July 3, 2009 by rolenrock
.
We should be very afraid because Jesuits have been behind some of the most awful events in history. Their aim is to destroy any country that is a Protestant nation and replace it with chaos in the expectation the Royal Catholic Church can eventually pick up the pieces. This destruction of Protestantism is even in their oath!!
.
This article gives names of Jesuits Obama has placed in his administration and I have to say I am surprised at the large number of them. And after reading of it I am not so surprised that the country is being destroyed. Destruction of America is the goal of the Jesuits. Read it and weep or do something about it.
.
What? Do what?
.
First, educate yourself about their intentions. Start with Professor Walter J. Veith who has a video detailing just who they are, what they want and how they are doing it. And what they want to accomplish which is to send us back to a life reminiscient of 1500 era Europe. Rerum Novarum, anyone?
.
http://
You’ll find more of these on youtube.
,
Secondly, become aware of who these people are and express yourself to the elected officials who slip them into positions of power. We gotta pay better attention to the agents of the enemy that keep getting slipped into the power structure.
.
Source: http://rolenrock.wordpress.com/2009/07/03/obama-places-jesuits-in-position-of-power/
.
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
Monday, March 22, 2010
The Community Organizers Who Discovered Obama
Cynthia Gordy
Washington Correspondent, Essence magazine
Posted: March 17, 2010 10:13 AM
Throughout his political career, President Barack Obama has frequently referred to his years as a community organizer on the South Side of Chicago. During this time, as a means of achieving social justice, he learned how to develop leadership potential and respond to the needs of the people. The organization in which he got his start, the Gamaliel Foundation, is a faith-based group that helps create grassroots change around jobs, housing, health care and other issues. I talked to Gamaliel's President, Ann Smith, about President Obama back when he was just starting out, and the impact he's had on a new generation of young organizers.
CYNTHIA: You must have so many stories about President Obama, from back when he started community organizing. Can you share some?
Washington Correspondent, Essence magazine
Posted: March 17, 2010 10:13 AM
Throughout his political career, President Barack Obama has frequently referred to his years as a community organizer on the South Side of Chicago. During this time, as a means of achieving social justice, he learned how to develop leadership potential and respond to the needs of the people. The organization in which he got his start, the Gamaliel Foundation, is a faith-based group that helps create grassroots change around jobs, housing, health care and other issues. I talked to Gamaliel's President, Ann Smith, about President Obama back when he was just starting out, and the impact he's had on a new generation of young organizers.
CYNTHIA: You must have so many stories about President Obama, from back when he started community organizing. Can you share some?
.
ANN SMITH: Greg Galluzzo [Gamaliel Foundation co-founder and executive director] always says that when he met Barack, he never thought of him as having the potential to become President. When Barack went off to Harvard Law and came back to get people registered to vote, he led a training event for us. After he finished training, someone in the audience said to Greg, "You know, I think he's going to be the President of the United States one day." When he was an organizer, he was extremely disciplined and wrote wonderful weekly reports for all of the three-plus years he was there. Of course, at some point Greg threw them all away. (laughs) There's not a single one left. But at the time, people didn't see him for what he was going to be. They just saw him as being extremely intelligent and someone who could take advantage of opportunities, which he did.
CYNTHIA: Now that he's one of the most famous former organizers in the world, how has his prominence affected your foundation?
ANN SMITH: Greg Galluzzo [Gamaliel Foundation co-founder and executive director] always says that when he met Barack, he never thought of him as having the potential to become President. When Barack went off to Harvard Law and came back to get people registered to vote, he led a training event for us. After he finished training, someone in the audience said to Greg, "You know, I think he's going to be the President of the United States one day." When he was an organizer, he was extremely disciplined and wrote wonderful weekly reports for all of the three-plus years he was there. Of course, at some point Greg threw them all away. (laughs) There's not a single one left. But at the time, people didn't see him for what he was going to be. They just saw him as being extremely intelligent and someone who could take advantage of opportunities, which he did.
CYNTHIA: Now that he's one of the most famous former organizers in the world, how has his prominence affected your foundation?
.
SMITH: When I came to the Gamaliel Foundation almost seven years ago, the idea was that my job would be to connect with foundations, the media and other organizations to tell them what we do. It used to be difficult to tell people what a community organizer is. As soon as Barack said he was a community organizer during the campaign, it became very clear, and I don't have to explain to people what it is that we do anymore. They already know.
CYNTHIA: Have you seen a spike in people wanting to become organizers?
SMITH: When I came to the Gamaliel Foundation almost seven years ago, the idea was that my job would be to connect with foundations, the media and other organizations to tell them what we do. It used to be difficult to tell people what a community organizer is. As soon as Barack said he was a community organizer during the campaign, it became very clear, and I don't have to explain to people what it is that we do anymore. They already know.
CYNTHIA: Have you seen a spike in people wanting to become organizers?
.
SMITH: Oh yes, there have particularly been more young people going into training, and that was certainly sparked by the election season. During the election, people who were organizing for Barack in various places around the country actually came and went through the Gamaliel training because they wanted to do what he had done. We've seen many examples of that. My own cousin is an attorney, and she went through our training because, as she said, "I want to do exactly what Barack did."
SMITH: Oh yes, there have particularly been more young people going into training, and that was certainly sparked by the election season. During the election, people who were organizing for Barack in various places around the country actually came and went through the Gamaliel training because they wanted to do what he had done. We've seen many examples of that. My own cousin is an attorney, and she went through our training because, as she said, "I want to do exactly what Barack did."
..
.
.
Anglicans want to go Catholic
Anglicans want to go Catholic
AFPMarch 22, 2010 4:04 PM
The Anglican Catholic Church of Canada, a member of the Traditional Anglican Community, asked the Vatican to join the Roman Catholic Church, religious news agency Zenit said yesterday.
"We respectfully demand that the Apostolic Constitution be implemented in Canada," said the letter from Anglican bishops Peter Wilkinson, Craig Botterill and Carl Reid to Cardinal William Levada, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine on Faith.
In late 2009, the Roman Catholic Church unveiled a new juridical framework that made it easier for Anglicans unhappy with the Church of England's ordination of female and homosexual clergy to join Catholic ranks.
The move came in response to "repeated and insistent" petitions from Anglicans to join the Church, the Vatican said in a statement in November.
The Anglican Communion split from Catholicism in the 16th century when Pope Clement VII refused to grant King Henry VIII a divorce.
Source: http://www.montrealgazette.com/life/Anglicans+want+Catholic/2712801/story.html#ixzz0iweHOvZm
AFPMarch 22, 2010 4:04 PM
The Anglican Catholic Church of Canada, a member of the Traditional Anglican Community, asked the Vatican to join the Roman Catholic Church, religious news agency Zenit said yesterday.
"We respectfully demand that the Apostolic Constitution be implemented in Canada," said the letter from Anglican bishops Peter Wilkinson, Craig Botterill and Carl Reid to Cardinal William Levada, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine on Faith.
In late 2009, the Roman Catholic Church unveiled a new juridical framework that made it easier for Anglicans unhappy with the Church of England's ordination of female and homosexual clergy to join Catholic ranks.
The move came in response to "repeated and insistent" petitions from Anglicans to join the Church, the Vatican said in a statement in November.
The Anglican Communion split from Catholicism in the 16th century when Pope Clement VII refused to grant King Henry VIII a divorce.
Source: http://www.montrealgazette.com/life/Anglicans+want+Catholic/2712801/story.html#ixzz0iweHOvZm
.
Alito: Court Wrong to Deny ‘Ave Maria’ Case
March 22, 2010 - 10:19 AM by: Lee Ross

The beautiful strains of "Ave Maria" will not echo through the marbled walls of the Supreme Court, nor will arguments, over Justice Samuel Alito's objections, in a case about the playing of the standard at a high school graduation.
On Monday the high court announced it will not hear the appeal of Kathryn Nurre who with other classmates was prohibited from performing an instrumental version of the popular tune at their graduation ceremony from an Everett, Washington high school.
The school's principal after consultation with other officials struck the song from the graduation program. District superintendent Carol Whitehead justified the decision by reasoning that "many people would see [the song] as religious in nature."
Nurre sued the school district claiming its decision violated her constitutional rights. Lower courts have ruled in favor of the district but in their petition to the Supreme Court, Nurre's lawyers contend "the censorship in this case involves political correctness run amuck."
They take issue with the lower court's reasoning that the district's action was justified because of concerns that people would complain about the song in a reprise of an issue raised following a previous graduation ceremony. Nurre's lawyers further argued the school district’s decision justifies the sacrifice of artistic and student expression "to a heckler's veto that seeks to sanitize even the remotest vestige of religion from public life."
Justice Alito announced his disagreement with the high court's decision to stay out of the case by writing the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals decision "is not easy to square with our free speech jurisprudence."
Lawyers for the school district asked the justices not to take case claiming the Ninth Circuit ruling last year was correct and that the issues presented by Nurre failed to offer the type of significant legal conflict that is normally resolved by the high court. Furthermore it defended the decision as within its authority to maintain "the orderly administration" of education for its students.
The school district concluded its argument to the justices by saying it does not seek "to deprive students of learning opportunities, nor is it seeking to purge altogether religious-inspired works from public education. Instead, it simply sought to provide an atmosphere in which all graduates could celebrate their academic achievements, free from controversial messages....the District simply had no choice but to act as it did, within the confines of the law."
Alito was sharply critical of the school officials and their decision. He said that when the school gives students the opportunity to express themselves they must respect the students' right to free speech. "School administrators may not behave like puppet masters who create the illusion that students are engaging in personal expression when in fact the school administration is pulling the strings," Alito wrote.
The school's principal after consultation with other officials struck the song from the graduation program. District superintendent Carol Whitehead justified the decision by reasoning that "many people would see [the song] as religious in nature."
Nurre sued the school district claiming its decision violated her constitutional rights. Lower courts have ruled in favor of the district but in their petition to the Supreme Court, Nurre's lawyers contend "the censorship in this case involves political correctness run amuck."
They take issue with the lower court's reasoning that the district's action was justified because of concerns that people would complain about the song in a reprise of an issue raised following a previous graduation ceremony. Nurre's lawyers further argued the school district’s decision justifies the sacrifice of artistic and student expression "to a heckler's veto that seeks to sanitize even the remotest vestige of religion from public life."
Justice Alito announced his disagreement with the high court's decision to stay out of the case by writing the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals decision "is not easy to square with our free speech jurisprudence."
Lawyers for the school district asked the justices not to take case claiming the Ninth Circuit ruling last year was correct and that the issues presented by Nurre failed to offer the type of significant legal conflict that is normally resolved by the high court. Furthermore it defended the decision as within its authority to maintain "the orderly administration" of education for its students.
The school district concluded its argument to the justices by saying it does not seek "to deprive students of learning opportunities, nor is it seeking to purge altogether religious-inspired works from public education. Instead, it simply sought to provide an atmosphere in which all graduates could celebrate their academic achievements, free from controversial messages....the District simply had no choice but to act as it did, within the confines of the law."
Alito was sharply critical of the school officials and their decision. He said that when the school gives students the opportunity to express themselves they must respect the students' right to free speech. "School administrators may not behave like puppet masters who create the illusion that students are engaging in personal expression when in fact the school administration is pulling the strings," Alito wrote.
.
.
.
.
P.S. I am so glad this story surfaced. It brings to mind my concern about the Supreme Court's present "6" Roman Catholics, out of the 9 justices. Now, Justice Samuel Alito expresses his opinion ex-cathedra on a lower court's decision regarding a traditional "Catholic Song" that was denied from being played at a Public School function. This is the type of issue that will handicap, impede this Supreme Court from being un-biased in a case that deals with Roman Catholic advances (intrusions) on the greater culture.
.
On another note; This is the second Roman Catholic oriented news headline in 4 days. Prior to this, Nancy Pelosi stated Friday 3/19/2010 in a taped news conference that it was St. Joseph's Day the patron of workers; So, she was praying that the Health Care Overhaul Bill would pass. That makes it 2 government officials talking church talk casually as if everyone in the country were a Roman Catholic. Until further notice there is no state religion. Roman Catholics vote and speak their minds with a Catholic slant since they are beholden to the Pope and the "universal church".
.
Arsenio.
.
Futility, or the Wreck of the Titan
Futility, or the Wreck of the Titan(1898)A novel byMorgan Robertson
Next book >>byMorgan Robertson
One of the best known and the most astounding coincidences in the Titanic legend is the novella Futility, published in 1898 (fourteen years before the actual Titanic disaster). Robertson describes a ship that is the "largest craft afloat and the greatest works of men." It sets sail on it's maiden voyage in April, meeting its subsequent end through collision with an iceberg.
Source: http://www.fantasticfiction.co.uk/r/morgan-robertson/futility-or-wreck-of-titan.htm
Related:
Morgan Robertson's 1898 novella Futility had many parallels with the RMS Titanic disaster; the book concerned a fictional state-of-the-art ocean liner called Titan, which (like the Titanic) eventually collides with an iceberg on a calm April night whilst en route to New York, with many dying because of the lack of lifeboats. Various other details in the book coincide with the Titanic disaster. Later, she wrote a book, Beyond the Spectrum, that described a future war fought with aircraft that carried "sun bombs". Incredibly powerful, one bomb could destroy a city, erupting in a flash of light that blinds all who look at it. The war begins in December, started by the Japanese with a sneak attack on Hawaii.
Source: http://www.2spare.com/item_51964.aspx1964.aspx1964.aspx
.
.
Thesis + Antithesis = Coincidence

Astrid Riecken/Getty Images
Members of Congress hold up signs from the second floor of the U.S. Capitol that read "Kill The Bill" on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC.
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2010/03/22/20100322health-care-overhaul-gop.html


The activists and immigrants traveled from around the country and converged on the National Mall, blocks from where House Democrats worked feverishly to secure last-minute votes for Mr. Obama’s landmark healthcare overhaul bill. Waving American flags and chanting Mr. Obama’s campaign slogan “Si se puede,” they called for legislation that would give 12 million immigrants currently residing in the US illegally a pathway to citizenship.
Protests, rage rock divided House
Brick smashes rep's window
By S.A. MILLER in DC and JENNIFER FERMINO in NY
Last Updated: 8:37 AM, March 22, 2010
Posted: 4:01 AM, March 22, 2010
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/rage_rocks_3M686furjXbfTKn0yeTMpI#ixzz0ivBg9Ww6
It seemed like the debate over health care couldn't get any uglier -- until yesterday.
Long-simmering tensions reached a boiling point in the final hours, with raucous protests dominating the Capitol and bedlam erupting on the House floor amidst news that a leading New York proponent of the bill got a brick tossed through her upstate office window.
The day got off to a bumpy start when an opponent of the bill sitting in the House of Representatives gallery started screaming in the middle of the session.
The protester -- who shouted, "The people have said no," and, "You took an oath!" -- was quickly ushered out of the Capitol, but not before disrupting business on the floor.

By S.A. MILLER in DC and JENNIFER FERMINO in NY
Last Updated: 8:37 AM, March 22, 2010
Posted: 4:01 AM, March 22, 2010
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/rage_rocks_3M686furjXbfTKn0yeTMpI#ixzz0ivBg9Ww6
It seemed like the debate over health care couldn't get any uglier -- until yesterday.
Long-simmering tensions reached a boiling point in the final hours, with raucous protests dominating the Capitol and bedlam erupting on the House floor amidst news that a leading New York proponent of the bill got a brick tossed through her upstate office window.
The day got off to a bumpy start when an opponent of the bill sitting in the House of Representatives gallery started screaming in the middle of the session.
The protester -- who shouted, "The people have said no," and, "You took an oath!" -- was quickly ushered out of the Capitol, but not before disrupting business on the floor.

Dan Cappellazzo
TENSE: "Kill the bill" protesters rally outside the Capitol yesterday, while Rep. Louise Slaughter's office window in Niagara Falls is boarded up after a vandal struck.
TENSE: "Kill the bill" protesters rally outside the Capitol yesterday, while Rep. Louise Slaughter's office window in Niagara Falls is boarded up after a vandal struck.
Demonstrators chanted, "Kill the bill" and "start over," and hoisted signs urging lawmakers to stop the legislation. Some used a bullhorn to voice their opposition.
The chaos was so loud it could be heard inside the House.
In a sign of how charged the atmosphere was, somber cops flanked high-profile proponents of the bill, like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.), an African-American who was targeted with racial slurs Saturday.
On the West Lawn of the Capitol, where hundreds from all over the nation had gathered to protest, many demonstrators said they hoped their last-ditch effort would persuade lawmakers to vote no.
"We can't afford this. We certainly can't afford this health-care bill," said Leonard Dupere, 64, who drove to Washington from New Hampshire and slept overnight in his car to protest the bill.
"It's Obama's legacy. It's what he wants to do: ruin this country," said Dupere.
As Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-Manhattan) walked past a throng of protesters screaming, "Kill the bill," at him outside the Capitol, he said he wondered why people hate the legislation so much.
"Worst-case scenario -- worst-case -- maybe it's not efficient, maybe you waste some money. Is that the worst thing in the world?" he told The Post.
"It's not the end of America."
Meanwhile, the feds were trying to figure out who threw a brick through Rep. Louise Slaughter's window in her district office in upstate Niagara Falls early Saturday.
A spokeswoman for Slaughter said the motive was unknown.
However, last week the representative -- who is the chairwoman of the House Rules Committee -- became the face of a bizarre parliamentary tactic to pass the legislation without nervous Democrats actually having to vote on the bill.
That measure -- nicknamed the "Slaughter House Rule" -- was dropped.
The chaos was so loud it could be heard inside the House.
In a sign of how charged the atmosphere was, somber cops flanked high-profile proponents of the bill, like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.), an African-American who was targeted with racial slurs Saturday.
On the West Lawn of the Capitol, where hundreds from all over the nation had gathered to protest, many demonstrators said they hoped their last-ditch effort would persuade lawmakers to vote no.
"We can't afford this. We certainly can't afford this health-care bill," said Leonard Dupere, 64, who drove to Washington from New Hampshire and slept overnight in his car to protest the bill.
"It's Obama's legacy. It's what he wants to do: ruin this country," said Dupere.
As Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-Manhattan) walked past a throng of protesters screaming, "Kill the bill," at him outside the Capitol, he said he wondered why people hate the legislation so much.
"Worst-case scenario -- worst-case -- maybe it's not efficient, maybe you waste some money. Is that the worst thing in the world?" he told The Post.
"It's not the end of America."
Meanwhile, the feds were trying to figure out who threw a brick through Rep. Louise Slaughter's window in her district office in upstate Niagara Falls early Saturday.
A spokeswoman for Slaughter said the motive was unknown.
However, last week the representative -- who is the chairwoman of the House Rules Committee -- became the face of a bizarre parliamentary tactic to pass the legislation without nervous Democrats actually having to vote on the bill.
That measure -- nicknamed the "Slaughter House Rule" -- was dropped.
Sunday, March 21, 2010
The Deed Is Done!
http://
The radicals have achieved their goal.
Welcome to the new healthy United States of America thanks to Barack Hussein Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and their comrades at arms.
The Obamaites voted for change, and we have the first dose of Change without a doubt.
What lies ahead for all of us? Only heaven knows what lies ahead for this Constitutional Republic? Will we follow the example of the "enlightened nations in Europe or Asia", so that we can "catch-up" with the rest of the world? Will we see more fundamental or global changes in the immediate future? Brace yourself for a dizzying ride.
Get ready to rumble with your government mandated Health Insurance Provider. It's either pay the premium or pay the IRS fine.
Now everyone can be healthy. No limit to Health Care.
Welcome to the age of no illegal alien left behind!
The radicals have achieved their goal.
Welcome to the new healthy United States of America thanks to Barack Hussein Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and their comrades at arms.
The Obamaites voted for change, and we have the first dose of Change without a doubt.
What lies ahead for all of us? Only heaven knows what lies ahead for this Constitutional Republic? Will we follow the example of the "enlightened nations in Europe or Asia", so that we can "catch-up" with the rest of the world? Will we see more fundamental or global changes in the immediate future? Brace yourself for a dizzying ride.
Get ready to rumble with your government mandated Health Insurance Provider. It's either pay the premium or pay the IRS fine.
Now everyone can be healthy. No limit to Health Care.
Welcome to the age of no illegal alien left behind!
Proceed to your assigned clinics for further instructions as your turn arises. We will begin with those whose last names start with "A".
Arsenio.
..
Agenda 21 – The UN Blueprint for the 21st Century *
The Green Agenda
20.08.2008
">http://
Agenda 21 Enforcement
“Effective execution of Agenda 21 will require a profound reorientation of all human society, unlike anything the world has ever experienced a major shift in the priorities of both governments and individuals and an unprecedented redeployment of human and financial resources. This shift will demand that a concern for the environmental consequences of every human action be integrated into individual and collective decision-making at every level.”-
[Excerpt from attorney Dan Sitarz’s book about the United Nations’ Agenda 21, the blueprint for the 21st century (Agenda 21: The Earth Summit Strategy), written with the cooperation of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development. Listed as one of the top books for the 21st century by the International Center for Environment and Public Policy of the California Institute of Public Affairs.]
Agenda 21 – The UN Blueprint for the 21st Century
As described in my previous article on Sustainable Development, Agenda 21 was the main outcome of the United Nation’s Earth Summit held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. Agenda 21 outlines, in detail, the UN’s vision for a centrally managed global society. This contract binds governments around the world to the United Nation’s plan for controlling the way we live, eat, learn, move and communicate - all under the noble banner of saving the earth. If fully implemented, Agenda 21 would have the government involved in every aspect of life of every human on earth.
Agenda 21 spreads it tentacles from Governments, to federal and local authorities, and right down to community groups. Chapter 28 of Agenda 21 specifically calls for each community to formulate its own Local Agenda 21: ”Each local authority should enter into a dialogue with its citizens, local organizations, and private enterprises and formulate ‘a Local Agenda 21.’ Through consultation and consensus-building, local authorities would learn from citizens and from local, civic, community, business and industrial organizations and acquire the information needed for formulating the best strategies.” - Agenda 21, Chapter 28, sec 1.3
Interestingly, in April 1991, fourteen months before Earth Summit, Prince Charles held a private two day international conference aboard the royal yacht Britannia, moored off the coast of Brazil. His goal was to bring together key international figures in an attempt to achieve a degree of harmony between the various countries that would gather at the Summit. Al Gore was present, along with senior officials from the United Nations and the World Bank.
At the summit 179 nations officially signed Agenda 21 and many more have followed since. Nearly 12,000 local and federal authorities have legally committed themselves to the Agenda. In practice this means that all their plans and policies must begin with an assessment of how the plan or policy meets the requirements of Agenda 21, and no plans or policies are allowed to contradict any part of the Agenda. Local authorities are audited by UN inspectors and the results of the audits are placed on the UN website. You can see how many local authorities in your country were bound by Agenda 21 in 2001 here. The number has increased significantly since then.
The official opening ceremony was conducted by the Dalai Lama and centered around a Viking long-ship that was constructed to celebrate the summit and sailed to Rio from Norway. The ship was appropriately named Gaia. A huge mural of a beauiful woman holding the earth within her hands adorned the entrance to the summit. Al Gore lead the US delegation where he was joined by 110 Heads of State, and representatives of more than 800 NGO’s.
Maurice Strong, Club of Rome member, devout Bahai, founder and first Secretary General of UNEP, has been the driving force behind the birth and imposition of Agenda 21. While he chaired the Earth Summit, outside his wife Hanne and 300 followers called the Wisdom-Keepers, continuously beat drums, chanted prayers to Gaia, and trended scared flames in order to “establish and hold the energy field” for the duration of the summit. You can view actual footage of these ceremonies on YouTube. During the opening speech Maurice Strong made the following statements:
“The concept of national sovereignty has been an immutable, indeed sacred, principle of international relations. It is a principle which will yield only slowly and reluctantly to the new imperatives of global environmental cooperation. It is simply not feasible for sovereignty to be exercised unilaterally by individual nation states, however powerful. The global community must be assured of environmental security.” - Link
“It is the responsibility of each human being today to choose between the force of darkness and the force of light. We must therefore transform our attitudes, and adopt a renewed respect for the superior laws of Divine Nature.” - Link
“Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class - involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, air-conditioning, and suburban housing - are not sustainable. A shift is necessary which will require a vast strengthening of the multilateral system, including the United Nations.” - Link
Among other things, the agenda called for a Global Biodiversity Assessment of the State of the Earth. Prepared by the UN Environmental Programme (UNEP), this 1140 page document armed UN leaders with the “ecological basis, and moral authority” they needed to validate their global management system. The GBA concludes on page 863 that “the root causes of the loss of biodiversity are embedded in the way societies use resources. This world view is characteristic of large scale societies, heavily dependent on resources brought from considerable distances. It is a world view that is characterized by the denial of sacred attributes in nature, a characteristic that became firmly established about 2000 years ago with the Judeo-Christian-Islamic religious traditions. Eastern cultures with religious traditions such as Buddhism, Jainism and Hinduism did not depart as drastically from the perspective of humans as members of a community of beings including other living and non-living elements.” In other words Christians and Moslems are to blame for the sorry state of the world because their religions do not involve worshipping “sacred nature.”
Following the Earth Summit Maurice Strong was named Assistant Secretary General of the United Nations, and was appointed to the position of Chief Policy Advisor by Kofi Annan. He was also a member of the UN’s Commission on Global Governance, and the key architect of the Kyoto Protocol. Strong and his wife have also established the Manitou Foundation, providing land in the Colorado to an eclectic mix of religious groups, including the Crestone Mountain Zen Center, the Spiritual Life Institute (a Catholic Carmelite monastery), the Haidakhandi Universal Ashram, the Sri Aurobindo Learning Center, Mangala Shri Bhuti (Tibetan Buddhists), and Karma Thegsum Tashi Gomang (Indian mystics). The Strongs have located their spiritual centre in the Colorado mountains because:”The Strongs learned that since antiquity indigenous peoples had revered this pristine wilderness as a place for conducting their vision quests and receiving shamanic trainings. It is prophesied that the world’s religious traditions would gather here and help move theworld toward globally conscious co-existence and co-creation.”
So what exactly does Agenda 21 contain? It consists of 115 different and very specific programs designed to facilitate, or to force, the transition to Sustainable Development. The objective, clearly enunciated by the leaders of the Earth Summit, is to bring about a change in the present system of independent nations. The agenda is broken up into 8 ‘programme areas for action’:
>> Agriculture
>> Biodiversity and Ecosystem Management
>> Education
>> Energy and Housing
>> Population
>> Public Health
>> Resources and recycling
>> Transportation, Sustainable Economic Development
As you can see Agenda 21 addresses nearly every aspect of modern life. If you have a spare few days the entire document can be read here. I encourage the reader to at least read the Table of Contents in order to understand the true scope of this ‘blueprint for the 21st century.’ I won’t torture the reader by going into the document in too much depth but I will provide the first six paragraphs so that you can understand the true intent of Agenda 21:
1.1. Humanity stands at a defining moment in history. We are confronted with a perpetuation of disparities between and within nations, a worsening of poverty, hunger, ill health and illiteracy, and the continuing deterioration of the ecosystems on which we depend for our well-being. However, integration of environment and development concerns and greater attention to them will lead to the fulfilment of basic needs, improved living standards for all, better protected and managed ecosystems and a safer, more prosperous future. No nation can achieve this on its own; but together we can - in a global partnership for sustainable development.
1.2. This global partnership must build on the premises of General Assembly resolution 44/228 of 22 December 1989, which was adopted when the nations of the world called for the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, and on the acceptance of the need to take a balanced and integrated approach to environment and development questions.
1.3. Agenda 21 addresses the pressing problems of today and also aims at preparing the world for the challenges of the next century. It reflects a global consensus and political commitment at the highest level on development and environment cooperation. Its successful implementation is first and foremost the responsibility of Governments. National strategies, plans, policies and processes are crucial in achieving this. International cooperation should support and supplement such national efforts. In this context, the United Nations system has a key role to play. Other international, regional and subregional organizations are also called upon to contribute to this effort. The broadest public participation and the active involvement of the non-governmental organizations and other groups should also be encouraged.
1.4. The developmental and environmental objectives of Agenda 21 will require a substantial flow of new and additional financial resources to developing countries, in order to cover the incremental costs for the actions they have to undertake to deal with global environmental problems and to accelerate sustainable development. Financial resources are also required for strengthening the capacity of international institutions for the implementation of Agenda 21.
1.5. In the implementation of the relevant programme areas identified in Agenda 21, special attention should be given to the particular circumstances facing the economies in transition. It must also be recognized that these countries are facing unprecedented challenges in transforming their economies, in some cases in the midst of considerable social and political tension.
1.6. The programme areas that constitute Agenda 21 are described in terms of the basis for action, objectives, activities and means of implementation. Agenda 21 is a dynamic programme. It will be carried out by the various actors according to the different situations, capacities and priorities of countries and regions in full respect of all the principles contained in the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development. It could evolve over time in the light of changing needs and circumstances. This process marks the beginning of a new global partnership for sustainable development.
Like many ‘green movement initiatives’ Agenda 21 is a ‘wolf in sheep’s clothing’. As explained in my brief biography I have been actively involved in preparing Agenda 21 action plans and monitoring compliance with environmental permits. All the policies and plans we developed were required to begin with a description of how they met the objectives of Agenda 21 and various other UN agreements, and were audited too determine how they complied with UN requirements. It was these experiences that lead to my research into what was ‘behind it all’ and the subsequent publication of this website.
Agenda 21 is not an environmental management policy, but an attempt to impose a global centrally planned quasi-government administered by the United Nations. Under Agenda 21 all central government and local authority signatories are required to conform strictly to a common prescribed standard and hence this is just communism resurrected in a new guise. Now that Agenda 21 has gained a stranglehold on global regulatory and planning processes Maurice Strong and his Club of Rome colleagues have moved on to the next phase of the Global Green Agenda.

In association with fellow CoR member Mikhail Gorbachev, Strong co-chaired the committee responsible for drafting the Earth Charter. Compared to the 2500 pages that make up Agenda 21 and the BGA it is a tiny document – only 4 pages long. But it is of far more significance to the Global Green Agenda. The Earth Charter is a “declaration of fundamental principles for building a just, sustainable, and peaceful global society in the 21st century”. It is the constitution for a New Green Order. You can read about it
here.
.
.
Source: http://www.wiseupjournal.com/?p=475
.
20.08.2008
">http://
Agenda 21 Enforcement
“Effective execution of Agenda 21 will require a profound reorientation of all human society, unlike anything the world has ever experienced a major shift in the priorities of both governments and individuals and an unprecedented redeployment of human and financial resources. This shift will demand that a concern for the environmental consequences of every human action be integrated into individual and collective decision-making at every level.”-
[Excerpt from attorney Dan Sitarz’s book about the United Nations’ Agenda 21, the blueprint for the 21st century (Agenda 21: The Earth Summit Strategy), written with the cooperation of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development. Listed as one of the top books for the 21st century by the International Center for Environment and Public Policy of the California Institute of Public Affairs.]
Agenda 21 – The UN Blueprint for the 21st Century
As described in my previous article on Sustainable Development, Agenda 21 was the main outcome of the United Nation’s Earth Summit held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. Agenda 21 outlines, in detail, the UN’s vision for a centrally managed global society. This contract binds governments around the world to the United Nation’s plan for controlling the way we live, eat, learn, move and communicate - all under the noble banner of saving the earth. If fully implemented, Agenda 21 would have the government involved in every aspect of life of every human on earth.
Agenda 21 spreads it tentacles from Governments, to federal and local authorities, and right down to community groups. Chapter 28 of Agenda 21 specifically calls for each community to formulate its own Local Agenda 21: ”Each local authority should enter into a dialogue with its citizens, local organizations, and private enterprises and formulate ‘a Local Agenda 21.’ Through consultation and consensus-building, local authorities would learn from citizens and from local, civic, community, business and industrial organizations and acquire the information needed for formulating the best strategies.” - Agenda 21, Chapter 28, sec 1.3
Interestingly, in April 1991, fourteen months before Earth Summit, Prince Charles held a private two day international conference aboard the royal yacht Britannia, moored off the coast of Brazil. His goal was to bring together key international figures in an attempt to achieve a degree of harmony between the various countries that would gather at the Summit. Al Gore was present, along with senior officials from the United Nations and the World Bank.
At the summit 179 nations officially signed Agenda 21 and many more have followed since. Nearly 12,000 local and federal authorities have legally committed themselves to the Agenda. In practice this means that all their plans and policies must begin with an assessment of how the plan or policy meets the requirements of Agenda 21, and no plans or policies are allowed to contradict any part of the Agenda. Local authorities are audited by UN inspectors and the results of the audits are placed on the UN website. You can see how many local authorities in your country were bound by Agenda 21 in 2001 here. The number has increased significantly since then.
The official opening ceremony was conducted by the Dalai Lama and centered around a Viking long-ship that was constructed to celebrate the summit and sailed to Rio from Norway. The ship was appropriately named Gaia. A huge mural of a beauiful woman holding the earth within her hands adorned the entrance to the summit. Al Gore lead the US delegation where he was joined by 110 Heads of State, and representatives of more than 800 NGO’s.
Maurice Strong, Club of Rome member, devout Bahai, founder and first Secretary General of UNEP, has been the driving force behind the birth and imposition of Agenda 21. While he chaired the Earth Summit, outside his wife Hanne and 300 followers called the Wisdom-Keepers, continuously beat drums, chanted prayers to Gaia, and trended scared flames in order to “establish and hold the energy field” for the duration of the summit. You can view actual footage of these ceremonies on YouTube. During the opening speech Maurice Strong made the following statements:
“The concept of national sovereignty has been an immutable, indeed sacred, principle of international relations. It is a principle which will yield only slowly and reluctantly to the new imperatives of global environmental cooperation. It is simply not feasible for sovereignty to be exercised unilaterally by individual nation states, however powerful. The global community must be assured of environmental security.” - Link
“It is the responsibility of each human being today to choose between the force of darkness and the force of light. We must therefore transform our attitudes, and adopt a renewed respect for the superior laws of Divine Nature.” - Link
“Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class - involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, air-conditioning, and suburban housing - are not sustainable. A shift is necessary which will require a vast strengthening of the multilateral system, including the United Nations.” - Link
Among other things, the agenda called for a Global Biodiversity Assessment of the State of the Earth. Prepared by the UN Environmental Programme (UNEP), this 1140 page document armed UN leaders with the “ecological basis, and moral authority” they needed to validate their global management system. The GBA concludes on page 863 that “the root causes of the loss of biodiversity are embedded in the way societies use resources. This world view is characteristic of large scale societies, heavily dependent on resources brought from considerable distances. It is a world view that is characterized by the denial of sacred attributes in nature, a characteristic that became firmly established about 2000 years ago with the Judeo-Christian-Islamic religious traditions. Eastern cultures with religious traditions such as Buddhism, Jainism and Hinduism did not depart as drastically from the perspective of humans as members of a community of beings including other living and non-living elements.” In other words Christians and Moslems are to blame for the sorry state of the world because their religions do not involve worshipping “sacred nature.”
Following the Earth Summit Maurice Strong was named Assistant Secretary General of the United Nations, and was appointed to the position of Chief Policy Advisor by Kofi Annan. He was also a member of the UN’s Commission on Global Governance, and the key architect of the Kyoto Protocol. Strong and his wife have also established the Manitou Foundation, providing land in the Colorado to an eclectic mix of religious groups, including the Crestone Mountain Zen Center, the Spiritual Life Institute (a Catholic Carmelite monastery), the Haidakhandi Universal Ashram, the Sri Aurobindo Learning Center, Mangala Shri Bhuti (Tibetan Buddhists), and Karma Thegsum Tashi Gomang (Indian mystics). The Strongs have located their spiritual centre in the Colorado mountains because:”The Strongs learned that since antiquity indigenous peoples had revered this pristine wilderness as a place for conducting their vision quests and receiving shamanic trainings. It is prophesied that the world’s religious traditions would gather here and help move theworld toward globally conscious co-existence and co-creation.”
So what exactly does Agenda 21 contain? It consists of 115 different and very specific programs designed to facilitate, or to force, the transition to Sustainable Development. The objective, clearly enunciated by the leaders of the Earth Summit, is to bring about a change in the present system of independent nations. The agenda is broken up into 8 ‘programme areas for action’:
>> Agriculture
>> Biodiversity and Ecosystem Management
>> Education
>> Energy and Housing
>> Population
>> Public Health
>> Resources and recycling
>> Transportation, Sustainable Economic Development
As you can see Agenda 21 addresses nearly every aspect of modern life. If you have a spare few days the entire document can be read here. I encourage the reader to at least read the Table of Contents in order to understand the true scope of this ‘blueprint for the 21st century.’ I won’t torture the reader by going into the document in too much depth but I will provide the first six paragraphs so that you can understand the true intent of Agenda 21:
1.1. Humanity stands at a defining moment in history. We are confronted with a perpetuation of disparities between and within nations, a worsening of poverty, hunger, ill health and illiteracy, and the continuing deterioration of the ecosystems on which we depend for our well-being. However, integration of environment and development concerns and greater attention to them will lead to the fulfilment of basic needs, improved living standards for all, better protected and managed ecosystems and a safer, more prosperous future. No nation can achieve this on its own; but together we can - in a global partnership for sustainable development.
1.2. This global partnership must build on the premises of General Assembly resolution 44/228 of 22 December 1989, which was adopted when the nations of the world called for the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, and on the acceptance of the need to take a balanced and integrated approach to environment and development questions.
1.3. Agenda 21 addresses the pressing problems of today and also aims at preparing the world for the challenges of the next century. It reflects a global consensus and political commitment at the highest level on development and environment cooperation. Its successful implementation is first and foremost the responsibility of Governments. National strategies, plans, policies and processes are crucial in achieving this. International cooperation should support and supplement such national efforts. In this context, the United Nations system has a key role to play. Other international, regional and subregional organizations are also called upon to contribute to this effort. The broadest public participation and the active involvement of the non-governmental organizations and other groups should also be encouraged.
1.4. The developmental and environmental objectives of Agenda 21 will require a substantial flow of new and additional financial resources to developing countries, in order to cover the incremental costs for the actions they have to undertake to deal with global environmental problems and to accelerate sustainable development. Financial resources are also required for strengthening the capacity of international institutions for the implementation of Agenda 21.
1.5. In the implementation of the relevant programme areas identified in Agenda 21, special attention should be given to the particular circumstances facing the economies in transition. It must also be recognized that these countries are facing unprecedented challenges in transforming their economies, in some cases in the midst of considerable social and political tension.
1.6. The programme areas that constitute Agenda 21 are described in terms of the basis for action, objectives, activities and means of implementation. Agenda 21 is a dynamic programme. It will be carried out by the various actors according to the different situations, capacities and priorities of countries and regions in full respect of all the principles contained in the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development. It could evolve over time in the light of changing needs and circumstances. This process marks the beginning of a new global partnership for sustainable development.
Like many ‘green movement initiatives’ Agenda 21 is a ‘wolf in sheep’s clothing’. As explained in my brief biography I have been actively involved in preparing Agenda 21 action plans and monitoring compliance with environmental permits. All the policies and plans we developed were required to begin with a description of how they met the objectives of Agenda 21 and various other UN agreements, and were audited too determine how they complied with UN requirements. It was these experiences that lead to my research into what was ‘behind it all’ and the subsequent publication of this website.
Agenda 21 is not an environmental management policy, but an attempt to impose a global centrally planned quasi-government administered by the United Nations. Under Agenda 21 all central government and local authority signatories are required to conform strictly to a common prescribed standard and hence this is just communism resurrected in a new guise. Now that Agenda 21 has gained a stranglehold on global regulatory and planning processes Maurice Strong and his Club of Rome colleagues have moved on to the next phase of the Global Green Agenda.
In association with fellow CoR member Mikhail Gorbachev, Strong co-chaired the committee responsible for drafting the Earth Charter. Compared to the 2500 pages that make up Agenda 21 and the BGA it is a tiny document – only 4 pages long. But it is of far more significance to the Global Green Agenda. The Earth Charter is a “declaration of fundamental principles for building a just, sustainable, and peaceful global society in the 21st century”. It is the constitution for a New Green Order. You can read about it
here.
.
.
Source: http://www.wiseupjournal.com/?p=475
.
Never on Sunday!
On a Sun-day? Dies Solis?
All this news on a "slow news day"?
That's way too much distraction for a day such as this?
I'm overwhelmed by the amount of conflicting headlines that coincide with the "pivotal" day for the Health Care Overhaul. This is no accident. We are experiencing a coordinated information overload week-end. All of the sudden it's as if the whole face is full of pimples, and all at once they are coming to a head, ready to burst.
Why would there be an incident where racial slurs were used to refer to black activists, yesterday in the capital? Why were there anti homosexual epithets used against Barney Frank during the same "confrontation"?
Nuns have come out of the wood work to disagree with the U.S. Conference of Bishops about abortions included in the Health Care Overhaul legislation. Now that adds a new dimension to the distorted big picture that Washington D.C. has become for this "key" week-end.
Just what are these Catholic clericals doing in the headlines? Are we in Brazil or Mejico, now? Is this now a Catholic country? (Pelosi praying to St. Joseph on Friday, etc.) I guess we have become a third world country. When Catholic priests and nuns are considered part of the government; It's a banana republic. Viva the district of Columbia!
I'm Hispanic; But, what are illegal aliens and their defenders doing protesting? Especially on a day like today? Are they crazy or did someone put them up to this? ACORN might be gone, but, la republica banana is alive and well.
What's this? Gimme' a green card, or you life? In your face demands for residence cards?
I can understand why the Tea Partiers are demonstrating ; But what are illegal aliens doing in Washington demonstrating? At the Capitol building?
On top of all these abnormal circumstances we have Bernanke the Fed Chair with his 2 cents, and the IMF urging countries to use financial discretion. What are these people doing talking complex money issues on a Sunday? By the way Bernake is not a federal employee; the Fed is as federal as Federal Express.
Lastly, Obama has come out with a Executive Order on abortions. An executive order at the 11th hour? Is this to cater to the Nuns? This is beginning to look more serious than meets the eye. I'm not for abortions, however, Rowe vs. Wade will be swept away by a stroke of the president's left hand?
All these strange machinations and coincidences are very troubling.
The only thing that was missing from this strange week-end in Washington was Tiger Woods having a press conference on the Capitol steps...
This working week-end for Health Care Overhaul is overwhelmingly suspicious to me.
How about all the back-room democrat only maneuvering? This isn't democratic!
This is a humongous power grab that frankly concerns most Americans that care about their freedom.
This is the strangest day I've ever seen in the political arena; This may be the wave of the future: Working 7 days a week until the prez passes an executive order giving people a day off.
Arsenio.
Here are the headlines I'm referring to:
Tens of thousands rally for immigration reform in DC
Washington Post - 1 hour ago
By NC Aizenman Tens of thousands of immigrants and their supporters from across the United States packed the National Mall Sunday in a last-ditch effort to spur Congress and the White House to overhaul the nation's immigration system and offer the ...
Washington Post - 1 hour ago
By NC Aizenman Tens of thousands of immigrants and their supporters from across the United States packed the National Mall Sunday in a last-ditch effort to spur Congress and the White House to overhaul the nation's immigration system and offer the ...
.
Tea Party Leader Condemns Racial Slurs Hurled at Black Lawmakers
FOXNews - Chad Pergram, Caroline Shively - 9 hours ago
Republican National Chairman Michael Steele and one of the organizers of Saturday's Tea Party rally strongly condemned the racial slurs that some black lawmakers alleged were yelled at them by some health care protesters as they headed for a procedural ...
FOXNews - Chad Pergram, Caroline Shively - 9 hours ago
Republican National Chairman Michael Steele and one of the organizers of Saturday's Tea Party rally strongly condemned the racial slurs that some black lawmakers alleged were yelled at them by some health care protesters as they headed for a procedural ...
.
Catholic healthcare scoreboard: Nuns and laity 2, bishops 0
Salon - Mary Ann Sorrentino - 34 minutes ago
Bishops have fought healthcare reform. Nuns have backed it. Once again, it's the women who are showing the way. By Mary Ann Sorrentino Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.
..Salon - Mary Ann Sorrentino - 34 minutes ago
Bishops have fought healthcare reform. Nuns have backed it. Once again, it's the women who are showing the way. By Mary Ann Sorrentino Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.
Bernanke Says Large Bank Bailouts 'Unconscionable,' Must End
BusinessWeek - Steve Matthews, Phil Mattingly - 18 hours ago
March 21 (Bloomberg) -- Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke said government bailouts of big financial companies are “unconscionable” and must be ended as part of a regulatory overhaul following the worst ...
..BusinessWeek - Steve Matthews, Phil Mattingly - 18 hours ago
March 21 (Bloomberg) -- Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke said government bailouts of big financial companies are “unconscionable” and must be ended as part of a regulatory overhaul following the worst ...
IMF Urges Advanced Economies to Pare Deficits and Debt
Wall Street Journal - Terence Poon - 36 minutes ago
BEIJING—The International Monetary Fund on Sunday urged countries, particularly those with advanced economies, to pare their fiscal deficits and debt to prudent levels by carrying out pension and health entitlement reforms.
.Wall Street Journal - Terence Poon - 36 minutes ago
BEIJING—The International Monetary Fund on Sunday urged countries, particularly those with advanced economies, to pare their fiscal deficits and debt to prudent levels by carrying out pension and health entitlement reforms.
Text of the Executive Order on Abortion
Atlantic Online - 2 hours ago
Following the recent passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act ("the Act"), it is necessary to establish an adequate enforcement mechanism to ensure that Federal funds are not used for abortion services (except in cases of rape or ...
.
Atlantic Online - 2 hours ago
Following the recent passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act ("the Act"), it is necessary to establish an adequate enforcement mechanism to ensure that Federal funds are not used for abortion services (except in cases of rape or ...
.
The Vatican's Open But False Policy:
The Vatican's Open But False Policy:
The Vatican openly opposes, not only abortion, but contraception of every kind. At least for "heretical" Protestant and "liberal" Catholic America, this is the open but FALSE policy of the Vatican.
The Vatican's Secret But True Policy:
The Vatican's secret but TRUE policy for "heretical" Protestant and "liberal" Catholic America is to put on a good show, but in the end, to make sure that taxpayer funded abortion continues in this country, at least until Trentine Catholicism becomes the official State Religion.
In the meantime, for as long as America still allows religious freedom, the abortion issue is just a way to separate people from their money, much of which, I believe, is funneled off to finance other Catholic endeavors, such as the ecumenical movement and Catholic political campaigns. It also draws anti-abortion evangelicals into unity with the Roman Catholic cult, thus strengthening the Roman Catholic cult and its power and influence while destroying Protestantism. What this article depicts is an "apparent" departure of the nuns and bishops from the Vatican's open but FALSE policy on abortion. In actuality, they are supporting the secret but TRUE policy of the Vatican for continued taxpayer funded abortion for America.
What we are seeing is a Jesuit orchestrated Hegelian dialectic at work. In this Hegelian dialectic, the Jesuits, as always, are operating on both sides and controlling the debate so as to achieve the desired outcome consistent with the secret but true policy of the Vatican for "heretical" and "liberal" America. And the outcome will be continued legalized government funded abortion for the purpose of reducing the heretical Protestant and Liberal Catholic populations who practice birth control, and thus, destroying the growth of Protestantism and Liberalism. Remember, Trentine Catholics obey their priests and breed like bunnies. Its all about demographics. But that's only the small stuff.
The REAL military coup for the Jesuits in this whole process is to put the entire healthcare and insurance industries, the biggest "monied" systems in the country, under the complete control of the Jesuit educated Trentine Catholics running our Federal government. The purpose of that is so that our Jesuit educated Trentine Catholic government can use the healthcare system to impose a medical Inquisition against non-ecumenical Bible believing Christians and other groups who will never bow to the Pope. Those who won't join the Pope's New World Order for America will be denied healthcare. They will die without the use of the gallows or the racks or the stakes and fagots and flames. The Inquisition is launched and nobody recognizes it for what it is or who's behind it.
And by controlling the biggest "monied" industries in the country, healthcare and insurance, our Jesuit educated Trentine Catholic government can appropriate the incalculable financial resources now under their control, not to increase healthcare availability or quality, but to finance Papal Proxy wars around the world to achieve global control for the Pope. And all this is being accomplished while everybody is busy arguing about and focusing on abortion. And all this is being accomplished while it appears that Catholics are divided on this issue. Why are these Catholics being allowed to defy the Pope's open but false policy?
They are being used, not only to achieve all the previously disclosed objectives of the Papacy, but through their "apparent" rebellion against their hierarchy, which is conveniently being tolerated by Rome, they also lend to the Vatican plausible deniability as the mastermind of it all. This apparent Catholic division alone makes it virtually impossible for blind, deaf, and dumb Protestants to perceive the Vatican as the principal orchestrator of all this. This apparent Catholic division that is allowed to continue actually creates plausible deniability for the Antichrist Pope. And if it weren't for the Bible, NOBODY would comprehend this!
It was God's Word that taught me who the Antichrist is. And only those who possess that knowledge even have a chance to figure all this out. And history confirms the Bible. The Protestant churches have failed to correctly teach God's Word. Our schools have failed to teach us true history that confirms the Bible. God's people just don't read or understand their Bibles nor history! God's people still don't know who the Antichrist is nor how he operates in the world after 2000 years. We have soundly rejected knowledge. So God is rejecting us. Protestantism is dead and ecumenism is alive and well. So Protestant America will be destroyed!
Right before a nation full of sleepy apostate Protestant eyes, the Jesuit led Counter Reformation is charging full steam ahead and there isn't a handful of God's people that even see it, nor will the vast majority of them ever believe it even when it is shown to them. That's what the ecumenical movement and the Jesuit trained seminarians and the Freemasonic ecumenical evangelical pastors have done to us. And when the smoke finally clears, Rome will be in complete and total control and will never even be a suspect in this crime! Only Satan himself could accomplish this, and he does it through his Sorcerers, the Jesuit priests in America and the Popes in Rome.
While all these distractions are going on, the REAL issues of importance for America is to repent of this ecumenical movement that is diabolically designed to unite us back to the Roman Catholic cult. Then we must repent of all the pagan Roman/Babylonian traditions (Sunday, Christmas, Easter etc) that provoke God to anger and that Protestants inexplicably continued to practice after they left the Roman Catholic cult in the 16th century. How these Babylonian abominations survived the Protestant Reformation and the succeeding centuries is beyond all comprehension. Then we must restore God's Holy Law and obey it! Then we must put the government back into it's box and force it to abide by the limits and controls set upon it by the Constitution and God's Holy Law. We must forever separate church and state by complying with Christ when He said, "render unto Caesar the things that are Caesars, and unto God the things that are God's". We must remember that, "The earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof"! Where does that leave Caesar? To be God's servant and that is all! In compliance with Christ's command, we then must make our government, Caesar, be what it was always supposed to be, a servant of the people for good, not the other way around. And then, the people must become sovereign again under God's Holy Law, NOT under the Antichrist Pope's Canon Law. See how far they have distracted us from the only issues that even matter?
We all must quickly learn to recognize Rome's duplicitous and enslaving strategies and see them for what they are. If not, then we will continue to be deceived and distracted and confused while Rome achieves her objectives of consolidating her power and controlling our government behind the scenes and secretly putting us further and further under the man-made authority of the Pope and Canon Law. Romes secret but TRUE aim in all of this is to establish total Vatican control of America through a Trentine type Catholic government and a persecuting State run church. And in the meantime use the American people and the U.S. military to force the rest of the world to follow her example in creating a global Papal government over all nations. That's the New World Order. The abortion debate is only one of the many means to achieve that end and it is VERY successful.
Never forget that Rome regards our Protestant government as a de facto (rebellious/illegitimate/heretical) government that needs to be overthrown and returned to the control of Satan's man, the Pope, who claims Divine right to rule the world and to extirpate "heresy" (God's True People) from off the planet. Rome regards Protestantism, the majority religious group in America, as "heretical" that must be extirpated and annihilated as per the decrees of the bloody Counter Reformation Council of Trent. Rome wants America to become exclusively Catholic of the Trentine kind. Until that day comes, abortion will be allowed and secretly promoted by the Vatican for America.
Rome hates Protestantism and doesn't want Protestants to breed and multiply, increasing the only true threat that Rome has ever experienced in history, the Protestant Reformation armed with the Sword of the Spirit, the Word of God; the only weapon in the universe against which Satan and the Pope have no defense. At all cost, the Bible, God's Holy Law, and Bible Protestantism must be destroyed and be replaced by the Pope and Canon Law. And if Bible believing Protestants, the only force on earth that can stop this Papal New World Order, are willing to destroy themselves through reading perverted Bible versions and practicing every form of birth control, including abortion, the Vatican supports abortion in spite of all her public rhetoric to the contrary.
Rome's secret but true policy is the same for a majority of Catholics in this country, who Rome has damned as "liberals" and "schismatics". These are the Vatican II "Liberal" Catholics who are secretly despised by the Vatican and the Trentine Catholics. The only Catholics that the Pope loves in this country are the minority elite, traditionalist, Latin Rite, murderously persecuting, Council of Trent type of Catholics. These are the ones who Rome finances and promotes through her 28 Jesuit Universities to occupy the highest political offices in our Jesuit controlled executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government and the military and the CIA and the NSA and countless other American institutions, not to mention all secret societies and Jesuit Sodalities. If I listed them all here, this already too lengthy e-mail would be a book.
When Rome's Jesuit educated Trentine power elite is finally consolidated in all three branches, we will have a bloody and ruthless Papal dictatorship. Then, with a single word from the Pope, America instantly becomes Trentine Catholic and begins extirpating "heretics" and "liberals", Protestants and Liberal Catholics. That's the coming Inquisition that I talk about all the time.
Until that day comes, liberal Catholic and heretical Protestant America will remain the second beast of Revelation 13, ignorantly and brutishly pulling the Pope's plow and fighting and dying in Papal Proxy wars to bring the rest of the world to the feet of the Pope by force of war. No greater victory does the Pope ever enjoy than to pit heretical and liberal America against other foreign heretical nations opposed to Rome and the Pope's New World Order. This is what I hope to wake up Americans, both, Catholic and Protestants, to realize.
Once one begins to understand the open but false policies of Rome, in contrast to her secret but true policies, then one begins to realize that the press is totally controlled and most articles on the abortion issue are only used as a distraction from reality. If this world ever begins to comprehend Rome, she would be destroyed in a day. The entire world would be turned against her in a moment and then receive Christ and be saved. At all cost, every means must be employed to paint the Vatican is a peacemaker and a moral and temporal ruler of global benevolence. Never must she ever be perceived for what she truly is: The Whore of Revelation 17 riding and guiding this bloody and sinful scarlet colored persecuting beast called America. She truly is Mystery, Babylon the Great, Mother of Harlots and Abominations of the Earth.
Pass this around if you like.
Tom Friess
Inquisition Update
.
.
Source: http://inquisitionupdate.org/
.
Pharisees
Pharisees
{fair' - i - seez}
General Information
The Pharisees were a major Jewish sect from the 2d century BC to the 2d century AD. The seeds of Pharisaism were planted during the Babylonian Captivity (587 - 536 BC), and a clearly defined party emerged during the revolt of the Maccabees (167 - 165 BC) against the Seleucid rulers of Syria - Palestine. The origin of the name Pharisees is uncertain; one suggestion renders it as "those separated," meaning separation from impurity and defilement. The name first appeared during the reign of John Hyrcanus (135 - 105 BC), whom the Pharisees opposed because of his assumption of both the royal and high - priestly titles and because of the general secularism of the court.
The Pharisees' chief rival sect was the Sadducees. Whereas the Sadducees were drawn mainly from the conservative and aristocratic priestly class, the Pharisees tended to be middle class and open to religious innovation. In the interpretation of the law the Pharisees differed from the Sadducees in their use of oral legal tradition to supplement the Torah, although their interpretations, once given, were scrupulously adhered to. Pharisaic emphasis on divine providence led to a marked fatalism, and they adopted a belief in resurrection and an elaborate angelology, all of which was rejected by the Sadducees. The struggle for power between the two groups led to rancor and, in some cases, violence.
In the New Testament the Pharisees appear as Jesus' most vocal critics. Their insistence on ritual observance of the letter rather than the spirit of the law evoked strong denunciation by Jesus; he called them "white washed tombs" (Matt. 23:27) and self - righteous lovers of display (Matt. 6:1 - 6, 16 - 18). The Pharisees are portrayed as plotting to destroy Jesus (Matt. 12:14), although they do not figure in the accounts of his arrest and trial. Despite Jesus' attacks on the Pharisees - which were possibly on unrepresentative members of the sect - he shared many beliefs with them, including the resurrection of the dead.
The Pharisees held the Jews together after the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD. The sect continued into the 2d century, working on the redaction of the Talmud and looking for the restoration of Israel through divine intervention.
Douglas Ezell
Bibliography
I Abrahams, Studies in Pharisees and the Gospels (1917 - 24); A Finkel, The Pharisees and the Teacher of Nazareth (1964); L Finkelstein, The Pharisees: The Sociological Background of Their Faith (1962); D S Russell, Between the Testaments (1960).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pharisees
Advanced Information
The Pharisees were an important Jewish group which flourished in Palestine from the late second century B.C. to the late first century A.D.
Sources
Virtually all our knowledge about the Pharisees is derived from three sets of sources: the works of the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, The Jewish War (ca. A.D. 75), The Antiquities of the Jews (ca. A.D. 94), and Life (ca. A.D. 101); the various compilations of the rabbis (ca. A.D. 200 and later); and the NT. Other works, parts of the Apocrypha, the Pseudepigrapha, or the Dead Sea Scrolls, may also contain information concerning the Pharisees. But since the Pharisees are never explicitly mentioned in these works, their use in constructing a picture of the Pharisees is heavily dependent on prior assumptions which are at best speculative.
It should be noted, however, that even the use of the explicit sources is problematical. Most of the NT is written from a point of view that is antagonistic to the tenets of Pharisaism. The rabbinic traditions about the Pharisees are also shaped by polemical forces and are often anachronistic. The value of Josephus's information (traditionally regarded as the most helpful) is diminished by recent studies which suggest that Josephus was not a Pharisee before A.D. 70 and that his eventual conversion was motivated more by political realities than by careful study of the different Jewish sects. It certainly cannot be denied that Josephus's descriptions of the Pharisees are superficial. In short, therefore, our sources provide neither a complete nor a straightforward picture of the Pharisees.
Name
Various etymologies have been proposed for the name "Pharisee." The only one to receive general approval is that which derives the name from the Aramaic passive participle peris, perisayya, meaning "separated." The consensus is that the Pharisees regarded themselves, or were regarded, as the "separated ones." From what or whom they were separated is not as clear. The Hasmonean rulers, the Gentiles, the common people, and non-Pharisaic Jews in general have all been suggested as possibilities. Present evidence seems to favor the last two options.
Nature and Influence
The fundamental issue in Pharisaic studies is the twofold question of the nature of the group and its influence within broader Judaism. Two basic positions have been taken on this question. The traditional view holds that the Pharisees were the creators and shapers of late second temple Judaism. They were not so much a sect as a dominant party within Judaism. According to the traditional view, although not all Pharisees were legal experts, Pharisaism was the ideology of the vast majority of the scribes and lawyers. Thus, as a group the Pharisees were the guardians and interpreters of the law. Jewish institutions associated with the law, such as the synagogue and the Sanhedrin, were Pharisaic institutions. While disagreeing over whether the Pharisees were primarily politically or religiously oriented, proponents of the traditional view agree that the Pharisees commanded the loyalty of the masses in both spheres. Indeed, most proponents of the traditional view would accept Elias Bickerman's dictum: "Judaism of the post-Maccabean period is Pharisaic."
The second point of view is a relatively recent development. Proponents of this position argue that when the inherent limitations and tendencies of our sources are taken into account, the Pharisees come across not as the creators and shapers of Judaism but merely as one of its many expressions. In essence, according to this view, the Pharisees were a rather tightly knit sect organized around the observance of purity and tithing laws; on most other issues the Pharisees reflected the range of views present within Judaism. Since Josephus and the Gospels carefully distinguish between the Pharisees and the scribes, scholars of this persuasion argue that it is better not to confuse Pharisaism with the ideology of the scribes. Pharisaism must be seen as a movement which drew from all walks of life. There were Pharisees who were political and religious leaders, but their positions of influence were due to other factors besides sectarian affiliation. Proponents of this second view posit that the Judaism of Christ's day was much more dynamic and variegated than the traditional view allows and that the Pharisees were only one of several sects that influenced the development of Judaism.
Of course, not all scholars subscribe to one of these two views; many hold mediating positions. Nevertheless, these two views constitute the foundations upon which the modern study of Pharisaism is based.
History
The origin of the Pharisaic movement is shrouded in mystery. According to Josephus, the Pharisees first became a significant force in Jewish affairs during the reign of Hyrcanus I (134-104 B.C.). In an earlier work, however, Josephus places the rise of the Pharisees much later, during the reign of Salome Alexandra (76-67 B.C.). Some scholars who view the Pharisees as the shapers of late second temple Judaism have sought to trace the beginnings of the group back to the time of Ezra and beyond. But such reconstructions are speculative at best. It is more likely that the Pharisees were one of several groups to grow out of the revival and resistance movement of the Maccabean period (ca. 166-160 B.C.).
Whatever its origins, the Pharisaic movement seems to have undergone a two-stage development. During the reign of Salome Alexandra the Pharisees as a group were heavily involved in politics and national policy making. Sometime after this, possibly when Herod the Great rose to power (37 B.C.), the Pharisees withdrew from politics. Individual Pharisees remained politically involved, but there was no longer any official Pharisaic political agenda. This seems to have been the situation during the time of Christ.
The Pharisees were divided over the issue of Roman rule. Josephus tells us that a Pharisee named Zaddok was instrumental in forming a "fourth philosophy" which was violently opposed to Roman rule. Elsewhere, however, Josephus records that at a later time certain well-placed Pharisees sought to forestall the Jews' rush toward revolt against the empire. It is impossible to tell which tendency reflected the conviction of the majority of the Pharisees.
After the Jewish revolt of A.D. 70 many scholars with Pharisaic leanings gathered at the city of Jamnia to form a school for the preservation and redefinition of Judaism. There is evidence that the Jamnia school was not exclusively Pharisaic. Nevertheless, it can be safely said that the Pharisees were the single most powerful sectarian element at Jamnia. Thus they played an important role at the beginning of the century-long process which transformed second temple Judaism into rabbinic Judaism.
Beliefs
The Pharisees were strongly committed to the daily application and observance of the law. This means they accepted the traditional elaborations of the law which made daily application possible. They believed, moreover, in the existence of spirits and angels, the resurrection, and the coming of a Messiah. They also maintained that the human will enjoyed a limited freedom within the sovereign plan of God.
Yet there is little evidence to suggest that these were distinctively Pharisaic beliefs. To the best of our knowledge these beliefs were the common heritage of most Jews. To some scholars this fact is proof that the Pharisees were the dominant religious force in Judaism; to others it is only another indication that the Pharisees' distinguishing mark was nothing but the scrupulous observance of purity and tithing laws.
The Pharisees and Jesus
The NT does not present a simple picture of the relationship between the Pharisees and Jesus. Pharisees warn Jesus of a plot against his life (Luke 13:31); in spite of their dietary scruples they invite him for meals (Luke 7:36-50; 14:1); some of them even believe in Jesus (John 3:1; 7:45-53; 9:13-38); later, Pharisees are instrumental in ensuring the survival of Jesus' followers (Acts 5:34; 23:6-9).
Nevertheless, Pharisaic opposition to Jesus is a persistent theme in all four Gospels. This opposition has been explained differently by those who hold differing views on the nature and influence of the Pharisees. Those who see the Pharisees as a class of political leaders posit that Jesus came to be understood as a political liability or threat. Those who understand the Pharisees as a society of legal and religious experts suggest that Jesus became viewed as a dangerous rival, a false teacher with antinomian tendencies. To the extent that there were Pharisaic leaders and scribes, both these factors probably played a part. Yet other scholars point out that according to the Gospels the disputes between Jesus and the Pharisees centered primarily on the validity and application of purity, tithing, and sabbath laws (e.g., Matt. 12:2, 12-14; 15:1-12; Mark 2:16; Luke 11:39-42). In the light of this evidence it would seem that at least part of the Pharisaic opposition to Jesus was occasioned by the obvious disparity between Jesus' claims about himself and his disregard for observances regarded by the Pharisees as necessary marks of piety. In the end, the Pharisees could not reconcile Jesus, his actions and his claims, with their own understanding of piety and godliness.
S Taylor
(Elwell Evangelical Dictionary)
Bibliography
J. Bowker, Jesus and the Pharisees; E. Rivkin, "Defining the Pharisees; The Tannaitic Sources," HUCA 40-41:205-49, and A Hidden Revolution; L. Finkelstein, The Pharisees: The Sociological Background of Their Faith, 2 vols.; R. T. Herford, The Pharisees; E. Schurer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ; H. D. Mantel, "The Sadducees and the Pharisees," in The World History of the Jewish People, VIII; M. Avi-Yonah and Z. Baras, eds., Society and Religion in the Second Temple Period; J. Neusner, From Politics to Piety: The Emergence of Pharisaic Judaism.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pharisees
Advanced Information
The Pharisees were separatists (Heb. persahin, from parash, "to separate"). They were probably the successors of the Assideans (i.e., the "pious"), a party that originated in the time of Antiochus Epiphanes in revolt against his heathenizing policy. The first mention of them is in a description by Josephus of the three sects or schools into which the Jews were divided (B.C. 145). The other two sects were the Essenes and the Sadducees. In the time of our Lord they were the popular party (John 7:48). They were extremely accurate and minute in all matters appertaining to the law of Moses (Matt. 9:14; 23:15; Luke 11:39; 18:12). Paul, when brought before the council of Jerusalem, professed himself a Pharisee (Acts 23:6-8; 26:4, 5).
There was much that was sound in their creed, yet their system of religion was a form and nothing more. Theirs was a very lax morality (Matt. 5:20; 15:4, 8; 23:3, 14, 23, 25; John 8:7). On the first notice of them in the New Testament (Matt. 3:7), they are ranked by our Lord with the Sadducees as a "generation of vipers." They were noted for their self-righteousness and their pride (Matt. 9:11; Luke 7: 39; 18: 11, 12). They were frequently rebuked by our Lord (Matt. 12:39; 16:1-4). From the very beginning of his ministry the Pharisees showed themselves bitter and persistent enemies of our Lord. They could not bear his doctrines, and they sought by every means to destroy his influence among the people.
(Easton Illustrated Dictionary)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also, see: (Advanced) Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The individual articles presented here were generally first published in the early 1980s. This subject presentation was first placed on the Internet in May 1997.
This page - - Pharisees - - is at http://mb-soft.com/believe/txc/pharisee.htm
This subject presentation was last updated on 01/27/2010 21:56:41
{fair' - i - seez}
General Information
The Pharisees were a major Jewish sect from the 2d century BC to the 2d century AD. The seeds of Pharisaism were planted during the Babylonian Captivity (587 - 536 BC), and a clearly defined party emerged during the revolt of the Maccabees (167 - 165 BC) against the Seleucid rulers of Syria - Palestine. The origin of the name Pharisees is uncertain; one suggestion renders it as "those separated," meaning separation from impurity and defilement. The name first appeared during the reign of John Hyrcanus (135 - 105 BC), whom the Pharisees opposed because of his assumption of both the royal and high - priestly titles and because of the general secularism of the court.
The Pharisees' chief rival sect was the Sadducees. Whereas the Sadducees were drawn mainly from the conservative and aristocratic priestly class, the Pharisees tended to be middle class and open to religious innovation. In the interpretation of the law the Pharisees differed from the Sadducees in their use of oral legal tradition to supplement the Torah, although their interpretations, once given, were scrupulously adhered to. Pharisaic emphasis on divine providence led to a marked fatalism, and they adopted a belief in resurrection and an elaborate angelology, all of which was rejected by the Sadducees. The struggle for power between the two groups led to rancor and, in some cases, violence.
In the New Testament the Pharisees appear as Jesus' most vocal critics. Their insistence on ritual observance of the letter rather than the spirit of the law evoked strong denunciation by Jesus; he called them "white washed tombs" (Matt. 23:27) and self - righteous lovers of display (Matt. 6:1 - 6, 16 - 18). The Pharisees are portrayed as plotting to destroy Jesus (Matt. 12:14), although they do not figure in the accounts of his arrest and trial. Despite Jesus' attacks on the Pharisees - which were possibly on unrepresentative members of the sect - he shared many beliefs with them, including the resurrection of the dead.
The Pharisees held the Jews together after the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD. The sect continued into the 2d century, working on the redaction of the Talmud and looking for the restoration of Israel through divine intervention.
Douglas Ezell
Bibliography
I Abrahams, Studies in Pharisees and the Gospels (1917 - 24); A Finkel, The Pharisees and the Teacher of Nazareth (1964); L Finkelstein, The Pharisees: The Sociological Background of Their Faith (1962); D S Russell, Between the Testaments (1960).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pharisees
Advanced Information
The Pharisees were an important Jewish group which flourished in Palestine from the late second century B.C. to the late first century A.D.
Sources
Virtually all our knowledge about the Pharisees is derived from three sets of sources: the works of the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, The Jewish War (ca. A.D. 75), The Antiquities of the Jews (ca. A.D. 94), and Life (ca. A.D. 101); the various compilations of the rabbis (ca. A.D. 200 and later); and the NT. Other works, parts of the Apocrypha, the Pseudepigrapha, or the Dead Sea Scrolls, may also contain information concerning the Pharisees. But since the Pharisees are never explicitly mentioned in these works, their use in constructing a picture of the Pharisees is heavily dependent on prior assumptions which are at best speculative.
It should be noted, however, that even the use of the explicit sources is problematical. Most of the NT is written from a point of view that is antagonistic to the tenets of Pharisaism. The rabbinic traditions about the Pharisees are also shaped by polemical forces and are often anachronistic. The value of Josephus's information (traditionally regarded as the most helpful) is diminished by recent studies which suggest that Josephus was not a Pharisee before A.D. 70 and that his eventual conversion was motivated more by political realities than by careful study of the different Jewish sects. It certainly cannot be denied that Josephus's descriptions of the Pharisees are superficial. In short, therefore, our sources provide neither a complete nor a straightforward picture of the Pharisees.
Name
Various etymologies have been proposed for the name "Pharisee." The only one to receive general approval is that which derives the name from the Aramaic passive participle peris, perisayya, meaning "separated." The consensus is that the Pharisees regarded themselves, or were regarded, as the "separated ones." From what or whom they were separated is not as clear. The Hasmonean rulers, the Gentiles, the common people, and non-Pharisaic Jews in general have all been suggested as possibilities. Present evidence seems to favor the last two options.
Nature and Influence
The fundamental issue in Pharisaic studies is the twofold question of the nature of the group and its influence within broader Judaism. Two basic positions have been taken on this question. The traditional view holds that the Pharisees were the creators and shapers of late second temple Judaism. They were not so much a sect as a dominant party within Judaism. According to the traditional view, although not all Pharisees were legal experts, Pharisaism was the ideology of the vast majority of the scribes and lawyers. Thus, as a group the Pharisees were the guardians and interpreters of the law. Jewish institutions associated with the law, such as the synagogue and the Sanhedrin, were Pharisaic institutions. While disagreeing over whether the Pharisees were primarily politically or religiously oriented, proponents of the traditional view agree that the Pharisees commanded the loyalty of the masses in both spheres. Indeed, most proponents of the traditional view would accept Elias Bickerman's dictum: "Judaism of the post-Maccabean period is Pharisaic."
The second point of view is a relatively recent development. Proponents of this position argue that when the inherent limitations and tendencies of our sources are taken into account, the Pharisees come across not as the creators and shapers of Judaism but merely as one of its many expressions. In essence, according to this view, the Pharisees were a rather tightly knit sect organized around the observance of purity and tithing laws; on most other issues the Pharisees reflected the range of views present within Judaism. Since Josephus and the Gospels carefully distinguish between the Pharisees and the scribes, scholars of this persuasion argue that it is better not to confuse Pharisaism with the ideology of the scribes. Pharisaism must be seen as a movement which drew from all walks of life. There were Pharisees who were political and religious leaders, but their positions of influence were due to other factors besides sectarian affiliation. Proponents of this second view posit that the Judaism of Christ's day was much more dynamic and variegated than the traditional view allows and that the Pharisees were only one of several sects that influenced the development of Judaism.
Of course, not all scholars subscribe to one of these two views; many hold mediating positions. Nevertheless, these two views constitute the foundations upon which the modern study of Pharisaism is based.
History
The origin of the Pharisaic movement is shrouded in mystery. According to Josephus, the Pharisees first became a significant force in Jewish affairs during the reign of Hyrcanus I (134-104 B.C.). In an earlier work, however, Josephus places the rise of the Pharisees much later, during the reign of Salome Alexandra (76-67 B.C.). Some scholars who view the Pharisees as the shapers of late second temple Judaism have sought to trace the beginnings of the group back to the time of Ezra and beyond. But such reconstructions are speculative at best. It is more likely that the Pharisees were one of several groups to grow out of the revival and resistance movement of the Maccabean period (ca. 166-160 B.C.).
Whatever its origins, the Pharisaic movement seems to have undergone a two-stage development. During the reign of Salome Alexandra the Pharisees as a group were heavily involved in politics and national policy making. Sometime after this, possibly when Herod the Great rose to power (37 B.C.), the Pharisees withdrew from politics. Individual Pharisees remained politically involved, but there was no longer any official Pharisaic political agenda. This seems to have been the situation during the time of Christ.
The Pharisees were divided over the issue of Roman rule. Josephus tells us that a Pharisee named Zaddok was instrumental in forming a "fourth philosophy" which was violently opposed to Roman rule. Elsewhere, however, Josephus records that at a later time certain well-placed Pharisees sought to forestall the Jews' rush toward revolt against the empire. It is impossible to tell which tendency reflected the conviction of the majority of the Pharisees.
After the Jewish revolt of A.D. 70 many scholars with Pharisaic leanings gathered at the city of Jamnia to form a school for the preservation and redefinition of Judaism. There is evidence that the Jamnia school was not exclusively Pharisaic. Nevertheless, it can be safely said that the Pharisees were the single most powerful sectarian element at Jamnia. Thus they played an important role at the beginning of the century-long process which transformed second temple Judaism into rabbinic Judaism.
Beliefs
The Pharisees were strongly committed to the daily application and observance of the law. This means they accepted the traditional elaborations of the law which made daily application possible. They believed, moreover, in the existence of spirits and angels, the resurrection, and the coming of a Messiah. They also maintained that the human will enjoyed a limited freedom within the sovereign plan of God.
Yet there is little evidence to suggest that these were distinctively Pharisaic beliefs. To the best of our knowledge these beliefs were the common heritage of most Jews. To some scholars this fact is proof that the Pharisees were the dominant religious force in Judaism; to others it is only another indication that the Pharisees' distinguishing mark was nothing but the scrupulous observance of purity and tithing laws.
The Pharisees and Jesus
The NT does not present a simple picture of the relationship between the Pharisees and Jesus. Pharisees warn Jesus of a plot against his life (Luke 13:31); in spite of their dietary scruples they invite him for meals (Luke 7:36-50; 14:1); some of them even believe in Jesus (John 3:1; 7:45-53; 9:13-38); later, Pharisees are instrumental in ensuring the survival of Jesus' followers (Acts 5:34; 23:6-9).
Nevertheless, Pharisaic opposition to Jesus is a persistent theme in all four Gospels. This opposition has been explained differently by those who hold differing views on the nature and influence of the Pharisees. Those who see the Pharisees as a class of political leaders posit that Jesus came to be understood as a political liability or threat. Those who understand the Pharisees as a society of legal and religious experts suggest that Jesus became viewed as a dangerous rival, a false teacher with antinomian tendencies. To the extent that there were Pharisaic leaders and scribes, both these factors probably played a part. Yet other scholars point out that according to the Gospels the disputes between Jesus and the Pharisees centered primarily on the validity and application of purity, tithing, and sabbath laws (e.g., Matt. 12:2, 12-14; 15:1-12; Mark 2:16; Luke 11:39-42). In the light of this evidence it would seem that at least part of the Pharisaic opposition to Jesus was occasioned by the obvious disparity between Jesus' claims about himself and his disregard for observances regarded by the Pharisees as necessary marks of piety. In the end, the Pharisees could not reconcile Jesus, his actions and his claims, with their own understanding of piety and godliness.
S Taylor
(Elwell Evangelical Dictionary)
Bibliography
J. Bowker, Jesus and the Pharisees; E. Rivkin, "Defining the Pharisees; The Tannaitic Sources," HUCA 40-41:205-49, and A Hidden Revolution; L. Finkelstein, The Pharisees: The Sociological Background of Their Faith, 2 vols.; R. T. Herford, The Pharisees; E. Schurer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ; H. D. Mantel, "The Sadducees and the Pharisees," in The World History of the Jewish People, VIII; M. Avi-Yonah and Z. Baras, eds., Society and Religion in the Second Temple Period; J. Neusner, From Politics to Piety: The Emergence of Pharisaic Judaism.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pharisees
Advanced Information
The Pharisees were separatists (Heb. persahin, from parash, "to separate"). They were probably the successors of the Assideans (i.e., the "pious"), a party that originated in the time of Antiochus Epiphanes in revolt against his heathenizing policy. The first mention of them is in a description by Josephus of the three sects or schools into which the Jews were divided (B.C. 145). The other two sects were the Essenes and the Sadducees. In the time of our Lord they were the popular party (John 7:48). They were extremely accurate and minute in all matters appertaining to the law of Moses (Matt. 9:14; 23:15; Luke 11:39; 18:12). Paul, when brought before the council of Jerusalem, professed himself a Pharisee (Acts 23:6-8; 26:4, 5).
There was much that was sound in their creed, yet their system of religion was a form and nothing more. Theirs was a very lax morality (Matt. 5:20; 15:4, 8; 23:3, 14, 23, 25; John 8:7). On the first notice of them in the New Testament (Matt. 3:7), they are ranked by our Lord with the Sadducees as a "generation of vipers." They were noted for their self-righteousness and their pride (Matt. 9:11; Luke 7: 39; 18: 11, 12). They were frequently rebuked by our Lord (Matt. 12:39; 16:1-4). From the very beginning of his ministry the Pharisees showed themselves bitter and persistent enemies of our Lord. They could not bear his doctrines, and they sought by every means to destroy his influence among the people.
(Easton Illustrated Dictionary)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also, see: (Advanced) Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The individual articles presented here were generally first published in the early 1980s. This subject presentation was first placed on the Internet in May 1997.
This page - - Pharisees - - is at http://mb-soft.com/believe/txc/pharisee.htm
This subject presentation was last updated on 01/27/2010 21:56:41
.
"But not during the Passover"
1And it came to pass, when Jesus had finished all these sayings, he said unto his disciples,
2Ye know that after two days is the feast of the passover, and the Son of man is betrayed to be crucified.
3Then assembled together the chief priests, and the scribes, and the elders of the people, unto the palace of the high priest, who was called Caiaphas,
4And consulted that they might take Jesus by subtilty, and kill him.
5But they said, Not on the feast day, lest there be an uproar among the people.
2Ye know that after two days is the feast of the passover, and the Son of man is betrayed to be crucified.
3Then assembled together the chief priests, and the scribes, and the elders of the people, unto the palace of the high priest, who was called Caiaphas,
4And consulted that they might take Jesus by subtilty, and kill him.
5But they said, Not on the feast day, lest there be an uproar among the people.
Matthew 26:1-5.
.
EndrTimes has a New Look

After looking the same way since its beginning in October 2006, Endrtimes has changed to a new template; It has adopted a new appearance. The look has changed, but not the focus or purpose; That will remain the same with the Lord's help. I hope you continue to visit for Bible studies, and the latest prophecy in the news.
.
How do you like the wider page and the new header?
.
Arsenio.
.
Saturday, March 20, 2010
Hundreds evacuated after Iceland volcano erupts
Agence France-Presse
Published: Sunday, March 21, 2010
Reuters Iceland is no stranger to volcanic eruptions, considering the island is relatively young and geologically active. Pictured above is a video grab showing smoke billowing from a volcano on Nov. 4, 2004, ...
REYKJAVIK -- A volcano in the area of the Eyjafallajoekull glacier in southern Iceland erupted early Sunday, forcing more than 500 people in its vicinity to evacuate their homes, authorities said.
"We estimate that no one is in danger in the area but we have started an evacuation plan and between 500 and 600 people are being evacuated" Sigurgeir Gudmundsson of the Icelandic civil protections department told AFP.
RUV public radio reported that three Iceland-bound Icelandair flights, out of Boston, Orlando and Seattle, had been ordered to turn back to the United States.
It said the eruption took place shortly after midnight and that local residents were being evacuated because of the risk of flooding caused by melting glacier waters.
"Ash has already begun to fall in Fljotshlid and people in the surrounding area have reported seeing bright lights emanating from the glacier," RUV said on its website, advising area residents to follow developments closely.
"There is currently no sign of flooding, but it could be imminent according to experts," it added.
"It is not clear exactly where the eruption is taking place but it is being investigated."
A volcano in the area of the Eyjafjallajoekull glacier last erupted in 1821 and 1823.
Agence France-Presse
Published: Sunday, March 21, 2010
Reuters Iceland is no stranger to volcanic eruptions, considering the island is relatively young and geologically active. Pictured above is a video grab showing smoke billowing from a volcano on Nov. 4, 2004, ...
REYKJAVIK -- A volcano in the area of the Eyjafallajoekull glacier in southern Iceland erupted early Sunday, forcing more than 500 people in its vicinity to evacuate their homes, authorities said.
"We estimate that no one is in danger in the area but we have started an evacuation plan and between 500 and 600 people are being evacuated" Sigurgeir Gudmundsson of the Icelandic civil protections department told AFP.
RUV public radio reported that three Iceland-bound Icelandair flights, out of Boston, Orlando and Seattle, had been ordered to turn back to the United States.
It said the eruption took place shortly after midnight and that local residents were being evacuated because of the risk of flooding caused by melting glacier waters.
"Ash has already begun to fall in Fljotshlid and people in the surrounding area have reported seeing bright lights emanating from the glacier," RUV said on its website, advising area residents to follow developments closely.
"There is currently no sign of flooding, but it could be imminent according to experts," it added.
"It is not clear exactly where the eruption is taking place but it is being investigated."
A volcano in the area of the Eyjafjallajoekull glacier last erupted in 1821 and 1823.
Agence France-Presse
.
.
.
The End of Hope and Change
March 19, 2010
The End of Hope and Change
Benjamin Domenech: The Fine Print Doesn't Square With the President's Soaring Rhetoric on Health Care

(CBS/iStockphoto)
Stories
Health Care Special Deals: What's Left In?
Dems Sweeten Health Bill in Final Push
The New Ledger) Benjamin Domenech, a former speechwriter and political appointee at the Department of Health and Human Services, is managing editor of Health Care News.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
President Barack Obama’s final speech before this weekend’s anticipated vote on health care legislation had the same soaring rhetoric he’s been known for, those turns of phrase that sound awfully pretty unless you think about them too hard.
Obama’s speeches are what a speechwriter I knew liked to call “cotton candy communication”-sticky sweet and airy, made for children, comforting to the listener as they hear, but melting away, instantly forgettable. Plus, ingest too much of it and you get sick as a dog.
There was one note in this speech, though, that stuck out by typifying Obama’s views, encapsulating his approach to health care policy, and indicating a disturbing level of desperation in his young presidency.
“In just a few days,” Obama said, referring to the Sunday roll call, “a century-long struggle will culminate in an historic vote.”
Obama likes to cast things in terms of century-long battles. He did so in his State of the Union address, referring to a law considered half that age at most, which prompted a headshake from Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito. But what is prompting him to make this assertion regarding his health care legislation, which dramatically affects an arena of government policy that has not even existed for a hundred years?
There is no conceivable date he could be measuring from, unless he has a strong sense of irony not previously in evidence. Trust-busting Teddy Roosevelt would undoubtedly excoriate the idea of special interests setting the parameters of national reform, with support campaigns from unions and activist shell groups, PhRMA in the room during every significant negotiation, more than a hundred-million dollars in propagandistic ads for legislation which will protect the industry status quo, and the like.
The fact that Obama continues to spend such energy in support of legislation that all reputable independent data suggest will raise premium costs, increase the entitlement burden, destroy hundreds of thousands of jobs, and enforce a dramatic disincentive for success indicates that this is all about politics, not which policies actually work best for the American people.
Over the past week, in backroom conversations with members of Congress, Obama changed his negotiation tone from demanding to desperate. He told progressives that the outcome of the rest of his term depended on what happened on health care, and a member of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus confided to Politico that Obama changed his position on this weekend’s vote by saying “the fate of his presidency” rested on it.
It’s not hard to see why the president would feel this way. The tidal wave of popularity he rode into office has crashed and withdrawn. This week Gallup found, for the first time, that more Americans disapprove of President Obama than approve - a shift made all the more jarring when you consider how little he has achieved in his short tenure in return for so much spent political capital.
Such crumbling popularity would give any politician pause, especially one who has spent most of his political career appearing before cheering crowds who proclaim trust, optimism, and hope for him. Obama’s dedication to passing this spectacularly flawed and unpopular health care bill appears to be based on the assumption that the American people like a winner even if the victory comes at their expense.
Other presidents have made this mistake. Voters may not have memories as long as they once did, but they will remember who this brave new health care world belongs to, and the blame for it will be a palpable political factor in the decades to come.
As the dangerous outcomes of this plan become apparent, Obama may well come to regret this moment when he chose political expediency over what’s right for the nation. When historians judge this presidency they may well point to this moment as signaling the end of Obama’s cotton candy storyline of “the people vs. the powerful,” the rhetoric that once drove to his side multitudes of people fed up with the ways of Washington, the lies, kickbacks, shady backroom deals, and lack of transparency.
Once, they trusted and hoped in his ability to achieve change. Now the American people know whose side he’s on.
By Ben Domenech:
Reprinted with permission from The New Ledger.
.
.
Source: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/03/19/opinion/main6315342.shtml
.
The End of Hope and Change
Benjamin Domenech: The Fine Print Doesn't Square With the President's Soaring Rhetoric on Health Care
(CBS/iStockphoto)
Stories
Health Care Special Deals: What's Left In?
Dems Sweeten Health Bill in Final Push
The New Ledger) Benjamin Domenech, a former speechwriter and political appointee at the Department of Health and Human Services, is managing editor of Health Care News.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
President Barack Obama’s final speech before this weekend’s anticipated vote on health care legislation had the same soaring rhetoric he’s been known for, those turns of phrase that sound awfully pretty unless you think about them too hard.
Obama’s speeches are what a speechwriter I knew liked to call “cotton candy communication”-sticky sweet and airy, made for children, comforting to the listener as they hear, but melting away, instantly forgettable. Plus, ingest too much of it and you get sick as a dog.
There was one note in this speech, though, that stuck out by typifying Obama’s views, encapsulating his approach to health care policy, and indicating a disturbing level of desperation in his young presidency.
“In just a few days,” Obama said, referring to the Sunday roll call, “a century-long struggle will culminate in an historic vote.”
Obama likes to cast things in terms of century-long battles. He did so in his State of the Union address, referring to a law considered half that age at most, which prompted a headshake from Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito. But what is prompting him to make this assertion regarding his health care legislation, which dramatically affects an arena of government policy that has not even existed for a hundred years?
There is no conceivable date he could be measuring from, unless he has a strong sense of irony not previously in evidence. Trust-busting Teddy Roosevelt would undoubtedly excoriate the idea of special interests setting the parameters of national reform, with support campaigns from unions and activist shell groups, PhRMA in the room during every significant negotiation, more than a hundred-million dollars in propagandistic ads for legislation which will protect the industry status quo, and the like.
The fact that Obama continues to spend such energy in support of legislation that all reputable independent data suggest will raise premium costs, increase the entitlement burden, destroy hundreds of thousands of jobs, and enforce a dramatic disincentive for success indicates that this is all about politics, not which policies actually work best for the American people.
Over the past week, in backroom conversations with members of Congress, Obama changed his negotiation tone from demanding to desperate. He told progressives that the outcome of the rest of his term depended on what happened on health care, and a member of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus confided to Politico that Obama changed his position on this weekend’s vote by saying “the fate of his presidency” rested on it.
It’s not hard to see why the president would feel this way. The tidal wave of popularity he rode into office has crashed and withdrawn. This week Gallup found, for the first time, that more Americans disapprove of President Obama than approve - a shift made all the more jarring when you consider how little he has achieved in his short tenure in return for so much spent political capital.
Such crumbling popularity would give any politician pause, especially one who has spent most of his political career appearing before cheering crowds who proclaim trust, optimism, and hope for him. Obama’s dedication to passing this spectacularly flawed and unpopular health care bill appears to be based on the assumption that the American people like a winner even if the victory comes at their expense.
Other presidents have made this mistake. Voters may not have memories as long as they once did, but they will remember who this brave new health care world belongs to, and the blame for it will be a palpable political factor in the decades to come.
As the dangerous outcomes of this plan become apparent, Obama may well come to regret this moment when he chose political expediency over what’s right for the nation. When historians judge this presidency they may well point to this moment as signaling the end of Obama’s cotton candy storyline of “the people vs. the powerful,” the rhetoric that once drove to his side multitudes of people fed up with the ways of Washington, the lies, kickbacks, shady backroom deals, and lack of transparency.
Once, they trusted and hoped in his ability to achieve change. Now the American people know whose side he’s on.
By Ben Domenech:
Reprinted with permission from The New Ledger.
.
.
Source: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/03/19/opinion/main6315342.shtml
.
The nuns, the bishops and health care (continued)
In today’s Post, Sister Mary Ann Walsh, director of media relations for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, writes to challenge an assertion in my March 18 column on health care.
In that column, I noted that while Cardinal Francis George, speaking for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, urged defeat of the health-care bill before the House because of flaws and loopholes in its abortion provisions, the Catholic Health Association had urged passage of the bill.
Sister Mary Ann specifically takes issue with Sister Carol Keehan, president and chief executive of the CHA, for saying that Cardinal George’s letter had misrepresented her organization’s position on the matter of whether the Senate bill provides any federal funding of abortion. I contacted Sister Carol this morning. She continues to believe that Cardinal George’s original letter mischaracterized her organization’s position. I think Sister Carol is right, and I stand by what I wrote. Because feelings are running very high right now, I’d like to take readers through the issues here.
Here is the relevant passage from my column:
Cardinal George acknowledged that the bishops' "analysis of the flaws in the legislation is not completely shared by the leaders of the Catholic Health Association." Then he said: "They believe, moreover, that the defects that they do recognize can be corrected after the passage of the final bill."
But Sister Carol, as she is known, said the latter assertion was flatly not true. "We're not saying that," she said. Her organization believes the bill as written guarantees that there will be no federal funding for abortion and does not need to be "corrected." Why the bishops would distort the position of the church's major health association is, to be charitable, a mystery.
Sister Mary Ann wrote, in part:
What must be known is that Cardinal George stated what Sister Carol herself said in a March 11 letter from CHA to the House of Representatives. In it, she wrote that CHA "believes the Senate legislation should be amended through a 'corrections' bill to address the following issues." Sister Carol listed five points, the last of which reads, "The bill should ensure that the final, overall health reform package will provide no federal funding for abortion."
Mr. Dionne, who also accused the bishops of misrepresenting Sister Carol, wrote that her organization believes the bill does not fund abortion as it is currently written and therefore "does not need to be corrected."
Cardinal George's statement reflected the March 11 letter from Sister Carol. To suggest otherwise now is puzzling at best. The U.S. bishops have not misrepresented CHA's stated position.
By implication (and perhaps inadvertently), Sister Mary Ann’s follow-up letter to The Post, has the same effect as Cardinal George’s original letter: It suggests that the CHA believes that the Senate bill’s abortion language needs to be corrected. But Sister Carol has repeatedly made it very clear that neither she nor her organization believes this. She insists that the Senate language does not provide federal funding for abortion.Here is the key passage in Cardinal George’s letter:
This analysis of the flaws in the legislation is not completely shared by the leaders of the Catholic Health Association. They believe, moreover, that the defects that they do recognize can be corrected after the passage of the final bill. The bishops, however, judge that the flaws are so fundamental that they vitiate the good that the bill intends to promote. Assurances that the moral objections to the legislation can be met only after the bill is passed seem a little like asking us, in Midwestern parlance, to buy a pig in a poke.What bothers Sister Carol, as she told me this morning, is the implication that the CHA would be willing to buy “a pig in a poke” and accept any abortion funding in a health-care bill. She has made very clear that this is not her position or that of her organization.
Sister Mary Ann’s quotations from the Catholic Health Association’s March 11 letter are accurate. (I include links in this post to the relevant documents so readers can see them in full.)
A CHA spokesman said that one of the statements she cites -- "The bill should ensure that the final, overall health reform package will provide no federal funding for abortion" -- was not a call for changes in the bill. Rather, it was aimed at insisting that any final bill maintain the ban on federal funding of abortion that the CHA believes is already included in the Senate bill.I have read the CHA’s March 11 letter over many times now, and there is a certain ambiguity in its language -- though no ambiguity in Sister Carol’s other public statements. The sentence in the letter on abortion was included in a set of bullet points that followed a statement saying that CHA believed that “the Senate legislation should be amended through a ‘corrections’ bill to address the following issues.” This, a CHA spokesman explained, was a reference to the reconciliation bill that was still being written at the time the CHA letter was issued. While three of the five bullet points in that section referred to specific changes the CHA was seeking in the Senate bill – all of them related to expanding coverage and not to abortion -- the reference to abortion was simply a flat statement and did not call for any changes in the bill. I think it's an important difference and it supports what Sister Carol has been saying.
One can certainly argue that CHA’s letter would have been clearer if the statement on abortion had been included elsewhere in the text. But I think Cardinal George’s letter took those ambiguities to suggest that CHA holds a view that it, in fact, does not. (While I’m suggesting edits to other people’s letters, if the Cardinal had just said the CHA had differences with the Bishops and left it at that, we wouldn’t be having this particular controversy.) For her part, Sister Carol said this morning that Cardinal George or someone from the Bishops’ conference could easily have contacted her to clarify any ambiguities in the letter. “I wish they had called us,” she said. “If they didn’t understand the statement, or if they thought we were buying ‘a pig in a poke,’ it would have been helpful if they had called me.” I think they should have called her, too.
Why does any of this matter? It matters to me because I try very hard to be accurate in what I write and believe I owe an accounting to readers when my accuracy is questioned. I believe I was accurate in this case. I also believed Sister Carol, whose courage on this issue I greatly admire, deserved a chance to reply to Sister Mary Ann’s letter.
But these issues are secondary to the larger question here. Catholics are divided over the health-care bill. I believe passionately, as does Sister Carol, that it would be an enormous mistake to miss this opportunity to extend health coverage to more than 30 million Americans. I also share her view that the Senate bill, as written, does not provide for Federal funding of abortion.
Cardinal George and the Catholic Bishops Conference believe just as passionately that the bill is not clear enough on the abortion question and should therefore be opposed. As a Catholic, I am deeply disappointed that the Bishops have taken this position, and I disagree with their reading of the bill, even as I also think that they are acting from good will and sincere belief. I hope that this afternoon's talk of an executive order to satisfy the concerns of abortion's opponents will allow those who believe in the cause of life to find a way of supporting this health care expansion because it will reduce the number of abortions in our country while also preserving and enhancing lives.
I’d like to offer the last word to my former Washington Post colleague T. R. Reid. In his excellent book, The Healing of America: A Global Quest for Better, Cheaper, and Fairer Health Care, he wrote:
Those Americans who die or go broke because they happened to get sick represent a fundamental moral decision our country has made. Despite all the rights and privileges and entitlements that Americans enjoy today, we have never decided to provide medical care for everybody who needs it. In the world’s richest nation, we tolerate a health-care system that leads to large numbers of avoidable deaths and bankruptcies among our fellow citizens…
All the other developed countries on earth have made a different moral decision. All the other countries like us—that is, wealthy, technologically advanced, industrialized democracies—guarantee medical care to anyone who gets sick. Countries that are just as committed as we are to equal opportunity, individual liberty, and the free market have concluded that everybody has a right to health care—and they provide it.
We should, too. And I think we will.
var entrycat = 'Dionne'
By E.J. Dionne March 20, 2010; 4:26 PM ET
,
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
