Wednesday, March 24, 2010

Daily baths and showers polluting the environment


Showers and baths are polluting water supplies partly due to growth in shampoos, gels and skin products, new research claims.

By Richard Alleyne, Science Correspondent
Published: 11:15PM GMT 24 Mar 2010

Researchers have detected substances in water supplies that have come from prescription drugs and toiletries.

In the past environmental concerns have focused on sewage as a source chemical pollution as it is thought antibiotics and the active ingredients of pills are flushed down the lavatory.

But now the new research by the US Environment Protection Agency suggests that waste from showers and baths should also be looked at.

Dr Ilene Ruhoy, who coauthored the study reported at the American Chemical Society annual meeting, said that scientists have long known that bathrooms are a "portal" for release of so-called active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs) into the environment.

An active ingredient in a pill is the medicine, usually combined with binders to hold the pill together, stabilisers, and other inactive ingredients.

However, scientists and pollution control officials had previously assumed that lavatories were the main culprit, with APIs excreted in urine and faeces and flushed into sewers and sewage treatment plants.

But now the new sources of the pollutants have been found.

"These routes may be important for certain APIs found in medications that are applied topically, which means to the skin," said Dr Ruhoy.

"They include creams, lotions, ointments, gels, and skin patches."

Dr Ruhoy and her team identified this potential new source of APIs through a comprehensive review of hundreds of scientific studies.

.

.

BIS: How The Rothschilds Control & Rule the World


by WILLIAM DEAN A.GARNER

(March 17, 2010) For decades, people have urged me, pushed me, prodded me, practically peeled off my skin, pulled out my eyes, and yanked out my brain to prove it, i.e. show them the data, the results, the books, manuals, pamphlets, journals, monographs, voice and video recordings, all the resources I have used to make the statements I do about the Brzezinski Cartel and the Rothschilds.

On the evening of St. Patrick's Day 2010, I feel now is the time... but with a twist.

The list below shows 165 different ways how The First Sphere of Influence (Rothschilds and Brzezinski Cartel) controls the world. One hundred and sixty-five reasons to believe what I say to be 100% accurate and true.

Each entry is a separate and distinct central bank, located in a separate and distinct part of the world. These central banks cover the globe and know absolutely no boundaries, effectively erasing borders between even sworn enemies.

The Bank of International Settlements or BIS (pronounced BIZZ) is the Rothschild's piggy bank, a veritable deep-pit mine, the equivalent of quadrillions of dollars.




.

Revision of working time back on the cards


Revision of working time back on the cards
By Jennifer Rankin


24.03.2010 / 19:21 CET

Consultation with unions and employers' groups launched on whether the law needs to be changed.

The fraught issue of working time is back on the EU's agenda, almost a year after talks collapsed.

László Andor, the European commissioner for employment, social affairs and inclusion, announced a consultation with unions and employers' groups on whether the law needs to be changed. In April 2009, five years of work on revising the directive broke down after the European Parliament and national governments failed to reach a compromise.

“The failure to reach an agreement on revising the working time legislation last year does not mean that the problems around the existing rules have gone away,” said Andor. “Today we invite the social partners to come forward with innovative proposals that move beyond the unsuccessful debates of the past.”

Talks failed last year because a group of national governments, led by the UK, refused demands by MEPs to scrap their opt-outs from the directive. These opt-outs allow individuals to waive their right to limit their working week to 48 hours. MEPs and member states also failed to agree on whether time spent on-call by workers such as doctors, nurses and firefighters should count towards the 48-hour limit.

In a number of cases between 2000 and 2003, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruled that the time doctors spent on-call should count towards the 48-hour week.

Unions and employers now have six weeks to give their views to the Commission, which will then decide whether to mount a second attempt at revising the 2003 directive.

Steven D'Haeseleer, director of social affairs at BusinessEurope, the European employers' association, predicted that the 48-hour opt-out and on-call time would “be part of the debate” but said that “it would not be wise to focus again predominantly on those issues”.

“We hope that we can have a really fundamental debate,” he said. “The time is ripe to look for a broader approach, moving away from focusing on the existing directive to look at the level at which working time should be regulated.”

The Commission needed to analyse the “fundamental changes in the workforce” since the first EU working time law was agreed in 1993, D'Haeseleer said. Changes in information technology have created a more mobile workforce with different expectations of work. “The young people that are now coming into the labour market have a different way in which they want to organise work than the average 40-year old,” he said.

But unions contend that there is unfinished business in protecting workers' rights. “Although the world of work has changed, [the] evidence has not changed since the first legislation on working time, nor since we last discussed the revision of the working time directive,” said John Monks, the general secretary of the European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC).

“Protection of the health and safety of workers must therefore remain the primary goal of any review of the working time directive.”

The ETUC also accuses the Commission of allowing the law to become weaker, by failing to take national governments to court for shortcomings in implementing ECJ rulings on on-call work.


.

Guarantee that Sundays will be work-free, EU leaders urged

Wed, Mar 24 2010 14:56 CET
by Clive Leviev-Sawyer



A restoration expert works on a mural at the 10th century CE Boyana church, near Bulgaria's capital city Sofia, July 2006.


As a matter of principle, all citizens of the European Union should be entitled to a work-free Sunday, a group of more than 70 organisations including churches, trade unions and civil organisations is urging EU authorities.

The call was made ahead of a meeting at the European Parliament for the first European Conference on a Work-Free Sunday, according to a statement issued by the Conference of European Churches.

Members of the Conference of European Churches include about 120 Orthodox Christian, Protestant, Anglican and Old Catholic Churches from all countries of Europe, plus 40 associated organisations.

"The protection of a work-free Sunday is of paramount importance for workers’ health, for the reconciliation of work and family life as well as for the life of civil society as a whole," according to a statement addressed to EU heads of state and government, the European Parliament, European Commission and "all European citizens".

"This common weekly day of rest serves to strengthen social cohesion in our societies, a cohesion so severely undermined by the current economic crisis," the statement said.

Rüdiger Noll, Director of the Church and Society Commission of the Conference of European Churches, told the March 24 2010 conference: "More than any other day of the week, a free Sunday offers the opportunity to be with one’s family and friends.

"Common free time is an important precondition for a participatory society, which allows its members to engage in civil activities," Noll said.

The statement qualified its call by saying, "of course, this does not exclude exceptions necessary for the provision of essential services, nor does it prejudice the important role of social partners in the negotiation of collective agreements".

EU heads of state and government, who are to meet for their spring summit, were urged to "firmly resist the growing economic pressure to liberalise the laws providing for a work-free Sunday and to commit themselves to safeguard and promote a work-free Sunday as a pillar of the European Social Model within the laws of their respective nations".

The statement concluded "we call upon all European citizens to sign a future Citizens’ Initiative to be expressed in favour of the protection of a work-free Sunday".

Separately, the European Commission said on March 24 that it had requested the views of workers' and employers' representatives on the options for reviewing EU rules on working time.

"The first stage consultation asks the European social partners at whether action is needed at EU level on the Working Time Directive and what scope it should take," the European Commission said.

This represents the first step towards a comprehensive review of the directive and comes after previous attempts to revisit the existing legislation reached an impasse in April 2009.

László Andor, EU Commissioner for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion said: "The failure to reach an agreement on revising the working time legislation last year does not mean the problems around the existing rules have gone away.

"We still need to find a balanced solution that addresses the real needs of workers, businesses and consumers in the 21st century," he said.

"We need a comprehensive review of the rules based on a thorough impact assessment with a strong social dimension. Today we invite the social partners to reflect broadly on this crucial issue and to come forward with innovative proposals that move beyond unsuccessful debates of the past," Andor said.

In 2004, the European Commission put forward a proposal to amend the directive, following wide consultations.

The proposal aimed to tackle a series of problems left unsolved by the existing legislation and case law of the European Court of Justice, namely to clarify the Directive's application to on-call time in certain sectors of work; to give more flexibility in calculating weekly working time; and to review the individual opt-out from the 48-hour limit.

However, in April 2009, government representatives and the European Parliament concluded they could not reach agreement on the proposal, despite lengthy negotiations.

In the meantime, other issues have been added to the debate, reflecting fundamental changes in the world of work over the past 20 years.

For example, average weekly working hours in the EU have fallen from 39 hours in 1990 to 37.8 hours in 2006 and the share of part-time workers in the workforce increased from 14 per cent in 1992 to 18.8 per cent in 2009.

"There is also more and more variation in individuals' working time over the year and over working life, reflecting more emphasis on work-life balance measures such as flexitime and time credit systems, as well as increasing workers' autonomy in parallel with the expansion of the knowledge-based economy," the European Commission said.

As a result, the Commission said, it is planning a comprehensive review of the existing working time rules, starting with a thorough evaluation of the current provisions and issues in their application, before considering the different options to address these issues.

"The review will be shaped by a set of policy objectives, including protecting workers' health and safety, improving balance between work and private life, giving businesses and workers flexibility without adding unnecessary administrative burdens for enterprises, especially SMEs."

The first stage consultation of social partners is an important first step towards such a comprehensive review of the Working Time Directive.

The social partners have six weeks to make their views known to the Commission, the EC said.

In parallel to the consultations, the European Commission will carry out an extensive impact assessment, including an examination of the legal application of the directive in the member states and a study of the social and economic aspects that are pertinent to a comprehensive review of the directive, the Commission said.
.
.
Fuente: http://www.sofiaecho.com/2010/03/24/878190_guarantee-that-sundays-will-be-work-free-eu-leaders-urged
.

Note: Bolds and Highlights added for emphasis.
.

Grit, deals, luck seal Obama's health care plan


2010-03-24 13:10:00



House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of Calif. is hugged by President Barack Obama in...



President Barack Obama and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi poured nearly all their political strength into passing a landmark health care bill that will mark Obama's legacy and shape the elections of 2010 and beyond.

Luck played a big role, too.

Three weeks after the loss of Edward M. Kennedy's Massachusetts Senate seat, Democratic lawmakers still were reeling and quarreling among themselves, unsure how to proceed against the Republicans' renewed ability to block legislation with Senate filibusters.

Then came word of a major insurance company's plan to raise premiums by 39 percent. California-based Anthem Blue Cross's politically tone-deaf move was the perfect opportunity for Obama and his allies to remind Americans about the costs of doing nothing.

It was a "clarifying moment" in the long, fiery health care debate, recalls Nancy-Ann DeParle, a top White House adviser on the issue.

Obama had an opening. The bill, once left for dead, had new life. Another seven weeks of political warfare would pass before the president and Democratic leaders cajoled, pleaded and pushed the legislation through an angrily divided House, cutting deals to the final hours and ending with only three votes to spare. It was an improbable turnaround.

"The bill I'm signing will set in motion reforms that generations of Americans have fought for and marched for and hungered to see," Obama said at a White House ceremony Tuesday.

A team of Associated Press reporters interviewed dozens of key players to assemble this account of the health care legislation's highs, lows and near-death experiences.

___

The first anniversary of Obama's presidency could hardly have been gloomier. The day before, on Jan. 19, Republican Scott Brown shocked the political world by winning the seat long held by Kennedy, a lifelong champion of health care reform. The ramifications were huge.

Democrats had been poised to inscribe their health care agenda into law by reconciling differences between a House bill passed in November and a similar measure the Senate had passed on Christmas Eve. The unified bill would need a final, anticlimactic approval in each chamber, which was virtually guaranteed.

But Brown became the 41st Republican in the 100-member Senate, restoring the GOP's power to block the health-care vote with a filibuster.

Senate leaders and some White House aides saw an obvious solution. The Democratic-controlled House could pass the Senate bill with no changes, and Obama would sign it, with no further Senate action needed.

There was just one problem. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., met with her Democratic colleagues two days after Brown's win, and announced: "I don't think it's possible to pass the Senate bill in the House."

Indeed, scores of House Democrats deeply resented the Senate and its health care bill. They said it slapped too large a tax on employer-provided health plans, offered insufficient help to poor people needing insurance and contained an odious special Medicaid deal for Nebraska, whose Democratic senator had been a holdout.

Obama, asked about pressing House Democrats to swallow the disliked Senate bill, told ABC News, "I can't force them to do that."

Democrats were stuck. Sen. Chris Dodd, a Connecticut Democrat at the center of the health care effort, said he would not visit Kennedy's grave at Arlington National Cemetery for a while, as he had on Christmas Eve.

"I'm afraid he might pop out at me," Dodd said.

____

On Jan. 31, Obama spoke by phone with the House and Senate Democratic leaders, spelling out a plan they eventually adopted.

The House would try to pass the Senate bill, but only in tandem with a package of "fixes" to meet its members' demands. Obama would sign the Senate bill into law. Then the so-called "sidecar" bill of fixes would go to the Senate under budget reconciliation rules, which don't allow filibusters.

Both parties have used the rules for years, but they often stir controversy. As expected, Republicans screamed foul, accusing Democrats of trying to thwart the public's will.

Obama agreed to be more assertive, putting his name on the proposal and traveling to Ohio, Missouri, Pennsylvania and Virginia to make the case to a skeptical nation.

When Anthem's proposed rate hike surfaced, it played perfectly into his narrative of a rapacious, insufficiently regulated insurance industry.

Republicans were using anger and fear of wholesale changes to health care to build opposition, said Richard Kirsch, national campaign manager for Health Care for America Now, which backed Obama's plan. "We knew the only way to fight that was to generate anger at the insurance industry," he said.

Pelosi, meanwhile, launched a member-by-member lobbying drive to round up the necessary 216 Democratic votes, with a united GOP opposing her.

She and the White House used almost every resource they had. Obama would meet with or telephone dozens of wavering House Democrats. Cabinet secretaries and even the Navy secretary called lawmakers they knew. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton made calls, as did her husband, former President Bill Clinton.

Age didn't matter. Democrats brought 11-year-old Marcelas Owens of Seattle to the Capitol to recount his mother's death after losing her health insurance. Former Notre Dame president Theodore Hesburgh, 92, telephoned Rep. Joe Donnelly, a Notre Dame alumnus who represents South Bend, Ind.

On Feb. 25, Obama convened a televised summit on health care with congressional leaders from both parties. The full day of political theater and partisan posturing was unlikely to change anyone's mind. But White House aides felt it boosted their portrayal of Republicans as obstructionists.

At this point, they said, every bit helped.

____

For days and nights, Pelosi met with colleagues in her Capitol offices. A March 9 session seemed off topic, but it underscored the many cross currents of political interests that Pelosi and the White House tapped in their drive.

Democratic leaders agreed to wrap an overhaul of the federal student loan program into the health package. House liberals were glad to extricate the loan measure from a Senate logjam. And the move delighted many black and Hispanic lawmakers because it directed $2.6 billion over 10 years to historically black colleges and "minority-serving institutions."

To be sure, black and Hispanic House members might have had trouble voting against the health bill in the end. But the student loan deal helped quiet grumbling on the left, enabling Pelosi and the White House to focus on wavering Democrats in the center.

The deals included reducing a new excise tax on medical devices from 2.9 percent to 2.3 percent, while applying the tax to more items. A medical industry official said the changes were sought by Reps. Baron Hill and Brad Ellsworth of Indiana and Scott Murphy of New York. All three would vote for the health bill.

Still, some House members said they would not vote for the Senate health bill, even if they voted the same day on the sidecar of fixes.

Democratic aides floated an idea, which soon fueled new Republican denunciations. They would consider a House rule that would let members vote only on the sidecar bill and yet "deem" the Senate bill to be passed at the same time.

Critics called the "deem and pass" idea "demon pass."

____

On Saturday, March 20, Pelosi still was short of 216 votes. With the showdown roll call scheduled for Sunday, two events moved her closer.

At about 1 p.m., House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., met with colleagues in the Longworth office building. Even rank-and-file Democrats who detested the Senate bill now felt the "deem and pass" idea had become a public-relations disaster. Hoyer said it would be dropped, drawing applause. White House officials quietly cheered.

Two hours later, Obama strode into an auditorium in the new Capitol Visitors Center, winning loud applause from House Democrats. Evoking Abraham Lincoln, the highest ideals of public service and a call for courage, Obama gave one of the most emotional — and, some said, effective — speeches of his career.

Rep. James Oberstar, D-Minn., called the speech touching, heartfelt and respectful, because Obama closed by saying each member must make his or her decision, based on a knowledge of their districts that only they can have.

Oberstar said he had not fully made up his mind. But the next day he would vote yes.

Protesters surrounding the Capitol personified the raw emotions. While most were content to chant "kill the bill," a few hurled racial epithets at black Democratic lawmakers, and one spat on Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, D-Mo.

___

On Sunday, Pelosi and Obama feared that one last problem could deny them victory. They were unsure how many anti-abortion Democrats would side with Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., who vowed to oppose the health care package unless given greater assurance that it would not allow federal funding of elective abortions.

A deal was struck by 4 p.m. Obama would sign an executive order granting Stupak's request. Aides said it merely restated the nation's long-standing policy on abortion.

The final House debate and series of procedural votes lasted well into Sunday night. Obama and his aides monitored from the White House, sneaking peeks at college basketball playoff games on TV.

When the House passed the Senate bill with three votes to spare, an ebullient president applauded in the Roosevelt Room, packed with cheering aides. He then addressed the nation by television.

"Today's vote answers the prayers of every American who has hoped deeply for something to be done about a health care system that works for insurance companies, but not for ordinary people," he said.

It was nearly midnight when Obama invited aides to the Truman Balcony for champagne. Senior adviser David Axelrod said he had never seen the president happier.

"Elections just give you the chance to do things," Axelrod recalled Obama saying. "This is the real thing."

___

Associated Press writers Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar, David Espo, Alan Fram, Jennifer Loven, Julie Pace and Erica Werner contributed to this report.
.

/,

For all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication...




Revelation 18




1And after these things I saw another angel come down from heaven, having great power; and the earth was lightened with his glory.

2And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird.

3For all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth are waxed rich through the abundance of her delicacies.

4And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.

5For her sins have reached unto heaven, and God hath remembered her iniquities.

6Reward her even as she rewarded you, and double unto her double according to her works: in the cup which she hath filled fill to her double.

7How much she hath glorified herself, and lived deliciously, so much torment and sorrow give her: for she saith in her heart, I sit a queen, and am no widow, and shall see no sorrow.

8Therefore shall her plagues come in one day, death, and mourning, and famine; and she shall be utterly burned with fire: for strong is the Lord God who judgeth her.

9And the kings of the earth, who have committed fornication and lived deliciously with her, shall bewail her, and lament for her, when they shall see the smoke of her burning,

10Standing afar off for the fear of her torment, saying, Alas, alas that great city Babylon, that mighty city! for in one hour is thy judgment come.

11And the merchants of the earth shall weep and mourn over her; for no man buyeth their merchandise any more:

12The merchandise of gold, and silver, and precious stones, and of pearls, and fine linen, and purple, and silk, and scarlet, and all thyine wood, and all manner vessels of ivory, and all manner vessels of most precious wood, and of brass, and iron, and marble,

13And cinnamon, and odours, and ointments, and frankincense, and wine, and oil, and fine flour, and wheat, and beasts, and sheep, and horses, and chariots, and slaves, and souls of men.

14And the fruits that thy soul lusted after are departed from thee, and all things which were dainty and goodly are departed from thee, and thou shalt find them no more at all.

15The merchants of these things, which were made rich by her, shall stand afar off for the fear of her torment, weeping and wailing,

16And saying, Alas, alas that great city, that was clothed in fine linen, and purple, and scarlet, and decked with gold, and precious stones, and pearls!

17For in one hour so great riches is come to nought. And every shipmaster, and all the company in ships, and sailors, and as many as trade by sea, stood afar off,

18And cried when they saw the smoke of her burning, saying, What city is like unto this great city!

19And they cast dust on their heads, and cried, weeping and wailing, saying, Alas, alas that great city, wherein were made rich all that had ships in the sea by reason of her costliness! for in one hour is she made desolate.

20Rejoice over her, thou heaven, and ye holy apostles and prophets; for God hath avenged you on her.

21And a mighty angel took up a stone like a great millstone, and cast it into the sea, saying, Thus with violence shall that great city Babylon be thrown down, and shall be found no more at all.

22And the voice of harpers, and musicians, and of pipers, and trumpeters, shall be heard no more at all in thee; and no craftsman, of whatsoever craft he be, shall be found any more in thee; and the sound of a millstone shall be heard no more at all in thee;

23And the light of a candle shall shine no more at all in thee; and the voice of the bridegroom and of the bride shall be heard no more at all in thee: for thy merchants were the great men of the earth; for by thy sorceries were all nations deceived.

24And in her was found the blood of prophets, and of saints, and of all that were slain upon the earth.



King James Version (KJV)



Tuesday, March 23, 2010

Newspeak or Jesuit Lingo?



Shrink government by expanding it.
..............................................................................> Newspeak
Spend our way out of the recession..



The end justifies the means.
.............................................................................> Jesuit Lingo
By any means necessary.

.

Why is Holder appearance to Congress delayed?


Why is Holder appearance to Congress delayed?

posted at 8:45 am on March 23, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

Byron York notes that the Department of Justice has delayed today’s appearance of Eric Holder to the Senate Judiciary Committee after a “disastrous” hearing earlier this month. The Attorney General made headlines when he dodged a question regarding the handling of terrorists by claiming that the US would wind up reading Miranda rights to Osama bin Laden’s corpse:

Why? Word is that it’s because of the signing ceremony for the national health care bill, but well-informed Republicans suspect the occasion may also have given Democrats an opportunity to put off what could turn into another embarrassing performance by the attorney general.
Holder’s recent appearance before a House Appropriations subcommittee was a “disaster,” says one Republican. The attorney general’s insistence that Osama bin Laden will never be taken alive and his odd statement about Mirandizing bin Laden’s corpse; his comparison of bin Laden to Charles Manson; his assertion that the 50 minutes spent questioning Christmas Day bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was a “fairly long period of time” — those and other statements amounted to a blooper reel from just one Holder appearance. In addition, Holder’s testimony made clear that there is still indecision and confusion inside the Obama administration about what to do with 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed; postponing Holder’s committee appearance until mid-April gives Team Obama three more weeks to figure out what to do with KSM. “This is about keeping Holder from digging another hole for the administration in a forum where the questioners are better prepared,” says one source.

A source on Capitol Hill confirmed to me that the White House used the ObamaCare signing as their reason to postpone Holder’s appearance at Judiciary. However, the real reason could be a series of embarrassing admissions in a submission to the committee from the DoJ. Judiciary had asked for answers on the oft-claimed “hundreds” of terrorists tried in the federal court system, as well as an explanation of how the federal court system can protect national-security information as well as military commissions. According to this source, the DoJ’s answers confirm exactly what had been suspected — that Holder has not been telling the truth on either point:

In responses submitted to the Judiciary Committee this afternoon, the Department of Justice concedes that military commission trials have better safeguards for protecting classified national security information from leaks than civilian criminal trials. Although Attorney General Holder has repeatedly testified that civilian criminal trials are just as effective as military commission trials in protecting classified information, even stating that classified information protections in the Military Commissions Act were modeled on the Classified Information Procedures Act (CIPA) used in federal courts, the responses received today (see pp. 29-32) tell a different story. They acknowledge that the MCA’s classified information protections are better than what is available in federal criminal courts. In fact, the responses explain how the military commission rules improved upon the civilian criminal rules “to take into account lessons learned in terrorism cases in federal court.” The Department’s submission to the Committee then details 7 categories of “key differences” between the classified information protections in military commission trials that are not similarly present in the federal criminal law.

A reading of these pages makes clear that the Classified Information Protection Act (CIPA) that would govern federal courts are inferior to the protections provided by military commissions. The DoJ admits this in this passage:

28. Under the Classified Information Protection Act (CIPA), the government may pursue an interlocutory appeal from orders “authorizing the disclosure of classified information . . . or refusing a protective order sought by the United States to prevent the disclosure of classified information.” 18 U.S.C. App. § 7(a). In United States v. Moussaoui, 333 F.3d 509 (4th Cir. 2003), the Fourth Circuit held CIPA did not authorize interlocutory appeals from orders related to the “pretrial disclosure of classified information to the defendant or his attorneys.” Id. at 514.

a. Do you agree that under the Moussaoui decision, the government may not seek immediate review of certain decisions authorizing the pretrial disclosure of classified information? If not, please explain your answer.

Response: In cases involving CIPA within the Fourth Circuit, under the Moussaoui decision, appellate courts lack jurisdiction under CIPA § 7 to entertain an interlocutory appeal by the United States of a district court order allowing a criminal defendant to depose a witness who may possess classified information.

b. Senator Kyl has offered legislation, including an amendment in Committee, to amend CIPA to address the deficiencies in CIPA. Given your decision to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and others in federal court, do you support legislation to address gaps in CIPA that could lead to disclosure of classified information?

Response: While CIPA has generally worked well in both protecting classified information and ensuring fair trials, there may be certain portions which could be usefully updated and clarified.The Administration has not yet taken a position on possible legislation to improve CIPA.

Well, why not? If the Obama administration has taken the position that it wants terrorists captured abroad using intelligence assets to be tried in federal court, shouldn’t Obama first take a position on ensuring that vital, sensitive information doesn’t get exposed? That admission is the entire ballgame, and it makes hash of the argument Holder has propounded that there is no difference between the two venues in terms of national security.

As far as the “hundreds” of terrorists tried in federal courts, the DoJ still can’t find any record of them:

According to today’s submission to the Committee, the Department remains unable to provide any detail to explain the claim that hundreds – specifically over 300 – terrorists have been successfully tried in federal civilian criminal courts. Senator Kyl first asked for this information in May 2009. As of yesterday, the Department could only provide the following response: “The Department is working to develop information responsive to this request and will advise the Committee when it becomes available.”

Here’s the specific question and response on pages 32-33 of the submission:

30. In your opening testimony, you stated that “there are more than 300 convicted international and domestic terrorists currently in Bureau of Prisons custody.” In response to my question, you stated without reservation that you would provide the details regarding these convictions.

Please provide the details regarding each of these convictions, including: (a) the names and dates of the individuals convicted; (b) the offense(s) with which they were charged; (c) the offense(s) for which they were convicted; (d) the sentences imposed; and (e) the year the criminal case was instituted via indictment.

Response: The Department is working to develop information responsive to this request and will advise the Committee when it becomes available.

Yeah, get back to us on that, won’t you? After all, you’re only the Department of Justice … which would have been the agency that actually tried those “hundreds” of terrorists, if it happened at all.

Small wonder Holder isn’t keen on reappearing before Judiciary. If I were him, after fronting these ridiculous claims the first time, I’d be leery about showing my face as well.
.

.

Tiger Woods speaks out: 'I hurt so many people ... it's hard to believe that was me'

By Plain Dealer wire services March 21, 2010, 11:25PM

The Golf Channel
Tiger Woods said the criticism and scorn which targeted him after his admission of marital infidelity "was hurtful, but then again you know what, I did it. I’m the one who did those things and looking back on it now with a more clear head, I get it. I can understand why people will say these things because you know what, it was disgusting behavior.
"ORLANDO, Fla. -- On Sunday, Tiger Woods agreed to five-minute interviews with both The Golf Channel and ESPN -- the first time he's answered questions since his November car accident which led to the revelations about his marital infidelity.

This is the transcript of the interview conducted by The Golf Channel's Kelly Tilghman, held at Woods' home course, Isleworth Country Club in Windermere, Fla., just outside Orlando. The full video is available on golfchannel.com.

Kelly Tilghman: Tiger, you've been a master of control your entire life. How did things get so out of control?

Tiger Woods: Going against your core values, losing sight of it. I quit meditating, I quit being a Buddhist, and my life changed upside down. I felt entitled, which I had never felt before. Consequently, I hurt so many people by my own reckless attitude and behavior.

KT: Were there moments you thought you should stop, but didn't?

TW: Yeah, I tried to stop and I couldn't stop. It was just, it was horrific.

KT: For a man who's so disciplined physically and psychologically, why couldn't you say no?



TW: I don't know, now I know. It's part of what I learned in treatment, being there for 45 days you learn a lot. You strip away the denial, the rationalization and you come to the truth and the truth is very painful at times and to stare at yourself and look at the person you've become ... you become disgusted.

KT: The Masters is a demanding stage on its own, let alone for a return of this magnitude. How do you know you're mentally prepared for this?

TW: I'm excited to get back and play. I miss the game. I miss playing, I miss competing. I wasn't ready to play in Tavistock or play in Bay Hill. ... I want to play in these events but I just wasn't ready. I started too late with my preparation. Hank [Haney] and I are starting to work now and start to get it going.

KT: How do you know you'll be ready for the Masters?

TW: I'm starting to get my feel back. I know how to play the golf course and that helps a lot. I just got to play it.

KT: How will your therapy affect your 2010 schedule? I'm assuming you'll have more in-patient therapy ahead.

TW: Yeah, I will have more treatment, more therapy sessions. As far as my schedule going forward, I don't know what I'm going to do, Kelly. Last year, I didn't know because of my knee it was still uncertain, and this year, with all the things that I've done I don't know what I'll be doing either.

That to me is a little bit bothersome too, in a sense that I don't like not knowing what to do. But what I know I have to do is become a better person and that begins with going to more treatment.

KT: You went from becoming recognized as the greatest golfer in the world to becoming a punch line. How did that make you feel?

TW: It was hurtful, but then again you know what, I did it. I'm the one who did those things and looking back on it now with a more clear head, I get it. I can understand why people will say these things because you know what, it was disgusting behavior. As a person, it's hard to believe that was me looking back on it now.

KT: America was concerned when the world's greatest golfer was lying on the ground with no shoes at 2:30 in the morning, bleeding. What happened that night?

TW: It's all in the police report, they investigated it and they have it on public record, there's a lot of stuff between Elin and I that will remain private and that's about it.

KT: How did you crash the car?

TW: I wasn't going very fast, but unfortunately, I hit a few things.

KT: It's been reported that members of your team, your inner circle, were involved in your misdoings, is it true?

TW: That is not true, it was all me. I'm the one who did it, I'm the one who acted the way I acted, no one knew what was going on. I'm sure if more people would have known in my inner circle they would've, they would've stopped it ... or tried to put a stop to it but I kept it all to myself.

KT: What is the state of your marriage with Elin right now?

TW: We're working on it and it's a process that will remain private between her and I.

KT: If your father were here today and looked back on these last four months, what would he say to you?

TW: He'd be very disappointed in me. We'd have numerous long talks. That's one of the things I miss, I miss his guidance, wish I could have had his guidance through all this to have him help straighten me up, I know he would've done it.

KT: What do you think he would say?

TW: Can't say it on air but he would've been very direct. Basically said, you need to get your life headed in the right direction again.

KT: For the 12 year olds and the parents out there who looked at you as a role model, what do you have to say to them to make them believe in you again?

TW: It's going to be over time. It's going to be my actions over time. I'm trying to become a better person each and every day. The proof in the pudding is over time and that's what I'm trying to do. I will continue to do that.

KT: How will you explain this to your children, one day when they're old enough to understand?

TW: I will have that sit down talk and it won't be just one time, I know that. It will be numerous times and I take full ownership of it, I did it. No one else did, it was just me and that's a responsibility that I will have. I will talk to my kids, for however long they want to talk about it. That is a conversation that will need to be had.

KT: Based on all that has transpired, what do you want your legacy to be when all is said and done?

TW: Just like I wanted before. I felt that golf was a vehicle for me to help a lot of people. My dad had always said something that I never really quite understood until these times. In order to help other people, you first have to learn how to help yourself. Going into a treatment center for 45 days I learned a lot. I learned how to help myself and that's the way I can help others down the road.

KT: I noticed you're wearing a bracelet, can we see it?

TW: Yeah.

KT: What does it mean?

TW: It's Buddhist, it's for protection and strength and I certainly need that.

KT: When did you start wearing it?

TW: Before I went into treatment.

KT: Will you be wearing it during the Masters?

TW: Absolutely.

KT: For the rest of your life?

TW: Absolutely.

KT: Tiger, thank you.

TW: Thanks Kel.
.
.
.

Al Sharpton, Socialism And Obama (Reserve Your Judgment)

by Drew Grant 10:32 pm, March 22nd, 2010

When Fox’s Geraldo Rivera tried to veer Rev. Al Sharpton into using the S-word to describe the passing of the health care bill last night, the activist didn’t shy away from using the label facetiously to make his point. If this is socialism, “then the American public overwhelmingly voted for socialism when they voted for Barack Obama,” Sharpton shot back. We know how this sounds out of context, so maybe it’s better if you just watched the clip for yourself

'>http://


So Sharpton’s argument is that Obama ran on the platform of health care reform and delivered what he promised, so if that’s socialism, then that’s what America voted for in 2008. Except, obviously it isn’t (Socialism, that is).
.
.
Source: http://www.mediaite.com/online/al-sharpton-socialism-and-obama-reserve-your-judgment/
.

Avoiding Labor Conflicts


The time is fast coming when the controlling power of the labor unions will be very oppressive. Again and again the Lord has instructed that our people are to take their families away from the cities, into the country, where they can raise their own provisions; for in the future the problem of buying and selling will be a very serious one. We should now begin to heed the instruction given us over and over again: Get out of the cities into rural districts, where the houses are not crowded closely together, and where you will be free from the interference of enemies.--Letter 5, 1904.


Avoid Party Strifes

Men have confederated to oppose the Lord of hosts. These confederacies will continue until Christ shall leave His place of intercession before the mercy seat, and shall put on the garments of vengeance. Satanic agencies are in every city, busily organizing into parties those opposed to the law of God. Professed saints and avowed unbelievers take their stand with these parties. This is no time for the people of God to be weaklings. We cannot afford to be off our guard for a moment.--Testimonies, vol. 8, p. 42 (1904).

The trades unions will be one of the agencies that will bring upon this earth a time of trouble such as has not been since the world began.--Letter 200, 1903.


Conflicts Between Trade Confederacies and Labor Unions

The work of the people of God is to prepare for the events of the future, which will soon come upon them with blinding force. In the world gigantic monopolies will be formed. Men will bind themselves together in unions that will wrap them in the folds of the enemy. A few men will combine to grasp all the means to be obtained in certain lines of business. Trades unions will be formed, and those who refuse to join these unions will be marked men.--Letter 26, 1903.

Preparing for the Issue

The trades unions and confederacies of the world are a snare. Keep out of them, and away from them, brethren. Have nothing to do with them. Because of these unions and confederacies, it will soon be very difficult for our institutions to carry on their work in the cities. My warning is: Keep out of the cities. Build no sanitariums in the cities. Educate our people to get out of the cities into the country, where they can obtain a small piece of land, and make a home for themselves and their children....

Our restaurants must be in the cities; for otherwise the workers in these restaurants could not reach the people and teach them the principles of right living. And for the present we shall have to occupy meetinghouses in the cities. But erelong there will be such strife and confusion in the cities, that those who wish to leave them will not be able. We must be preparing for these issues. This is the light that is given me.--General Conference Bulletin, April 6, 1903.


To Preserve Our Individuality

For years I have been given special light that we are not to center our work in the cities. The turmoil and confusion that fill these cities, the conditions brought about by the labor unions and the strikes, would prove a great hindrance to our work. Men are seeking to bring those engaged in the different trades under bondage to certain unions. This is not God's planning, but the planning of a power that we should in no wise acknowledge. God's Word is fulfilling; the wicked are binding themselves up in bundles ready to be burned.

We are now to use all our entrusted capabilities in giving the last warning message to the world. In this work we are to preserve our individuality. We are not to unite with secret societies or with trades unions. We are to stand free in God, looking constantly to Christ for instruction. All our movements are to be made with a realization of the importance of the work to be accomplished for God.--Testimonies, vol. 7, p. 84 (1902).


In Disregard of the Decalogue

These unions are one of the signs of the last days. Men are binding up in bundles ready to be burned. They may be church members, but while they belong to these unions, they cannot possibly keep the commandments of God; for to belong to these unions means to disregard the entire Decalogue.

"Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself" (Luke 10:27). These words sum up the whole duty of man. They mean the consecration of the whole being, body, soul, and spirit, to God's service. How can men obey these words, and at the same time pledge themselves to support that which deprives their neighbors of freedom of action? And how can men obey these words, and form combinations that rob the poorer classes of the advantages which justly belong to them, preventing them from buying or selling, except under certain conditions?--Letter 26, 1903.


Unions that are Formed or shall be Formed

Those who claim to be the children of God are in no case to bind up with the labor unions that are formed or that shall be formed. This the Lord forbids. Cannot those who study the prophecies see and understand what is before us?--Letter 201, 1902.



Selected Messages Book II, E. G. White, pp. 141-144.
.

Biden's expletive sums up big day

March 23 2010 at 11:22PM

Washington - Euphoric Democrats watching President Barack Obama sign historic health reform into law seemed to agree with the over-zealous reaction of gaffe-prone Joe Biden.

"This is a big f*cking deal," Vice-President Biden said in an aside to his boss, in a remark meant for Obama's ears only.

But he was clearly heard above a gale of applause on television microphones, just after paying a gushing tribute to Obama in a signing ceremony in the East Room of the White House, teeming with lawmakers, political aides and cameramen.

The expletive quickly became a big deal, as cable news channels went into overdrive, and one Internet entrepreneur immediately printed the quote on a T-shirt and hawked it online.


White House press secretary Robert Gibbs played down the latest gaffe by America's infamously loose-lipped vice president.

"And yes, Mr Vice-President, you're right," he wrote on his Twitter feed.

But beneath the wild party mood, the ceremony for the legislation sent to Obama's desk by Congress on Sunday after a fierce political fight was bittersweet for some.

Like Vicki Kennedy, the widow of health care crusader Senator Edward Kennedy, who died of brain cancer last year.

And 11-year-old Marcelas Owens, whose mom died because she lacked medical care, and has become a poignant spokesperson for reform. He was by Obama's side as he signed the bill.

Campaigners have fought for generations for universal health care coverage, since the early 20th century days of president Theodore Roosevelt, who looked down on the ceremony from a huge portrait hung on the wall.

Emotions began spilling over as the invited audience waited for Obama to show up, seated by three crystal chandeliers in the ornate room. Top lawmakers, who fought to pass the bill, slapped backs and hugged.

Some were like children on a school trip, posing for photographs in front of the president's podium.

As Obama and Biden walked into the room, the crowd sang the president's campaign chants "Yes We Can" and "Fired Up, Ready to Go", and gave them a prolonged standing ovation.

Biden then offered Obama an intensely personal tribute.

"History is made when a leader's passion - passion - is matched with principle to set a new course. Well, ladies and gentlemen, Mr President, you are that leader," Biden said, as Obama looked on.

"Everybody knows the story, starting with Teddy Roosevelt. They've tried. They were real bold leaders. But, Mr President, they fell short."

In his own speech, Obama dwelt on his mother's fatal cancer fight at some times smiling, but at others looking wistful and almost distant, as if the magnitude of his achievement was just sinking in.

Obama said the bill was proof that America had not lost the ability to think big.

"We don't shrink from our responsibilities. We embrace it. We don't fear the future. We shape the future. That's what we do. That's who we are."

Signing the bill, Obama sat at a desk beside Representative John Dingell, who had hobbled in on crutches, waving one triumphantly in the air. Dingell arrived in Congress in 1955 and has fought ever since for universal health insurance.

To his right was Owens, with Biden's hands on his shoulders, and at one point Obama appeared moved as he gazed across at the boy and signed his name with 20 separate pens to preserve the moment for posterity.

Republicans, who opposed the signing ceremony en masse and who hope Tuesday's event marks the moment that Democrats will have bound themselves to an unpopular big government "power grab", were nowhere to be seen.

"We've heard a lot today about how historic this bill is, and it's true," said Republican National Committee (RNC) chairperson Michael Steele in a statement.

"It is an historic betrayal of the clear will of the American people. It is an historic loss of liberty."

House Republican leader John Boehner added: "This is a somber day for the American people. Americans have never felt more disconnected from their government than they do today." - AFP


Source: http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=22&art_id=nw20100323222912916C787411
.
.
Related:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQeNikp1Rj8&feature=player_embeddedhttp://

.

1st December: Churches become official Dialogue partners for the EU

1st December:
Churches become official Dialogue partners for the EU


The 1st December marks the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty. In addition to institutional reform, the Treaty introduces into EU primary law an Article of notable importance for the Churches. By means of Article 17 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU, the EU recognises the identity and specific contribution of Churches and engages on this basis an « open, transparent and regular »[1] Dialogue with them.

Thanks to this Article, Churches and religious communities will be able to strengthen their Dialogue with the European Commission, Council and Parliament and so contribute more efficiently to reflecting on European policy.

Inspired by Catholic social teaching and strengthened by their background experience, Churches will be enabled to pursue a critical and constructive Dialogue with EU decision makers on the policies put forward by the EU.

Today, on the eve of a new decade, the same urgent challenges preoccupy both the EU and the Churches, namely: The promotion of the dignity of every Human being, Solidarity with the weakest in our societies, an economy which puts the human being at its heart, solidarity among generations and towards developing countries, climate change and preservation of Creation, the welcoming of migrants and intercultural dialogue.

The Churches in Europe therefore welcome the dialogue between the European Union and the Churches and religious communities as an instrument allowing them to partner the EU more effectively so that it becomes a Community of peoples and values, aware of its responsibility, united and welcoming.

In the recent years, a practical dialogue had already been established between the European Institutions and COMECE and its ecumenical partners. Thanks to this "practical dialogue", the trust between European institutions and Churches has increased over the years. COMECE now wishes this dialogue to intensify and deepen, on the basis of Article 17. COMECE calls on Churches and Christians all over Europe to seize this dialogue opportunity, based on their expertise and their humanity, to make a contribution to the European project.

COMECE, together with its ecumenical partners from CEC (Conference of European Churches), will make soon specific proposals to the European Commission, Parliament and Council on how to develop this dialogue into regular institutional practice.

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

[1] Article 17 (the former Article I-52 of the Constitutional Treaty) is part of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) and reads as follows:

"1. The Union respects and does not prejudice the status under national law of churches and religious associations or communities in the Member States.

2. The Union equally respects the status under national law of philosophical and non-confessional organisations.

3. Recognising their identity and their specific contribution, the Union shall maintain an open, transparent and regular dialogue with these churches and organisations."

Source: http://www.comece.eu/content/site/en/press/pressreleases/newsletter.content/1151.html

.
Related:

COMECE supports the Conference on Work free Sunday


Download the programme

Registration before March 18th at following Email


.

Vigilance


Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour:
Whom resist stedfast in the faith, knowing that the same afflictions are accomplished in your brethren that are in the world.

1Peter 5:8,9.
,

Monday, March 22, 2010

Officer Shot in the Bronx; Assailant Found Dead


Rob Bennett for The New York Times
Outside the building, right, where Officer Robert Salerno was shot in the South Bronx.

By RAY RIVERA
Published: March 22, 2010

A police officer was hit at least three times in a shootout on Monday while responding to a 911 call at a housing project in the South Bronx, but was apparently saved by his bullet-resistant vest, law enforcement officials said.



New York City Police Department
Officer Robert Salerno, 25, was in serious but stable condition on Monday night.






The gunman was later found dead with a bullet wound to his temple in the bedroom where the shootout took place, though it was unclear whether the police had shot him or he had shot himself, officials said.

The officer, Robert Salerno, 25, was in serious but stable condition at Lincoln Medical and Mental Health Center on Monday night. He was expected to survive, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg said at a news conference at the hospital.

Officer Salerno was shot once in the chest and twice in the lower abdomen and may have been struck a fourth time in his utility belt, officials said. His vest blocked the shot to the chest.

“The vest probably saved his life,” Police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly said at the news conference.

The man who shot the officer, Santiago Urena, 57, died of a gunshot wound, Mr. Kelly said. Officers fired 21 rounds at Mr. Urena after he opened fire at them from a bedroom in a second-floor apartment at 3073 Park Avenue in the Morrisania Air Rights houses, the authorities said.

Mr. Kelly said the location of the fatal wound indicated that it might have been self-inflicted, but the police are waiting for a medical examiner’s report to determine who fired the fatal shot and whether Mr. Urena had received any other wounds.

At the news conference, which Gov. David A. Paterson attended, the commissioner held up Officer Salerno’s vest with a bullet hole clearly visible below the right breast. The other shots struck just below the vest, he said.

Mr. Kelly said Mr. Urena was unemployed, lived in the apartment with his elderly mother and had no known criminal record. A .38-caliber revolver with four of its five chambers empty was lodged under his body, which was found face down on the bedroom floor, officials said.

The police arrived just after noon on Monday after receiving a 911 call from a home health aide who was taking care of Mr. Urena’s 91-year-old mother, officials said. Two police cars from the 44th Precinct met the woman in front of the building. A police official said Mr. Urena apparently became annoyed because the health aide was talking on the phone to her husband in the Dominican Republic. In a mix of Spanish and broken English, she told them that Mr. Urena had threatened her with a gun, according to a neighbor who said he translated the worker’s complaints.

“She said the guy was disrespecting her, trying to rap to her,” said the neighbor, Jimmy Molina, using a term for making sexual advances. “She was telling him that he knows she’s married and she has a husband in Santo Domingo.”

Mr. Molina said the woman then told the police that Mr. Urena struck her, knocked her to the ground and pulled out a gun, saying, “I’ll kill you, I’ll kill you.”

Mr. Kelly said the suspect’s older brother, Demetrio Urena, led Officer Salerno and three other officers up to the apartment and told them that Santiago Urena was in a bedroom. The officers ordered him out, but he refused, and when the officers opened the door, Mr. Urena opened fire, Mr. Kelly said.

Officer Salerno, the first through the door, was hit three or four times. He returned fire, emptying his magazine of 16 bullets. The other officers got off a total of five shots as they dragged him out of the building, where he was taken away by ambulance.

A Police Department Emergency Services Unit arrived at the apartment a short time later and found Mr. Urena lying dead on the bedroom floor, Mr. Kelly said.

Paul J. Browne, the Police Department’s chief spokesman, said Mr. Urena’s mother, Ana Urena, was taken to a hospital as a precautionary measure and was not wounded.

Mr. Kelly said Officer Salerno joined the force in January 2007 and had been with the 44th Precinct since that June. He was the first officer shot in the line of duty this year. Officials called his actions courageous. “This was clearly a very dangerous situation,” Mayor Bloomberg said.


Colin Moynihan and Nate Schweber contributed reporting.


Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/23/nyregion/23copshot.html
..

Preachers Who Don’t Believe — The Scandal of Apostate Pastors

Thursday, March 18, 2010




Are there clergy who don’t believe in God? That is the question posed by a new report that is certain to receive considerable attention — and rightly so. Few church members are likely to be disinterested in whether their pastor believes in God.

The study was conducted by the Center for Cognitive Studies at Tufts University, under the direction of Daniel C. Dennett and Linda LaScola. Dennett, of course, is one of the primary figures in the “New Atheism” — the newly aggressive and influential atheist movement that has gained a considerable hearing among the intellectual elites and the media.

Dennett is a cognitive scientist whose book, Breaking the Spell, suggests that belief in God must have at one point served an important evolutionary purpose, granting an evolutionary advantage to those who had some belief in an afterlife as compared to humans without such a belief. The reality of death, Dennett surmises, might well have been the precipitating factor. In order to make life meaningful in the face of death (and thus encourage reproduction), Dennett suggests that primitive humans invented the idea of God and the afterlife. Now, he argues, we have no more need of such primitive beliefs.


Interestingly, Dennett also proposes a new interpretation of theological liberalism. Noting that many modern people claim to be Christians while holding to virtually no specific theological content, Dennett suggests that their mode of faith should not be described as “belief,” but rather as “believing in belief.”

Given Dennett’s own atheistic agenda, we can rightly assume that he would be thrilled to see Christian ministers and believers abandon the faith. Indeed, the New Atheists have made this a stated aim. Thus, this new research report, “Preachers Who Are Not Believers,” should be read within that framework. Nevertheless, it must be read. This report demands the attention of anyone concerned with the integrity of the Christian church and the Christian faith.

Dennett and LaScola undertook their project with the goal of looking for unbelieving pastors and ministers who continue to serve their churches in “secret disbelief.” Their “small and self-selected” sample of ministers represents a microcosm of the theological collapse at the heart of many churches and denominations.

In their report, Dennett and LaScola present case studies of five unbelieving ministers, three from liberal denominations (”the liberals”) and two from conservative denominations (”the literals”).

Wes, a Methodist, lost his confidence in the Bible while attending a liberal Christian college and seminary. “I went to college thinking Adam and Eve were real people,” he explained. Now, he no longer believes that God exists. In his rendering, God is a word that “can be used very expressively in some of my more meditative modes” and “a kind of poetry that is written by human beings.”

His church members do not know that he is an atheist, but he explains that they are somewhat liberal themselves. His ministerial colleagues are even more liberal: “They’ve been de-mythologized, I’ll say that. They don’t believe Jesus rose from the dead literally. They don’t believe Jesus was born of a virgin. They don’t believe all those things that would cause a big stir in their churches.”

Rick, a campus minister for the United Church of Christ, perhaps the most liberal Protestant denomination, was an agnostic in college and seems to have lost all belief by the time he graduated from seminary. He chose ordination in the UCC because it required “no forced doctrine.” Even as he graduated from seminary, he knew, “I’m not going to make it in a conventional church.” He knew he could not go into a church and teach his own theological views, based on Paul Tillich and Rudolf Bultmann. He did not believe in the doctrinal content of the Christian faith from the beginning of his ministry. “I did not believe the traditional things even then.”

He does not believe “all this creedal stuff” about the incarnation of Christ or the need for salvation, but he remained in the ministry because, “These are my people, this is the context in which I work, these are the people that I know.” In the pulpit, his mode is to talk as if he does believe, because “as long as … you are talking about God and Jesus and the Bible, that’s what they want to hear. You’re just phrasing it in a way that makes sense to [them] … but language is ambiguous and can be heard in different ways.”

He doesn’t like to call himself an atheist, but: “If not believing in a supernatural, theistic god is what distinguishes an atheist, then I am one too.”

Darryl is a Presbyterian who sees himself as a “progressive-minded” pastor who wants to see his kind of non-doctrinal Christianity “given validity in some way.” He acknowledges that he is more a pantheist than a theist, and thinks that many of the more educated members of his church hold to the same liberal beliefs as his own. And those beliefs (or unbeliefs) are stated clearly: “I reject the virgin birth. I reject substitutionary atonement. I reject the divinity of Jesus. I reject heaven and hell in the traditional sense, and I am not alone.”

Amazingly, Darryl is candid about the fact that he remains in the ministry largely for financial reasons. It is how he provides for his family. If he openly espoused his beliefs, “I may be burning bridges in terms of my ability to earn a living this way.”

Adam ministers in the Church of Christ, a conservative denomination. After years in the ministry, he began to lose all theological confidence. After reading a series of books, he became convinced that the atheists have better arguments than believers. He has moved fully into an atheist mode, yet he continues to lead his church in worship. How? “Here’s how I’m handling my job on Sunday mornings: I see it as play acting. I see myself as taking on the role of a believer in a worship service, and performing.”

This “atheistic agnostic” stays in the ministry because he likes the people and, “I need the job still.” If he had an alternative source of income, he would take it. He feels hypocritical, but no longer believes that hypocrisy is wrong.

John is identified as a Southern Baptist minister who has primarily served as a worship leader. He was attracted to Christianity as a religion of love, but his pursuit of Christianity “brought me to the point of not believing in God.” As he explains, “I didn’t plan to become an atheist. I didn’t even want to become an atheist. It’s just I had no choice. If I’m being honest with myself.”

He is clearly not being honest with his church members. He rejects all belief in God and all Christian truth claims out of hand. He is a determined atheist. Once again, this unbelieving minister admits that he stays in the ministry because of finances. Amazingly, this minister even names his price: “If someone said, ‘Here’s $200,000,’ I’d be turning my notice in this week, saying, ‘A month from now is my last Sunday.’ Because then I can pay off everything.”

Early in their report, Dennett and LaScola point to a problem of definition. Many churches and denominations have adopted such fluid and doctrineless identities that determining who is a believer and who is an unbeliever has become difficult. Their statement deserves a close reading:

The ambiguity about who is a believer and who is an unbeliever follows inexorably from the pluralism that has been assiduously fostered by many religious leaders for a century and more: God is many different things to different people, and since we can’t know if one of these conceptions is the right one, we should honor them all. This counsel of tolerance creates a gentle fog that shrouds the question of belief in God in so much indeterminacy that if asked whether they believed in God, many people could sincerely say that they don’t know what they are being asked.

In other words, some theologians and denominations have embraced a theology so fluid and indeterminate that even an atheist cannot tell the believers and unbelievers apart.

“Preachers Who Are Not Believers” is a stunning and revealing report that lays bare a level of heresy, apostasy, and hypocrisy that staggers the mind. In 1739, Gilbert Tennett preached his famous sermon, “On the Danger of an Unconverted Ministry.” In that sermon, Tennett described unbelieving pastors as a curse upon the church. They prey upon the faith and the faithful. “These caterpillars labor to devour every green thing.”

If they will not remove themselves from the ministry, they must be removed. If they lack the integrity to resign their pulpits, the churches must muster the integrity to eject them. If they will not “out” themselves, it is the duty of faithful Christians to “out” them. The caterpillars are hard at work. Will it take a report from an atheist to awaken the church to the danger?



Dr. R. Albert Mohler, Jr., serves as president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary — the flagship school of the Southern Baptist Convention and one of the largest seminaries in the world.



Source: http://www.albertmohler.com/2010/03/18/clergy-who-dont-believe-the-scandal-of-apostate-pastors/

..

AGAIN! City orders Bible study closed

FAITH UNDER FIRE

AGAIN! City orders Bible study closed
Municipal rule also says praying family could be banned 'church' meeting

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: March 17, 2010
11:25 pm Eastern




By Bob Unruh
© 2010 WorldNetDaily



A southern California city has ordered a Friday night Bible study involving about a dozen people to shut down its meetings by Good Friday or members could face financial sanctions.

Or they could apply to purchase an expensive permit from the city government.

The new case is similar to a dispute last week in Gilbert, Ariz., and another last year in San Diego County.

Now, in Rancho Cucamonga, legal experts defending Bible study members say the city is targeting a Bible study for banishment, and officials say they are "not budging."

In the previous cases, San Diego County officials apologized after a code enforcement officer tried to shut down a Bible study, and in Gilbert, officials told WND last week they were working on a change in a zoning requirement that had been interpreted by staff members to ban Bible studies from residences.

In Rancho Cucamonga, however, the city apparently is intentionally pursuing the closure of a Bible study, according to Brad Dacus, whose Pacific Justice Institute is working on the case.

"The city's stance has similarities to, but is perhaps even harsher than a pending situation in Gilbert, Ariz., and a flare-up last year over a home Bible Study in San Diego County," his organization confirmed.

Rancho Cucamonga officials are demanding that the small home Bible study group stop meeting – or apply to purchase a Conditional Use Permit that also would be required for a full church operation.

Dacus said the study group has been meeting Friday nights and averages about 15 people. Members are affiliated with Shiloh Tabernacle, which rents a community center for Sunday services.

The city recently dispatched a letter to the homeowner insisting the study is not allowed because it is a "church," Dacus said. In the city, churches are required to obtain a "Conditional Use Permit" in residential areas.

"The city has also indicated that no CUP would be granted and the gatherings must cease by Good Friday, April 2," PJI said.

Senior Counsel Michael Peffer, who heads the organization's Southern California office, represents the homeowner where the Bible study meets and is contesting the orders.

"Imposing a CUP requirement on a home Bible study is manifestly absurd and unjust," Dacus said. "I don't know of a single court in America that would approve their actions."

His organization previously has guided churches through the CUP process, which requires public hearings, traffic studies, architectural design reviews and even seismic retrofits – a process that can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars.

"We will give the city a chance to rescind its letter without litigation, but we are fully prepared to take this as far as is necessary to defend this Bible study group – and countless others like it," he said.

Multiple WND messages left with members of the city's building department as well as other city officials were not returned.

Dacus said the city's stance is a significant problem because the its definition of a church is so broad.

"According to their definition a family praying over their dinner would qualify as a church," he told WND.

The precedent that would be created should the rule stand, he said, should alarm religious people across the nation.

"When you step back and look at communist China, home churches are being persecuted there. This isn't any different. And this isn't even a church, just a Bible study, facing the same ultimatums, the same demands as in communist China.

"Make no mistake, if we let the city of Rancho Cucamonga get away with this, it will be a green light to every other city in the U.S," he said.

"This is no misunderstanding," he said. "In this case the city knows exactly what they're doing, exactly what the facts are, and they're not budging."

The city, however, has no similar restrictions for Monday night football parties or various other events that would be held in homes, PJI pionted out.
.
.
.

The Bishops, Not Stupak, Are the Problem


AIM Column By Cliff Kincaid March 22, 2010


The health care debate, with either side citing this or that Catholic group, has proven that the Catholic Church is exercising far too much influence over the national affairs of the United States.


Last November we noted that, through the Stupak amendment, the Catholic Bishops guaranteed passage of Obamacare through the House of Representatives. The Bishops put on a big show this time around, saying that they were opposed to the House passing the Senate health care bill without similar Stupak language. In the end, Stupak, a "pro-life Catholic Democrat," made a deal, once again guaranteeing passage of the bill in the House. It's difficult to believe the Bishops were not in on it.

This is because, as we also revealed in late January, a personal representative of the Bishops explained during a conference call in favor of health care legislation and "comprehensive immigration reform" that it was all about money. Kevin Appleby, director of the Bishops' Office of Migration Policy and Public Affairs, said the Bishops wanted a national health care plan funded by taxpayers to pick up the costs associated with covering the illegal aliens coming to the Catholic hospitals.

It's impossible to believe, in the final analysis, that Stupak betrayed the Bishops. Catholic Church lobbyists were working hand-in-glove with Stupak from the start.

Even as they were issuing press releases insisting that the bill had to be more pro-life, the Bishops were reiterating that they have been for national health legislation all along and that they wanted to see it changed to cover more immigrants. "Universal coverage should be truly universal," they said. In other words, they wanted it to be more expansive and expensive. They don't think Obama and the Democrats went far enough!

In the same letter calling for tougher pro-life language, the Bishops called for "undocumented immigrants" to be allowed to buy health insurance under the federal plan.

Stupak says his deal with Obama over abortion funding, in the form of an Executive Order, reaffirms that the Hyde amendment "could not be circumvented and that no taxpayer dollars would be used to pay for health plans that cover abortion." Democrats for Life of America supported the deal.

Pro-life conservatives and Republicans disagree. But the point is that the bill has pro-life cover. One can expect the Bishops, now that the legislation has passed, to officially fall into line as well and start talking about holding Obama's "feet to the fire" and so on. It will be more pro-life rhetoric. Meanwhile, Catholic hospitals will be wildly feeding at the public trough.

While commentators speculate as to whether Stupak was in favor of health care legislation all along and was always intending to vote for it, the real attention should be on the Bishops. They were playing the double-game, acting as if the legislation had to be toughened-up in order to be more pro-life, while insisting it be expanded to cover more immigrants. They were sounding conservative and liberal at the same time. All along they were active players because, in the end, they wanted to see national health care legislation passed.

On Friday, Richard Doerflinger, associate director of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops' Secretariat of Pro-Life Activities, was part of a conference call in opposition to House passage of the Senate bill on pro-life grounds. He was asked about a group of Catholic nuns endorsing the bill and expressed his opinion that they were ignorant about how abortion would be funded on the federal level through the Senate bill. I asked why he or other Catholic Church lobbyists or the Bishops themselves hadn't educated them about the issue. He had no coherent explanation.

When I asked why the five Catholic lobbyists involved in passing the original Stupak language were not being sent to explain to the nuns why the legislation was deficient, he took issue with the number of church lobbyists that were reported to have been working on Capitol Hill.

Whatever the number, the Bishops know how to lobby and make their views known. But they clearly permitted Catholic groups like NETWORK, "a national Catholic social justice lobby," to support the legislation, even without pro-life language.

"NETWORK congratulations [sic] the U.S. House of Representative for passing the historic healthcare reform legislation," the group proclaims. "This is a remarkable time in our nation's history as we finally take concrete steps to bring healthcare to tens of millions of people who have been denied this essential right."

The conclusion is inescapable that the Bishops were playing both sides of the street, so that, no matter what happened, they could work with the winning side. The Obama executive order gives them cover, too.

The health care debate, with either side citing this or that Catholic group, has proven that the Catholic Church is exercising far too much influence over the national affairs of the United States. If Marxism is coming to America, it has a Catholic imprint.

The Catholic Church is quickly moving ahead to pass a bill to grant amnesty to illegal aliens. It is significant that on Sunday, as national health care legislation was passing the House, the Catholic Bishops were promoting a rally on the National Mall in Washington, D.C. to force congressional passage of "comprehensive immigration reform." The rally was preceded by a Mass in support of immigrants with celebrants Cardinal Mahony and Bishop Wester at St. Aloysius Catholic Church in Washington, D.C.

The Center for Community Change (CCC), supported by hundreds of thousands of dollars from the Open Society Institute of George Soros, organized the demonstration, operating through the front group called "Reform Immigration for America." The CCC has also been supported by the Catholic Campaign for Human Development, an arm of the Catholic Bishops. John Carr, the Bishops' director for justice, peace and human development, once sat on the board of the CCC.
One of the key sponsors of the pro-amnesty rally was the Catholic Legal Immigration Network, an organization established by the Bishops which has received at least $530,000 from the Open Society Institute.

Germonique R. Ulmer, CCC director of media relations, denied this columnist press credentials to cover the rally, saying, "I've been informed by trusted sources that you are not a legitimate news gathering operation."

I went anyway and took a series of photos of the demonstrators and the assorted Marxists who were there passing out their Spanish-language pro-communist literature. The demonstrators carried many different signs, one of them saying, "Catholic Campaign for Immigration Reform," with a reference to "Justice for Immigrants" in smaller letters. The "Justice for Immigrants" project is officially sponsored by the Catholic Bishops.

The Marxist conquest of America is on track, and it is being disguised in Catholic religious garb. The problem isn't just Stupak; it's the Catholic Church hierarchy. They were playing conservatives like suckers.


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


.