HOLY SEE AND RUSSIA ESTABLISH FULL DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS
VATICAN CITY, 4 DEC 2009 (VIS) - The Holy See Press Office released the following communique yesterday evening:
"This afternoon, 3 December 2009, His Holiness Benedict XVI received in audience Dimitri Medvedev, president of the Russian Federation. The president had previously met with Cardinal Secretary of State Tarcisio Bertone S.D.B. who was accompanied by Archbishop Dominique Mamberti, secretary for Relations with States.
"During the cordial discussions pleasure was expressed on both sides at the cordial relations that currently exist between them, and it was agreed to establish full diplomatic relations between the Holy See and the Russian Federation.
"Following an exchange of opinions on the international economic and political situation - also in the light of the Encyclical "Caritas in veritate" of which the Holy Father presented the president with a copy in Russian - attention turned to the challenges currently facing security and peace. The talks then turned to cultural and social questions of mutual interest, such as the value of the family and the contribution believers make to life in Russia".
OP/AUDIENCE/PRESIDENT RUSSIAVIS 091204 (190)
Source: http://212.77.1.245/news_services/press/vis/dinamiche/a0_en.htm
.
.
Related:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b7z6kK3XfdU&feature=player_embeddedhttp://
.
AND 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. *** REVELATION 14:9
Friday, December 04, 2009
Why do the heathen rage?
Psalm 2
1Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?
2The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying,
3Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.
4He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the LORD shall have them in derision.
5Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath, and vex them in his sore displeasure.
6Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion.
7I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.
8Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.
9Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel.
10Be wise now therefore, O ye kings: be instructed, ye judges of the earth.
11Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling.
12Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.
.
Thursday, December 03, 2009
Fight Over Finance Oversight, and Bernanke, Gets Hotter
(Dec. 2) -- The fight to tame U.S. oversight of banks and Wall Street heated up Wednesday and now looks likely to dominate this week's hearing on the renomination of Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke.
The House Financial Services Committee voted 31-27 along party lines to send an overhaul of financial regulation to the floor of the House for debate next week, a victory for chairman Barney Frank, D-Mass., but not a complete one. Members of the Congressional Black Caucus boycotted the vote, saying they want greater financial help for their communities amid all the fiscal stimulus measures of the past year. Those votes -- the caucus includes 41 representatives -- could be pivotal when the bill is put to a vote by the full House.
Perhaps the most controversial part of the bill, dubbed the Financial Stability Act, would increase congressional oversight of the Fed by broadening the Government Accountability Office's authority over the Fed's financial operations. Critics of the bill argue that any increase in political supervision of the Fed would weaken the U.S. central bank's credibility. Proponents say that credibility was already undercut more by the failure of the Fed and other agencies to foresee and prevent the subprime-mortgage meltdown that cascaded into a global recession.
Bernanke will likely be asked to address the matter himself on Thursday before the Senate banking committee, which is considering his nomination by President Obama to a second term as the country's chief financial steward. That hearing and any discussion of new restraints on the Fed were already expected to be animated, and Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., made sure of that Wednesday evening.
Sanders placed a hold on the Bernanke nomination, faulting both the Fed chairman's role in the financial crisis and his chairmanship of the President's Council of Economic Advisers under President George W. Bush. "The American people overwhelmingly voted last year for a change in our national priorities to put the interests of ordinary people ahead of the greed of Wall Street and the wealthy few," Sanders said. "What the American people did not bargain for was another four years for one of the key architects of the Bush economy.
" The hold will likely delay the renomination, but Bernanke appears to have enough support from Republicans and Democrats in the Senate to keep his job. The tenor of Thursday's hearing could indicate which way it will go.
A host of financial-regulation reform bills under consideration in Congress have already been subjected to repeated rounds of disparagement and lobbying from financial firms, which object to a tighter leash but have been restrained in their public criticism by the economic pain and popular anger of the past year. On the other side of the fight, consumer advocates have vociferously called for greater regulation, and the Obama administration has made passage of a bill one of its top economic priorities.
But the shape of a final measure -- for both the House legislation and a similar measure in the Senate -- is far from clear and might not take form before next year.
The thrust of the House bill aims to strengthen oversight across the spectrum of the finance industries by creating a council, headed by the Treasury, that will seek to identify and address systemic risks in the marketplace that could lead to another financial crisis. It would consolidate authority of the Fed, the Securities and Exchange Commission and other regulators to deal with crises, create new safeguards for insurance companies like AIG and other nonbanks -- so that none becomes "too big to fail" -- and force lenders to assume a greater portion of the risk in their loans rather than pass along all the risk to investors. The bill would also place limits on any future government bailouts.
The bill is likely to undergo changes by the full House, and if it passes there perhaps wholesale revision once the Senate finishes work on its version. Work on financial reform has stalled in the Senate Banking Committee, where Chairman Chris Dodd, D-Conn., is trying to get Republicans to contribute to and support his proposal.
Source: http://www.sphere.com/2009/12/02/fight-over-finance-oversight-and-bernanke-gets-hotter/#comments
Source:
Washington in 60 Seconds: Michael Steele Calls Obama 'P.R. Presidency'
Good morning, Capitolists! Congress goes from high to low today as it turns its attention from the war in Afghanistan to the war of words between the White House and the Secret Service over who let the stray cats into last week's state dinner.
Here's what else is making news in Washington today:
* More Afghanistan Questions. Sec. of Defense Robert Gates, Sec. of State Hillary Clinton and Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff Mike Mullen will be back on the Hill today to answer senators' questions on the president's plans to increase troops in Afghanistan. Given yesterday's confusion over what the meaning of "withdraw" is, expect continued focus on that issue.
* P.R. Job. The White House will host a "jobs summit" today at 1:30 to talk about ways to reverse the job losses plaguing the economy. No word on exactly what those ways will be, but RNC Chairman Michael Steele calls the event another example of Obama's "P.R. presidency."
* Bernanke Saved the World? Speaking of jobs, Fed Chief Ben Bernanke heads to the Senate today for a hearing on renewing his job for another term. Sen. Bernie Sanders has put a hold on Bernanke's nomination, but Steve Rattner, the administration's former car czar, writes in the Washington Post today that criticism of B.B. is unfair and ignorant and that Bernanke, along with Tim Geithner and Henry Paulson, saved the world.
* Form Blackwater to Blackboard. Erik Prince, the founder of ginormous government contractor Blackwater, is telling Vanity Fair that he is leaving his post because of multiple federal investigations into the company's conduct in Iraq. His legal bills are costing the firm, renamed Xe Services, $2 million a month. He also tells the magazine that he has been a spy for the CIA since 2004 and that he's decided on his next step: becoming a high school teacher.
* Sis Boom Whah? The plot thickens with the Salahis, as former Washington Redskins cheerleaders tell The Washington Post that Mrs. S. never wore the gold and burgundy, despite her bizarre visit to a cheerleader reunion with her Bravo-TV film crew in tow. One Redskins alumna says, "I'm resentful. . . . For her to get out there and think she can just shake her pompoms is upsetting." Indeed. Meanwhile, the House Homeland Security Committee is holding a hearing this morning on how the Virginia couple got into last month's state dinner at the White House without an invitation.
Here's what else is making news in Washington today:
* More Afghanistan Questions. Sec. of Defense Robert Gates, Sec. of State Hillary Clinton and Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff Mike Mullen will be back on the Hill today to answer senators' questions on the president's plans to increase troops in Afghanistan. Given yesterday's confusion over what the meaning of "withdraw" is, expect continued focus on that issue.
* P.R. Job. The White House will host a "jobs summit" today at 1:30 to talk about ways to reverse the job losses plaguing the economy. No word on exactly what those ways will be, but RNC Chairman Michael Steele calls the event another example of Obama's "P.R. presidency."
* Bernanke Saved the World? Speaking of jobs, Fed Chief Ben Bernanke heads to the Senate today for a hearing on renewing his job for another term. Sen. Bernie Sanders has put a hold on Bernanke's nomination, but Steve Rattner, the administration's former car czar, writes in the Washington Post today that criticism of B.B. is unfair and ignorant and that Bernanke, along with Tim Geithner and Henry Paulson, saved the world.
* Form Blackwater to Blackboard. Erik Prince, the founder of ginormous government contractor Blackwater, is telling Vanity Fair that he is leaving his post because of multiple federal investigations into the company's conduct in Iraq. His legal bills are costing the firm, renamed Xe Services, $2 million a month. He also tells the magazine that he has been a spy for the CIA since 2004 and that he's decided on his next step: becoming a high school teacher.
* Sis Boom Whah? The plot thickens with the Salahis, as former Washington Redskins cheerleaders tell The Washington Post that Mrs. S. never wore the gold and burgundy, despite her bizarre visit to a cheerleader reunion with her Bravo-TV film crew in tow. One Redskins alumna says, "I'm resentful. . . . For her to get out there and think she can just shake her pompoms is upsetting." Indeed. Meanwhile, the House Homeland Security Committee is holding a hearing this morning on how the Virginia couple got into last month's state dinner at the White House without an invitation.
.
"Learn not the way of the heathen"
1Hear ye the word which the LORD speaketh unto you, O house of Israel:
2Thus saith the LORD, Learn not the way of the heathen, and be not dismayed at the signs of heaven; for the heathen are dismayed at them.
3For the customs of the people are vain: for one cutteth a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the axe.
4They deck it with silver and with gold; they fasten it with nails and with hammers, that it move not.
5They are upright as the palm tree, but speak not: they must needs be borne, because they cannot go. Be not afraid of them; for they cannot do evil, neither also is it in them to do good.
6Forasmuch as there is none like unto thee, O LORD; thou art great, and thy name is great in might.
7Who would not fear thee, O King of nations? for to thee doth it appertain: forasmuch as among all the wise men of the nations, and in all their kingdoms, there is none like unto thee.
8But they are altogether brutish and foolish: the stock is a doctrine of vanities.
9Silver spread into plates is brought from Tarshish, and gold from Uphaz, the work of the workman, and of the hands of the founder: blue and purple is their clothing: they are all the work of cunning men.
10But the LORD is the true God, he is the living God, and an everlasting king: at his wrath the earth shall tremble, and the nations shall not be able to abide his indignation.
11Thus shall ye say unto them, The gods that have not made the heavens and the earth, even they shall perish from the earth, and from under these heavens.
12He hath made the earth by his power, he hath established the world by his wisdom, and hath stretched out the heavens by his discretion.
13When he uttereth his voice, there is a multitude of waters in the heavens, and he causeth the vapours to ascend from the ends of the earth; he maketh lightnings with rain, and bringeth forth the wind out of his treasures.
14Every man is brutish in his knowledge: every founder is confounded by the graven image: for his molten image is falsehood, and there is no breath in them.
15They are vanity, and the work of errors: in the time of their visitation they shall perish.
16The portion of Jacob is not like them: for he is the former of all things; and Israel is the rod of his inheritance: The LORD of hosts is his name.
Jeremiah 10:1-16.
.
.
.
Wednesday, December 02, 2009
Ancient Symbols in Modern Medicine: But Why?
Does the ancient symbolism employed by the institutions that control modern medicine reflect the influence of secret societies such as the Freemasons? In order to fully understand the esoteric significance of modern medical symbolism, such as the cross, or Ankh, or the serpents and staff of Moses, or the winged staff of Hermes, it is helpful to begin by understanding that all doctors swear to pagan gods.
The Hippocratic Oath, which is sworn by all doctors, begins with the invocation: "I swear by Apollo the Physician. By Aesculapius, Hygela and Panacea, and I take to witness all the gods and goddesses..."[1] Dr Robert Orr showed in 1993 that 100% of American medical schools administer some form of the Hippocratic Oath to graduates.[2]
Dr James Appleyard, Chairman of the World Medical Association's medical ethics committee, supports the modern use of the ancient Hippocratic oath as "the continuation of a statement of fundamental ethical principles that could be affirmed at graduation by doctors worldwide".[3]
.
The World Medical Association's logo[4] features a serpent wrapped around a staff, the symbol of the ancient Greek god Asklepios. Aesculapius, worshipped by the Greeks as the god of healing, who originated in ancient Egypt as Imhotep, high-priest, sage and minister to the pharaoh, Zoser. It is significant that this symbol is reminiscent of the Staff of Moses.[5] The World Health Organisation's logo[6] also contains the ancient religious symbol of the serpent and staff, which is superimposed over the United Nations emblem.
In fact, the medical establishment is steeped in ancient religious symbolism. The British Columbia Medical Association coat of arms[7] includes the Rod of Aesculapius, a golden griffin where the substance represents alchemy, a medieval knight's helmet, and an ancient Egyptian Ankh (Crux Ansata or Handled Cross). The Insider approves of their official motto: "Always seek the truth." Paramedics also use the symbol of staff and serpent in the internationally recognised paramedic symbol[8], also called The Star of Life[9]. The resemblence between this sign and the early Christian symbol of the Pax Christi (Chi-Rho)[10], a cross-like monogram for Christ in ancient Greek, may be significant.
The Wellcome Trust, a major medical charity, employs the winged staff and snakes of Hermes[11] as their official logo, and for no apparent reason there is a huge image of the ancient Egyptian religious symbols of the Udjat eye of Horus and the Winged Disc of Ra, etched into the glass above their entrance opposite Euston train station in the West End of London. The winged sun disc is an ancient symbol for the sun god, Ra. Well known examples of the winged solar disc symbol can be found in ancient Egyptian temples, for instance over the entrance to the Solar Temple of Amen-Ra at Karnak, or or over the Temple doorway in Medinet Habu on the West bank of Luxor.
The Royal Society of Medicine coat of arms[12] features the serpent of Moses on a Tau cross, and flowers which resemble the stylised Lotus frequently depicted in ancient Egyptian art. In this discussion about secret societies and the modern of ancient symbols it is pertinent that The Royal Society - the foremost scientific institution in the U.K., was founded by a prominent Freemason, Sir Robert Moray.[13]
John Robinson explains in his popular book on Freemasonry: "When Freemasonry came public in 1717 ... it appeared that the Royal Society was virtually a Masonic subsidiary, with almost every member and every founding member of the Royal Society a Freemason."[14] An article in the leading Masonic magazine, Freemasonry Today, echoes this and mentions that "many masons were also members of the Royal Society".[15] The Royal Society remains associated with British Freemasonry today.
The Red Cross was first associated with human welfare and medical help during the medieval crusades, when European Knights travelled overseas to help pilgrims and foreigners alike, such as the Knights of St John[16], the Knights Hospitaller, and the Knights Templar[17] which was the first organisation to officially adopt the red cross symbol.
The Knights Templar[18] has been operating in secret for centuries, and traditions and inner mysteries are connected with those of the secret society of Freemasonry[19].
REFERENCES
1. The Hippocratic Oath, from the Junior Doctors Association website.
2. Orr RD, Pang N, Pellegrino, EJ, Siegler M., 1997. Use of the Hippocratic Oath: A review of 20th century practice and a content analysis of oaths administered in medical schools in the U.S. and Canada in 1993. Journal of Clinical Ethics, 8(4):377-388.
3. World Medical Association website, press center, statement of support for the Hippocratic Oath.
4. World Medical Association's official logo.
5. Exodus (2 Moses) 4:2-3, & Numbers (4 Moses) 21:8-9, Christian Bible or Jewish Torah.
6. World Health Organisation, official website.
7. British Columbia Medical Association's coat of arms on their official website.
8. Paramedic symbol from a major paramedics website.
9. History of The Star of Light, North Virginia Emergency Medical Services Council website.
10. Examples of Christian religious symbolism, Gospel Facts website.
11. Irish Emergency Ambulance Service website, see Ambulance History page for information about ancient religious symbols used in modern medicine, such as the Rod of Asclepius and the Caduceus.
12. Royal Society of Medicine coat of arms, featured and explained on their official website.
13. Lecture on The Royal Society, by the author and Freemason Robert Lomas, on his official website.
14. J. J. Robinson, 1990. Born in Blood: The Lost Secrets of Freemasonry. New York, USA: M Evans & Co.
15. An article from the official Masonic magazine, Freemasonry today, posted on their website.
16. The History of First Aid, on an official St. John's Ambulance website.
17. Knights Templar History website.
18. An official Knights Templar website.
19.Knights Templar page on the official Indiana Masons website.
.
.
NOTES & FURTHER READING
1. J.S.M. Ward , 1940. Freemasonry and the Ancient Gods. Montana, USA: R A Kessinger Publishing Co.
1. J.S.M. Ward , 1940. Freemasonry and the Ancient Gods. Montana, USA: R A Kessinger Publishing Co.
*** HIGHLY RECOMMENDED *** One of the most revealing publicly available sources about the Craft, since the 1940s this has been the benchmark reference textbook for research into the relationship between Freemasonry and religion.
.
.
.
.
Bank Of America Exceeds $1 Billion In Lending And Investing To Community Lenders
CHARLOTTE, N.C., Nov. 24 /PRNewswire/ -- Bank of America today announced it surpassed the $1 billion mark in loans and investments to more than 120 Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFIs) in 37 states.
CDFIs include credit unions, investment funds and niche banks that focus on low-income and disadvantaged communities. These local institutions have expertise in evaluating risk and lending and investing in small and micro businesses, charter schools, childcare centers, primary health care facilities, projects on Native American lands, and arranging pre-acquisition and development loans for low-income housing.
"Bank of America is investing more in community-based institutions because small businesses, nonprofit organizations and other local efforts are the engine for job growth and economic activity in our cities and towns," said Andrew D. Plepler, Bank of America's global corporate social responsibility and consumer policy executive. "CDFIs are one of the best channels to reach these organizations."
According to Opportunity Finance Network, the leading network for CDFIs, these institutions provide more than $30 billion in capital to underserved communities with positive results every year. This funding goes to more than 9,000 small businesses, 57,000 affordable housing units, and almost 700 new community facilities, including schools, child care centers and health care facilities, and helps create more than 34,000 jobs.
"Bank of America is the single largest investor in CDFIs. They understand the important role these institutions play in delivering capital for housing, businesses and nonprofits in underserved markets," said Mark Pinsky, president and chief executive officer of Opportunity Finance Network . "We are excited but not surprised to hear Bank of America has lent more than $1 billion to our organizations."
Bank of America's work with CDFIs is part of its 10-year, $1.5 trillion lending and investing goal, which demonstrates its ongoing commitment to addressing the critical needs of local communities.
Bank of America and Community Development
Bank of America is a longtime leader of community development and homeownership preservation efforts as noted through six consecutive "outstanding" Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) ratings. In 2009, the company commenced its 10-year, $1.5 trillion community development lending and investing goal – the largest ever established by a U.S. financial institution – focused on affordable housing, small business/farm lending, consumer lending and economic development. Bank of America has provided more than $35 million through its Neighborhood Preservation Initiative to aid distressed homeowners and stabilize communities, increasing capacity of nonprofits for foreclosure prevention counseling and the acquisition, rehabilitation and resale of foreclosed properties. The company also created new streamlined guidelines for government agencies using federal Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP) grants to more efficiently acquire foreclosed properties. Key to these efforts is Bank of America's commitment to offer loan modifications to as many as 630,000 borrowers over a three-year period, representing more than $100 billion in mortgages.
Bank of America is one of the world's largest financial institutions, serving individual consumers, small- and middle-market businesses and large corporations with a full range of banking, investing, asset management and other financial and risk management products and services. The company provides unmatched convenience in the United States, serving approximately 53 million consumer and small business relationships with 6,000 retail banking offices, more than 18,000 ATMs and award-winning online banking with more than 29 million active users. Bank of America is among the world's leading wealth management companies and is a global leader in corporate and investment banking and trading across a broad range of asset classes serving corporations, governments, institutions and individuals around the world. Bank of America offers industry-leading support to more than 4 million small business owners through a suite of innovative, easy-to-use online products and services. The company serves clients in more than 150 countries. Bank of America Corporation stock (NYSE: BAC) is a component of the Dow Jones Industrial Average and is listed on the New York Stock Exchange.
SOURCE Bank of America
.
The path to another Depression
By John Silveira
Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.
— George Santayana, 1863-1952
In 1921, we had a severe depression. It’s no longer part of America’s collective consciousness because it only lasted about a year and was followed by a time of then-unprecedented prosperity that we remember as the Roaring 20s. In 1930 another depression began. That one lasted over a decade and only “ended” because World War II broke out.
What caused one to pass so quickly and the other to drag on until it left a scar on the American psyche?
In the depression of 1921, the government did nothing.
In the Great Depression of the 1930s, the government did everything.
Typically, what happens in a recession/depression is that people lose jobs, prices and wages fall, weak businesses fail. But when wages fall far enough, companies are able to hire again. As prices fall, workers are able to make purchases again. As the weak businesses fail, the strong businesses rise to the top and some of the businesses that went bankrupt are bought by new owners and have another chance to succeed.
Hoover and Roosevelt
There are two myths from the Great Depression: Contrary to popular belief, (1) Herbert Hoover was not a “do-nothing” president, and (2) Franklin Delano Roosevelt did not get us out of the Depression while saving capitalism. Both were interventionist presidents who monkeyed with what is basically a natural business cycle. Both tried to artificially keep the economy afloat and failed to let the problems that caused the Great Depression correct themselves. And both are responsible for it getting so bad.
For four years under Hoover the Depression deepened because he tried to rig the economy. What’s ironic is that, when FDR ran for the presidency in 1932, he ran on a platform of conservative economics. He claimed the reason Hoover couldn’t “save” the economy was because he was too interventionist. His vice presidential running mate, John Nance Garner, even went so far as to accuse Hoover of leading the country down the path of socialism.
Of course, when he took office FDR out-Hoovered Hoover; many economists, looking back from today, have said FDR could have ended that depression in a year had he not thrown out his campaign promises. But he did and the Great Depression dragged on for another eight long years of his first two terms—until World War II broke out and sent the nation and the rest of the world through yet another upheaval.
Those same economists feel the Great Depression lasted so long because it was the first depression politicians meddled in. By 1937 FDR was at wit’s end trying to figure out why the Depression was deepening despite his efforts. In fact, in 1937 we had a depression-within-a-depression. It’s likely both presidents went to their graves and never understood what they had done.
What were those ineffective programs the two presidents employed that prolonged the Great Depression?
Among his acts, Hoover bullied and cajoled businesses into not cutting wages. He raised tax rates. He signed protectionist policies, such as the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act. The result was that businesses couldn’t afford to hire more employees and our trading partners retaliated with their own tariffs, which put obstacles in the way of American businesses so they couldn’t sell overseas.
What is forgotten today is that when FDR took office, most of his programs were, as Rexford Tugwell, a member of FDR’s “Brain Trust” said, expansions of what Hoover had instituted.
FDR sponsored “make-work” programs instead of real work programs. Thus, instead of helping businesses create jobs that create wealth—and it’s wealth that creates other jobs and prosperity— FDR had us build roads and bridges and plant trees. I know, we need roads and bridges and trees, but the country was no longer making consumer goods. (If public works spending, including building roads, monuments, and even military buildups are the way to create prosperity, the Soviet Union would have been the richest country in the world, and if promoting the manufacture of consumer goods were bad, Japan would be the poorest.)
Like Hoover, FDR artificially tried to keep wages up. He even instituted the first national minimum wage law and created a wage-floor that, on the surface, appeared to guarantee a living wage. In reality, it prevented many businesses, already on the brink of failure, from hiring the out-of-work. Without being able to hire more workers, production lines stagnated, and with both production and profits falling, businesses were caught in a loop that prolonged and deepened the Great Depression. Neither Hoover nor FDR nor FDR’s “Brain Trust” advisors appeared to understand that high wages do not create prosperity. It’s the other way around: prosperity creates high wages.
FDR, even more so than Hoover, also attempted to keep prices up. FDR and his advisors thought this was how to keep businesses running, even those that should have failed. For example, to keep farm prices up he went so far as to institute programs where farmers cut production, and farm products were even destroyed to create artificial scarcity—while Americans were starving.
Both presidents also taxed the very people who could create real jobs, jobs that produce more wealth and allow even more people to be employed. They were the kinds of jobs that would have ended the Great Depression. But much of that money, removed from company coffers all over the nation, was instead put into the “make-work” programs that created little or nothing and ensured the Depression would continue.
Bush and Obama
Today, President Obama is saying his stimulus packages are going to be used to build infrastructure. He also has Vice President Joseph Biden overseeing policy to create “green” jobs. These are all “make-work” jobs, instead of real jobs, just as FDR created make-work jobs in the 1930s.
The President also wants to place higher taxes on the so-called “rich,” the people who actually create jobs. In his words, these taxes are to “spread the wealth around.” The problem is that many of these people are small business owners, exactly the people we need to create real jobs to pull us out of this slump. And just as FDR’s taxes took money out of the economy and destroyed jobs, so will Obama’s, and he is going find himself inadvertently spreading poverty and misery around instead.
What may be worse is that today Washington is also trying to keep alive businesses that should be allowed to fail. A case in point is the “Big Three” automakers of Ford, GM, and Chrysler. Bankruptcy is the antidote for what ails them. Let them go under. They’re not going to go away. What will happen is that new owners will buy up the assets and start from scratch. More importantly, bankruptcy will allow the automakers to repudiate their debts.
Which debts? Politicians rarely discuss one of the two big reasons the auto industry is in trouble: Unions. Today, American automakers labor under the burden of wages, pensions, and health plans essentially extorted during wage and benefit negotiations in the auto industry’s boon times when automakers could simply pass the increased costs onto consumers. The other big reason Detroit is in trouble is because Congress believes it should dictate the kinds of cars automakers sell, rather than letting the consumer—the guy who actually spends the money—decide. By way of example, Congress and the Environmental Protection Agency have mandated “fleet-average mileage” rules for car manufacturers. So, for each SUV Americans are willing to buy, and on which the automakers make a profit, they must also make smaller cars that Americans simply won’t buy, and on which car makers lose money. Hence, GM’s Saturn, Chrysler’s PT Cruiser, and other small car disasters that have befallen Detroit.
Worse yet is that to “fight” global warming the President has also promised that he will start shifting our economy to “renewable” sources. With the exception of hydropower, almost all of the renewable sources are less efficient and more expensive than conventional sources. No rational person can think that less efficient and more expensive power sources are going to help turn the economy around.
With our government blithely putting more and more obstacles in the way, don’t expect the recent downturn to abate. There’s the distinct possibility we’re going to slump right into the depression we’ve all been fearing. Some economists are saying that because the politicians are getting in the way of letting these problems correct themselves, just as they did in the ‘30s, this downturn could surpass that of the Great Depression and last 10 to 15 years.
The President also wants to place higher taxes on the so-called “rich,” the people who actually create jobs. In his words, these taxes are to “spread the wealth around.” The problem is that many of these people are small business owners, exactly the people we need to create real jobs to pull us out of this slump. And just as FDR’s taxes took money out of the economy and destroyed jobs, so will Obama’s, and he is going find himself inadvertently spreading poverty and misery around instead.
What may be worse is that today Washington is also trying to keep alive businesses that should be allowed to fail. A case in point is the “Big Three” automakers of Ford, GM, and Chrysler. Bankruptcy is the antidote for what ails them. Let them go under. They’re not going to go away. What will happen is that new owners will buy up the assets and start from scratch. More importantly, bankruptcy will allow the automakers to repudiate their debts.
Which debts? Politicians rarely discuss one of the two big reasons the auto industry is in trouble: Unions. Today, American automakers labor under the burden of wages, pensions, and health plans essentially extorted during wage and benefit negotiations in the auto industry’s boon times when automakers could simply pass the increased costs onto consumers. The other big reason Detroit is in trouble is because Congress believes it should dictate the kinds of cars automakers sell, rather than letting the consumer—the guy who actually spends the money—decide. By way of example, Congress and the Environmental Protection Agency have mandated “fleet-average mileage” rules for car manufacturers. So, for each SUV Americans are willing to buy, and on which the automakers make a profit, they must also make smaller cars that Americans simply won’t buy, and on which car makers lose money. Hence, GM’s Saturn, Chrysler’s PT Cruiser, and other small car disasters that have befallen Detroit.
Worse yet is that to “fight” global warming the President has also promised that he will start shifting our economy to “renewable” sources. With the exception of hydropower, almost all of the renewable sources are less efficient and more expensive than conventional sources. No rational person can think that less efficient and more expensive power sources are going to help turn the economy around.
With our government blithely putting more and more obstacles in the way, don’t expect the recent downturn to abate. There’s the distinct possibility we’re going to slump right into the depression we’ve all been fearing. Some economists are saying that because the politicians are getting in the way of letting these problems correct themselves, just as they did in the ‘30s, this downturn could surpass that of the Great Depression and last 10 to 15 years.
.
.
.
Labels:
bwh,
Debt,
ECONOMY,
great depression,
HISTORY,
J. Silviera,
Preparation,
Recession,
TAX,
USA
Court issues reunification plan in Rifqa Bary case
Chad Groening - OneNewsNow - 12/2/2009 7:00:00 AM
A best-selling author and critic of Islam is skeptical about a plan issued to reunite runaway Christian convert Rifqa Bary with her Muslim family.

A best-selling author and critic of Islam is skeptical about a plan issued to reunite runaway Christian convert Rifqa Bary with her Muslim family.
The proposal was filed Monday in Franklin County Juvenile Court in Columbus, Ohio, by a government caseworker. It says 17-year-old Rifqa Bary needs to hear her parents' explanation of their religious beliefs and that the parents must listen to the girl's explanation of her Christian faith so that both sides can better understand Bary's summer runaway to Florida.
Bary has said she feared her father would harm or kill her for converting from Islam. Her father has denied this claim, but the reunification plan leaves open the possibility that the girl may not be forced to return home. Robert Spencer, director of Jihad Watch, concurs.
"She shouldn't return home -- and if it were any other situation, there would be no possibility of her returning home," he argues. "If she were a Christian girl who had fled from her family and converted to Islam, nobody would be talking about her going home. Islam has this powerful deception machine in the United States."
Even considering the 17-year-old's claim, Spencer is fearful that authorities will choose to believe her father.
"It's inconceivable that the father is going to say, 'Well, in Islam, we have to kill the apostate, and thus we'll have to kill you.' He's not going to say that in front of the caseworker," states the critic of Islam. Spencer predicts Rifqa's father will "be all sweetness and love and then she'll be returned home," and because of that, he believes the teenage girl is now "in graver danger than ever."
Even considering the 17-year-old's claim, Spencer is fearful that authorities will choose to believe her father.
"It's inconceivable that the father is going to say, 'Well, in Islam, we have to kill the apostate, and thus we'll have to kill you.' He's not going to say that in front of the caseworker," states the critic of Islam. Spencer predicts Rifqa's father will "be all sweetness and love and then she'll be returned home," and because of that, he believes the teenage girl is now "in graver danger than ever."
.
.
.
Labels:
CHRISTIANS,
Conversion,
courts,
Custody,
Florida,
MUSLIMS,
Ohio,
R.Bary
Harbingers & 'Great Deception'
Harbingers & 'Great Deception'
http://www.coasttocoastam.com/show/2009/12/01
Author L.A. Marzulli will discuss his latest research exploring various global phenomena such as earthquakes, tsunamis, wars and rumors of wars, which are all harbingers to the coming 'Great Deception.'
Date:12-01-09
Host:George Noory
Guests:L. A. Marzulli
Website(s):lamarzulli.net
Book(s):The Alien Interviews
.
HOUR OF THE TIME - Bill Cooper - Jordan Maxwell interview
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUUrzZEhY1k&feature=player_embeddedhttp://
Added by benjis007 on May 9, 2009 at 8:46pm
Added by benjis007 on May 9, 2009 at 8:46pm
China Christians sent to labour camps: rights group
China Christians sent to labour camps: rights group
Foreign 2009-12-02 18:26
BEIJING, Dec 2 (AFP) - Police in northern China have sentenced five Christian church leaders to two years of "education through labour" after they protested against a police raid on their church, a rights group said Wednesday.
The punishments came after a Shanxi province court last week sentenced five other leaders of the same church to up to seven years in prison for trying to protect the unregistered church from demolition, said ChinaAid, a US-based Christian rights group.
"To arbitrarily send five innocent citizens to labour camps is in direct violation of international human rights covenants," the head of ChinaAid, Bob Fu, said in a statement.
The statement said the case, in the city of Linfen, showed Chinese authorities were intent on suppressing religious freedom.
Up to 1,000 followers of the unregistered 60,000-member Fushan church in Linfen held a protest prayer meeting a day after police raided church buildings on September 13, the rights group said.
Following the protest, police began rounding up church leaders, it said.
"Education through labour" is a punishment meted out by police that does not require judicial procedures such as a trial. The punishment has long been criticised as arbitrary and susceptible to abuse.
Repeated calls by AFP to Linfen police and government offices seeking comment on the case went unanswered Thursday.
China officially provides freedom of religion but in practice the ruling Communist Party restricts independent worship by forcing groups to register with the government.
The government says China's official churches have 15 million Protestants and five million Catholics. But there are believed to be many millions more worshipping in "underground" or "family" churches, which refuse to submit to government regulation.
MySinchew 2009.12.02
.
New religious regulations in Russia on hold?
Posted on December 2nd, 2009 by Mission Network News
Russia (MNN) — There may be some good news coming out of Russia as it relates to religious freedom. Opponents to the proposed amendments to Russia’s religion law say they don’t believe the amendments will be introduced in the Duma because they are so blatantly unconstitutional. Sergey Rakhuba with Russian Ministries says they’re so restrictive that every person who practices faith would be required to register. “Russian, or national leaders, call it a Draconian kind of amendment or change. It’s totally out of all proportion. It’s even worse than I remember under the former Soviet Union.” Rakhuba and others believe government leaders have a strategy to try and push it through now. “It’s done right before Christmas when the western organizations–those who help with religious freedom, especially in the former Soviet Union–are preoccupied with the celebration of this wonderful holiday.” While Rakhuba believes it’s an attack on extremism, Christians will suffer. He’s asking you to contact the Russian Embassy to voice your opposition. We’ll connect you at our Web site (Story 1 - December 2, 2009).
.
Make Mine Freedom ~ 1948
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6H63CD7uQA&feature=player_embeddedhttp://
We are in charge now, Sarkozy tells the City
From The Times December 2, 2009
We are in charge now, Sarkozy tells the City
Francis Elliott, Suzy Jagger, Martin Waller and David Charter

(Ian Langsdon/EPA) to not show image description -->
Nicolas Sarkozy
Alistair Darling has delivered a blunt warning to the EU’s new French finance chief against meddling with the City of London.
As Nicolas Sarkozy gloated over impending curbs on the City, the Chancellor said that such moves would drive financial services out of Europe.
The French President’s glee at the appointment of Michel Barnier as Commissioner for the Single Market took on an edge of menace yesterday when he said that unfettered City practices must end.
“Do you know what it means for me to see for the first time in 50 years a French European commissioner in charge of the internal market, including financial services, including the City [of London]?" he said yesterday.
Related Links
A strong City is not just good for Britain
President Sarkozy attacks City of London
Diplomatic Disservice
"I want the world to see the victory of the European model, which has nothing to do with the excesses of financial capitalism," he said.
His implicit threat was just what Downing Street had feared when Mr Barnier, formerly an agriculture minister, was given the portfolio last week.
Mr Darling, writing in The Times today, says that it would be a “recipe for confusion” if firms were supervised by the EU as well as national watchdogs and that Britain would not accept new laws that could lead to taxpayers picking up the bill for bailouts ordered by Brussels.
He rejects claims that the economic crisis was the fault of the “Anglo-Saxon” model, pointing out that French and German banks were among the biggest creditors of the failed US insurance giant AIG.
Terry Smith, a prominent banker, said that the threat of increased regulation was already threatening the City’s future.
“I’ve never seen so much work going on by companies, individuals and teams of people to evaluate relocation out of the UK,” he said.
.
Source: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6939895.ece
.
.
We are in charge now, Sarkozy tells the City
Francis Elliott, Suzy Jagger, Martin Waller and David Charter
(Ian Langsdon/EPA) to not show image description -->
Nicolas Sarkozy
Alistair Darling has delivered a blunt warning to the EU’s new French finance chief against meddling with the City of London.
As Nicolas Sarkozy gloated over impending curbs on the City, the Chancellor said that such moves would drive financial services out of Europe.
The French President’s glee at the appointment of Michel Barnier as Commissioner for the Single Market took on an edge of menace yesterday when he said that unfettered City practices must end.
“Do you know what it means for me to see for the first time in 50 years a French European commissioner in charge of the internal market, including financial services, including the City [of London]?" he said yesterday.
Related Links
A strong City is not just good for Britain
President Sarkozy attacks City of London
Diplomatic Disservice
"I want the world to see the victory of the European model, which has nothing to do with the excesses of financial capitalism," he said.
His implicit threat was just what Downing Street had feared when Mr Barnier, formerly an agriculture minister, was given the portfolio last week.
Mr Darling, writing in The Times today, says that it would be a “recipe for confusion” if firms were supervised by the EU as well as national watchdogs and that Britain would not accept new laws that could lead to taxpayers picking up the bill for bailouts ordered by Brussels.
He rejects claims that the economic crisis was the fault of the “Anglo-Saxon” model, pointing out that French and German banks were among the biggest creditors of the failed US insurance giant AIG.
Terry Smith, a prominent banker, said that the threat of increased regulation was already threatening the City’s future.
“I’ve never seen so much work going on by companies, individuals and teams of people to evaluate relocation out of the UK,” he said.
.
Source: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6939895.ece
.
.
Jesuits on the Moon

Long before novelist Mary Doria Russell sent the Society to outer space in her novel "The Sparrow," Jesuits were on the moon--at least their names were. According to Joseph McDonnell, SJ, the International Astronomical Union has recently codified lunar nomenclatura eliminating conflicts and duplications. The new list has 35 lunar craters named after Jesuits: 10 Italians, 6 Germans, 5 French, 3 Hungarians, 2 Swiss, 2 Austrians, 2 Belgians, and one each from Croatia, Holland, Spain, Scotland, and the US.
For centuries the basic map used for lunar nomenclatura was the one drawn in 1645 by Jesuit optician Francesco Grimaldi (1613-1663). Grimaldi's map includes crater names invented by fellow Jesuit Giovanni Riccioli. Riccioli's assignment of some of the brightest craters to Copernicans--Kepler, Galileo, Lansberg, and Copernicus himself--has always been a bit of a puzzle, since as a Jesuit, Riccioli staunchly upheld the doctrine of a fixed and central earth. He claimed to have flung the heliocentrists into the Sea of Storms (Oceanus Procellarum), but some wonder if he did not reveal here a secret fondness for the Copernican doctrine, especially since he named two nearby craters Grimaldus and Ricciolus, while other Jesuit astronomers were assigned to craters in the south, surrounding Tycho.
A first printing of the Grimaldi/Riccioli map can be found in the special collections of Woodstock Theological Center Library, Georgetown University. [Source: News & Features; Linda Hall Library, Kansas City, Mo.]
For centuries the basic map used for lunar nomenclatura was the one drawn in 1645 by Jesuit optician Francesco Grimaldi (1613-1663). Grimaldi's map includes crater names invented by fellow Jesuit Giovanni Riccioli. Riccioli's assignment of some of the brightest craters to Copernicans--Kepler, Galileo, Lansberg, and Copernicus himself--has always been a bit of a puzzle, since as a Jesuit, Riccioli staunchly upheld the doctrine of a fixed and central earth. He claimed to have flung the heliocentrists into the Sea of Storms (Oceanus Procellarum), but some wonder if he did not reveal here a secret fondness for the Copernican doctrine, especially since he named two nearby craters Grimaldus and Ricciolus, while other Jesuit astronomers were assigned to craters in the south, surrounding Tycho.
A first printing of the Grimaldi/Riccioli map can be found in the special collections of Woodstock Theological Center Library, Georgetown University. [Source: News & Features; Linda Hall Library, Kansas City, Mo.]
.
.
Tuesday, December 01, 2009
Blessed papal reply
Wednesday, 02 December 2009 02:38
Again, in recent weeks, Pope Benedict XVI has electrified the Christian world, as well as men and women of religious faith everywhere, by opening up new roads to Rome in behalf of perhaps a half million Anglicans committed to safeguarding Biblical Tradition.
The news broke with the announcement of the Apostolic Constitution, Anglicanorum coetibus, dated 4 Nov., which, in the words of a joint statement by Archbishop Vincent Nichols of Westminster and Anglican Archbishop Rowan Williams of Canterbury, “brings to an end a period of uncertainty for such [Anglican] groups who have nourished hopes of new ways of embracing unity with the Catholic Church.”
From the words of the Constitution, it should be clear to anyone interested that its substance should not be viewed as a Vatican initiative, but rather as a response.
It is an especially blessed response by an especially inspired Pontiff.
For some time now, many Anglicans and Episcopalians, both individually and in groups, have manifested deep concern over overtures within the Communion to disregard or revise Biblical Tradition. This concern has intensified with the ordination of women priests and bishops, the ordination of practising gay persons, and efforts to allow or ritually accept same-sex marriages. Many Church members who were born and raised in the Anglican Communion have consequently experienced a sense of alienation from the familiar and the meaningful, not only at worship, but also in their desire to live by Biblical values.
According to Archbishop Augustine DiNoia of the Vatican’s Congregation for Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, the number of Anglicans or Episcopalians interested in embracing the Church of Rome is quite substantial; possibly a half million, including 50 Anglican bishops. Pope Benedict is simply saying that the doorway is open to them.
To ensure and facilitate the process of entering into visible communion with Rome, the Holy See is providing new canonical structures, described as “Personal Ordinariates,” remotely comparable to the Military Ordinariates already functioning in most countries of the world to minister to military personnel and their dependents. According to Cardinal William Levada, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, these new structures will allow Anglicans desirous of entering into full communion with Rome the means of retaining their Anglican “traditions of spirituality and worship for their faith journey.” The presumption is that the Anglicans who petition full communion will have already declared that they “share the common Catholic faith as it is expressed in the Catechism of the Catholic Church and accept the Petrine ministry as something Christ willed for the Church.”
The beautiful phrase referring to Anglican “traditions of spirituality and worship” is a reminder of two magnificent persons whose “faith journey” began within Anglicanism; namely, Cardinal John Henry Newman, whose Beatification Cause is currently being vigorously pursued; and the very first native-born United States citizen-saint, Elizabeth Ann Seton. Mrs. Seton (the first saint in history who can be invoked in the English idiom, “Mrs.”) often spoke or wrote about how her Episcopalian background in Manhattan proved a sturdy foundation for her eventual embrace of the Church of Rome. Cardinal Newman experienced the same, often recalling how his Anglican roots prepared him for his entrance into full Communion with Rome.
Implementation of the new Constitution will entail some adjustments, of course, but none is seriously problematic. The issue of clerical celibacy in the context of married Anglican priests is not really a difficulty. Indeed, this circumstance is not unlike that already experienced by Anglican clergy who have opted for Rome; specifically, such married clergyman will be able to continue to choose Catholicism without prejudice to their marriage. The tradition of ordaining married men, long observed in Ritual Churches sui juris, will apply to married Anglican priests entering the Catholic Church. Which means, of course, that (contrary to some reports in the secular press), the new Constitution has no bearing whatever on Apostolic norms for priestly celibacy as observed for centuries in the Latin Church.
Adaptations in liturgy are also contemplated; Anglicans entering the Catholic Church are ensured ritual modifications reflecting many Anglican customs; the Holy Father has already begun to address such petitions. (Sec. III of the Constitution) And there are practical decisions to be made; e.g., provisions for parsonages with living quarters for a pastor’s or vicar’s family. However, peripheral considerations should not distract from the exciting goal; namely, unity in faith.
We continue to live in exciting times, for which we are all grateful. We should all be especially thankful for this Holy Father, as well as for his earlier predecessors while the 20th century was drawing to a close, for leading us so rapidly, by the Holy Spirit’s power, toward the one Church of Christ intended by the Lord, and for which He prayed during the Last Supper. The centrifugal forces of the Reformation have waned so dramatically, thank God, that we can all give witness to Christ through his one Church – a necessary development as Planet Earth teeters beyond secularism toward absolute rejection of religious Truth.
.
Source: http://www.catholictranscript.org/editorials/1141-blessed-papal-reply.html
.
Ex-Con Counts on “Faith Community” to Pass Health Care

AIM Column By Cliff Kincaid November 29, 2009
Creamer, who went to prison for ripping off non-profit entities, emphasized using “the faith community” to mobilize support for universal health care…
The media furor over the White House state dinner crashers ignores the convicted felon who was invited to attend with the approval of Obama's inner circle. The ex-convict, Robert B. Creamer, is a friend of White House adviser David Axelrod and the husband of Democratic Rep. Jan Schakowsky of Illinois. A major Democratic Party political strategist, he is the author of a 628-page book that describes how the Democrats can become the permanent majority party by passing a national health care bill and giving amnesty to illegal immigrants.
With the support of major elements of the "faith community," the first part of Creamer's plan is on track.
Creamer's Stand Up Straight! How Progressives Can Win," is the book "penned in the pen," as one observer described it. "I did much of the preliminary work on this book while spending five months on a forced sabbatical at the Federal Prison Camp at Terra Haute Indiana," Creamer says. Creamer emerged from federal prison in November 2006 after serving five months for financial crimes. His prosecutor was the famous Patrick J. Fitzgerald, who also nailed disgraced former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich.
But this didn't stop Creamer from being invited to the White House for the first state dinner. Indeed, it makes complete sense in view of the fact that Creamer's book is full of praise for Obama and even reprints Obama's 2004 Democratic National Convention keynote address.
The acknowledgements section of Creamer's book describes how he, like Obama, was influenced by Saul Alinsky, described as "the legendary community organizer." Book endorsements are featured from David Axelrod; Greg Galluzo of the Gamaliel Foundation, which originally sponsored Barack Obama's work as a community organizer in Chicago; and Andy Stern of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU).
Creamer notes in his book that Bush aide Karl Rove had predicted in 2004 a "permanent majority" in Congress for the Republican Party. That prediction fell apart just two years later, in 2006, when the Democrats picked up 30 House seats and 6 Senate seats. Nevertheless, Rove subsequently landed a job as a Fox News political analyst.
Creamer's predictions have turned out to be more accurate. Released in 2007, Creamer's book said that a successful campaign "to reshape the structure of one-sixth of the American economy," the health care sector, would depend on getting 60 Democratic votes in the Senate and the election of a "progressive Democrat" in the White House. Today, of course, the Democrats have that significant advantage.
Creamer can take some credit for these developments. His firm, Strategic Consulting Group, still boasts an impressive client list that includes ACORN, SEIU, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, and dozens of other "progressive" or Democratic Party state organizations.
Creamer, who went to prison for ripping off non-profit entities, emphasized using "the faith community" to mobilize support for universal health care by highlighting the morality of providing medical care to people in need.
It has not worked out as planned, but it has worked out. As we saw in the House, when the bill was in trouble, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi agreed to a demand from Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, who was in Rome, to hold a vote on an anti-abortion amendment introduced by Rep. Bart Stupak, a Catholic pro-life Democrat. At the same time, Cardinal Francis George, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), told House Republican Leader John Boehner, a faithful Catholic, not to undermine the amendment. Boehner complied. As a result, the amendment passed, 240-194, with 64 Democrats and 176 Republicans in favor. This provided conservative Democrats enough cover to ignore the other objectionable aspects and vote for the final bill.
Washington Times religion reporter Julia Duin confirmed all of this, but noted in a story filed from the recent USCCB meeting in Baltimore that "Cardinal McCarrick walked away when I approached him about his call from the Vatican..."
Pelosi and many "progressives" acquiesced in the anti-abortion ploy, realizing that the provision could eventually be nullified through subsequent legislation.
Nevertheless, the Bishops are pursuing the same strategy in the Senate. Their chosen vehicle for anti-abortion language in this version of the bill appears to be Democratic Senator Robert Casey, a so-called "conservative" and "pro-life" Catholic Democrat from Pennsylvania. Casey says, however, that if his effort to water down the pro-abortion tone of the legislation fails, he may still vote for the bill.
It looks probable, therefore, that the Senate health care bill will pass. Then, the two versions will be combined in a congressional conference and the compromise will come before Congress for a final vote.
If passed, as Creamer understands, this will hook millions of Americans on another federal program, and they will depend on--and vote for--Democrats to grant them more benefits.
It is important to note that the Bishops, who have a reputation among some commentators as being politically "conservative," have not been objecting to the "public option" in the Senate plan. Indeed, they have long favored a government-guaranteed "right" to health care and federal funding to make that a reality.
The latest USCCB statement on the health care legislation urges Senators to "improve the Senate health care bill in the key areas of affordability, immigration, federal funding and coverage of abortion and conscience rights." Translated into common-sense language, this means coverage for illegal aliens and more federal funding, in addition to the pro-life language that will enable some "conservative" Democrats and possibly some Republicans to vote for it.
Creamer himself spoke in his book of a "public plan," which is supposed to guarantee that "right" to health care and which eventually became the "public option" in the actual legislation. In a speech captured on YouTube, Creamer's wife, Rep. Schakowsky, candidly said that a public option is a Trojan Horse for a complete federal takeover.
Next is the immigration battle. Creamer explains that this "will have an enormous impact on the battle for power between the progressive and conservative forces in American society." He explains that "If the Democrats continue to stand firmly for immigrant rights, the issue will define immigrants' voting loyalties for a generation. If we are successful, a gigantic block of progressive votes will enter the electorate over the next 15 years--a block that could be decisive in the battle for the future."
As we can already see, however, there is an overlap into the health care debate. And again, the "faith community" is playing a major role. In fact, the Catholic Bishops are not only vigorously lobbying for giving illegal immigrants access to a national health care plan but favor amnesty for them. In his recent testimony before the Senate, Cardinal McCarrick called it "legalization for the undocumented."
It looks bleak for Republicans if the Bishops have their way and continue to play Creamer's tune. GOP agreement with the Bishops on a pro-life provision in the bill should not distract attention from how this part of the "faith community" has become a major component of the "progressive" base that elects Democrats and keeps them in power. The facts show that most Catholics voted for Obama, and half or more of the Bishops, according to Catholic TV host Raymond Arroyo, voted for him, too. The USCCB staff is known to be overwhelmingly left-wing.
This is why some conservative Catholics think that the Catholic hierarchy is pursuing a strategy on health care that pays lip service to the pro-life cause but plays directly into Obama's (and Creamer's) hands.
Cliff Kincaid is the Editor of the AIM Report and can be reached at cliff.kincaid@aim.org
.
They Could Have, But Didn’t

They Could Have, But Didn’t · December 01, 2009
Dear Friends,
Warm Christian greetings to you and your family. Welcome to Keep the Faith Ministry’s monthly sermon on CD. I pray that you are gaining much by listening to our monthly CDs and that you will find them useful in helping others to see the truth of God’s word in these last days. For a long time I have wanted to do a series of sermons on the Sabbath. And since I have had a number of requests recently to explain the importance and the significance as well as the reasons why God instructs us to keep His seventh-day Sabbath holy, I felt that the time has come to get started with it.
I don’t claim to have all the answers to the questions and arguments that are presented today, but I know that the Bible has them. Whenever we have a question that bothers us concerning the principles of Christian faith, we can turn to scripture for the answer. But most people follow what their pastor says, or what they were taught as children. They have never investigated for themselves what it is that the Bible actually teaches on this subject.
So much of future events revolve around the principles of worship, that it is vital that we understand God’s will and His instructions to His last generation disciples. So what I would like to do today and over time with perhaps several other sermons, is lay a foundation so that you will understand why prophecy says what it says and why developments will develop in a certain way as we near the close of probation. May God bless you as you listen to this month’s message.
Before I begin, let me remind you that the end of December is the cut-off date for the renewals to our monthly subscriptions for the little CD preachers that come to you each month. It is a close of probation of sorts. If you want to continue receiving these monthly updates, and you haven’t returned your subscription card, please do so today so that you won’t miss a single issue. In the month of January, we are going to update our list of over 21,000 world-wide addresses and discontinue the subscriptions of those who have not returned their yellow renewal cards. You may receive January’s CD, but you won’t receive the one for February if you have not renewed your subscription. If you were a new subscriber in 2009, you don’t have to renew. Your subscription will be continued. Also, if you made a gift in 2009, we assume that you want to renew.
And let me add that we here at Keep the Faith Ministry really appreciate the support that many of you send each month. It helps us get out the monthly CDs to so many around the world who cannot support this work. Some have been so faithful to send a monthly gift, and we really thank the Lord for all He has done for Keep the Faith Ministry in its work of reaching out to souls that want to understand prophecy. It is literally a faith ministry, and so far God has keep His end of the bargain. Please pray that we will continually preach the truth. Your prayers mean very much to us. Thank you so much.
The Bible has always been at the center of the controversy between Christ and Satan, and therefore, it has always been at the center of the struggle over truth and error in this world between those that believe God’s word and those that want to avoid its claims.
In every age and in every era there have been those who have tried to argue against the principles found in the Bible. Meanwhile, God has always had His witnesses that would uphold the word of God as the only infallible, authoritative voice in Christian faith and practice. Many have tried to place tradition on equal authoritative footing with scripture. But this mistake leads men away from the Bible’s holy utterances. Now in the last days, the Bible is again at the center of the struggle. Will a man or woman believe and do what God has said so that His word is a lamp unto their feet and a light unto their path, or will they follow the teachings and traditions of men and of churches that are not founded in God’s sacred scriptures and end up in error and darkness? This question has always been one of the most important for Christian people to decide. Is it ok to disobey God for convenience sake, or because we have always done it a certain way? Or do we need to obey God’s word and live according to His law of liberty?
Perhaps there is a more refined argument at the center of the struggle between God’s people and those who profess to follow Jesus and yet disobey Him, is the Law. There is a hatred kindled against God’s law by those who want to be saved in their sins. But sin is slavery, while the keeping of God’s law is liberty. Speaking of the ten commandment law, as the “royal law” the apostle James says, “So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty.” That’s James 2:8, 12. The Ten Commandments actually free us from the slavery of sin. And victory over sin, by the grace of God, is the best experience you will ever have. Those who love Jesus, love His character. And those who love His character, love His law. They delight to do His law. And His Holy Spirit gives them power to live it day by day. I don’t know about you, but I want to be free from slavery.
The Ten Commandments are the centerpiece of God’s character. Therefore, it is the very target of Satan. If we want to have the character of Christ we must then have His law in our hearts. To have His law in our hearts means that we keep that law as He gave it to us. To have the most pure unselfishness is in reality to have Jesus character infused into our hearts so that we do what He did. We live the way He lived.
Satan’s goal is to prevent man from keeping God’s law and persuade him that it is better or more advantageous to sin. And what fine cooperation Satan has had from Christian people. He doesn’t care if you are a Christian, so long as you don’t keep God’s law. It seems that everywhere you turn today Christian people are refusing to keep God’s law. They continually find excuses not to obey. “I was born that way,” is one of them. Another is that “we’ll be sinning till Jesus comes, so we don’t really need to try to keep the law.” And still another goes like this, “God understands our sinful nature and He forgives us of our sins, past, present and future. He kept the law for us. So we don’t need to.”
What a shame. God offers us such high living by keeping His law of liberty. And He offers us the power to do it, for He would never ask us to do something that He cannot give us the power to do. Why then do we prefer to wallow in the cesspool of sin, all the while attending church each week and singing praises to God as if we are happy to be living in sin? While many preachers will tell you that we need to keep the law of God, they do not teach that we must keep them as written in the Ten Commandments. Instead they teach that it is ok to break them in various ways. For instance, they teach that it is ok to play football, when to do so means that you must break the law of God. Many sports games involve elements of deception for instance, which is forbidden in the Ten Commandments which say “thou shalt not bear false witness.” Stealing is taught in baseball when the runner “steals the base.” Perhaps you can think of things in cricket, soccer or other sports that break God’s law.
Many pastors teach that it is okay to bow down to images and pray to saints because they say that the image is really to remind them of the saint. But the Ten Commandments forbid this… “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image… thou shalt not bow down thyself to them nor serve them. Why then do so many, including the pope of Rome, serve the Virgin Mary? You see my friends, the whole world is caught up in disobedience to the law of God. Many take God’s name in vain when they curse or swear, or use common slang. Many commit adultery in their hearts by lusting after one another. Many have covetousness in their hearts through envy or jealousy.
And most people would agree that all these things are forbidden in scripture and that they should not do these things. But they do them anyway, thinking that God will overlook these sins, or forgive them, even though they don’t repent.
But there is one commandment that actually draws more opposition than all others. And that is the fourth commandment to “Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy.” Many preachers teach that Sunday is the day of rest for the Christian now instead of the seventh-day of the week because that is the day on which Christ was raised from the dead. They call it the “Christian Sabbath.” But do they have any scripture to which they can point to show that the fourth commandment has been changed?
There has been a problem every time the subject of the seventh day Sabbath comes up. It is usually because people have been taught certain things that are not true. Often people think that Sunday sacredness was ordained by Christ or His apostles in spite of the fact that they are unable to provide one verse of scripture to genuinely support their idea. Even Pope John Paul II tried to convince his readers of this falsehood when he said in his apostolic letter Dies Domini, that “the Lord’s Day — as Sunday was called from Apostolic times — has always been accorded special attention in the history of the Church…” Even though he uses a lot of scripture verses in Dies Domini to support Sunday sacredness, he does not provide even one that supports the thesis that the apostles knew Sunday to be the Lord’s Day or kept it sacredly. The scriptures he uses are misapplied and are therefore deceptive.
Source
Dear Friends,
Warm Christian greetings to you and your family. Welcome to Keep the Faith Ministry’s monthly sermon on CD. I pray that you are gaining much by listening to our monthly CDs and that you will find them useful in helping others to see the truth of God’s word in these last days. For a long time I have wanted to do a series of sermons on the Sabbath. And since I have had a number of requests recently to explain the importance and the significance as well as the reasons why God instructs us to keep His seventh-day Sabbath holy, I felt that the time has come to get started with it.
I don’t claim to have all the answers to the questions and arguments that are presented today, but I know that the Bible has them. Whenever we have a question that bothers us concerning the principles of Christian faith, we can turn to scripture for the answer. But most people follow what their pastor says, or what they were taught as children. They have never investigated for themselves what it is that the Bible actually teaches on this subject.
So much of future events revolve around the principles of worship, that it is vital that we understand God’s will and His instructions to His last generation disciples. So what I would like to do today and over time with perhaps several other sermons, is lay a foundation so that you will understand why prophecy says what it says and why developments will develop in a certain way as we near the close of probation. May God bless you as you listen to this month’s message.
Before I begin, let me remind you that the end of December is the cut-off date for the renewals to our monthly subscriptions for the little CD preachers that come to you each month. It is a close of probation of sorts. If you want to continue receiving these monthly updates, and you haven’t returned your subscription card, please do so today so that you won’t miss a single issue. In the month of January, we are going to update our list of over 21,000 world-wide addresses and discontinue the subscriptions of those who have not returned their yellow renewal cards. You may receive January’s CD, but you won’t receive the one for February if you have not renewed your subscription. If you were a new subscriber in 2009, you don’t have to renew. Your subscription will be continued. Also, if you made a gift in 2009, we assume that you want to renew.
And let me add that we here at Keep the Faith Ministry really appreciate the support that many of you send each month. It helps us get out the monthly CDs to so many around the world who cannot support this work. Some have been so faithful to send a monthly gift, and we really thank the Lord for all He has done for Keep the Faith Ministry in its work of reaching out to souls that want to understand prophecy. It is literally a faith ministry, and so far God has keep His end of the bargain. Please pray that we will continually preach the truth. Your prayers mean very much to us. Thank you so much.
The Bible has always been at the center of the controversy between Christ and Satan, and therefore, it has always been at the center of the struggle over truth and error in this world between those that believe God’s word and those that want to avoid its claims.
In every age and in every era there have been those who have tried to argue against the principles found in the Bible. Meanwhile, God has always had His witnesses that would uphold the word of God as the only infallible, authoritative voice in Christian faith and practice. Many have tried to place tradition on equal authoritative footing with scripture. But this mistake leads men away from the Bible’s holy utterances. Now in the last days, the Bible is again at the center of the struggle. Will a man or woman believe and do what God has said so that His word is a lamp unto their feet and a light unto their path, or will they follow the teachings and traditions of men and of churches that are not founded in God’s sacred scriptures and end up in error and darkness? This question has always been one of the most important for Christian people to decide. Is it ok to disobey God for convenience sake, or because we have always done it a certain way? Or do we need to obey God’s word and live according to His law of liberty?
Perhaps there is a more refined argument at the center of the struggle between God’s people and those who profess to follow Jesus and yet disobey Him, is the Law. There is a hatred kindled against God’s law by those who want to be saved in their sins. But sin is slavery, while the keeping of God’s law is liberty. Speaking of the ten commandment law, as the “royal law” the apostle James says, “So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty.” That’s James 2:8, 12. The Ten Commandments actually free us from the slavery of sin. And victory over sin, by the grace of God, is the best experience you will ever have. Those who love Jesus, love His character. And those who love His character, love His law. They delight to do His law. And His Holy Spirit gives them power to live it day by day. I don’t know about you, but I want to be free from slavery.
The Ten Commandments are the centerpiece of God’s character. Therefore, it is the very target of Satan. If we want to have the character of Christ we must then have His law in our hearts. To have His law in our hearts means that we keep that law as He gave it to us. To have the most pure unselfishness is in reality to have Jesus character infused into our hearts so that we do what He did. We live the way He lived.
Satan’s goal is to prevent man from keeping God’s law and persuade him that it is better or more advantageous to sin. And what fine cooperation Satan has had from Christian people. He doesn’t care if you are a Christian, so long as you don’t keep God’s law. It seems that everywhere you turn today Christian people are refusing to keep God’s law. They continually find excuses not to obey. “I was born that way,” is one of them. Another is that “we’ll be sinning till Jesus comes, so we don’t really need to try to keep the law.” And still another goes like this, “God understands our sinful nature and He forgives us of our sins, past, present and future. He kept the law for us. So we don’t need to.”
What a shame. God offers us such high living by keeping His law of liberty. And He offers us the power to do it, for He would never ask us to do something that He cannot give us the power to do. Why then do we prefer to wallow in the cesspool of sin, all the while attending church each week and singing praises to God as if we are happy to be living in sin? While many preachers will tell you that we need to keep the law of God, they do not teach that we must keep them as written in the Ten Commandments. Instead they teach that it is ok to break them in various ways. For instance, they teach that it is ok to play football, when to do so means that you must break the law of God. Many sports games involve elements of deception for instance, which is forbidden in the Ten Commandments which say “thou shalt not bear false witness.” Stealing is taught in baseball when the runner “steals the base.” Perhaps you can think of things in cricket, soccer or other sports that break God’s law.
Many pastors teach that it is okay to bow down to images and pray to saints because they say that the image is really to remind them of the saint. But the Ten Commandments forbid this… “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image… thou shalt not bow down thyself to them nor serve them. Why then do so many, including the pope of Rome, serve the Virgin Mary? You see my friends, the whole world is caught up in disobedience to the law of God. Many take God’s name in vain when they curse or swear, or use common slang. Many commit adultery in their hearts by lusting after one another. Many have covetousness in their hearts through envy or jealousy.
And most people would agree that all these things are forbidden in scripture and that they should not do these things. But they do them anyway, thinking that God will overlook these sins, or forgive them, even though they don’t repent.
But there is one commandment that actually draws more opposition than all others. And that is the fourth commandment to “Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy.” Many preachers teach that Sunday is the day of rest for the Christian now instead of the seventh-day of the week because that is the day on which Christ was raised from the dead. They call it the “Christian Sabbath.” But do they have any scripture to which they can point to show that the fourth commandment has been changed?
There has been a problem every time the subject of the seventh day Sabbath comes up. It is usually because people have been taught certain things that are not true. Often people think that Sunday sacredness was ordained by Christ or His apostles in spite of the fact that they are unable to provide one verse of scripture to genuinely support their idea. Even Pope John Paul II tried to convince his readers of this falsehood when he said in his apostolic letter Dies Domini, that “the Lord’s Day — as Sunday was called from Apostolic times — has always been accorded special attention in the history of the Church…” Even though he uses a lot of scripture verses in Dies Domini to support Sunday sacredness, he does not provide even one that supports the thesis that the apostles knew Sunday to be the Lord’s Day or kept it sacredly. The scriptures he uses are misapplied and are therefore deceptive.
Source
John Paul’s statement is actually untrue and very misleading. The apostles did not think of Sunday as the Lord’s day. Jesus identified the Lord’s Day in Mark 2:28 when He said that “the Son of Man is Lord also of the Sabbath.” And John the Revelator says that he was “in the spirit on the Lord’s Day,” meaning that he received a vision from God’s Holy Spirit on the Sabbath not Sunday. Most people have been confused about this because they have been taught that the Lord’s Day was Sunday since their childhood. They think that John had his vision on Sunday. Nowhere in Holy Scripture is the idea presented that the Lord’s Day is anything other than the seventh-day of the week. Yet John Paul and now Benedict treat it as if it were just a matter of fact that Sunday has from the time of the apostles been considered to be the Lord’s day, when in reality it is not fact at all, but fiction.
Why would such important people want to misrepresent the facts? Friends, this is one of the great mysteries of iniquity. There are motivations that are not obvious to all. They are hidden. They have to do with power and with money and especially with the desire to justify disobedience to God’s holy law.
Today, let us examine what scripture tells us about the apostles and what they did concerning the Sabbath commandment. James says that breaking even one of the Ten Commandments is the same as breaking them all because the law of God is a whole unit. Listen to what he says, “For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.” That’s James 2:10. You cannot keep any of them if you break even one. So James is really saying that the whole law is still binding after the resurrection of Christ.
I hope to share with you some very interesting facts about the apostles. Turn with me in your Bibles, if you can, to 1 John 3:4. Here the beloved apostle tells us that “Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.” So obviously the apostle John believed that breaking the Ten Commandment law was sin. But John wasn’t the only one. In Romans 7:12 Paul says that “the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.” This tells us that since the apostles believed that the law was still valid after the resurrection of Christ, they must have kept it. Though the verses don’t say that, it is obvious from their practice, as you will see that they did not keep Sunday sacred.
When the Bible speaks of the Sabbath, it is not talking about some vague concept. It is speaking specifically about the seventh day of the week on which God rested at creation and the day that His true people always kept sacred and rested from labor and anything else that was secular. The Sabbath goes all the way back, long before there was a Jew to the time when God created earth and humanity. The Bible tells us in Genesis 2:2-3 that “God rested on the seventh day from all His work… and God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it.” It was God’s purpose to commune with man so He set aside a day when man would be able to cease all his other labors and interests, and focus on God alone.
The Sabbath was given to man even before there was any sin that polluted this earth. Then at Sinai God said in Exodus 20:8 to “remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy.” It is not something to forget. Not only is it enshrined in the ten commandment law, but God especially told us to remember it.
Then God said, “Six days shalt thou labor and do all thy work. But the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God…” There is perhaps no clearer statement than this; that the Sabbath is on the seventh-day. It is not on the first day, or the third day or any other day, and that we are to rest from our work on it so that we can commune with God. Then in verse 11 He says: “for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it.”
He says it a second time underscoring its importance. It is clearly the seventh day that God hallowed, isn’t it? And it goes all the way back to creation in which God gave the seventh day Sabbath for all mankind, not just the Jews.
There is another very interesting fact that we should note. In Mathew 24, Jesus was telling his disciples about the tribulation or the time of trouble, and what they should do and what they should not do. Concerning this intense period Jesus counseled his disciples that they should pray for something. Now if Jesus told you to pray about something, wouldn’t you consider it to be important? Of course you would. So we need to pay attention to what Jesus said and follow it, don’t we? We are also His disciples. And lest you think that He was referring only to the time of the destruction of the temple, let me remind you that these words of Jesus our Lord were in answer to two questions of the disciples who had asked Him when would the temple be destroyed and what would be the sign of His second coming? Jesus answered both of these questions with this one sermon. If you look at verse 20, Jesus’ words were as follows: “But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the Sabbath day.”
So in other words, Jesus was saying that there would come a time when His disciples then and in the last generation would have to flee from their homes and businesses and seek refuge in hiding. In preparation for this, Jesus’ disciples were to pray to the Father that before the time of trouble comes, before the great tribulation comes upon His church, they were to pray that their flight would not be in the winter or on the Sabbath day. This is so that it will be easier for them, and so that they won’t have to flee on God’s holy day. If they had to flee on the Sabbath, the commotion, excitement and travel that they would experience would be inappropriate for the Sabbath. They would have much on their minds and would not be able to keep the Sabbath as it should be kept.
Likewise at the end of time, Christ warns us to pray in advance that we are spared our flight during the winter or on the Sabbath day. This is His direct counsel. Don’t you think we should follow it? If the Sabbath commandment was no longer in force after the resurrection as advocates of Sunday tell us, then why would Jesus tell His disciples to pray that their flight not be on the Sabbath? What this verse actually tells us is that Jesus, the One who could see the future and who would have known that there was going to be a change from the Sabbath to Sunday if in fact there was to be a change, told His disciples to pray that their flight would not be on the Sabbath day. In other words, Jesus did not even hint that approximately 40 years after His resurrection, when Jerusalem was destroyed, that there was going to be a change in the Sabbath. Nor did He suggest that there would be any change in the sacredness of the Sabbath nearly 2000 years after His resurrection, for he was telling us to pray a similar prayer. He could have said that we are to pray that our flight not be on Sunday, or on the new Sabbath, or on the Christian Sabbath, but He didn’t. He could have said that we should pray that our flight not be on the new holy day, whatever day that would be, but He didn’t. This tells us that Jesus Himself did not anticipate a change in God’s holy law given at creation and upon Mount Sinai.
How then can John Paul II or Benedict XVI or anyone else say that Jesus changed the Sabbath? They can’t, at least not based on the verses we have read so far. This verse essentially says the opposite, and confirms quite clearly in fact that Jesus expected that His disciples, both then and now, would be keeping the Sabbath.
Now let us turn to the book of Acts. First let me point out that the book of Acts was written approximately 30 years after the resurrection of Christ. By that time, there should have been a very clear understanding among the disciples including the author Dr. Luke, that the Sabbath had been changed to Sunday. And it would have been an important time to reinforce this change in the new church so that there would be no confusion as to what day is now sacred for them to keep.
Let us examine what Luke actually says in His compelling account of the work of the disciples of Jesus. We’ll start with Chapter 13. Notice verse 14. “But when they departed from Perga, they came to Antioch in Pisidia and went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and sat down.” Eventually they gave a discourse and argued how Jesus fulfilled prophecy.
Now many people argue that they went to the synagogue on the Sabbath day so they could dispute with the Jews concerning Christ, not because it was sacred anymore. However, it is important to understand that this discourse happened around 14 years after the Resurrection, and this account was written 30 years after the resurrection. This would have been an ideal opportunity to teach us about the change in the Sabbath. Luke could have used the term “the Jewish Sabbath,” or the “old Sabbath,” and clearly indicated that it was not to be kept as the Sabbath any longer. But he didn’t. He just said that they went into the synagogue on “the Sabbath.” This is important because there is no evidence that Luke understood that the Sabbath had been changed from the Sabbath of the commandment. He simply used the term that had for many centuries referred to the Sabbath of the Lord.
Then in verse 27 we read part of Paul’s discourse; “For they that dwell at Jerusalem, and their rulers, because they knew him not, nor yet the voices of the prophets which are read every Sabbath day, they have fulfilled them in condemning him.”
Again Paul, of all people, should have made it clear that the Sabbath had changed. After all, he was a powerful orator, and he argued his principles very effectively. He could have easily used words that implied at least that the Christians need not keep that old covenant Sabbath. He could have said that the voices of the prophets which are read “on every one of their Sabbaths,” suggesting that the Sabbath commandment was a Jewish thing, and that Christians don’t have to keep it, but he didn’t. Paul acts as if there has never been a change. If in fact there had been a change in the Sabbath, Paul would have been deceptive not to make that clear. And Paul would not stoop to that, for Paul himself, as we have already seen believed that the ten commandment law was still binding. And let me point out that Paul uses the sacred name of the Sabbath. He does not say that they went into the synagogue on the seventh day of the week, or Saturday, or any other secular word. He doesn’t even say that he went into the synagogue on the Jewish Sabbath. He uses the term Sabbath, which is the word God gave it when he sanctified the seventh day.
Now let us turn to verse 42 and 44. “And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next Sabbath… And the next Sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God.”
They must have had to find another place than the synagogue, because it would have been too small for almost the whole city. Besides, non-Jews were not permitted to go into the synagogue. But notice again that Luke does not inform us that the disciples said anything about a change in the Sabbath. This would have been a marvelous opportunity to tell these Gentiles that they should meet on Sunday because that is the new day of worship. But they didn’t. This would have been an ideal time for them to clarify this. After all, the meeting was mostly Gentiles, who wanted to know about Christ and what the Christian faith was all about. If the change in the Sabbath was so important, why did Paul neglect to tell them this at this important time? Why was there no discussion about the transition from Sabbath to Sunday? You won’t find that in any of the writings of the apostles. Not one word is spoken about the change anywhere in scripture.
Friends, this is because there had been no change in the Sabbath commandment, just like there had not been any change in the commandment that says, “Thou shalt not kill,” or “Thou shalt not steal,” or any of the others.
Now we turn to Acts 15. Beginning with verse 5 we read “But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, that it was needful to circumcise them (or the Gentiles) and to command them to keep the law of Moses. And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter. And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up…” and after he gave a bit of history, he said “Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.”
And the result of the meeting is found in verse 19 and onward. Listen. “Wherefore my sentence is,” said James, “that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.”
In these verses we see that the Jewish converts were charging that the apostles were neglecting circumcision, but not the Sabbath. If the Christians would have been keeping Sunday, these Jewish converts would have certainly accused them of neglecting and even breaking the Sabbath. In fact, in every case where the apostles were accused of anything, and they were often accused by the Jews, they were never accused of advocating a different day of worship. Their inveterate enemies would have been very quick to jump on that accusation.
Now we turn to Acts 16, and we’ll read from verse 12. “And from thence to Philippi, which is the chief city of that part of Macedonia, and a colony: and we were in that city abiding certain days. And on the Sabbath we went out of the city by a river side, where prayer was wont to be made: and we sat down, and spake unto the women which resorted thither.”
Note again that the apostles, more than 14 years after the resurrection still keep the Sabbath by attending a service by the river where “prayer was wont to be made.” There they fellowshipped with those that came there for the prayer season and to worship. And notice also that Luke again says absolutely nothing about a change in the day of worship? Again, Paul uses the sacred term for the seventh day of the week, not a secular term. Moreover Dr. Luke who was writing 30 years after the resurrection of Christ could have told us that they did this because these people were not yet informed concerning the sacredness of Sunday and that is why they met on the Sabbath, and that it was a mistake which they later corrected. But he didn’t.
Then in chapter 17, Paul and Silas came to Thessalonica and Luke says, “and Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three Sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures.” And in verse four we read that “some of them believed, and consorted with Paul and Silas; and of the devout Greeks a great multitude, and of the chief women not a few.”
So let us understand what is being said here and what is implied. Again, there are many Gentiles involved. If these were going to be instructed in the new faith, why didn’t Paul and Silas tell them about the change of the Sabbath? Instead, Luke informs us that they kept the Sabbath, using it as an opportunity to explain about Christ to the Jews and also to the Gentiles. Never once, however, do we read that they advised any of them of the significant change in the Sabbath to Sunday. And remember this is more than 14 years after the resurrection of Christ. And Luke still uses the sacred name of the Sabbath. Never once in all of the Acts, does the apostle use a secular name for the Sabbath. This tells us very clearly that Paul, Silas and Luke all knew what day was the Sabbath, and knew that it was still holy and that the Sabbath commandment was still binding. The silence of these witnesses of Christ concerning the change of the Sabbath is thundering!
Now, we come to a rather controversial verse in Acts 20. We’ll read beginning with verse seven. When Paul, Luke and the other disciples with them came to Troas, they stayed there seven days. “And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight. And there were many lights in the upper chamber, where they were gathered together…”
And when Eutychus fell out of the window, Paul ministered to him, and then came back up again to the upper chamber. Verse 11 says, “When he therefore was come up again, and had broken bread, and eaten, and talked a long while, even till break of day, so he departed.”
I wonder why this story is written for us to study. Most people think that this meeting was on Sunday, and many suggest that this meeting was a worship service and therefore it must have been recognized that the Sabbath had been changed. But there are some very important points about this verse that tell us otherwise.
First, note that Luke uses the secular term for Sunday by saying “the first day of the week.” He could have informed us very clearly that this was the new Sabbath of the Christian church, by saying that it was the “Christian Sabbath”, or the “new Sabbath,” but he didn’t. He gives Sunday no special regard. And this is 30 years after the resurrection when he wrote this. This would have been a vital issue of great magnitude. After all, it would be changing one part of God’s holy law. It could not have been accidentally overlooked. It is just too important of a change to ignore or neglect to instruct the believers in it. Moreover, it would have certainly generated a good deal of apostolic discussion because of most certain opposition.
Second, let us be reminded about when the Bible begins the literal day. The day begins at sunset, not at midnight. Secular calendars begin at midnight. But the Bible day begins at sunset. The Jews knew this and the disciples of Jesus knew this. And those that follow the scripture know this.
If, therefore, the meeting was on the first day and there were many lights in the chamber, when was this meeting? It could not have been on Sunday night because this would have been Monday according to their normal reckoning. This meeting had to be on Saturday night after the Sabbath. Paul preached till midnight after the close of the Sabbath and communed with them until Sunday morning and then he departed. If Paul had any respect for Sunday as the new day of rest he would not have traveled until Monday morning.
This is a very strong witness for the Sabbath being kept by the apostles. Just because the disciples broke bread on this night does not make Sunday a sacred day. Acts 2:46 tells us that “they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart.” In other words, the breaking of bread does not imply that they were having a communion service, though that would not be wrong to do on any day of the week. It tells us that the disciples broke bread every day. And that doesn’t make every day sacred like the Sabbath.
Furthermore, this is the only instance in the New Testament of a religious meeting on the first day of the week. If this would have become the practice of the apostles, there would certainly have been more records of this happening. And since the Sabbath commandment was so important to the Jews, the apostles would have taken pains to tell the many thousands of converts that the day had been changed either on their own authority or on the authority of Christ himself. But they didn’t. They didn’t say one single word about it.
No stress can be laid upon the phrase “when the disciples came together.” The Bible doesn’t say that these kinds of meetings were held each 1st day. Paul was getting ready to depart! They would not see him again probably, and they took the opportunity to fellowship with Paul and hear him preach. That is all. Nothing more can be drawn from this story.
Many advocates of Sunday sacredness say that Sunday worship is sacred because they commemorate the resurrection on that day and site this text as justification for it. But the breaking of bread, however, was to commemorate the crucifixion by the Lord’s supper not the resurrection. The symbolic link is broken with this argument. Breaking bread, if it indicates a day to respect or worship, would then logically be used to commemorate the crucifixion on Fridays. Using this verse to suggest that it supports Sunday worship is poor logic at best. There is no indication that Luke even acknowledges that Sunday is now the sacred day.
Now let us look at another verse in scripture that is quite controversial and often misrepresented by advocates of Sunday sacredness. It is found in Chapter 16 of first Corinthians.
Paul writes “now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches in Galatia, even so do ye. Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come.”
Many have taken it upon themselves to suggest that Paul is authorizing Sunday sacredness and Sunday worship because these believers were taking up a public collection on the first day of the week, and therefore the Sabbath was changed to Sunday. So let us examine this verse and see what the apostle actually says and what he does not say.
First, this is not a public collection on the first day of the week. The verse actually says that each person is to put his offering in storage for when Paul comes to Corinth, so that there is no need to make public appeals for funds. Paul is advocating systematic giving to the Lord’s work. He wants to avoid emotional appeals and emotional giving at the last minute. He is obviously saying that it is better to give systematically, and that it is to be done at the beginning of the week before the funds are spent. Let us say that a person gets paid on Friday. He then must get ready for the Sabbath and would not have time to sort himself out concerning his offerings for Paul’s missionary work. But he is recommending that as soon as the new week begins, believers should put aside their gifts to God’s cause, so that it would not be forgotten and be spent on other things. That way there would be plenty of funds in the treasury when they were needed. This is a very good principle to follow today.
This statement does not say anything about public worship at all. It does not say anything about the day of worship or the day that is holy to the Lord. This cannot be used to prove that the Sabbath was changed to Sunday. It is the flimsiest excuse of all perhaps. Since when does instruction to set aside an offering for God’s cause constitute a change in God’s holy law so that the Sabbath is now to be kept on Sunday?
Let us say for a minute that this is about a public collection, though it really isn’t. But even if it was, how would a worship service on Sunday be proof of Sunday sacredness. There is no doubt that when Paul was in Thessalonica, and he preached until midnight on the first day of the week, they were having a worship service. But Paul’s own actions show us that he did not view Sunday as sacred. He set out on his travels on Sunday morning. He did not regard Sunday as sacred at all.
Friends, the history of the apostles tells us that they understood that God’s law was not done away with at the cross. They also understood that the Sabbath was still God’s holy sacred day of rest, and that there was no change in the divine command. They understood that they were doing the will of Jesus when they kept His Sabbath, for it was Jesus that said He was the Lord of the Sabbath. If He is your Lord, then keeping the Sabbath would be an important commitment.
John Paul or any other religious leader can tell you whatever they want, but they cannot change God. They cannot change His law. And they cannot change his Sabbath. If they try to tell you that the Sabbath is no longer on the seventh day, ask them to show you a single scripture that authorizes a change. It cannot be done.
I don’t know about you, but I am glad that there is no evidence in scripture that God’s law was ever changed. This gives me confidence in God that He is consistent in all generations, from creation right down to the new earth. For he says, in Malachi 3:6 “I am the Lord, I change not.” This tells us that from eternity past to eternity future, God will always be the same. My friends, if you are not keeping God’s sacred Sabbath day, please follow Jesus who is our example in all things. He kept the Sabbath and indicated that His followers would keep the Sabbath right up until the second coming. If you have been going to church on the seventh-day of the week, but you are not keeping the Sabbath the way God has instructed us, then take the initiative to protect God’s sacred time from secular thoughts, activities and discussion that does not lead you and others to a sacred experience with Jesus on His holy day.
In future sermons, I plan to expand on this theme concerning the objections that are raised against the keeping of the seventh-day Sabbath. I want you to have useful help in addressing these questions in your own life as well as to help you share with others. I also plan, at some point, to discuss the reasons why God has given us the seventh-day Sabbath as the day of rest.
.
.
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)