylon, Whosoever shall read this writing, and shew me the interpretation thereof, shall be clothed with scarlet, and have a chain of gold about his neck, and shall be the third ruler in the kingdom.

8Then came in all the king's wise men: but they could not read the writing, nor make known to the king the interpretation thereof.

9Then was king Belshazzar greatly troubled, and his countenance was changed in him, and his lords were astonied.

10Now the queen by reason of the words of the king and his lords came into the banquet house: and the queen spake and said, O king, live for ever: let not thy thoughts trouble thee, nor let thy countenance be changed:

11There is a man in thy kingdom, in whom is the spirit of the holy gods; and in the days of thy father light and understanding and wisdom, like the wisdom of the gods, was found in him; whom the king Nebuchadnezzar thy father, the king, I say, thy father, made master of the magicians, astrologers, Chaldeans, and soothsayers;

12Forasmuch as an excellent spirit, and knowledge, and understanding, interpreting of dreams, and shewing of hard sentences, and dissolving of doubts, were found in the same Daniel, whom the king named Belteshazzar: now let Daniel be called, and he will shew the interpretation.

13Then was Daniel brought in before the king. And the king spake and said unto Daniel, Art thou that Daniel, which art of the children of the captivity of Judah, whom the king my father brought out of Jewry?

14I have even heard of thee, that the spirit of the gods is in thee, and that light and understanding and excellent wisdom is found in thee.

15And now the wise men, the astrologers, have been brought in before me, that they should read this writing, and make known unto me the interpretation thereof: but they could not shew the interpretation of the thing:

16And I have heard of thee, that thou canst make interpretations, and dissolve doubts: now if thou canst read the writing, and make known to me the interpretation thereof, thou shalt be clothed with scarlet, and have a chain of gold about thy neck, and shalt be the third ruler in the kingdom.

17Then Daniel answered and said before the king, Let thy gifts be to thyself, and give thy rewards to another; yet I will read the writing unto the king, and make known to him the interpretation.

18O thou king, the most high God gave Nebuchadnezzar thy father a kingdom, and majesty, and glory, and honour:

19And for the majesty that he gave him, all people, nations, and languages, trembled and feared before him: whom he would he slew; and whom he would he kept alive; and whom he would he set up; and whom he would he put down.

20But when his heart was lifted up, and his mind hardened in pride, he was deposed from his kingly throne, and they took his glory from him:

21And he was driven from the sons of men; and his heart was made like the beasts, and his dwelling was with the wild asses: they fed him with grass like oxen, and his body was wet with the dew of heaven; till he knew that the most high God ruled in the kingdom of men, and that he appointeth over it whomsoever he will.

22And thou his son, O Belshazzar, hast not humbled thine heart, though thou knewest all this;

23But hast lifted up thyself against the Lord of heaven; and they have brought the vessels of his house before thee, and thou, and thy lords, thy wives, and thy concubines, have drunk wine in them; and thou hast praised the gods of silver, and gold, of brass, iron, wood, and stone, which see not, nor hear, nor know: and the God in whose hand thy breath is, and whose are all thy ways, hast thou not glorified:

24Then was the part of the hand sent from him; and this writing was written.

25And this is the writing that was written, MENE, MENE, TEKEL, UPHARSIN.

26This is the interpretation of the thing: MENE; God hath numbered thy kingdom, and finished it.

27TEKEL; Thou art weighed in the balances, and art found wanting.

28PERES; Thy kingdom is divided, and given to the Medes and Persians.

29Then commanded Belshazzar, and they clothed Daniel with scarlet, and put a chain of gold about his neck, and made a proclamation concerning him, that he should be the third ruler in the kingdom.

30In that night was Belshazzar the king of the Chaldeans slain.

31And Darius the Median took the kingdom, being about threescore and two years old.

Mel Martinez Resigns: Connecting The Dots


Today, Mel Martinez. the Cuban-American Senator from Florida abruptly resigned; but not before voting to confirm the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Yesterday, Sen. Martinez crossed party lines to add his vote to the unanimous Democrat approval of President Obama's choice for the nation's highest court. One day later he resigns!

The scenario finally made sense when I heard a news report in which the Florida Senator articulated a few details about the reasons why he will step down.



“my priorities have always been my faith, my family and my country, and at this stage in my life, and after nearly 12 years of public service in Florida and Washington, it’s time I return to Florida and my family.”


http://www.iterasi.net/openviewer.aspx?sqrlitid=hmc2ayxssemdyatoiqhi7g




Here's an indication of what this man's motives are and were while in office.
He stated his priorities in this order:



  1. Faith

  2. Family

  3. Country

Faith was the first priority mentioned in his speech.


OK, what is Mel Martinez's faith? Religion Roman Catholic, and also a Knights of Malta*.

Here's additional information about the Senator's religion and civic ties:

He came to the United States in 1962 as part of a Roman Catholic humanitarian effort called Operation Peter Pan, which brought into the U.S. more than 14,000 children. Catholic charitable groups provided Martinez a temporary home at two youth facilities. At the time Martínez was alone and spoke virtually no English. He subsequently lived with two foster families, and in 1966 was reunited with his family in Orlando.

... He served as Vice-President of the Board of Catholic Charities of the Orlando Diocese.

...Despite an absence of a quorum, the Senate approved The Palm Sunday Compromise, formally known as the Act for the relief of the parents of Theresa Marie Schiavo (S. 686 CPS), in the early hours of March 20, 2005, to allow the case of Terri Schiavo to be moved into a federal court. The bill passed unanimously by voice vote and no formal record of the vote was made. Bill Frist (R-TN), Rick Santorum (R-PA), and Mel Martínez (R-FL), the only Senators present, voted for the bill with the remaining 97 Senators not present.

... Abortion: Rated 100% by National Right to Life Committee[16], which indicates a pro-life stance. Morally opposed to abortion even in case of rape or incest, he supports education to reduce abortions, and supports the promotion of alternatives such as adoption. His position on the legality of abortion is unclear, but he has indicated that he would not vote for prosecuting involved parties even in the event of a reversal of Roe v. Wade. In a debate moderated by Tim Russert, Martínez stated:
"The bottom line is I don't plan on prosecuting anyone. When I go to the United States Senate, I'm going to be confirming judges who will go to the courts, and the courts will deal with the issue. This is not up for a vote by the United States Senate." He added, "We're far from prosecuting people in this country over that issue" [17]

Conclusion

Many people say that you can't judge a person or a politician by their religion. I say you can; Especially if that religion has ambitions of manipulating governments, and a long history of using its clerical power to influence secular powers.

Another observation - There's plenty of talk about judges who legislate, or activist judges; Well, when they are Roman Catholics many times they have divided allegiances, duty first to their church and second to their country. Where are the protests when we see these people maneuver themselves in many capacities in government? When they clearly testify that their "FAITH" comes first? Where's the outcry of activism there?

Why do you think the framers of the Constitution stressed separation of Church and State?

Justice is blind; And sometimes it just-looks the other way!

Mission Accomplished.

Arsenio.

Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mel_Martinez

*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Knights_of_Malta

"http://www.iterasi.net/openviewer.aspx?sqrlitid=hmc2ayxssemdyatoiqhi7g
.
.

G. Edward Griffin on Fox News 2009

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f73_Jn-SILMhttp://
height="344">



Informative discussion about collectivism,new world order and the federal reserve

leonski35
August 04, 2009

Explosive Allegations: Blackwater Founder Implicated in Murder

By Jeremy Scahill, The Nation. Posted August 4, 2009.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwrl6TBrFAEhttp://
height="344">


Sworn statements filed in Federal Court also allege that Blackwater founder Erik Prince launched a "crusade" to eliminate Muslims and Islam.

A former Blackwater employee and an ex-U.S. Marine who has worked as a security operative for the company have made a series of explosive allegations in sworn statements filed on August 3 in federal court in Virginia. The two men claim that the company's owner, Erik Prince, may have murdered or facilitated the murder of individuals who were cooperating with federal authorities investigating the company. The former employee also alleges that Prince "views himself as a Christian crusader tasked with eliminating Muslims and the Islamic faith from the globe," and that Prince's companies "encouraged and rewarded the destruction of Iraqi life."

In their testimony, both men also allege that Blackwater was smuggling weapons into Iraq. One of the men alleges that Prince turned a profit by transporting "illegal" or "unlawful" weapons into the country on Prince's private planes. They also charge that Prince and other Blackwater executives destroyed incriminating videos, emails and other documents and have intentionally deceived the U.S. State Department and other federal agencies. The identities of the two individuals were sealed out of concerns for their safety.

These allegations, and a series of other charges, are contained in sworn affidavits, given under penalty of perjury, filed late at night on August 3 in the Eastern District of Virginia as part of a seventy-page motion by lawyers for Iraqi civilians suing Blackwater for alleged war crimes and other misconduct. Susan Burke, a private attorney working in conjunction with the Center for Constitutional Rights, is suing Blackwater in five separate civil cases filed in the Washington, DC, area. They were recently consolidated before Judge T.S. Ellis III of the Eastern District of Virginia for pretrial motions. Burke filed the August 3 motion in response to Blackwater's motion to dismiss the case. Blackwater asserts that Prince and the company are innocent of any wrongdoing and that they were professionally performing their duties on behalf of their employer, the U.S. State Department.

The former employee, identified in the court documents as "John Doe #2," is a former member of Blackwater's management team, according to a source close to the case. Doe #2 alleges in a sworn declaration that, based on information provided to him by former colleagues, "it appears that Mr. Prince and his employees murdered, or had murdered, one or more persons who have provided information, or who were planning to provide information, to the federal authorities about the ongoing criminal conduct." John Doe #2 says he worked at Blackwater for four years; his identity is concealed in the sworn declaration because he "fear[s] violence against me in retaliation for submitting this Declaration." He also alleges, "On several occasions after my departure from Mr. Prince's employ, Mr. Prince's management has personally threatened me with death and violence."

In a separate sworn statement, the former U.S. marine who worked for Blackwater in Iraq alleges that he has "learned from my Blackwater colleagues and former colleagues that one or more persons who have provided information, or who were planning to provide information about Erik Prince and Blackwater have been killed in suspicious circumstances." Identified as "John Doe #1," he says he "joined Blackwater and deployed to Iraq to guard State Department and other American government personnel." It is not clear if Doe #1 is still working with the company as he states he is "scheduled to deploy in the immediate future to Iraq." Like Doe #2, he states that he fears "violence" against him for "submitting this Declaration." No further details on the alleged murder(s) are provided.

"Mr. Prince feared, and continues to fear, that the federal authorities will detect and prosecute his various criminal deeds," states Doe #2. "On more than one occasion, Mr. Prince and his top managers gave orders to destroy emails and other documents. Many incriminating videotapes, documents and emails have been shredded and destroyed."

The Nation cannot independently verify the identities of the two individuals, their roles at Blackwater or what motivated them to provide sworn testimony in these civil cases. Both individuals state that they have previously cooperated with federal prosecutors conducting a criminal inquiry into Blackwater.

"It's a pending investigation, so we cannot comment on any matters in front of a Grand Jury or if a Grand Jury even exists on these matters," John Roth, the spokesperson for the U.S. Attorney's office in the District of Columbia, told The Nation. "It would be a crime if we did that." Asked specifically about whether there is a criminal investigation into Prince regarding the murder allegations and other charges, Roth said: "We would not be able to comment on what we are or are not doing in regards to any possible investigation involving an uncharged individual."

The Nation repeatedly attempted to contact spokespeople for Prince or his companies at numerous email addresses and telephone numbers. When a company representative was reached by phone and asked to comment, she said, "Unfortunately no one can help you in that area." The representative then said that she would pass along The Nation's request. As this article goes to press, no company representative has responded further to The Nation.

Doe #2 states in the declaration that he has also provided the information contained in his statement "in grand jury proceedings convened by the United States Department of Justice." Federal prosecutors convened a grand jury in the aftermath of the September 16, 2007, Nisour Square shootings in Baghdad, which left seventeen Iraqis dead. Five Blackwater employees are awaiting trial on several manslaughter charges and a sixth, Jeremy Ridgeway, has already pleaded guilty to manslaughter and attempting to commit manslaughter and is cooperating with prosecutors. It is not clear whether Doe #2 testified in front of the Nisour Square grand jury or in front of a separate grand jury.

The two declarations are each five pages long and contain a series of devastating allegations concerning Erik Prince and his network of companies, which now operate under the banner of Xe Services LLC. Among those leveled by Doe #2 is that Prince "views himself as a Christian crusader tasked with eliminating Muslims and the Islamic faith from the globe":

To that end, Mr. Prince intentionally deployed to Iraq certain men who shared his vision of Christian supremacy, knowing and wanting these men to take every available opportunity to murder Iraqis. Many of these men used call signs based on the Knights of the Templar, the warriors who fought the Crusades.
Mr. Prince operated his companies in a manner that encouraged and rewarded the destruction of Iraqi life. For example, Mr. Prince's executives would openly speak about going over to Iraq to "lay Hajiis out on cardboard." Going to Iraq to shoot and kill Iraqis was viewed as a sport or game. Mr. Prince's employees openly and consistently used racist and derogatory terms for Iraqis and other Arabs, such as "ragheads" or "hajiis."
Among the additional allegations made by Doe #1 is that "Blackwater was smuggling weapons into Iraq." He states that he personally witnessed weapons being "pulled out" from dog food bags. Doe #2 alleges that "Prince and his employees arranged for the weapons to be polywrapped and smuggled into Iraq on Mr. Prince's private planes, which operated under the name Presidential Airlines," adding that Prince "generated substantial revenues from participating in the illegal arms trade."

Doe #2 states: "Using his various companies, [Prince] procured and distributed various weapons, including unlawful weapons such as sawed off semi-automatic machine guns with silencers, through unlawful channels of distribution." Blackwater "was not abiding by the terms of the contract with the State Department and was deceiving the State Department," according to Doe #1.

This is not the first time an allegation has surfaced that Blackwater used dog food bags to smuggle weapons into Iraq. ABC News's Brian Ross reported in November 2008 that a "federal grand jury in North Carolina is investigating allegations the controversial private security firm Blackwater illegally shipped assault weapons and silencers to Iraq, hidden in large sacks of dog food." Another former Blackwater employee has also confirmed this information to The Nation.

Both individuals allege that Prince and Blackwater deployed individuals to Iraq who, in the words of Doe #1, "were not properly vetted and cleared by the State Department." Doe #2 adds that "Prince ignored the advice and pleas from certain employees, who sought to stop the unnecessary killing of innocent Iraqis." Doe #2 further states that some Blackwater officials overseas refused to deploy "unfit men" and sent them back to the U.S. Among the reasons cited by Doe #2 were "the men making statements about wanting to deploy to Iraq to 'kill ragheads' or achieve 'kills' or 'body counts,'" as well as "excessive drinking" and "steroid use." However, when the men returned to the U.S., according to Doe #2, "Prince and his executives would send them back to be deployed in Iraq with an express instruction to the concerned employees located overseas that they needed to 'stop costing the company money.'"

Doe #2 also says Prince "repeatedly ignored the assessments done by mental health professionals, and instead terminated those mental health professionals who were not willing to endorse deployments of unfit men." He says Prince and then-company president Gary Jackson "hid from Department of State the fact that they were deploying men to Iraq over the objections of mental health professionals and security professionals in the field," saying they "knew the men being deployed were not suitable candidates for carrying lethal weaponry, but did not care because deployments meant more money."

Doe #1 states that "Blackwater knew that certain of its personnel intentionally used excessive and unjustified deadly force, and in some instances used unauthorized weapons, to kill or seriously injure innocent Iraqi civilians." He concludes, "Blackwater did nothing to stop this misconduct." Doe #1 states that he "personally observed multiple incidents of Blackwater personnel intentionally using unnecessary, excessive and unjustified deadly force." He then cites several specific examples of Blackwater personnel firing at civilians, killing or "seriously" wounding them, and then failing to report the incidents to the State Department.

Doe #1 also alleges that "all of these incidents of excessive force were initially videotaped and voice recorded," but that "Immediately after the day concluded, we would watch the video in a session called a 'hot wash.' Immediately after the hotwashing, the video was erased to prevent anyone other than Blackwater personnel seeing what had actually occurred." Blackwater, he says, "did not provide the video to the State Department."

Doe #2 expands on the issue of unconventional weapons, alleging Prince "made available to his employees in Iraq various weapons not authorized by the United States contracting authorities, such as hand grenades and hand grenade launchers. Mr. Prince's employees repeatedly used this illegal weaponry in Iraq, unnecessarily killing scores of innocent Iraqis." Specifically, he alleges that Prince "obtained illegal ammunition from an American company called LeMas. This company sold ammunition designed to explode after penetrating within the human body. Mr. Prince's employees repeatedly used this illegal ammunition in Iraq to inflict maximum damage on Iraqis."

Blackwater has gone through an intricate rebranding process in the twelve years it has been in business, changing its name and logo several times. Prince also has created more than a dozen affiliate companies, some of which are registered offshore and whose operations are shrouded in secrecy. According to Doe #2, "Prince created and operated this web of companies in order to obscure wrongdoing, fraud and other crimes."

"For example, Mr. Prince transferred funds from one company (Blackwater) to another (Greystone) whenever necessary to avoid detection of his money laundering and tax evasion schemes." He added: "Mr. Prince contributed his personal wealth to fund the operations of the Prince companies whenever he deemed such funding necessary. Likewise, Mr. Prince took funds out of the Prince companies and placed the funds in his personal accounts at will."

Briefed on the substance of these allegations by The Nation, Congressman Dennis Kucinich replied, "If these allegations are true, Blackwater has been a criminal enterprise defrauding taxpayers and murdering innocent civilians." Kucinich is on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and has been investigating Prince and Blackwater since 2004.

"Blackwater is a law unto itself, both internationally and domestically. The question is why they operated with impunity. In addition to Blackwater, we should be questioning their patrons in the previous administration who funded and employed this organization. Blackwater wouldn't exist without federal patronage; these allegations should be thoroughly investigated," Kucinich said.

A hearing before Judge Ellis in the civil cases against Blackwater is scheduled for August 7.

.

Source: http://www.alternet.org/world/141763/explosive_allegations%3A_blackwater_founder_implicated_in_murder_/?page=entire



Jackson Lee hails confirmation of Judge Sotomayor



Official photo


Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee

August 07, 2009



Jackson Lee hails confirmation of Judge Sotomayor


Houston Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee says the confirmation of Judge Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court serves as "an inspiration for young and older women alike" in Houston and across the country.

Jackson Lee welcomed the bipartisan 68-31 Senate vote confirming the New York jurist to the nation's highest court -- the first Hispanic on the nine member court since the nation was founded.

"It's truly amazing when a Latino woman, who grew up in a New York housing project and whose father died when she nine years old, could one day become a member of the highest court in the land," said Jackson Lee, a graduate of University of Virginia Law School.

"Judge Sotomayor's story is one that serves an inspiration for Latinos, Blacks, and Americans as a nation."

Sotomayor is scheduled to be sworn in at the Supreme Court on Saturday by Chief Justice John Roberts.

Sotomayor and Jackson Lee both attended Yale University - Sotomayor as a law student, Jackson Lee as an undergraduate.

"I'm confident that Judge Sotomayor's background will guide her in applying the law humanely and equally," said Jackson Lee. "Like with the election of President Obama, today is another example that here in America, with hard work and determination, all things are possible."


Posted by stewartpowell at August 7, 2009 07:56 AM


Sotomayor to Be Sworn-In as Supreme Court Justice Saturday

By Amy Goldstein and Paul Kane
Washington Post
Staff Writers
Friday, August 7, 2009; 1:36 PM

A day after her Senate confirmation, Sonia Sotomayor prepared to travel from New York to Washington on Friday for her swearing-in at the Supreme Court on Saturday morning as the 111th justice and the first Hispanic to serve on the nation's highest court.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. is scheduled to administer two oaths to Sotomayor in an 11 a.m. ceremony before a small gathering of her relatives and friends. The court has decided to allow the second oath -- the judicial oath -- to be televised, marking the first time that Americans will be able to watch live the ascension of a member to the Supreme Court.

The swearing-in will be the first of three ceremonies marking the arrival on the court of the 55-year-old New Yorker, who for the past 11 years been a member of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit. On Wednesday, President Obama will host a reception at the White House, and the court will hold a formal investiture ceremony a month from now.

By taking both the constitutional and the judicial oaths at the court, Sotomayor will follow the same procedure that Samuel A. Alito Jr. did in January 2006 when he became the court's newest justice. Four months earlier, Roberts was sworn in at the White House, but some justices have suggested that ceremonies at the Supreme Court building on Capitol Hill are more consistent with a judiciary that is a separate branch of government.

Sotomayor's swearing-in is to take place less that 48 hours after she was confirmed by the Senate, in a vote laden with history and partisanship.

The confirmation of Obama's first high court nominee was a milestone for his presidency. But the Senate's nearly 20 hours of debate over Sotomayor this week -- and the fact that only nine Republicans voted for her -- made clear the divisive contours her nomination had assumed since Obama chose her this spring.

Although the 68 to 31 vote was a GOP defeat, Republicans contended that they had succeeded at framing the confirmation debate in a way that could influence Obama's future nominations throughout the federal judiciary, including to the Supreme Court if vacancies arise.

In particular, Sen. Jeff Sessions (Ala.), the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee, said that Sotomayor and Democratic senators had discarded a standard that Obama and left-leaning legal thinkers have held out: the idea that judges should be guided, in part, by empathy. If Obama nominates other people to courts who believe in that idea, Sessions said, "I don't think that would play well. . . . It could hurt this administration in other areas."

The Senate's vote also provided evidence that sharp disagreements between the political parties have become a fixture of Supreme Court confirmations. Sotomayor drew more "no" votes than one of President George W. Bush's nominees, Roberts , and fewer than the other, Alito. But all three confirmations proved far more polarizing than has been traditional for the Senate, including as recently as the two justices chosen by President Bill Clinton in the 1990s.

During Sotomayor's confirmation hearings last month before the Judiciary Committee, even some Republicans said her record from 17 years as an appellate and trial judge fits within the legal mainstream. But in the end, more than three-quarters of the Senate's 40 Republicans voted against her, characterizing her as biased -- and wrong on three of her best-known rulings on constitutional matters.

Democrats spoke in partisan terms, too. Moments before the vote, Judiciary Chairman Patrick J. Leahy (Vt.) implored every senator who opposed Sotomayor -- all of them Republicans -- to "search his or her conscience and say, 'Are they voting for this nominee based on their conscience, or are they reflecting a special interest group?' " In casting their votes, senators used a formality reserved for their most momentous decisions, sitting at their wooden desks on the Senate floor and rising, one by one, to vote aloud. Once the roll call was complete, the White House swung into a celebratory mode. Obama, who nominated Sotomayor 10 weeks ago, placed a call to her chambers in New York at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, where she watched the televised vote with friends.

After she is sworn in, Sotomayor will take her seat on the court in early September when the justices convene for a rare hearing, outside their usual calendar, on a campaign finance case. She will begin her first full session Oct. 5. Friends said she already has begun reading to prepare for her early cases.

In addition to becoming the first Hispanic to serve on the court, Sotomayor will be the third female justice in U.S. history and the second on the current court.

Thursday's vote culminated a remarkable path for Sotomayor, whose personal narrative became such a defining aspect of her nomination that even her most ardent GOP critics praised her biography. She was raised -- poor and Puerto Rican -- by a widow in a South Bronx housing project, went on to Ivy League schools, and worked in New York as a prosecutor and at a private law firm before beginning her ascent through the federal judiciary. At 38, she became a federal trial judge and, six years later, joined the appeals court.

In a statement after the vote, Obama said that "core American ideals -- justice, equality and opportunity -- are the very ideals that have made Judge Sotomayor's own uniquely American journey possible."

Despite the bipartisan admiration for her life story, Sotomayor's nomination became a fulcrum this spring and summer for interest groups on both sides to press their agendas. Advocates for Latinos and various civil rights organizations said she would bring renewed focus to their interests. Conservative groups sought to raise the political costs for GOP senators to support her, with the National Rifle Association taking the unusual step of saying it would consider Thursday's vote in its ratings of senators.

Sessions, who was once rejected by the Senate for a federal judgeship, said in an interview that Obama benefited during Sotomayor's confirmation from a confluence of circumstances that may not always be present during his tenure, potentially making it easier, in future nominations, for the GOP to pick off Democratic votes.

"Everything was working for the president this time: popular new president, a big Democratic majority in the Congress that wants to be supportive of him, and she was a good person and had a good background. . . . I think members of both parties were desirous of supporting the first Hispanic nomination."

In the final hours before the vote, GOP senators repeatedly sought to demonstrate that they had framed the debate for the future, if not the outcome this time. "America needs judges who are guided and controlled not by subjective empathy that they find inside themselves," said Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (Utah), a former Judiciary Committee chairman, "but by objective law that they find outside themselves."

Democrats countered that Sotomayor possesses values that the court and the nation need. "We have to ask ourselves: What direction will this nominee take the Supreme Court?" said Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.). "Will this nominee protect the civil rights and liberties enshrined in the Constitution and protected by law that we have fought so long and hard for? Will this nominee support Congress's power to enact critical legislation? Will this nominee be an effective check on the executive branch?" he said. "I have concluded that she is someone with whom our rights and freedoms are safe."

Taking the Senate floor for a final time in the long debate, Leahy, the judiciary chairman, pushed back against Republican contentions that the Senate was choosing a justice biased by her gender and ethnicity. "By striving for a more diverse bench drawn from judges with a wider set of backgrounds and experiences, we can better ensure that there will be no prejudices and biases controlling our courts of justice," he said. "With this nomination, we will be making progress. Years from now, we will remember this time, when we crossed paths with the quintessentially American journey of Sonia Sotomayor."


Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/07/AR2009080702078.html

Sotomayor Confirmed by Senate, 68-31


Sonia Sotomayor arrived at her home in Manhattan’s West Village on Thursday, after she was confirmed to the Supreme Court.




Published: August 6, 2009


WASHINGTON — The Senate on Thursday confirmed Judge Sonia Sotomayor as the nation’s first Hispanic Supreme Court justice, concluding a 10-week battle with a resounding victory for the White House.

The largely party-line vote, 68 to 31, brought Judge Sotomayor, 55, to the threshold of one of the United States’ most prestigious institutions, completing an extraordinary narrative arc that began in a Bronx housing project where the Puerto Rican girl was raised by her widowed mother.

In brief remarks at the White House, President Obama hailed her confirmation as “breaking yet another barrier and moving us yet another step closer to a more perfect union.”

“With this historic vote,” he said, “the Senate has affirmed that Judge Sotomayor has the intellect, the temperament, the history, the integrity and the independence of mind to ably serve on our nation’s highest court.”

A White House spokesman said the judge watched the vote on television in her chambers in New York City, and she released no statement. But when Judge Sotomayor returned to her West Village home Thursday night, she beamed and waved at neighbors who lined the sidewalks to clap and shout encouragement.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. is expected to swear the new justice in at a private ceremony at the Supreme Court on Saturday morning, a court spokeswoman said.

Leaders of conservative groups had tried to delay the confirmation vote, but Democrats pushed it through to ensure that Judge Sotomayor would be installed by September, when the court takes up a campaign-finance case left over from its last term. She is not expected to alter the balance of the court on most issues, as her views appear to be similar to those of David H. Souter, the retired justice she is succeeding.

Judge Sotomayor’s confirmation was never in much doubt, given Democrats’ numerical advantage in the Senate. But the final vote showed a partisan divide. No Democrat voted against her, while all but 9 of the chamber’s 40 Republicans did so. She will become the first justice nominated by a Democratic president to join the court since 1994.

Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, is ailing and did not vote. But the rest of the Senate filled the chamber beneath a packed gallery, solemnly rising one by one to cast a vote in the hushed room. Senator Robert C. Byrd, the 91-year-old Democrat of West Virginia who has also been ill, made a rare appearance in a wheelchair, raising his hand and murmuring his assent with a smile when a clerk called his name.

During three days of debate on the Senate floor, Republicans labeled Judge Sotomayor a judicial activist, criticizing several of her speeches about foreign law and judicial diversity — including a now-famous line lauding a “wise Latina” judge — as well as her votes in cases involving Second Amendment rights, property rights and a racial discrimination claim brought by white firefighters in New Haven.

“Judge Sotomayor is certainly a fine person with an impressive story and a distinguished background,” the Senate Republican leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, said this week. “But a judge must be able to check his or her personal or political agenda at the courtroom door and do justice evenhandedly, as the judicial oath requires. This is the most fundamental test. It is a test that Judge Sotomayor does not pass.”

Democrats portrayed Judge Sotomayor as a qualified judge whose biography — rising from humble beginnings to excel at two Ivy League universities, serve stints as a prosecutor and corporate lawyer, and then 17 years as a district and appeals court judge — is a classic American success story. Her judicial record, they said, is moderate and mainstream.

“Judge Sotomayor’s career and judicial record demonstrates that she has always followed the rule of law,” Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont and chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said on Thursday. “Attempts at distorting that record by suggesting that her ethnicity or heritage will be the driving force in her decisions as a justice of the Supreme Court are demeaning to women and all communities of color.”

Many political strategists warned Republicans that opposing the first Hispanic nominated to the Supreme Court would jeopardize the party in future elections, and some Democrats sought to portray Republican opposition as an insult to Hispanics.

In July, the National Rifle Association, which historically has stayed out of judicial nomination fights, came out against Justice Sotomayor and said it would include senators’ confirmation vote in its legislative scorecard on gun-rights issues for the 2010 election, a pointed threat to Democrats from conservative-leaning states.

But both efforts to appeal to interest-group politics largely faltered.

The vote was “a triumph of party unity over some of the interest-group politics that you would have expected to play a bigger role,” said Curt Levey, executive director of the conservative Committee for Justice.

Many Republicans took pains to emphasize that their vote against Judge Sotomayor did not mean they were anti-Hispanic.

Before announcing his opposition to her nomination, Senator John McCain of Arizona, last year’s Republican presidential nominee, first described her as an “immensely qualified candidate” with an “inspiring and compelling” life story. And he dwelled on his support for Miguel Estrada, an appeals-court nominee of President George W. Bush whom Democrats blocked from a vote even though “millions of Latinos would have taken great pride in his confirmation.”

Many Republicans echoed Mr. McCain’s approach, and some conservatives noted that Hispanics are ideologically diverse. But for some Hispanic voters, the symbolism of the first Hispanic joining the Supreme Court — and the memory of who opposed her — could be all that lingers, said Janet Murguía, president of the National Council of La Raza, an Hispanic advocacy group.

“This is a singularly definitive historic moment,” Ms. Murguía said. “So it is a vote, I think, that will matter to the Latino community and will be remembered by the Latino community.”

The vote could also have lingering consequences for Democratic senators from conservative-leaning states who confirmed Judge Sotomayor’s nomination despite the N.R.A.’s opposition.

Manuel A. Miranda, a conservative judicial issues advocate, said he believed that the threat of lower ratings by the N.R.A. had an impact by prompting more Republicans to vote against Judge Sotomayor.

Matthew Dowd, a former political adviser to Mr. Bush who had warned Republicans to be civil, disagreed. The Supreme Court confirmation process has simply become increasingly polarized along party lines, Mr. Dowd said.

“My view is that gun rights had nothing to do with it,” Mr. Dowd said. “Supreme Court nominations have become dodgeball games, with Democrats lining up on one side and Republicans lining up on our side.”

Colin Moynihan contributed reporting from New York.
.
.
.
.
Note: Bolds and Highlights added.
.

Partisan Approval for Supreme Court Nominee


The Democrats of the U.S. Senate voted unanimously for confirmation of Sonia Sotomayor.

Does this sound democratic?

Only Teddy from Mass failed to cast a vote; Why would he bother?

Where is the bi-partisanship that this party always calls for when they don't agree with an issue?

Where was the "Blue Dog" Democrat dissenter equivalent in the Senate?

This was a done-deal before it began.


So, from this vote we can gather that the Democrat Party is the Party of Rome; How can they not be beholden (and complicit) to the Vatican, and its agenda for subverting our Republican government and our Protestant Constitution? The answer is obvious.
Then, there were 6 (previously 5). Six Roman Catholics on the highest court in the nation.

These votes speak louder than words. Salve Regina! The Image of the Beast...


Arsenio.


656


Yes Votes (68)

Member Party State
Daniel Akaka D HI
Lamar Alexander R TN
Max Baucus D MT
Evan Bayh D IN
Mark Begich D AK
Michael Bennet D CO
Jeff Bingaman D NM
Christopher Bond R MO
Barbara Boxer D CA
Sherrod Brown D OH
Roland Burris D IL
Robert Byrd D WV
Maria Cantwell D WA
Ben Cardin D MD
Thomas Carper D DE
Bob Casey Jr. D PA
Susan Collins R ME
Kent Conrad D ND
Christopher Dodd D CT
Byron Dorgan D ND
Richard Durbin D IL
Russell Feingold D WI
Dianne Feinstein D CA
Al Franken D MN
Kirsten Gillibrand D NY
Lindsey Graham R SC
Judd Gregg R NH
Kay Hagan D NC
Tom Harkin D IA
Daniel Inouye D HI
Tim Johnson D SD
Ted Kaufman D DE
John Kerry D MA
Amy Klobuchar D MN
Herbert Kohl D WI
Mary Landrieu D LA
Frank Lautenberg D NJ
Patrick Leahy D VT
Carl Levin D MI
Joseph I. Lieberman ID CT
Blanche Lincoln D AR
Richard Lugar R IN
Mel Martinez R FL
Claire McCaskill D MO
Robert Menendez D NJ
Jeff Merkley D OR
Barbara Mikulski D MD
Patty Murray D WA
Bill Nelson D FL
Ben Nelson D NE
Mark Pryor D AR
Jack Reed D RI
Harry Reid D NV
Jay Rockefeller D WV
Bernie Sanders I VT
Charles Schumer D NY
Jeanne Shaheen D NH
Olympia Snowe R ME
Arlen Specter D PA
Debbie Stabenow D MI
Jon Tester D MT
Mark Udall D CO
Tom Udall D NM
George Voinovich R OH
Mark Warner D VA
Jim Webb D VA
Sheldon Whitehouse D RI
Ron Wyden D OR


.

Thursday, August 06, 2009

Refusing vaccination labels you a “criminal”, so says WHO


Refusing vaccination labels you a “criminal”, so says WHO


The World Health Organization determined in 2005 it has the authority to dissolve sovereign governments and take control should there be a “pandemic”. This applies to any country signed onto WHO….which of course we are. The WHO just raised this non-existent pandemic to level 4.

From the WHO 2005 declaration: (excerpted) “ Under special pandemic plans enacted around the world including the USA, in 2005, national governments are to be dissolved in the event of a pandemic emergency and replaced by special crisis committees, which take charge of the health and security infrastructure of a country, and which are answerable to the WHO and EU in Europe and to the WHO and UN in North America.

If the Model Emergency Health Powers Act is implemented on the instructions of WHI, it will be a criminal offence for Americans to refuse the vaccine. Police are allowed to use deadly force against “criminal” suspects. Here are ten key points associated with MSEHPA:

Under the Model State Emergency Health Powers Act, upon the declaration of a “public health emergency,” governors and public health officials would be empowered to:

Force individuals suspected of harboring an “infectious disease” to undergo medical examinations.

Track and share an individual’s personal health information, including genetic information.

Force persons to be vaccinated, treated, or quarantined for infectious diseases.

Mandate that all health care providers report all cases of persons who harbor any illness or health condition that may be caused by an epidemic or an infectious agent and might pose a “substantial risk” to a “significant number of people or cause a long-term disability.” (Note: Neither “substantial risk” nor “significant number” are defined in the draft.)

Force pharmacists to report any unusual or any increased prescription rates that may be caused by epidemic diseases.

Preempt existing state laws, rules and regulations, including those relating to privacy, medical licensure, and–this is key–property rights.

Control public and private property during a public health emergency, including pharmaceutical manufacturing plants, nursing homes, other health care facilities, and communications devices.

Mobilize all or any part of the “organized militia into service to the state to help enforce the state’s orders.” Ration firearms, explosives, food, fuel and alcoholic beverages, among other commodities.

Impose fines and penalties to enforce their orders.

So there you have it. You are now officially to be declared a criminal if you refuse the vaccine and deadly force can be used against you if you resist. And to think, not only did our federal government agree to this abomination, it was also successful in getting the same laws passed in most states. I will be revisiting this list of powers in a subsequent article as it relates to the coming “healthcare reform”, and other odious pieces of legislation being devised.

This gives me pause to consider this: Could the so-called healthcare reform that the government claims must be done right away, right now, quickly, immediately….no time to waste be tied somehow to this WHO declaration? Hmmmm. I smell a really big rat!

Those pesky FEMA drills…part of a plan?

I am wary of this FEMA drill that is taking place not only for the obvious reasons….but its close proximity to the planned forced vaccinations scheduled to be mandated early this fall. Our own government has expressed its intent to forcibly vaccinate school children as a starter. By all means…..target the most vulnerable first. (Take that any way you like.)

On MSM last evening it was reported that young people between the ages of 19 and 24 are for some reason most susceptible to this lab created virus. I find this curious as this segment of the population is generally the healthiest. Since the “swine” flu has been so thoroughly exposed as lab created they are now just simply calling it the N1 whatever flu. Apparently this first test run of what was supposed to be a global pandemic couldn’t get off the ground: it didn’t spread as was hoped. Of course the same thing happened with SARS and the Bird Flu…..Those didn’t work so now we get the “Swine Flu”, or the N1 Whatever Flu”. Strange how all these flu’s showed up after they dug up bodies from mass graves to see if they really did die from the flu epidemic in 1918. The new and improved version of this virus is now what we are calling N1 Whatever Flu.

Here’s what I believe is about to happen:

A created strain of flu is going to be set loose in selected areas to begin with. As I believe thousands are going to fall ill simultaneously it will be the fear factor needed to bring thousands more in for what they believe is a vaccine that will save them. Those that want to self-quarantine, or who simply refuse the vaccines, will either be incarcerated in FEMA camps or otherwise disposed. The vaccines which have not been tested for safety or effectiveness can and will cause harm to many of those receiving the shots, but will be off limits to lawsuits for harm caused. This will force thousands more in for the vaccinations, out of fear, which are loaded with toxins and pathogens seeking to save themselves from forced incarceration or worse. At some point in this, we will find out that the foreign troops who supposedly only participated in a mock drill, are not only still here on our soil, but their numbers have multiplied.

Martial law will be declared using the unilateral authority granted the president under the John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007, which allows the president to declare an emergency “even if he is the only person to perceive one”. Foreign troops lack the natural inhibition our own military has about firing on US citizens…that’s why they are here. I do not believe this is a mock drill. I think it is actually the planned strategic placement of foreign troops within the US for an anticipated and planned event.

The vented three story rail cars which are claimed to be nothing more than haulers for large SUV type vehicles would come in really handy here. Foreign troops and military equipment could be moved further into the country and put in place without anyone ever knowing they were there until they were needed. Besides, I don’t know of any car haulers that need that much targeted ventilation: humans on the other just might.

I feel that there will be several catastrophic events from about mid-August to the end of October and maybe into November somewhat. At the end of this period, after the American public has been frightened to death, everything will begin coalescing and will culminate at the end of the year.

In the interim: will we see the deaths of thousands upon thousands of American’s and other peoples around the world, if not millions?

I was curious as to why the WHO would move this flu into a pandemic (phase 4) category when there was no evidence that it was pandemic.

(Two weeks ago, WHO advised nations to stop testing for H1N1 and instead to report trends of flu like symptoms.) H1N1 has been very mild, according to the WHO:

“This pandemic has been characterized, to date, by the mildness of symptoms in the overwhelming majority of patients, who usually recover, even without medical treatment, within a week of the onset of symptoms.”

Then came the predictions from our government that the “flu” would probably become much worse this fall. This indicates to me that a new and more virulent strain has been developed and is set to be turned loose. I base this on the evidence that the flu was lab created and would not have occurred naturally combining four unrelated dna strains……the statements by the CDC that they had a vaccine within three weeks of the “outbreak”…..knowing that seed stock for vaccines takes at least 12 weeks to develop and several more weeks to mass produce……and the orders during the last year of the Bush Crime Administration for Tamiflu which supposedly is the cure or prevention for a flu which didn’t exist at the time, at least not publicly.

Whatever has been in the works for several years, if not for decades is about to come to fruition. Grab your butts! This is going to be one bumpy ride!

(C) 2009 Marti Oakley July 30, 2009
.
.
.
.

SEMIRAMIS -"Queen of Heaven" "Mother of god"

Sunday, August 10, 2008

SEMIRAMIS -"Queen of Heaven""Mother of god"


SEMIRAMIS -"Queen of Heaven""Mother of god"

"Semiramis became known as the "queen of heaven," and was the prototype from which all other pagan goddesses came."--World Religions by David Terrell

"Semiramis, in particular was the model and original of every goddess and female cult figure in the ancient and modern worlds."--SEMIRAMIS, QUEEN OF BABYLONby Bryce Self

Madonna and Child

"Nimrod and his mother (Semiramis)became the chief entities of worship as a Madonna and child. This belief and practice spread to Egypt, where the names of the gods were Isis and Osiris. The son Osiris was born December 25. In Asia it was Cybele and Deonius. In Rome they were called Fortuna and Jupiter. Throughout the world we still find the remnants of mother and child worship to this day. It is no surprise that this same system still exists at the end of the age. It is called "Mystery Babylon" (Rev 17:5). Shockingly, it is disguised as Christianity and is still practiced in the celebration of Christmas."--The Bible as History by Werner Keller

Worship of mother and child spread from Babylon to the ends of the earth, but were called different names in the languages of the various counties where their worship appeared.

"Semiramis and Horus/Tammuz were worshipped as "Madonna and child." And as the generations passed, they were worshipped under other names in different countries and languages. Many of these are recognizable - such as -Fortuna and Jupiter in Rome; Aphrodite and Adonis in Greece and Ashtoreth/Astarte and Molech/Baal in Canaan."--Syncretismas!by Martin G. Collins Forerunner, December 1995

The ancient Germans worshipped the virgin HERTHA with the child in the arms of his mother. The Scandinavians called her DISA pictured with her child. In Egypt, the mother and her child wereworshiped as ISIS with the infant OSIRIS or HORUS seated on his mother's lap.In India, the mother and child were called DEVAKI and KRISHNA, and also ISI and ISWARA as they are worshiped to this day.In Asia, they were known as CYBELE and DEOIUS; in pagan Rome, as FORTUNA and JUPITER-PUER, or the boy JUPITER; in Greece, as CERES, the great mother with babe at her breast, or as IRENE,the goddess of peace, with the boy PLUTUS in her arms. Even in Tibet, China, and Japan, Jesuit missionaries were astonished to find the Roman counterpart of MADONNA and child. SHING MOO, the holy mother in China was portrayed with a child in her armsand a glory (halo - nimbus) around her.

Semiramis was worshiped in Ephesus as the pagan fertility goddess DIANA who represented the generative powers

The Many Names of Semiramis


Semiramis - The Wife of Nimrod is also known under various aliases,



  • Allilah or Allah


  • Ariadne


  • Astarte


  • Cybele; Goddess with the 12 stars; celibacy is required of her priests


  • Diane


  • Ishtar; Babylonian sun-goddess


  • Isis; Egyptian sun-goddess


  • Laksjmi


  • Lady Liberty


  • Rhea; Goddess of the hunt


  • Sin; the moongod(dess)


  • Venus; Goddess of Love)

Semiramis - Isis - and Mary

"Isis was often represented standing on the crescent moon, with twelve stars surrounding her head. In almost every RomanCatholic church on the continent of Europe may be seen pictures and statues of Mary, the "Queen of Heaven," standing on the crescent moon, her head surrounded with twelve stars."-From Bethlehem to Calvary - Chapter Two Alice Bailey"Goddess veneration of the "virgin with child" has been a central belief for various societies throughout history, including some aspects of Christianity. Indeed, many leading occultists see striking parallels between the Roman Catholic "Virgin Mary"–the "Queen of Heaven"–and the goddess Isis. And the comparison is startling. Presently, Roman Catholicism holds Mary to be eternally virgin, just as Isis was. Catholicism also contends that Mary was without sin, making her into a type of "god." In fact, there are some who claim that Mary is the "fourth person" within the Trinity. This belief is linked to Catholicism’s claim that Mary now has a direct say in mankind’s salvation through her role of co-redemption and mediation. Hence, the elevated Mary becomes a "goddess" in the Catholic faith, just as Isis was a goddess in the pantheon of Egyptian deities. And just as Isis was (and still is) called "Mother of the World" and "Queen of Heaven," so too Mary is now exalted with these same titles."-Isis: "Queen of Heaven"by Carl Teichrib

"The logical person to replace the Great Mother of paganism was Mary, the mother of Jesus. It mattered not to pagan Rome whether they worshiped the goddess mother and her child under the Egyptian names of Isis and Horus,or the Babylonian names of Semiramis and Tammuz, or the Roman names of Venus and Jupiter, or under the names of the "Virgin Mary" and the "Christ- child.". Either way, it was the same old idol-religion."--Baal-mas

Where did Christmas Come from? Tom Adams


"Mary" Fulfills The Mother Goddess Syndrome



"The cult of the Mother Goddess entered the Christian Church...and it was a long and confusing process until Mary was declared to be the Mother of God. This is a principle which Christianity inherited from its pagan forerunners."-Stephen Benko (1993) The Virgin Goddess: Studies in the pagan and Christian roots of Mariology. Leiden: E.J. Brill. p. 5

A proper perspective of Mary.

Obviously Mary was a good Jewish woman,otherwise, Jehovah God would not have chosen her to bear his son. But many of the claims about her and the attitude that some showin reference to Mary, are simply unfounded.

There is no basis in the Bible, that we shouldpray to Mary. The Bible makes it clear that we should only pray to the Father, Jehovah God.

The fact that Mary bore other children after Christ was born - shows that she did have intercourse with her husband, and was not a virgin forever.Mary was the virgin mother of Jesus, the Son of God, but she did not remaina virgin forever. Mark 6:3 actually lists four of Jesus’ brothers and mentions sisters as well. Nor was the Biblical Mary sinless. Romans 3:23 makes it clear that "all have sinned"–which would alsoinclude Mary. Also, the Bible hasrecorded that Mary offered sacrificesat the temple to atone for her sins.

The fact that very little is said about Maryin the Bible - certainly downplays her importancein our worship and our spiritual life. In fact,the few times that Mary is mentioned, it appearsto be in somewhat of a negative light. How So?

Mary's son - the Messiah - reprimanded her when she attempted to tell him what to do, at the wedding, where he turned the water into wine.

Also, Mary attempted to interrupted Christ, when he was giving a discourse to his followers.When he was told that his mother and brothers wanted to speak with him - he basically refusedand then compared the audience to being his real and true Mother and brothers and sisters.Yes, In front of the crowd, he said that those people in his audience - who were doingthe will of His Father in heaven, were more important to him, than his mother, his sisters, and his brothers. By saying this, it appears that Christ was implying that his mother, was not doing God's will. Why was Mary not sitting in the audience listening to her son ? Could it be that she did not put any Faith in him ? Perhaps Mary was not one of his followers?

After Christ's tortuous death, there is not one single mention of his mother in the Bible again.If she was of so much importance - as some sectsof Christendom claim - then why is there no mention of her again in the Bible ?

History books and theological records all pointto the fact that Mary was adopted by the apostate church as a replacement for their Mother/Son goddess worship of pagan Rome, whose roots liein Ancient Babylon, with Semiramis - The wife and mother of Nimrod.

"Just then his mother and brothers showed up. Standing outside, they relayed a message that they wanted a word with him. He was surrounded by the crowd when he was given the message, "Your mother and brothers and sisters are outside looking for you." Jesus responded, "Who do you think are my mother and brothers?" Looking around, taking in everyone seated around him, he said, "Right here, right in front of you—my mother and my brothers. Obedience is thicker than blood. The person who obeys God's will is my brother and sister and mother." (Mark 3:31-35)(MSG)-BibleGateway

"Then Jesus' mother and brothers arrived. Standing outside, they sent someone in to tell him to come out. Many people were sitting around Jesus, and they said to him, "Your mother and brothers are waiting for you outside." Jesus asked, "Who are my mother and my brothers?" Then he looked at those sitting around him and said, "Here are my mother and my brothers! My true brother and sister and mother are those who do what God wants." (Mark 3:31-35)(NCV)-BibleGateway

There is Only One Mediator between Mankind and God

"For there is one God and one mediatorbetween God and men, ' the man' Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all..."(1Timothy 2:5,6)

"For there is only one God and one Mediator who can reconcile God and people. He is the man Christ Jesus."(1Timothy 2:5)(NLT)-BibleGateway

The "Queen of Heaven"Jehovah's Viewpoint


The "queen of heaven" is a very ancient, and very modern, pagan religious term that is described in the Scriptures as the worship of the Babylonian idol Ishtar also known as Astarte and Ashtoreth.

What Did God Say About The "Queen Of Heaven"?

"The children gather wood, the fathers kindle fire, and the women knead dough, to make cakes for the queen of heaven; and they pour out drink offerings to other gods, to provoke me to anger."(Jeremiah 7:18-19 RSV)

"The children gather wood, and the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead the dough, to make cakes to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink-offerings unto other gods, that they may provoke me to anger. Therefore thus saith the Lord Jehovah: Behold, mine anger and my wrath shall be poured out upon this place...."(Jeremiah 7:18-20)(ASV)-BibleGateway

.

.Source: http://howdifferent.xanga.com/669792055/item/?nextdate=last

.

Wonder bread


Living by the Word
July 25, 2006

Wonder bread
John 6:24-35

by Charles Hoffman

It is the day after Jesus fed the 5,000. The picnic is over and Jesus has taken his disciples to the other side of the lake. But the crowds of people who shared the meal with him yesterday and who then tried to turn him into their king are not about to let him go.

We can understand their feelings. After all, Jesus is their meal ticket. In their minds he has the potential to do something unheard of, to lighten the fundamental burdens of life that plague their existence. Who knows what he else he can do! If he can provide food, then he just might be able to do the same with shelter and clothing; he can protect them from the never-ending uncertainties of their lives. Who among us would not choose that sort of security? After all, in our time so much of our living is dedicated to the illusion that somehow our complete safety can be ensured and that we can be protected against all the ills and evils common to human existence. This delusional pursuit has become an obsession.

Soon the pursuing crowd catches up with Jesus and his entourage on the other side of the lake in Capernaum. There they greet him with a question: "Rabbi, when did you come here?" It sounds innocent enough, somewhat like saying, "Fancy meeting you here." But it means much more. They know something about him, but they want and need to know more. Their question is not limited to temporal time and place; it's a question about ultimate origins. They want to know where he came from and how he came to be. They remind us of a perplexed wine steward who wondered where the new wine had come from, or a woman who asked a visitor for the living water that he kept telling her about.

Judging by what happens next, we might conclude that Jesus would not make it in a "seeker-friendly" church. Although the people have been looking for him for hours and have crossed the lake to find him, Jesus detects an ulterior motive and candidly calls their bluff. "You worked all night to find me," he says, "because I represent a free lunch. You never read the sign; you missed the point completely."

Most of us are afraid to be that forthright. How many times, for example, have I received a person into church membership knowing that there is an underlying agenda and that joining the church is merely a means to some other goal? Or maybe that becoming a church member is an alternative to dealing with a pressing and difficult personal matter. In this case, Jesus takes the risk of doing something more pertinent and more useful than complying with the crowd's misguided agenda.

"I know what you are up to," he tells the crowd. "You came after me because of what happened yesterday when it was time to eat. You ate your fill and now you've come to see if you can exploit the situation. You aren't really interested in knowing who I am. Your question is a facade to cover your true intentions."

In other words, these people have followed Jesus for the wrong reasons. This should not surprise us; today it's still common practice. The Emperor Constantine is still with us, and we follow his historic example of exploiting the cause of Christ. Our culture has made an art of doing the same thing. Our culture has become the consummate expert at casting a pseudo-Christian veneer over its excesses and its shortfalls, its sins of commission and omission and its unexamined patriotism. We use Jesus to garner votes for unqualified leaders whose goals for their constituencies clash with his clear and simple teachings. We invoke his name to bless blatant injustices and immoral policies on a national and international stage.

Jesus will have none of it. He abhors such crass opportunism. In this instance, he doesn't even answer the people's question, but instead moves the conversation in a new direction.

"The bread you are after," he tells them, "will not last. Yesterday you assuaged your hunger. You ate the bread and now you are hungry again. There is food that perishes and there is food that lasts. God the Father has marked me to provide you the food that endures. So work for that food."

"How do we do that?" they ask. "How do we perform the works of God?"

The answer is disarmingly simple: "This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent."

The people aren't sure they can do that. With the aroma of yesterday's wonder bread still fresh in their nostrils, they have the audacity to ask for a sign. "Prove it," they say, and they recall their ancestors and Moses and the miraculous manna from heaven. Whereupon Jesus reminds them that Moses was not the author of that bread. Rather, it came from "my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven."

In one way or another, each of us is challenged by a personal wilderness: painful loss, physical suffering, financial reverses, betrayal or bereavement. These are roads that we travel not by choice, but by necessity. A Spanish proverb speaks to this condition: "With bread and wine you can walk your road." For us, Jesus is that sustaining bread.

Once more John has started with the literal meaning of a word and ended by having it point beyond itself to something more. The word itself becomes a sign: bread of life and Bread of Life. Then and now it all comes down to the same thing: it's a matter of believing in the one who said, "I am the Bread of Life."


Charles Hoffman is senior minister of San Dieguito United Methodist Church in Encinitas, California.



.

Sotomayor would be sixth Catholic justice


Posted by Michael Paulson May 26, 2009 02:33 PM


Judge Sonia Sotomayor has much to distinguish her, but one element of her biography stands out in the world of those interested in religion and the public square: she is Catholic, and, if approved as a Supreme Court justice, she will be the sixth Catholic on the nine-member court. That is a remarkable accomplishment for American Catholics, who make up 23 percent of the nation's population, and will now potentially hold 67 percent of the high court's seats. Two of the justices are Jewish; the resignation of Justice David Souter, who is an Episcopalian, will leave, amazingly given the history of this nation, just one Protestant on the Supreme Court, 89-year-old Justice John Paul Stevens.

Undoubtedly, Sotomayor's Catholic-ness will be the subject of some debate. Just how Catholic is she? Steven Waldman, blogging at Beliefnet, quotes a White House official saying, "Judge Sotomayor was raised as a Catholic and attends church for family celebrations and other important events."

David Gibson, also at Beliefnet, suggests there may be a strategic reason for Sotomayor to downplay her faith affiliation:

"The (awful) question will now be, what KIND of Catholic is she? She is divorced, without kids. Heck, she may want to downplay her practice of the faith as that will be a huge target--and it's easy to guess who'll be lobbing most of the heavy ordinance."

And Cathy Lynn Grossman, blogging for USA Today, makes a similar prediction:

"Next up: Expect her nomination to re-ignite the ongoing Catholic blogosphere wars over who is Catholic enough. If confirmed, Sotomayor, who grew up in Catholic schools in the Bronx, would be the sixth Catholic on the high court. It may be that her life experiences will align her with the social justice issues pushed by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops on race, poverty, immigration and economic issues. But for some outspoken Catholics, the 'life' issues -- abortion, family planning, so-called 'conscience clauses' for health workers, embryonic stem cell research and end-of-life choices -- are the litmus test."

Over at GetReligion, Terry Mattingly wonders why the word "Catholic" is not more a part of the early press coverage, and asks if that would be different if Sotomayor were a known opponent of abortion rights:

"Her life story will be a big part of the upcoming mini-debates about her appointment. Here is my question: If she was a pro-life woman, from a Hispanic background, do you think that the word 'Catholic' would be appearing higher in these early (I repeat, EARLY) reports about her life and work? Just saying."

What does it matter if Sotomayor is Catholic? Jacqui Salmon, blogging for the Washington Post, suggests perhaps not much, at least as far as judicial decisionmaking is concerned:

"Experts have been split on what the Catholic majority has meant so far. They point out that Catholics on the bench historically have spanned the spectrum from liberal to conservative. Dennis J. Hutchinson, a court historian at the University of Chicago, noted in 2005 that one of the most liberal Supreme Court justices of the 20th century, William J. Brennan, was a Catholic, and so is one of the most conservative, Scalia."

Manya Brachear, blogging for the Chicago Tribune, tackles the same question, and comes to the same conclusion, although also pointing out the symbolic significance:

"Cathleen Kaveny, law professor at the University of Notre Dame, said a sixth Catholic in the High Court would illustrate how entrenched the church has become in the U.S. A sixth Catholic with views like Sotomayor's also would put the American church’s diversity on display. 'My guess is she’s very much operating in accordance with the commitments of the Catholic social justice tradition which is emphasizing … inclusion, solidarity, justice to those least among us,' Kaveny said. 'It’s strand of American Catholic teaching that is somewhat distinct from other Catholic teaching but not incompatible. People emphasize different aspects.'"

Catholic groups are just now beginning to react to the nomination. Catholics United, a liberal group, reacted positively, and said, "We call on other leaders within the Catholic community to join us in welcoming Judge Sotomayor's nomination and to approach her confirmation hearings with civility and reason." I haven't heard yet from conservative Catholic groups, but in general the reaction from the right has been critical. Ted Olsen, blogging at Christianity Today, reviews the early statements and headlines his post, "Pro-Life Group Consensus on Sotomayor: 'Activist'."

Meanwhile, one thing that struck me in President Obama's remarks about Sotomayor this morning was the language he used to describe the role of Catholic schools in offering children a path out of poverty. This is what he said:

"When Sonia was nine, her father passed away. And her mother worked six days a week as a nurse to provide for Sonia and her brother...But Sonia's mom bought the only set of encyclopedias in the neighborhood, sent her children to a Catholic school called Cardinal Spellman out of the belief that with a good education here in America all things are possible."

(Photo, by Jim Young/Reuters, shows Judge Sonia Sotomayor talking with President Obama at the White House this morning, May 26, 2009.)
.
.
P.S. Will this call for a few Heinekens in the Rose Gardens?
.

brotherhood of darkness

Dr. Stanley Monteith - The Brotherhood of Darkness: The Council on Foreign Relations, the Cecil Rhodes Round Table, and Masonic Occultism (Video)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sbfl3iyA6bAhttp://
height="344">




the Red Mass Vatican Control of the Supreme Court

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_AqXOQc4vxMhttp://


Red Mass refers to a Mass celebrated annually in the Roman Catholic Church for judges, prosecutors, attorneys, law school professors and students, and governments officials - Where they all PRAY to a dead INQUISITOR, Thomas More. Thomas More over-saw massive Tyndale bible burnings. Later, Thomas More had William Tyndale burned at the stake for heresy
On October 31, 2000, Pope John Paul II proclaimed St. Thomas More, to be the patron of statesmen and politicians. He has also been known as the patron of Lawyers.

Who Attends the Red Mass ?

The U.S. President, the First Lady, The third in command General Peter Pace, the Attorney General, the assistant attorney General, United States Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Most of our Supreme Court Justices. 5 out of 9 are religious Roman Catholics ( and more), Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Roberts, Jesuit trained Clarence Thomas, Jesuit trained Antonin Scalia, (Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia speaks about the importance of protecting Jesuit and Catholic identity at Georgetown on Monday.), Knight of Columbus Samuel Alito,(Alito receives the "Thomas More Award), Anthony Kennedy - Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, Stephen Breyer - Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, (He´s Jewish ! What´s he doing praying to a DEAD Catholic Inquisitor ?), Jesuit Cardinal Avery Dulles, (Son of John Foster Dulles and nephew of former CIA Director Allen Dulles).



9cman
June 25, 2009

Thank You brother Tom of Spiritually Smart. Great job!