Saturday, January 30, 2010

The Catholic Hierarchy and Immigration Boundless


By David Simcox
Volume 3, Number 2 (Winter 1992-1993)
Issue theme: "The role of the churches in population growth, immigration and the environment"


For which of you, intending to build a tower, sitteth not down first, and counteth the cost, whether he have sufficient to finish it? Luke 14 28

Do sovereign nations have the inherent right to limit immigration? Catholic teaching since World War II has moved from a qualified 'yes' to a presumption of 'no,' with the moral legitimacy of the rare exception depending on the exigencies of the moment.

This shifting theology bespeaks the rapid evolution in the structure of the church, in Rome and in the United States; in the increasing size and mobility of world populations; and in the way the church sees itself and its mission in the world. The Vatican Councils in the 1960s renewed emphasis on ecumenism, internationalism, the indivisibility of the human family, and social activism. Migration, in the process, became sacralized. Rather than a social process which nations must manage, mass migration is an expression of the divine plan, a providential, redeeming force for the realization of universal human solidarity.

'Rather than a social process which

nations must manage, mass migration

is an expression of the divine plan...'

The church's assertion of the primacy of the needs of individual migrants partakes of its concern for the value and dignity of human life everywhere which has shaped its teaching on contraception and abortion. The scriptural verse 'Love the stranger then, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt' (Deuteronomy 10 18-19) is seen as summing up the 'fundamental ethic of welcome, care, and solidarity towards every kind of immigrant' required of Christians.

THE 'CONDITIONAL' BORDER

AND THE GLOBAL COMMON GOOD

Pius XII, Christ's vicar (1939-1958) in a world beginning to experience explosive population growth and unprecedented mobility, became the first Pontiff to affirm an explicit, though conditional, 'right' to migrate

Public authorities unjustly deny the rights of human persons if they block or impede emigration or immigration except where grave requirements of the common good, considered objectively, demand it (Speeches, 1959).

His successor, Pope John XXIII, also voiced the emerging doctrine of 'just reasons' for immigration

Every human being has the right to freedom of movement and of residence within the confines of his own country; and, when there are just reasons for it, the right to emigrate to other countries and take up residence there (Pacem in Terris).

The right to emigrate was enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which does not, however, contain any right of immigration

Article 13. (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state. (2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

Article 14. (1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution. (2) This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

The right to immigrate had been explicitly rejected by most nations, including the United States. Pacem in Terris proclaims the promotion of the personal rights of all as the primary end of governments. This encyclical deplored the inadequacy of nation-states and the international system to realize the common good and the rights of individuals (Christiansen, 1988). Pope John implied a preference for world government, but prescribed neither structures nor roadmaps.

Pacem in Terris evokes the underlying historical tension between the Catholic church and the nation-state, with its concepts of geographically defined jurisdiction and obligations, exclusive sovereignty, and the supremacy of national interests. In the three decades since John XXIII, the church has become even more antagonistic toward national assertions of sovereignty, not only in the movement of peoples across borders, but in the international flow of trade, knowledge, culture and capital.

'...let immigrating people accommodate

themselves willingly to a host community

and hasten to learn its language...'

Pope Paul VI in 1967 affirmed more explicitly the right to migrate for economic betterment 'Every human being has the right to leave one's country of origin for various motives - and return to it as well - in order to seek better living conditions (cited in Mahony, 1987).

OBLIGATIONS OF IMMIGRANTS

World bishops, meeting at the Vatican in 1969, updated and codified the teachings on migration. The resulting document, Instruction for the Pastoral Care of Peoples Who Migrate, asserts the following rights (Congregation of Bishops, 1969)...

* The right to a homeland.

* The right of people to emigrate, as individuals or as families, when a state, because of poverty and 'great population' cannot meet their needs, or denies their basic dignity. Migrants' right to live together as a family is to be safeguarded. Only the 'grave requirements of the common good, considered objectively,' can justify abridgment of these rights.

* The right to keep one's native tongue and spiritual heritage.

Instructions from the Congregation of Bishops spelled out obligations and duties for the migrants themselves - obligations that are rarely mentioned now in debating the morality of immigration control...

* The prospective migrants' obligation to remember that they have the right and duty to contribute to the progress of their home community

Especially in underdeveloped areas where all resources must be put to urgent use, those men gravely endanger the public good who, particularly possessing mental powers or wealth, are enticed by greed and temptation to emigrate. The developed regions should not omit to consider this perversion of the common good of the less developed regions. Let them foster the preparation and return to the homeland of artisans and students, once they achieve ability in their fields...

* Governing authorities of sending states have the parallel duty to seek the creation of jobs in their own regions

We advocate in such cases the policy of bringing the work to the workers, wherever possible, rather than drafting workers to the scene of the work. In this way migrations will be the result, not of compulsion, but of free choice.

* Migrants themselves have the duty to accommodate themselves to the host country

Anyone who is going to encounter another people should have great esteem for their patrimony and their language and their customs. Therefore let immigrating people accommodate themselves willingly to a host community and hasten to learn its language, so that, if their residence there turns out to be long or even definitive, they may be able to be integrated more easily into their new society.

The Vatican's concern for immigrants' rights has been further elaborated under John Paul II. 'Solidarity among all peoples' has become a central theme in the Vatican's approach to international relations, and to immigration in particular. Solidarity, as the Vatican describes it, is not a matter of compassion but justice, not a question of economics but ethics (Final Document, 1991). Echoing open-border economist Julian Simon and other influential cornucopian thinkers, the Vatican proclaims solidarity to be its own reward 'experience shows that when a nation has the courage to open its frontiers to immigration, it is rewarded by increased prosperity, a solid renewal of society and a vigorous drive towards new economic and human goals' (Final Document, 1991).

John Paul II has reaffirmed the immorality of immigration restrictions except where justified by 'serious and well-founded reasons.' He has not stated the conditions for legitimate restriction with a specificity helpful to earthly policymakers. In 1990 he told Italian auto workers

Indeed, each person's right to seek oppor-tunities for the work necessary for the sustenance and development of himself and his family must be recognized, even beyond national and continental borders. This certainly does not exclude the legitimacy of regulation of immigration in the light of the common good of each individual nation, to be considered, however, in the context of the other nations of the world (Observatore Romano, 1990).

Few church writings address the specifics or permissible immigration limits, or what constitutes the global common good individual nations must seek. Rome has explicitly denounced restrictions by wealthy nations that serve no other purpose than to protect their own affluence. Rome also enjoins affluent nations to commit at least two percent of GNP to assist developing nations, to set up structures to welcome immigrants and integrate them into society (while respecting the immigrants' loyalty to their ethnic and cultural roots), and to abstain from brain-draining and capital-draining migration policies (Final Document, 1991).

THE AMERICAN CATHOLIC HIERARCHY

IMMIGRATION AS ATONEMENT

The American Catholic bishops have been more militant than Rome itself in questioning the legitimacy of American immigration law.

The United States' size and abundance of wealth, and its immigrant traditions make it comparable to the thoughtless 'rich man' of the biblical parable who is judged for his neglect of the needs of the beggar Lazarus (Luke 16 19-31). The bishops' fervor stems from atavistic memories of the American church's own immigrant origins while revealing a radicalization of outlook.

Vatican councils I and II enlarged the powers of national bishops' councils, and triggered outspoken activism within the American hierarchy on social and economic issues. Much of the subsequent outpouring of bishops' high minded statements on migration, culture, economics and foreign and defense policy has been a genuine welling up of Christian witness. Some has been pure hubris, combined with a need to compensate for the bishops' relative powerlessness on such critical church issues as contraception, abortion, ordination and empowerment of women, or reform of the priesthood.

'Committed to the preferential option

for the poor, the hierarchy's recognition

of the state's right to restrict

immigration 'for the common good'

tends to vanish altogether.'

The Catholic left's influence has also heightened the bishop's discomfort with U.S. foreign and immi-gration policy. The 'preferential option for the poor' proclaimed in Latin American liberation theology captured the imagination of many progressive Amer-ican Catholics. Its rhetoric injected notions of class struggle and class envy into the U.S. church's world view. For some this preferential option means a priority for the world's poor in immigration and the rejection of the distinctions between political and economic refugees.

For some thinkers, the exploitation of sending nations by American capitalism or the presumed support of repressive third world regimes by U.S. diplomacy have obligated the United States to accept immigrants (Christiansen, 1988). Such reasoning informed the crusade of the 'sanctuary movement' to smuggle Central American illegal aliens into the U.S. in obedience to a 'higher law.'

DOES LOVE KNOW NO BORDERS?

U.S. bishops as a group neither endorsed nor condemned the sanctuary movement. Some indivi-dually supported it. Pope John Paul II seemed to endorse the movement in a vague statement during his 1987 visit to San Antonio, Texas (New York Times, 1987) - an endorsement a Vatican press spokesman claimed was never intended.

Committed to the preferential option for the poor, the hierarchy's recognition of the state's right to restrict immigration 'for the common good' tends to vanish altogether. Archbishop Roger Mahony of Los Angeles, who presides over the United States' largest concentration of illegal aliens, put it in these terms

If the question is between the right of a nation to control its borders and the right of a person to emigrate in order to seek safe haven from hunger or violence (or both), we believe that the first right must give way to the second (Mahony, 1987).

For the bishops, enforcement of internal immigration controls, such as employer sanctions, are also morally questionable. Archbishop Mahony in 1987 pledged to work with other groups 'to develop new, creative employment for all our people, regardless of their standing under the new law.' With his support, Los Angeles developed facilities for job placement of undocumented day laborers, a direct challenge to the intent of sanctions (Tidings, 1987).

'Acknowledgement of overpopulation

is rare now in church pronouncements,

which in recent years have taken refuge

in cornucopian economics.'

In 1988 the National Conference of Catholic Bishops restated its opposition to employer sanctions because its original condition, a universal amnesty, had not been met. The bishops affirmed that the right to migrate for work cannot be simply ignored in the exercise of a nation's sovereign right to control its own borders - resuscitating a doctrine they had been willing to overlook in the 1986 legislative bargaining. 'The church,' they noted, 'must be the first to insist that love knows no borders' (National Conference, 1988). The bishops' staff arm, the Catholic Refugee and Migration Service, is a major participant in the coalition now lobbying for the repeal of employer sanctions.

GOD AND CAESAR STILL A TOUGH CALL

While the Holy Spirit may have had a hand in creating it, such a formidable body of doctrine is not likely to be free of inconsistencies, contradictions, omissions and selective applications. Some of these inconsistencies themselves illuminate the problem of applying the selfless moral absolutes of the eternal to the disorderly, complex and competitive secular world. They point up the intractable nature of such issues as population growth, resources and stewardship, the moral efficacy of the nation-state, and the ever-intrusive question of what is God's and what is Caesar's.

To their credit, Vatican teachings on immi-gration at the outset recognized that 'overpopulation' in fact occurs and can magnify human hardship. Too many people for the available resources indeed justified emigration. But this logic lapsed in the case of the receiving countries immigration limits are not permissible for societies seeking to balance their populations and resources. Acknowledgement of overpopulation is rare now in church pronounce-ments, which in recent years have taken refuge in cornucopian economics (see Kasun, 1988). The church's outlook on migration is one-of-a-piece with its ostrich-like attitude on world population growth.

In recent years the bishops and Rome itself have said less and less about the Vatican's 1969 injunction to immigrants to absorb the language and customs of the host country to aid their integration. Instead, church leaders have joined in the rising disdain for the concept of the 'melting pot' and official-English laws, and have affirmed diversity and cultural pluralism as moral ends in themselves.

The Vatican's distrust of the nation-state is centuries old, but not always consistent. While Pope John XXIII in 1958 urged supranational action to protect migrants rights, his successor in 1992 played realpolitik to keep the international community from addressing the environmental costs of population growth at a 1992 U.N. Conference at Rio de Janeiro. Nation-states do in fact act in their own best interests. The Vatican, a recognized sovereign state, did so in Rio; and it does so in governing its own tiny territory. No immigration is permitted and no refugees are accepted for resettlement.

As the most 'affluent' nation-state, the United States's immigration policies come under special church scrutiny. The rich United States is obliged to accept the world's poor. But the unevenness (indeed, the decline) of U.S. affluence is ignored. The nation has more than 30 million poor people, many of them recent immigrants. Perhaps these are our nation's own biblical 'strangers among us' whom justice must give first claim on our resources.

Oddly, the church leadership that first championed trade unionism in the 1891 encyclical Rerum Novarum, now preaches tolerance of a heavy illegal immigration that destroys trade unions, undercuts workers' rights, and increases income inequality. While unions were seen by Pope Leo XIII as justified in seeking to control the supply of labor, nation-states are not so justified in conducting their immigration policies. The international human rights the church promotes, such as free migration, must be weighed against other human rights of equal or greater validity - such as basic government services, domestic tranquility, job security, a decent quality of life, and a sustainable environment.

The tough task of managing immigration highlights other contradictions between church teachings and church actions. Church leaders increasingly reject the international border as morally dubious. But U.S. church lobbyists arguing for the repeal of employer sanctions have spoken out for a larger border patrol (Ryscavage, 1992). Similarly, a U.S. church bureaucracy that lobbied zealously for the 1980 Refugee Act, now works with equal zeal against one of that act's central principles the priority of 'political' refugees over 'economic' ones. Church teachings initially conceded that immigration which deprived less developed nations of their capital or their talent was morally unjustifiable. Not much has been heard about that lately among Catholic immigration advocates. Church lobbyists in Washington have tended to push, as in the cases of El Salvador and Haiti, for mass catch-all legalization and asylum arrangements, with little concern for the differing motives and conditions of individual migrants.

COUNTING THE COST

The practice here is not new in Christendom church leaders are wont to prescribe moral public policies, but with minimum responsibility for the costs or outcomes that temporal leaders must grapple with. A legitimate mission of church, mosque and synagogue is to remind nations of the general moral principles that must underlie sound policy. This worthy role is missing when the church becomes just once more pressure group, in Washington or at the U.N., demanding specific actions. The dividing line between moral exhortation and moral blackmail is blurred.

'Worth remembering is that the

Good Samaritan, when he practiced

an act of compassion, unlike many

of our era's altruists, was fully

accountable himself for its

resource consequences.'

American bishops may have to rearrange their diocesan charity budgets, but Caesar, not the clerics, will ultimately count the cost to South Florida and the federal treasury for settling and integrating 100,000 or more Haitian boat people. Nor is the hierarchy troubled by the search for revenues to overcome California's multi-billion dollar budget deficit, aggravated by the massive immigration of the 1980s. More disturbing is the bishops' indifference to the hidden costs to America's poor of mass migrations into key cities such as Miami and Los Angeles. Rather, the Roman Catholic church as an institution has gained materially from heavy refugee flows because of contracts with the federal government to provide resettlement services. Catholic and other religious lobbyists and advocacies are commendably charitable, but too often with the goods of others.

The Bible has much to say about charity and the ancient, balancing virtues of caution, prudence, responsible stewardship, and the simple fact of scarcity that compels us all to 'count the cost.' Worth remembering is that the Good Samaritan, when he practiced an act of compassion, unlike many of our era's altruists, was fully accountable himself for its resource consequences He took out two pence, gave them to the innkeeper and said unto him take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again I will repay thee (Luke 10 35). He didn't transfer the financial burden of his compassion to others.

So it is that the church is 'in the world and not of it.' But human beings in their search for peace, order and justice build institutions such as governments that inevitably must be both in the world and of it. �

REFERENCES

Bikales, G., 'A New Immigration Ethic for the U.S. Updating the Golden Rule for the Global Village, The Humanist, March/April 1983.

Buckley, W.F., Opinion piece in the New York Times, September 29, 1987.

Christiansen, D., 'Sacrament of Unity Ethical Issues in Pastoral Care of Migrants and Refugees,' in Today's Immigrants and Refugees A Christian Understanding. Washington U.S. Catholic Conference, 1988.

Cultural Pluralism in the United States A Statement Issued by the U.S. Catholic Conference, April 14, 1980. Washington U.S. Catholic Conference.

Kasun, J., The War Against Population The Economics and Ideology of Population Control. San Francisco Ignatius Press, 1988.

Mahony, R., 'Catholic Social Teaching on Immigration,' The Tidings, April 1987.

Mahony, R., A New Partnership A Pastoral Statement Highlighting National Migration Week. Archdiocese of Los Angeles. January 4, 1987.

Miller, P.D., 'Israel as Host to Strangers' in Today's Immigrants and Refugees A Christian Understanding. Washington U.S. Catholic Conference, 1988.

National Conference of Catholic Bishops Policy Statement on Employer Sanctions, November 1988. Washington U.S. Catholic Conference, 1988.

Niebuhr, Reinhold, Moral Man and Immoral Society, New York Scribner's, 1960.

Pope John Paul II. The Ecological Crisis, A Common Responsibility. Washington U.S. Catholic Conference, 1990.

'Pope Lauds Those Who Aid Refugees of Latin America,' New York Times, August 14, 1987.

Pope Paul VI. On the Development of Peoples (Populorum Progressio), Washington U.S. Catholic Conference, 1967.

Ryscavage, R. Testimony on Behalf of the U.S. Catholic Conference on S.1734, Legislation to Repeal Employer Sanctions before the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, April 3, 1992.

Sacred Congregation of Bishops Instructions on the Pastoral Care of People Who Migrate, Vatican City, August 22, 1969. Washington U.S. Catholic Conference, 1969.

'Solidarity with the New Migrations' - Excerpts from the Final Document of the Third International Congress of Pastoral Care of Migrants and Refugees, Vatican City, 1991, in Migration World, Vol. XX, No. 2.

Tomasi, S.M., 'Immigrants Today A Call to Solidarity,' Migration World, Vol. XIX, No. 5.

'Universal Declaration of Human Rights,' New York United Nations, Office of Public Information, December 10, 1948.

'We Must Stand With Our People,' The Tidings, April 24, 1987.

Zall, B., 'The U.S. Refugee Industry Doing Well By Doing Good,' in Simcox, D.E. (ed.), U.S. Immigration in the 1980s Reappraisal and Reform, Boulder, CO Westview, 1988. .

.

.

Friday, January 29, 2010

Haiti: Traveling Bible visits country before earthquake hits

Libna Stevens
Jan 26, 2010
.
The Traveling Bible arrived in Port-au-Prince, Haiti, on Jan. 7, just days before the 7-magnitude earthquake hit the city, killing thousands and leaving thousands more homeless. The Bible had previously been in Puerto Rico.



image by Haitian Union/IAD
On Jan. 10, over 15,000 Seventh-day Adventists marched through the streets of Port-au-Prince in Haiti, displaying the Traveling Bible and reminding onlookers of the importance of reading the Scriptures.



January 26, 2010 - Port-au-Prince, Haiti...[Pierre Caporal/IAD Staff]

The Traveling Bible arrived in Port-au-Prince, Haiti, on Jan. 7, just days before the 7-magnitude earthquake hit the city, killing thousands and leaving thousands more homeless. The Bible had previously been in Puerto Rico.

Dozens of Seventh-day Adventist church leaders, government officials and church members welcomed the unique Bible at Toussaint Louverture International Airport's diplomatic room. About 20 members of the media were present to document the event.

The president of the Protestant Federation in Haiti joined the Seventh-day Adventist Church to receive the multi-language Bible, which was hand-delivered by the delegation from Puerto Rico. The Bible was then taken in a caravan through the city of Port-au-Prince for the second of many celebrations.

"It is my privilege to hand you this traveling Bible," said Pastor Jose A. Rodriguez, president of the church in Puerto Rico, as he handed the Bible to Theart St. Pierre, president of the church in Haiti. "We hope that this Bible can be a light to shine and guide Haiti. Read the Bible, Practice the Bible."

Pastor St. Pierre, along with his team of union, fields, institutions and church members, pledged to read the Bible and promote Bible reading throughout Haiti.

Church leaders, members and community leaders participated in transcribing Bible passages and reciting scripture. They also enjoyed a special exhibit of the oldest Bibles in Haiti.

On Saturday, Jan. 9, nearly 3,000 people gathered at the Auditorium of the Bible in Port-au-Prince for a huge celebration. About 120 government officials and religious leaders were invited as special guests. Among them were representatives from the presidential office, the Apostolic Nuncio, the President of the Protestant Federation, a representative of the voodoo church, political leaders and dozens of ministers from other evangelical churches.

Each guest read a Bible passage from the Book of Joel in French or Creole, and each received a special Bible from Adventist leaders. In addition to Bible-themed Sabbath activities, church leaders distributed some 450 Bibles to female inmates and police guards at the Petion-Ville Women's Prison after a special Bible-focused program.

Over 15,000 young people and church members marched with Bible in hand through the streets of Port-au-Prince on Jan. 10. Using loud speakers, leaders invited listeners to read the Bible. More than 15,000 Bibles were given away during the march. In addition, Pathfinders and Pathfinder Master Guides sang special songs about the Bible.

The Traveling Bible left Port-au-Prince on the morning of Jan. 12, towards Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic, just hours before the earthquake hit.
.
To view photos of the Follow the Bible activities in Haiti, visit http://flickr.com/photos/interamerica




image by Haitian Union/IAD
More than 15,000 Bibles were distributed during the day's march.


.
.

Source:http://www.interamerica.org/users/index.php?type=news&id=1442
//

The sins of Babylon will be laid open



Heretofore those who presented the truths of the third angel's message have often been regarded as mere alarmists. Their predictions that religious intolerance would gain control in the United States, that church and state would unite to persecute those who keep the commandments of God, have been pronounced groundless and absurd. It has been confidently declared that this land could never become other than what it has been--the defender of religious freedom. But as the question of enforcing Sunday observance is widely agitated, the event so long doubted and disbelieved is seen to be approaching, and the third message will produce an effect which it could not have had before.


In every generation God has sent His servants to rebuke sin, both in the world and in the church. But the people desire smooth things spoken to them, and the pure, unvarnished truth is not acceptable. Many reformers, in entering upon their work, determined to exercise great prudence in attacking the sins of the church and the nation. They hoped, by the example of a pure Christian life, to lead the people back to the doctrines of the Bible. But the Spirit of God came upon them as it came upon Elijah, moving him to rebuke the sins of a wicked king and an apostate people; they could not refrain from preaching the plain utterances of the Bible-- doctrines which they had been reluctant to present. They were impelled to zealously declare the truth and the danger which threatened souls. The words which the Lord gave them they uttered, fearless of consequences, and the people were compelled to hear the warning.
Thus the message of the third angel will be proclaimed. As the time comes for it to be given with greatest power, the Lord will work through humble instruments, leading the minds of those who consecrate themselves to His service. The laborers will be qualified rather by the unction of His Spirit than by the training of literary institutions. Men of faith and prayer will be constrained to go forth with holy zeal, declaring the words which God gives them. The sins of Babylon will be laid open. The fearful results of enforcing the observances of the church by civil authority, the inroads of spiritualism, the stealthy but rapid progress of the papal power--all will be unmasked. By these solemn warnings the people will be stirred. Thousands upon thousands will listen who have never heard words like these. In amazement they hear the testimony that Babylon is the church, fallen because of her errors and sins, because of her rejection of the truth sent to her from heaven. As the people go to their former teachers with the eager inquiry, Are these things so? the ministers present fables, prophesy smooth things, to soothe their fears and quiet the awakened conscience. But since many refuse to be satisfied with the mere authority of men and demand a plain "Thus saith the Lord," the popular ministry, like the Pharisees of old, filled with anger as their authority is questioned, will denounce the message as of Satan and stir up the sin-loving multitudes to revile and persecute those who proclaim it.

As the controversy extends into new fields and the minds of the people are called to God's downtrodden law, Satan is astir. The power attending the message will only madden those who oppose it. The clergy will put forth almost superhuman efforts to shut away the light lest it should shine upon their flocks. By every means at their command they will endeavor to suppress the discussion of these vital questions. The church appeals to the strong arm of civil power, and, in this work, papists and Protestants unite. As the movement for Sunday enforcement becomes more bold and decided, the law will be invoked against commandment keepers. They will be threatened with fines and imprisonment, and some will be offered positions of influence, and other rewards and advantages, as inducements to renounce their faith. But their steadfast answer is: "Show us from the word of God our error"--the same plea that was made by Luther under similar circumstances. Those who are arraigned before the courts make a strong vindication of the truth, and some who hear them are led to take their stand to keep all the commandments of God. Thus light will be brought before thousands who otherwise would know nothing of these truths.
.

The Great Controversy, E. G. White, pp.605-607.

Note: Highlights added.
.

H1N1 Natural Remedies - Part 1

http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QdwUMr607Wg


mountainmedia7
December 20, 2009

Agatha Thrash, MD from Uchee Pines Inst. is your host in this series of programs on dealing with H1N1 and other pandemics naturally. Learn fascinating info about how people have dealt with pandemics successfully in the past using such simple methods as hydrotherapy (also known as water therapy). And find the info you need to be aware of regarding the H1N1 vaccine as well as vaccines in general. In part 1, we learn some important background information about the "swine flu" or H1N1 before we begin treatments. www.UcheePines.org

www.MountainMediaMinistries.org
.

Former EU Leader to Present Papal Lent Message



ZE10012810 - 2010-01-28
Permalink: http://www.zenit.org/article-28193?l=english

Former EU Leader to Present Papal Lent Message


ROME, JAN. 28, 2010 (Zenit.org).- Benedict XVI's traditional letter for Lent will be presented next week by a former president of the European Parliament.

Hans-Gert Pöttering, now president of a Germany-based research group called the Konrad Adenauer Foundation, will present the Pope's message on Feb. 4 in the Vatican.

Pöttering was president of the European Parliament from 2007 till last July.

The president and undersecretary of the Pontifical Council Cor Unum will also participate in the presentation.

The theme of the Pope's lenten message is "The Righteousness of God Has Been Manifested Through Faith in Jesus Christ" (Romans 3:21-22).

Pöttering last year took part in a ceremony organized by the German embassy to the Holy See to manifest his commitment to the preservation of Europe's Christian roots, as well as to "honest dialogue" with the followers of Islam.

In an address on that occasion, he mentioned his opposition to a Nov. 3 decision of the European Court of Human Rights, which classified the crucifix in classrooms as a violation of religious liberty.

Pöttering said the decision "shows lack of understanding of the exigencies of cultural dialogue in today's world," and he reminded that "the crucifix is a sign of the love of God."

Benedict XVI dedicated his previous two Lenten messages to the themes of fasting and almsgiving, which, along with prayer, are the three Lenten recommendations made by the Church.

You Are Being Watched

You Are Being Watched
Alison Miller

Issue date: 1/21/10 Section: News




Media Credit: Ryan Ruiz



Most of us notice the various photo enforcement cameras along Arizona interstates. But, you may not notice the additional 26 "freeway" cameras on Loop 101, the 27 cameras on the US-60, or the 37 cameras on the I-10.

And that's only the beginning of surveillance in our daily lives.

According to Tanya Schmit, a sales consultant at Southwest Access and Video Corp. in Phoenix, if you leave your house, you are bound to be on camera at least once a day.

But that's a low figure. Schmit estimates 55 to 75 percent of all commercial buildings have some kind of surveillance system. So, if you plan a trip to the mall, be prepared to be "on camera in every store you walk into," Schmit says.

People living in metropolitan areas have an even greater chance of being caught on camera. In 2005, the New York Civil Liberties Union reported nearly 4,500 surveillance cameras visible from street level in Manhattan, and in London, approximately 500,000 cameras are placed throughout the city watching for signs of illicit activity.

In the Valley, students are caught on camera almost everywhere they go; almost every major college campus in the area has at least a few cameras on campus. The City of Tempe has cameras stationed throughout downtown; the images from which are broadcast on the internet.

Bottom line: it is getting increasingly difficult for people to be anonymous in today's world and the debate of safety versus security is becoming an extremely prevalent topic with the growing use of video and camera surveillance.
The Growth of Surveillance

Video and camera surveillance started to become popular in the late 1990s, but the events of the 9/11 terrorist attacks brought surveillance to a whole new level.

According to Schmit, "that's when the industry really started booming."

After 9/11, Schmit said there was not only an increase in camera sales, but huge advancements were made in the analytics of cameras and what they do.

"They can make cameras nowadays that can see out of an area the size of a pinhole," Schmit said.

Schmit says the most recognizable type of camera is the bullet-style camera, which is a large sized camera that is clearly pointed in one direction. Another common camera is the dome style, which hides the direction the camera is facing, so that a person doesn't know which way the camera is shooting and what it's looking at.

Surveillance cameras are most often installed by government officials in public places for safety reasons, or by private businesses that want to protect their company from crime or theft, and in some cases, to monitor their employees.

But, with the growing number of people who have cameras on their cell phones, peer to peer surveillance is easily becoming yet another way to be caught on camera.

"We can capture pictures of individuals and people and post them easily on the web and circulate them," Greg Wise, a social and behavioral science professor at Arizona State University, said.

Popular websites like Facebook, YouTube and Flickr are a few of the different ways to distribute photographs and videos online.
Safety vs. Privacy

Despite living next to a home outfitted with a video camera that overlooks her property, Schmit does not believe surveillance is an invasion of privacy.

"It may be disrespectful, but it's not illegal to point a camera in another direction, and as long as you are doing what you should be doing, I don't think it is a problem," Schmit said.

Instead, Schmit says video surveillance allows people to have a "second set of eyes."

Wise agrees to an extent.

"There is a sort of safety and security to surveillance. You can always find people. But on the other hand, shouldn't we be able to be left alone to a certain extent?" Wise said

According to a 2009 Harris poll, privacy may no longer be a top priority for a majority of Americans. The survey found that 96 percent of US citizens feel the federal government and law enforcement agencies should be able to use video surveillance in an effort to counteract terrorism and help protect its citizens in public places. Also, more than half (54 percent) of US adults were willing to put a portion of the government's stimulus funds toward setting up video surveillance to help reduce crime.

But Wise says the usefulness of surveillance as a tool for crime prevention is minimal.

"It does reduce certain crimes that might be spontaneous things. But, as people get used to the cameras that affect begins to wear off," Wise said.

Wise says people are going to be aware of the cameras initially, but after time people will continue to carry on with their normal ways, or will simply move to different locations where cameras aren't present.

In addition, video and camera surveillance "is usually used for catching a person after the fact," Wise said.

Such is the case with the video surveillance system at ASU's downtown campus.

Richard Wilson, a police commander for the ASU Police Department, said the cameras are not monitored in real time, and there is no one who sits and watches them on a continuous basis.

Instead, Wilson says it is used more like a forensic tool.

"In the event something happens, we have the ability to see what happened," Wilson said.

Otherwise Wilson says the video surveillance is primarily used to make "people feel more secure" and "the bad guys feel a little less bold when they know cameras are in an area."

"That's why we really don't have any covert cameras," Wilson said.

Similarly, Lieutenant Stephen M. Harrison, the public information officer for the Arizona Department of Safety, said his department typically looks at the content on freeway cameras run by the Arizona Department of Transportation only after an incident has occurred or if someone has called and reported a problem.

"The TV itself is on. But, we don't have someone sitting at it and watching it, but if something happens, they can go and look at it," Harrison said.

However, the freeway cameras are available to anyone through the Arizona Department of Transportation's website, and any person with internet access is capable of looking at shots at any of the camera locations, and Harrison says the live video stream is also made available to a majority of news organizations.
Becoming a less trustful society.

According to the 2007 Electronic Monitoring and Surveillance Survey from the American Management Association and The ePolicy Institute, 7 percent of companies use video surveillance to track employees' on-the-job performance; 45 percent have turned to computer programs that monitor tracking content, keystrokes and time spent at the keyboard.

In this situation, Schmit says surveillance in the workplace acts as a deterrent, and is used to make sure employees are doing appropriate work.

But, whether it is employers that monitor employees in the workplace, everyday public surveillance by the government or even parents who install surveillance devices on their child's cell phone, Wise says we have become a less trustful society.

"We often respond to [surveillance] with questions of privacy. But, we can also think of it as questions of trust of others," Wise said.

"We all have become kind of objects of suspicion," Wise says, "Instead of turning the cameras on those people, we are suspicious of we have all become part of that same net."
.
.
.

Shadow Government Movie Trailer

http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8y8CXRT-qg

Shadow Government DVD
Your every move is being watched, but who’s watching the watchers?
Video Preview

In Shadow Government, leading researchers and authors Grant Jeffrey (best-selling author, renowned Biblical scholar and host of Bible Prophecy Revealed) and DR. Katherine Albrecht(syndicated radio talk-show host and privacy rights expert and speaker on RFID, Human microchips, Verichips and Spychips) reveal the hidden world of surveillance and its connection to global government and Biblical prophecy. Through interviews and commentary with notable scholars, experts and authors such as Edward G. Griffin, Daniel Estulin, Gary Kah, Chuck Missler, Joan Veon, Brad O'Leary and many others, Shadow Government provides proof that the newest technologies are being used by hidden and dangerous forces that could one day lead to ultimate control over every person on the planet."The information in Shadow Government is like a headline news story every few minutes, it's simply overwhelming to learn what is happening behind the closed doors of technology and government." Recent advances in communication technology have exponentially increased the government's ability to monitor, and control, every aspect of our lives. The connection between Biblical prophecy and what we are currently seeing is profound and undeniable."

.
Format: DVD (Region 1 - May not work outside of North America)

Source: http://www.prophecynewswatch.com/featureditem.html

.

The State of the Nation: I am afraid




Posted on 27 January 2010

By John W. White­head
Pres­i­dent, The Ruther­ford Institute

“As I look at America today, I am not afraid to say that I am afraid.”– Bertram Gross, Friendly Fas­cism: The New Face of Power in
America


Omi­nous devel­op­ments in America have been a long time coming, in part pre­cip­i­tated by “we the people” – a cit­i­zenry that has been asleep at the wheel for too long. And while there have been wake-up calls, we have failed to heed the warnings.

Just con­sider the state of our nation:

We’re encased in what some are calling an elec­tronic con­cen­tra­tion camp. The gov­ern­ment con­tinues to amass data files on more and more Amer­i­cans. Every­where we go, we are watched: at the banks, at the gro­cery store, at the mall, crossing the street. This loss of pri­vacy is symp­to­matic of the growing sur­veil­lance being car­ried out on average Amer­i­cans. Such sur­veil­lance grad­u­ally poi­sons the soul of a nation, trans­forming us from one in which we’re pre­sumed inno­cent until proven guilty to one in which everyone is a sus­pect and pre­sumed guilty. Thus, the ques­tion that must be asked is: can freedom in the United States flourish in an age when the phys­ical move­ments, indi­vidual pur­chases, con­ver­sa­tions and meet­ings of every cit­izen are under con­stant sur­veil­lance by pri­vate com­pa­nies and gov­ern­ment agencies?

We are meta­mor­phosing into a police state. Gov­ern­mental ten­ta­cles now invade vir­tu­ally every facet of our lives, with agents of the gov­ern­ment lis­tening in on our tele­phone calls and reading our emails. Tech­nology, which has devel­oped at a rapid pace, offers those in power more inva­sive, awe­some tools than ever before. Fusion cen­ters – data col­lecting agen­cies spread throughout the country, aided by the National Secu­rity Agency – con­stantly mon­itor our com­mu­ni­ca­tions, every­thing from our internet activity and web searches to text mes­sages, phone calls and emails. This data is then fed to gov­ern­ment agen­cies, which are now inter­con­nected – the CIA to the FBI, the FBI to local police – a rela­tion­ship which will make a tran­si­tion to mar­tial law that much easier. We may very well be one ter­rorist attack away from seeing armed forces on our streets – and the Amer­ican people may not put up much resis­tance. According to a recent study, a greater per­centage of Amer­i­cans are now willing to sac­ri­fice their civil lib­er­ties in order to feel safer in the wake of the failed crotch bomber’s attack on Christmas Day.

We are plagued by a fal­tering economy and a mon­strous finan­cial deficit that threatens to bank­rupt us. Our national debt is more than $12 tril­lion (which trans­lates to more than $110,000 per tax­payer), and is expected to nearly double to $20 tril­lion by 2015. The unem­ploy­ment rate is over 10% and growing, with more than 15 mil­lion Amer­i­cans out of work and many more forced to sub­sist on low-paying or part-time jobs. The number of U.S. house­holds on the verge of losing their homes soared by nearly 15% in the first half of last year alone. The number of chil­dren living in poverty is on the rise (18% in 2007). As his­tory illus­trates, author­i­tarian regimes assume more and more power in trou­bled finan­cial times.

Our rep­re­sen­ta­tives in the White House and Con­gress bear little resem­blance to those they have been elected to rep­re­sent. Many of our politi­cians live like kings. Chauf­feured around in lim­ou­sines, flying in pri­vate jets and eating gourmet meals, all paid for by the Amer­ican tax­payer, they are far removed from those they rep­re­sent. What’s more, they con­tinue to spend money we don’t have on pork-laden stim­ulus pack­ages while run­ning up a huge deficit and leaving the Amer­ican tax­payers to foot the bill. And while our rep­re­sen­ta­tives may engage in a show of par­tisan bick­ering, the Wash­ington elite – that is, the Pres­i­dent and Con­gress – moves for­ward with what­ever it wants, paying little heed to the will of the people.

We are embroiled in global wars against ene­mies that seem to attack from nowhere. Our armed forces are pushed to their limit, spread around the globe and under con­stant fire. The amount of money spent on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq is nearing $1 tril­lion and is esti­mated to total some­where in the vicinity of $3 tril­lion before it’s all over. That does not take into account the rav­aged coun­tries that we occupy, the thou­sands of inno­cent civil­ians killed (including women and chil­dren), or the thou­sands of Amer­ican sol­diers who have been killed or irreparably injured or who are com­mit­ting sui­cide at an alarming rate. Nor does it take into account the fam­i­lies of the 1.8 mil­lion Amer­i­cans who have served or are cur­rently serving tours of duty in Iraq and Afghanistan.

America’s place in the world is also under­going a drastic shift, with China slated to emerge as the top economy over the next decade. Given the extent to which we are finan­cially beholden to China, their influ­ence over how our gov­ern­ment car­ries out its affairs, as well as how it deals with its cit­i­zens, cannot be dis­counted. As of July 2009, China owned $800.5 bil­lion of our debt – that’s 45% of our total (for­eign) debt – making them the largest for­eign holder of U.S. for­eign debt. Little wonder, then, that the Obama admin­is­tra­tion has kow­towed to China, hes­i­tant to overtly chal­lenge them on crit­ical issues such as human rights. The most recent example of this can be seen in the Obama administration’s ini­tial reluc­tance to con­front the Chi­nese gov­ern­ment over its reported cyber­at­tacks on Google and other Amer­ican tech­nology companies.

As national bor­ders dis­solve in the face of spreading glob­al­iza­tion, the like­li­hood increases that our Con­sti­tu­tion, which is the supreme law of America, will be sub­verted in favor of inter­na­tional laws. What that means is that our Con­sti­tu­tion will come increas­ingly under attack.

The cor­po­rate media, increas­ingly acting as a mouth­piece for gov­ern­mental pro­pa­ganda, no longer serves a pri­mary func­tion as watch­dogs, guarding against encroach­ments of our rights. Instead, much of the main­stream media has given itself over to mind­less, celebrity-driven news, which bodes ill for our country. It doesn’t matter whether you’re talking about tabloid news, enter­tain­ment news or legit­i­mate news shows, there’s very little dif­fer­ence between them any­more. Unfor­tu­nately, most Amer­i­cans have bought into the notion that what­ever the media hap­pens to report is impor­tant and rel­e­vant. In the process, Amer­i­cans have largely lost the ability to ask ques­tions and think ana­lyt­i­cally. Indeed, most cit­i­zens have little, if any, knowl­edge about their rights or how their gov­ern­ment even works. For example, a national poll found that less than one per­cent of adults could name the five free­doms pro­tected in the First Amendment.

Finally, I have never seen a country more spir­i­tu­ally beaten down than the United States. We have lost our moral com­pass. A growing number of our young people now see no meaning or pur­pose in life. And we no longer have a sense of right and wrong or a way to hold the gov­ern­ment account­able. We have for­gotten that the essen­tial premise of the Amer­ican gov­ern­mental scheme, as set forth in the Dec­la­ra­tion of Inde­pen­dence, is that if the gov­ern­ment will not be account­able to the people, then it must cer­tainly be account­able to the “Creator.”

But what if the gov­ern­ment is not account­able to the people or the Creator?

As Thomas Jef­ferson writes in the Dec­la­ra­tion, it is then the right of “the People to alter or abolish it” and form a new government.


Con­sti­tu­tional attorney and author John W. White­head is founderand pres­i­dent of The Ruther­ford Insti­tute. He can be con­tacted atjohnw@rutherford.org. Infor­ma­tion about the Insti­tute is avail­ableat http://www.rutherford.org/.
.

.

America's Shadow Government: Part One

http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1S2CzgjRm4

RutherfordInstitute
October 06, 2008

On Target with John Whitehead
.

Catholic Bishops Lobby for ObamaCare, Amnesty for Illegals


Photo (Courtesy)
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjym6WeC5mGqxAcJEe1_q9F_Kxe8WRbv10O-5HxaM6Gg4nYTkXDTcd7gqmg3RaAWm7NF5Qa4khj2f8xzaF0e9AnIpRJXJB7OXSYs-BjpbXQT_QIH7tRJBI0puSFGRVwon7tT8oSIQ/s1600/capt.675f816030cc462799476aa7ddde503d.catholic_bishops_mdrc102.jpg


AIM Column By Cliff Kincaid January 27, 2010

The religious left, led by the Catholic Bishops, may represent the only way that liberals in Congress can ultimately succeed in passing ObamaCare.

Calling health care a "right" to be guaranteed by the federal government, America's Catholic Bishops are trying to save ObamaCare at a time when the legislation has been pronounced in limbo, dying or dead by most of the media.

The evidence of intensive Catholic Bishop lobbying activity suggests that liberal Congressional leaders are going to give the legislation a temporary respite so that liberal Catholics can be persuaded to pressure Congress to pass both national health care legislation and "comprehensive immigration reform" in the form of H.R. 4321, the "Comprehensive Immigration Reform for America's Security and Prosperity" Act.

As AIM has documented, lobbying by the Catholic Bishops and their representatives, who worked closely with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, guaranteed passage of the health care bill in the House.

In a January 13 conference call and briefing, Kevin Appleby, a representative of the U.S. Catholic Bishops, explained in frank language why the Bishops are so desperate to pass the health care and immigration bills. He said that the Bishops want a federal health plan to absorb the costs being borne by the nation's 600 Catholic hospitals to cover illegal aliens.

Appleby said, "We have Catholic hospitals throughout the country that experience the same things that Alan was describing and we serve undocumented immigrants in our emergency rooms and community clinics, etc. So we have a stake in this in that the burden will fall not just on our providers but as Alan described, taxpayers throughout the country."

This was one of the clearest indications yet that support for national health care legislation is a means by which the Bishops can dump some of the costs of operating Catholic hospitals on the American taxpayers.

The reference to "Alan" was to Alan Aviles, president of the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation, another person on the telephone conference call.

Just four days after the annual January 22 March for Life, which featured many Catholic Bishops standing shoulder-to-shoulder with conservative members of Congress against President Obama's pro-abortion policies, the Bishops have returned to their liberal ways, firing off a letter to Congress complaining that national health care bills pending in the House and Senate aren't far-reaching enough. While the Bishops want the ultimate legislation to include "prohibitions on abortion funding," they also want it expanded to include millions of more people, including illegal aliens.

Indeed, the Bishops say in their January 26 letter that the House and Senate bills should be expanded because they "leave between 18 and 23 million people in our nation without health insurance."

In addition, the Bishops openly state in their letter that they want "undocumented persons"--illegal aliens--to be able to purchase insurance in the new health care exchange established by the federal government.

Gabino Zavala, an auxiliary bishop in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles for the San Gabriel region, has written an article noting that the religious left, which he describes as "religious leaders and faith-based organizations," have been pushing for a national health care system "for decades." He adds, "Catholic bishops have been leading advocates for universal health care as a fundamental human right, not simply a luxury for the privileged few."

The religious left, led by the Catholic Bishops, may represent the only way that liberals in Congress can ultimately succeed in passing ObamaCare. But that assumes that conservative Catholics will not resist the push to use church resources to give amnesty and federal benefits to illegal aliens as a way to take Catholic hospitals off the hook for many of their health care costs.

Left-wing Huffington Post blogger John Gehring notes with pride and pleasure that the Catholic bishops have "signaled they will play a leading role in pushing for comprehensive immigration reform this year by using the power of their pulpits and bipartisan political influence on Capitol Hill" and that the recent briefing was designed "to outline plans for persuading the public and wavering members of Congress that fixing a broken immigration system is a moral and practical priority."

Gehring is Communications Director and Senior Writer for Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, an organization funded by atheist George Soros. He is also a regular contributor to the God's Politics blog run by Jim Wallis of Sojourners, which received $100,000 from the Soros Open Society Institute to support the "Christians for Immigration Reform" campaign.

That briefing in question was the January 13 "Turning a New Leaf in Health Care Reform" conference call that included a lot of discussion about how to revive and save health care legislation in Congress and pass immigration legislation as well. The call featured Jennifer Ng'andu, Deputy Director of the Health Policy Project at the National Council of La Raza; Sonal Ambegaokar, a health policy attorney at the National Immigration Law Center; Alan Aviles; and Kevin Appleby, whose official title is Director of Migration and Policy Services at the U.S. Catholic Conference of Bishops.

An audio recording and transcript of the conference call are available at the La Raza website.

The Huffington Post's Gehring said that Bishop John C. Wester of Salt Lake City and Bishop Howard Hubbard of Albany, New York, who are respective chairmen of the U.S. bishops' committees on migration and international policy, have announced that over a million postcards "touting the need for immigration reform have been ordered by dioceses and parishes across the country" and that the cards will be sent to congressional offices.

The campaign is being run by the Justice for Immigrants campaign, an official project of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

The pre-written postcards say, "I am a concerned constituent and agree with the U.S. Catholic bishops that the U.S. immigration system is broken and is in need of repair. I ask that this year you support immigration reform legislation that keeps immigrant families together, adopts smart and humane enforcement policies, and ensures that immigrants without legal status register with the government and begin a path toward citizenship. Our families and communities cannot wait!"

The phrase "without legal status" means, of course, being illegal. It means they broke the law to enter the United States.

But the Bishops don't seem to want members of their flock to understand this critical fact.



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


Cliff Kincaid is the Editor of the AIM Report and can be reached at cliff.kincaid@aim.org




Source: http://www.aim.org/aim-column/catholic-bishops-lobby-for-obamacare-amnesty-for-illegals/
.

For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost


Matthew 18

1At the same time came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?

2And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them,

3And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

4Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

5And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me.

6But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.

7Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!

8Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire.

9And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire.

10Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven.

11For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.

12How think ye? if a man have an hundred sheep, and one of them be gone astray, doth he not leave the ninety and nine, and goeth into the mountains, and seeketh that which is gone astray?

13And if so be that he find it, verily I say unto you, he rejoiceth more of that sheep, than of the ninety and nine which went not astray.

14Even so it is not the will of your Father which is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish.

15Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.

16But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.

17And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

18Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

19Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven.

20For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.


21Then came Peter to him, and said, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times?

22Jesus saith unto him,
I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, Until seventy times seven.

23Therefore is the kingdom of heaven likened unto a certain king, which would take account of his servants.

24And when he had begun to reckon, one was brought unto him, which owed him ten thousand talents.

25But forasmuch as he had not to pay, his lord commanded him to be sold, and his wife, and children, and all that he had, and payment to be made.

26The servant therefore fell down, and worshipped him, saying, Lord, have patience with me, and I will pay thee all.

27Then the lord of that servant was moved with compassion, and loosed him, and forgave him the debt.

28But the same servant went out, and found one of his fellowservants, which owed him an hundred pence: and he laid hands on him, and took him by the throat, saying, Pay me that thou owest.

29And his fellowservant fell down at his feet, and besought him, saying, Have patience with me, and I will pay thee all.

30And he would not: but went and cast him into prison, till he should pay the debt.

31So when his fellowservants saw what was done, they were very sorry, and came and told unto their lord all that was done.

32Then his lord, after that he had called him, said unto him, O thou wicked servant, I forgave thee all that debt, because thou desiredst me:

33Shouldest not thou also have had compassion on thy fellowservant, even as I had pity on thee?

34And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors, till he should pay all that was due unto him.

35So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you, if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespasses.


.

Note:


Matthew 18:11 is one of the reasons why I choose to read only the King James version; Another reason is because it's the Protestant Bible, my persuasion. The King James version was translated from the ancient Greek Text or Textus Receptus(http://www.chick.com/reading/books/158/158_48.asp) which were not corrupted by the synagogue of satan.

What does your version say in Matthew 18:11?

.Okay.

Thursday, January 28, 2010

Ice, snow chill southern Plains amid power outages

By TIM TALLEY Associated Press Writer © 2010 The Associated Press
Jan. 28, 2010, 9:22PM

Ben Woloszyn AP
A Stillwater, Okla. Firefighter walks around a rolled over Chevy pickup truck on the southbound side of Interstate 35 at the Oklahoma Highway 51 interchange on Thursday, Jan. 28, 2010. No injuries were reported in the accident. (AP Photo/Stillwater NewsPress, Ben Woloszyn)



OKLAHOMA CITY — A powerful storm dumped snow, sleet and freezing rain on the southern Plains Thursday, disrupting power to thousands of homes and businesses, canceling flights and shutting down major highways across three states.

The National Weather Service issued winter storm warnings through Friday for much of Oklahoma and the Texas Panhandle.

Ice accumulations of more than one-half inch and high winds snapped electrical lines across Oklahoma, knocking out electrical power to tens of thousands of customers.

"In some places, as far you can see there are hundreds of utility poles on the ground," said Andrea Chancellor, spokeswoman for Public Service Company of Oklahoma.

"It could be five days for all customers who can take power to get power restored," she said.

Airlines canceled more than 100 flights at Will Rogers World Airport in Oklahoma City over concerns about icing on aircraft, spokeswoman Karen Carney said. She said additional flights will likely be canceled Friday morning.

Another 35 flights were canceled at Tulsa International Airport, said Alexis Higgins of the Tulsa Airport Authority.

Many flights in and out of Lubbock, Amarillo and Wichita Falls airports in Texas were canceled.

The Oklahoma Highway Patrol said a 50-mile stretch of Interstate 44 southwest of Oklahoma City was closed due to downed power lines in the roadway. Toppled power lines also forced the closure of a portion of Interstate 40 in far western Oklahoma.

In New Mexico, eastbound I-40 was closed from Tucumcari 40 miles east to the Texas state line because of snowpacked, icy conditions. Difficult driving conditions also were reported in the Santa Rosa area 60 miles west of Tucumcari, and snow was accumulating on I-40 east of Albuquerque.

The Texas Department of Transportation closed I-40 Thursday night from the New Mexico state line to the Texas-Oklahoma border. It also closed U.S. 87 and U.S. 287 from Amarillo north and U.S. 54 from the Texas-Oklahoma border to the New Mexico line after about 13 inches of snow accumulated in the northern Panhandle by nightfall.

In parts of West Texas, heavy snow and freezing precipitation downed tree limbs and power lines.

National Weather Service meteorologist Justin Weaver said the storm could generate up to 8 inches of snow in counties northwest of Lubbock.

The Oklahoma Department of Emergency Management said up to 12 inches of snow is likely in northwestern Oklahoma and the Oklahoma Panhandle. Freezing rain and sleet was forecast to turn to snow in central Oklahoma.

_____

Associated Press reporters Betsy Blaney in Lubbock, Texas, and Heather Clark in Albuquerque, N.M., contributed to this report.
.
.
.

A Self-Reverential State of the Union Address


Peter Wehner
Columnist


A Self-Reverential State of the Union Address

Posted: 01/28/10


President Obama's State of the Union address should unnerve Democrats in Congress and throughout the country. It was one of the worst State of the Union addresses in modern times – a stunning thing for a man who won the presidency in large measure based on the power and uplift of his rhetoric.

For those who hoped the president would use this speech as a pivot to the center, a la Bill Clinton in the aftermath of the 1994 mid-term elections, the speech was a major letdown. Much of what he offered up last night was symbolic. His budget freeze on a subset of domestic discretionary spending – which might amount to $15 billion – will hardly put a dent into our $1.35 trillion deficit. His budget commission, which will have no real power or authority, is worthless. His proposal to cut the capital gains tax for small business investment is a step in the right direction – but it will fall far short of what is needed to generate jobs and economic growth. One sensed there was no urgency or passion behind his effort to help small businesses and the private sector.

At the same time, Obama did not back away from his commitment to pass health care legislation that is incoherent, wildly expensive, unpopular, and which would do enormous damage to our economy. Obama also stuck to his guns on cap-and-trade legislation, which would be a job killer.

And even as he castigated Washington for being "unable or unwilling to solve any of our problems," he continued to champion an agenda that would concentrate unprecedented power there.

If substance was the main take-away of this address, it would have been merely mediocre. But what made it downright harmful for Obama and Democrats was its tone. The speech was defensive and petulant, backward-looking and condescending, petty and graceless. He didn't persuade people; he lectured them. What was on display last night was a man of unsurpassed self-righteousness engaged in constant self-justification. His first year in office has been, by almost every measure, a failure – and it is perceived as a failure by much of the public. Mr. Obama cannot stand this fact; it is clearly eating away at him. So he decided to use his first State of the Union to press his case. What he did was to set back his cause.

What made the speech a bit bizarre, and somewhat alarming, is how detached from reality the president is. After having spent much of his time blaming his predecessor for his own failures, he said he was "not interested in re-litigating the past." Barack Obama lamented waging a "perpetual campaign" – even though that is what the president, David Axelrod, Rahm Emanuel, Robert Gibbs and others in his employ do on a daily basis. He said, "Washington may think that saying anything about the other side, no matter how false, is just part of the game" – yet his White House has played that very game with zest and delight.

Having gone on a spending spree that is unprecedented in American history, the president castigated the political class for "leaving a mountain of debt" to future generations. Having helped to create the worst fiscal situation in our lifetime, he says he will "refuse to pass the problems on to another generation of Americans." He says, "If we do not take meaningful steps to rein in our debt, it could damage our markets, increase the cost of borrowing, and jeopardize our recovery" – despite the fact that future generations will have to work to undo the deficit and debt he had done so much to increase.

It was as if we were being lectured on marital fidelity by John Edwards or Mark Sanford.

The president criticized the "outsized influence of lobbyists in Washington" – as though he had no memory of the squalid backroom deals that were cut in order to try to secure passage of health care legislation but that helped lead to its demise. He spoke of the need to "do our work openly," even though Obama broke his promise to allow health care negotiations to appear on C-SPAN and he worked with the House and Senate leadership behind closed doors. He called on Congress to "continue down the path of earmark reform" – even though he eagerly signed legislation that contained around 8,500 earmarks. He claimed he is ending American involvement in the Iraq war – even though the Status of Forces Agreement that will end American involvement in the Iraq war was signed by President Bush. He said the United States must "always stand on the side of freedom and human dignity" – even as he and his secretary of state have consciously downplayed our commitment to both, whether in our dealings with Iran or China or any of a number of other nations.

On and on this game went, late into the night.

Perhaps the most striking aspect of last night's speech, though, was that Obama spoke as if the last year hadn't happened; as if he had not been president; and as if Congress had not been controlled by Democrats. He sought to portray himself as an outsider and a reformer, an antidote to cynicism, and a post-partisan, unifying force. He wanted to cast himself as an idealist, an inspirational figure, Mr. Hope & Change.

Barack Obama was, in short, trying to recapture the magic from his presidential campaign.

But that moment is gone with the wind. The charm and aesthetic appeal have all but disappeared. And so his words came across as not only stale but surreal. It is as if Obama was speaking in a parallel universe.

What we are seeing play out on a very large stage, it seems, is a man of extraordinary self-regard having to deal with punishing political set-backs, with the fact that his high hopes have come crashing down around him. The nation has turned against his agenda. They are turning against his party. And they are tiring of him as well. This is something he cannot seem to process. So the president marches ahead, pretending up is down and east is west, embracing an agenda the country has rejected and that is doing terrible damage to his own party.

It was quite a thing to witness.
.
.
.

Rush Limbaugh's Letter to President Obama

http://

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08rx3Jm
EIBNetRocks
January 28, 2010
(

From the January 28, 2010 edition of the Rush Limbaugh Show: Rush reads his letter to President Obama. pnI





Snippets:

"This must be what it feels like to live in a monarchy when some little kid becomes king due to a premature death."




...

We found out what it's like last night to sit through a speech by Hugo Chavez or Fidel Castro. And if you didn't see it, and if you want to know what sitting through a speech by Castro or Chavez is like find a way to watch a little bit of it and you'll get a grand idea. It was disjointed. I thought it was pathetic.


And Nancy Pelosi, she missed her calling. She's up and down, a Jack in the Box. She should have been a trained seal at Sea World the way she was behaving last night. She and Biden and everybody color coordinated in purple.


This guy is going to have to learn the Founding Fathers of this country were not Saul Alinsky and Karl Marx. Banana republic, to sit there and attack the Supreme Court for protecting the First Amendment, the least accomplished man in the room, folks, lectured everyone as if they were freshmen in their first last year of college.


Now, that is petulant. That is unpresidential, and it's immature. "Not my fault! Not my fault!" It's like Bart Simpson, "You can't prove it, nobody saw me do it, you can't prove it, I didn't do anything. It's unseemly, it's embarrassing, folks, to have a president talking this sarcastically.


Awe. By the way, he used the word "I" 96 times in 70 minutes. That's more than one time a minute. Okay, so remember this: I never suggested it would be easy or that I could do it alone.


"Whoa, that last five minutes, I have never seen anything like it."


"The last five minutes of that downer was strange to the point of needing psychological analysis. It's above my pay grade, but the best spin I can put on it would be to say an elitist professor was speaking to a freshman class. The worst case is I found his final comments to be disturbing, meaning I don't know anybody who speaks that way to adults, as if Congress has no idea why it's even there, as if his stupid little pep talk was inspirational. It was a failed attempt at wisdom. He came off as immature, out of his league who bounced --"


But I don't think I heard him say that because it was not the State of the Union. It might have been the state of the "unions," or more appropriately, it was the state of Obama.





http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_012810/content/01125106.guest.html

Florida needs a 'Bullet Train' like Europe and Japan?


Who needs a Bullet Train in the XXI Century?


There are those that say that Europe has Super Sonic High-Speed trains. Why can't we?

Others say that Japan has Bullet Trains for its commuters. Why can't we?

How can you compare the United States with Europe (27 countries none bigger than Montana), or Japan? It's like comparing apples to oranges? It would be more accurate to compare grapefruits to grapes.

Mr. Barack Obama and VP Joe Biden are in Tampa, Florida to hold a Town Meeting to promote the construction of a "Bullet Train" from Orlando to Tampa. The president is promising billions to build this fantastic means of mass transit which will generate thousands of jobs.

Where is this money coming from?

This will mean spending more money that we don't presently have; The money will have to be borrowed (on credit) therefore delaying the payment of this expenditure indefinitely: Borrowing from Visa to pay MasterCard.

Remember Am track? Remember the subsidies?

There are no guarantees that this enthusiastic capital improvement project will be profitable or cost effective.
.
This is not about jobs, congested roads, or the environment; It's about being hearded as cattle...
.
If you wanted the Long Island Rail Road near your house; You'd move to Long Island, Right?
..
P.S. Commodore Perry brought the first steam locomotive to the Emperor of Japan in 1853, as a gift.
Arsenio.
.
.