Sunday, September 30, 2012

On DC's Red Sunday, A Call "To Look For the Good"


In the 60th edition of a classic rite of Washington autumn, this morning saw six of the nine Justices of the US Supreme Court fill the front pew of St Matthew's Cathedral for the capital's annual Red Mass, held as ever on the Sunday before the first Monday of October, when the Supremes' new term begins.

Led by Chief Justice John Roberts – the second Catholic ever to hold the post – the top-bench delegation was rounded out by Associate Justices Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan

Organized by the District's venerable John Carroll Society of Catholic lawyers – named for the founding bishop of these States – and always celebrated by the city's archbishop, given the crowd, the DC Red's guest preacher could well be considered American Catholicism's most prestigious annual speaking gig.

Along those lines, following in the recent footsteps of Tim DolanGus DiNoiaDan DiNardoPeter SartainSeán O'Malley and the Venerable Ted, this year's pulpit honors have fallen to the capital-based Archbishop of the Military Services, the Cleveland-born Timothy Broglio, a career Vatican diplomat now charged with the spiritual welfare of some 1.5 million American Catholics either in uniform or on government service abroad, a flock far younger than practically any other in the Stateside church.

In the midst of a heated election season and an epic church-state showdown over the parameters of religious freedom on these shores, here below is the full text of Broglio's homily, as prepared for delivery.



Read more
.

The 60th Annual Red Mass & Brunch


1010_RedMass_0014Web.jpg

SUNDAY, SEPTEMBER 30, 2012


Time: 10:00AM-1:00PM
St. Matthew's Cathedral & The Capital Hilton
Sunday, September 30, 2012


60th Annual Red Mass & Brunch Sunday, September 30, 2012 Time: 10:00AM-1:00PM The Cathedral of St. Matthew the Apostle & The Capital Hilton Sunday, September 30, 2012 The Red Mass is celebrated annually at the Cathedral, traditionally on the Sunday before the first Monday in October, which marks the opening of the Supreme Court’s annual term. Its purpose is to invoke God’s blessings on those responsible for the administration of justice as well as on all public officials. His Eminence, Donald Cardinal Wuerl, Archbishop of Washington, Principal Celebrant Most Reverend, Timothy P. Broglio, Archbishop for the Military Services, USA, Homilist Brunch and Pro Bono Legal Awards presentation to follow at the Capital Hilton, 1001 16th Street, NW. The Mass is free and open to the public. You must register in advance for the brunch.

.

“Pulpit Freedom Sunday” Pits Church Leaders Against IRS

Posted on September 27, 2012


Pulpit Freedom Sunday will see religious leaders around the country endorse political candidates; how the IRS will react remains unclear.

On October 7, Pastor Jim Garlow will share his opinion with 2000 members of his Skyline Wesleyan megachurch in La Mesa, CA about who they should vote for in the 2012 presidential election in an event called “Pulpit Freedom Sunday”. Garlow will undertake this course of action despite knowing that it violates IRS regulations for organizations like his, and that the IRS could revoke Skyline Wesleyan’s tax-exempt status as a result. Garlow, as well as over 1000 preachers from across the country, are planning on using Pulpit Freedom Sunday to bring supposed infringements of religious liberty and “muzzling” of churches to national attention.

One of the primary arguments supporting the sentiments behind Pulpit Freedom Sunday is based in American history. The Speak Up Movement, which “Protects and promotes the rights of our churches” and one of the organizations involved in organizing the event, points out that pastors speaking from their pulpits have frequently become involved in politics throughout the course of our national history and have played a large part in shaping the country into what it is today. A video on the Speak Up Movement’s website discusses how churches supported the push for American independence from Britain, protested slavery, and backed the civil rights movement of the 1960s and argues that preachers should be allowed to vocally support individual candidates by virtue of these precedents.


Reason for the debate

The focus of religious liberty proponents’ complaints is a major stipulation included in a 1954 tax code that says that churches are not allowed to enjoy tax-exempt status if they preach in favor of a political party or issue during services, through newsletters or in any other form of church communications with their congregation. Specifically, IRS rules for 501(c)(3) charitable organizations state that they cannot act “on behalf of (or in opposition to) a candidate for public office.” It is thus a violation of the restrictions governing who is allowed to claim tax exempt status when church leaders like Garlow communicate their opinions about political candidates to their flock.

The threat of having their tax exempt status revoked is a very serious one for many, if not all, of the churches involved in Pulpit Freedom Sunday. Garlow’s megachurch, for example, would be taxed at rates comparable to those levied on for-profit corporations for the millions of dollars in collects in donations every year if its tax-exempt status is revoked. American churches, and the patrons of those churches, would be taxed $25 billion more a year if all church-related tax exemptions were abolished (note that those are actual tax revenues and not the additional amount of money that federal, state, and local governments would be able to apply taxes to).

Provoking a federal reaction



The Catholic church has announced plans to hold their own version of this event, called Fortnight for Freedom.

Despite the serious implications of a church losing their tax-exempt status, Garlow would welcome it and see it as an opportunity for religious liberty advocates across the country to permanently change tax codes.

“We’re hoping the IRS will respond by doing what they have threatened [and revoke a church’s tax-exempt status],” he said. “We have to wait for it to be applied to a particular church or pastor so that we can challenge it in court. We don’t think it’s going to take long for a judge to strike this [tax code] down as unconstitutional.”

Some of the ministers involved in Pulpit Freedom Sunday have even sent videos of them speaking about political issues in front of their congregations to the IRS in an attempt to provoke lawsuits.

Bolstered by the efforts of Protestant ministers, a cohort of Catholic bishops have announced plans to host their own version of Pulpit Freedom Sunday, “Fortnight for Freedom.” Catholic officials throughout the country have pledged to continue their criticism of the Obama administration and his policies on birth control and health care so that Americans will be able to “vote with their Catholic consciences” during the upcoming presidential election.
IRS inaction

Despite the blatant and flagrant breaking of its tax codes at the hands of the church leaders involved in Pulpit Freedom Sunday, the IRS has done nothing to stop them. One major reason behind their inaction is their desire to be seen as an impartial, non-political federal agency. Cracking down on churches would inevitably be seen as a partisan, pro-liberal move, something that the IRS is especially keen to avoid while a Democrat occupies the White House.

A program set up by the IRS to counter political activity amongst charitable organizations like churches, the Political Activity Compliance Initiative, appears to have been inactive since 2009.


Source
.


Saturday, September 29, 2012

Obama slammed on Fast and Furious in Spanish-language TV interview: Shouldn’t you ‘fire’ Holder? [VIDEO]

Published: 5:16 PM 09/20/2012



Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/09/20/obama-slammed-on-fast-and-furious-in-spanish-language-tv-interview-shouldnt-you-fire-eric-holder/#ixzz27sejJmEL

.

Police brace for trouble as thousands join Northern Ireland march



By the CNN Wire Staff
updated 8:37 AM EDT, Sat September 29, 2012
Orangemen march past St.Patrick's Catholic Church in north Belfast, Northern Ireland on September 29, 2012.
Orangemen march past St.Patrick's Catholic Church in north Belfast, Northern Ireland on September 29, 2012

Belfast, Northern Ireland (CNN) -- Thousands of people are taking part Saturday in a march through the Northern Ireland city of Belfast that many fear could inflame tensions between Catholics and Protestants.

Over the course of the day, up to 30,000 people were expected to join the Ulster Covenant parade, held to mark the 100th anniversary of the signing of a pro-union document which helped shape Northern Ireland's history.

The parade left from Belfast City Hall Saturday morning, headed for the grounds of Stormont, beside the Parliament Buildings.

Concerns over potential disorder along the route center have focused on an area near St. Patrick's Church, where violence flared up between Catholics and Protestants earlier this month.

The parade passed near the flashpoint Roman Catholic church, near the city center, without incident Saturday morning but must still return along that route in the evening.

Hundreds of police officers are stationed along the route in that area, with many more elsewhere in the city, as the Northern Ireland police service braces for possible trouble.

About 2,000 people took part in the morning parade feeding into the main demonstration, in which tens of thousands are expected to take part.

The parade, a special event for the Ulster Covenant centenary, is expected to be one of the biggest held in years.

Hundreds of parades take place across Northern Ireland each year, the majority involving the Protestant Orange Order and associated organizations, although pro-Irish nationalists also have marches.

The Northern Ireland Parades Commission rules on which marches are allowed to take place and which are banned, in an effort to keep friction to a minimum.

Most parades pass off peacefully, but when members of one community march near or through neighborhoods dominated by another, violence sometimes occurs.

The rioting in Belfast earlier this month, which left dozens of police officers injured, was some of the worst seen by the city in years.

Tensions have been high all summer, and behind-the-scenes talks over Saturday's highly symbolic parade did not succeed in brokering a compromise between the Catholic and Protestant communities over the staging of the event.

The Ulster Covenant was a document signed in 1912 by nearly half a million people in opposition to steps by the government in Westminster to introduce "Home Rule," or self-government, in Ireland within the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.

The majority of the island gained independence in 1921, following two years of conflict. But six of the nine counties of the province of Ulster chose to stay in the United Kingdom, eventually becoming the country of Northern Ireland.

In the late 1960s, the conflict between mainly Protestant unionists, who want Northern Ireland to remain part of the United Kingdom, and largely Roman Catholic nationalists, who want it to be reunited with the rest of Ireland, exploded into a political and sectarian war, known as the Troubles.

The three decades of ensuing violence between the Irish Republican Army and loyalists claimed the lives of more than 3,000 people, most of them north of the border. While the Good Friday Agreement of 1998 effectively ended the conflict, suspicions between Catholics and Protestants remain.

Under the terms of the landmark accord, terrorist groups on both sides dumped their weapons, and Sinn Fein, the political affiliate of the IRA, now work with pro-British politicians in Northern Ireland's power-sharing government.

Journalist Peter Taggart and CNN's Laura Smith-Spark contributed to this report.

Source
..

Seventh-day Adventists facing pressure on allowing female clergy


Seventh Day Adventist Female Pastors
Pastor Courtney Ray, who serves as an associate pastor at a church in Compton, Calif., called the Pacific Union decision “long overdue.” She chose not to be “commissioned” and now looks forward to an ordination ceremony if an executive committee approves her for ordination. RNS photo courtesy Courtney Ray

(RNS) Two U.S. regional groups of the Seventh-day Adventist Church have recently approved the ordination of women pastors, moving faster than the worldwide church’s study of the issue.
The Pacific Union Conference, which includes California and four other Western states, voted 79 percent to 21 percent at a special session on Aug. 19 to “approve ordinations to the gospel ministry without regard to gender.” Weeks earlier, the Maryland-based Columbia Union Conference, which includes eight Mid-Atlantic states, adopted a similar change in its policy, with 80 percent in favor.

World leaders of the church — who appealed for unity before the votes were cast — said they were disappointed with the conferences’ actions. They said the Columbia Union’s July 29 action was “not in harmony” with the general policy of the church, and said the Pacific Union would “preempt the collective decisions of the world church regarding ordination.”
Leaders of the Maryland-based Seventh-day Adventist Church, which is best known for observing the Sabbath on Saturday instead of Sunday, are in the midst of studying the “theology of ordination” for possible consideration at their 2015 General Conference Session.
There are about 320 women pastors in the worldwide Adventist Church. Within North America, there are about 120 women pastors and about 4,100 male pastors. Many Seventh-day Adventist women pastors hold a “commissioned” credential, which does not permit ordination, while most male pastors hold a “ministerial” credential, which does.
In 1990, the General Conference Session, the highest authority of the global church, approved a recommendation that prevented authorization of ordination of women to the gospel ministry. Five years later, it rejected a request from its North American Division that its regional groups be permitted to authorize ordination regardless of gender.
In an official response to the Pacific Union, Seventh-day Adventist Church President Ted N.C. Wilson and other officers cited those previous decisions and said world church leaders “will carefully review the situation and determine how to respond,” possibly at an October meeting.
Adventists are not the first group to face disparate action on women’s ordination. In 1974, 11 women were “irregularly” ordained as priests in the Episcopal Church, two years before the national church voted to allow female priests and bishops.
Pastor Andrea Trusty King, pastor of an Adventist congregation in Moreno Valley, Calif., was elated by the Pacific Union Conference decision.
“I see it as a move of God,” said King, 34. “The church is recognizing what he has been doing for a long time.”
But King said everyone is not rejoicing, and she thinks the divide is more generational than geographical.
“You have older people who absolutely don’t believe in this and young people who are saying, ‘What’ s the big deal?’” she said.
Pastor Courtney Ray, who serves as an associate pastor at a church in Compton, Calif., called the Pacific Union decision “long overdue.” She chose not to be “commissioned” and now looks forward to an ordination ceremony if an executive committee approves her for ordination.
Ray said there was a tension between wanting to be sensitive to church leaders’ desire for everyone to “move together on this issue” and the sense of others who felt it was a “bad witness” for there to be different designations for male and female clergy.
“But the bottom line is that if something is right, then there’s never a time to wait to do the right thing,” said Ray, 31.
Pastor Stephen Bohr, an opponent of women’s ordination who leads an Adventist church in Fresno, Calif., said the Bible calls for women to have different roles from men. By his reading, women can be prophets — such as church co-founder Ellen White — and deaconesses, but only men can be pastors.
“I just am disappointed that the Pacific Union would launch out on its own and not wait for the world church to make a determination,” said Bohr, 62. “I think they jumped the gun.”
Garrett Caldwell, a spokesman for the world church, said there is “excitement” in many corners of the Seventh-day Adventist Church about the possibility of full recognition of women’s ministry roles.
“There’s an anticipation of that recognition, but I think the greatest concern is that as this body grows and matures and adapts that it is able to stay a united body,” he said.
.



Sunday trading: Give us a break!

Why shutting up shop on Sunday is good for everyone 

By Cherry Hamilton

Posted: Saturday, September 29, 2012, 9:47 (BST)
Sunday trading: Give us a break!PA

















The irony didn’t escape me, when, on Boxing Day, I found myself taking calls from the media, explaining why shop workers shouldn’t have to work on Boxing Day. That was four years ago, when I worked for Usdaw, the shop workers’ union.
Fast forward to 2012, and Sunday trading was relaxed temporarily for the Olympic and Paralympic Games. The Games are over but the debate rages on. Should shops continue to open all hours, including for longer on Sundays?
The argument seems to focus on the fact that we’re an increasingly secular country, most of whom don’t attend church on a Sunday, so why not deregulate Sunday trading? I’ll tell you why not.
The reason Christians argue for a day off is because it’s good for people to have a rest, not for some abstract or particularly religious reason. Jesus annoyed the authorities of his day by being anti-legalistic, picking corn on the Sabbath (which was considered ‘work’) and claiming that, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.” A day off is to make life easier, not harder.
While our lives may be a little easier if we can pop to the shops for milk, think how much less easy it is for shop workers, for whom it’s just like any other day. There need to be safeguards in place so that they can rest too.
In law, shop workers can ask not to work on Sundays, but increased Sunday opening hours mean that many workers report feeling pressurised to work whether they want to or not. They might want to show that they are committed to the job, make sure they get a promotion or perhaps just don’t want to let down their colleagues, who also have to muck in with shifts.
They can take off days during the week instead, but it’s not the same. In a way it doesn’t really matter which day people have off, so long as most people are off at the same time. It allows people to see their families/friends and enjoy a day that is different to all the rest.
Doctors, police etc. have to work Sunday shifts, but why add to that unnecessarily?
The lovely irony is that businesses themselves are more productive if they allow their employees rest, as W. K. Kellogg discovered in 1935. In a counter-intuitive move, he cut his staff’s working day by two whole hours, whilst keeping their pay the same. Both morale and productivity rose. Why?
A change really is as good as a rest. A day off can allow a shift of perspectives – from needing to produce and acquire to simply enjoying the release of just being. This freedom tends to make folk more, not less, productive.
Philosopher and rabbi, A J Heschel, elucidated this beautifully:
“There is a realm of time where the goal is not to have but to be, not to own but to give, not to control but to share, not to subdue but to be in accord. Life goes wrong when the control of space, the acquisition of things of space, becomes our sole concern.”


Source
.


Religious leaders look for ways to up security while keeping a doors-open policy



Dan Gross/The Gazette - Parishioners fill the sanctuary for service at Covenant Life Church in Gaithersburg on Sunday.



Dan Gross/The Gazette - Parishioners fill the sanctuary for service at Covenant Life Church in Gaithersburg on Sunday.

By Elizabeth Waibel | The Gazette, Published: September 26


On Sept. 13, two days after an attack in Libya killed four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador to Libya J. Christopher Stevens, the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI issued a joint intelligence bulletin warning that the risk of violence could increase in reaction to an anti-Islam video posted to YouTube.
The bulletin urged officials and the public — including faith-based organizations — to be on the lookout for threats and suspicious activity. But that was not the first warning they had received that churches, mosques, synagogues and other places of worship can become targets for violence.
While security threats and terrorist attacks have changed the way airports, schools and concerts screen crowds of people, many religious institutions struggle to incorporate security measures into their open-doors philosophies.

In recent years, as churches and other religious institutions in Maryland have faced theft, vandalism and even violence, many are developing strategies to ensure the people who come through their doors for help are, as much as possible, kept safe.
‘Door to God’
On Aug. 5, a man walked into a Sikh temple in Oak Creek, Wis., shortly before services started. He shot and killed six worshipers in an attack apparently motivated by ethnic prejudice before killing himself.
Arvinder Uppal, chairman of the Guru Nanak Foundation of America, a Sikh place of worship in Silver Spring, heard about the attack a few hours after it happened, just after GNFA finished its services. She said her first thought was a defensive stance.
“I wanted increased security right away,” she said. “I know at GNFA we have had several hate incidents.”
After the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, people threw stones at the building and broke windows, Uppal said. In addition, two senior citizens were assaulted near the building about two years ago. Now a police officer is stationed outside the foundation during its largest weekly service.
Although extra police patrols are encouraging, Uppal said there is a limit to how much security GNFA can add. To include such protection as metal detectors and security checks would violate Sikh beliefs, she said.
Sikh places of worship are called gurdwaras, which, roughly translated, means “door to God,” Uppal said. Larger gurdwaras in India have multiple doors that are open to anyone at all hours of the day.
“How do you close the doors of the most open community in the world? We will not do that,” Uppal said. “We will not change the basic tenets of Sikhism because of one person’s mistake.”
In North Potomac, Bhai Gurdarshan Singh, head granthi of the Guru Gobind Singh Foundation, said he thinks the area’s diverse international community helps keep religious minorities safe.
His gurdwara has a security camera in one corner, although the doors remain unlocked from early morning until late evening so people can come in, bow and read the scripture verse of the day.
“Traditionally, people, before they go to work . . . just come and bow and go,” he said, saying that many stop by on the way home from work as well.

Read more


Corruption whistleblower on trial instead of Vatican officials



File photo shows Pope Benedict XVI (R) waving as he stands in his popemobile with his butler Paolo Gabriele (C) upon arrival for a weekly general audience at Saint Peter
File photo shows Pope Benedict XVI (R) waving as he stands in his popemobile with his butler Paolo Gabriele (C) upon arrival for a weekly general audience at Saint Peter's Square in The Vatican.Pope Benedict XVI's former butler Paolo Gabriele (R) sitting in a courtroom for the start of a closely-watched case that could see him receive up to four years in prison for aggravated theft, September 29, 2012.

File photo shows Pope Benedict XVI (R) waving as he stands in his popemobile with his butler Paolo Gabriele (C) upon arrival for a weekly general audience at Saint Peter's Square in The Vatican.


Sat Sep 29, 2012 2:42PM GMT

Instead of trying high-ranking officials of the Catholic Church for financial and moral corruption, a Vatican court has put the Pope’s former butler on trial for disclosing information on corruption.


Pope Benedict XVI's former butler Paolo Gabriele went on trial on Saturday in the Vatican for exposing financial and moral corruption within top brass of the Vatican. 

The trial reportedly began at a 19th-century courtroom in a corner of the city state where only eight reporters were allowed inside the courtroom and TV cameras were also banned. If found guilty, he risks up to four years in prison. 

The 46-year-old, who was arrested in May on suspicion of stealing secret documents from the pope's office, has confessed to taking confidential documents and memos and leaking them to Italian press. The ex-butler has however entered a non-guilty plea. 

He told investigators that he was hoping to save the Church by exposing “evil and corruption” within it.

Gabriele says he acted alone, but many believe he worked as part of a wider group of disgruntled Vatican employees. 

Many of the letters and other confidential documents that he allegedly took from the pontiff's desk were published in a book by an Italian journalist in May, which prove that the highest levels of Vatican officials are deeply involved in financial corruption and infighting over the power. 

MR/MAM/JR/SS

Source

Happy Sabbath


Friday, September 28, 2012

Watch this and you will know we're in END TIMES!




Published on Jul 13, 2012 by genoark

Video credit to youtube user fidockave213

Even seeing these events skyrocketing our days, denying Jesus's return is very soon to come is not reasonable.

God predicts these in the Bible

1. FALSE PROPHETS AND CHRISTS

Matthew 24:5 "For many will come in my name, saying, I am Christ, and will mislead many."

Matthew 24:11 "And many false prophets will arise, and will mislead many."


2. WARS

Matthew 24:6 "And you will be hearing of wars and rumors of wars; see that you are not frightened, for those things must take place, but that is not yet the end."

Rumors of wars in all areas of the world now occur frequently thanks to instant media coverage and the availability of a multitude of 24-hour news sources.

Matthew 24:7 "For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom, and in various places there will be famines and earthquakes."

More people have been killed in warfare in this century than at any other time in history. As the death toll rises in the Middle East, more and more countries work feverishly to develop devastating weapons of mass destruction. Add to that the expanding threat of terrorism and unpredictable dictators such as Saddam Hussein, and the potential for the outbreak of war exists in nations, kingdoms and places across the globe.


3. FAMINES

Matthew 24:7 "For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom, and in various places there will be famines and earthquakes."

As white, Christian farmers are driven out of Zimbabwe in increasing numbers, and foreigners move in to replace life-sustaining crops with poppies that now supply 25% of the worlds drugs, famine spreads across the African continent. The undernourished are not limited to Africa, however. A large portion of the worlds 5 billion people suffers from a shortage of food.

4. EARTHQUAKES

Matthew 24:7 "For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom, and in various places there will be famines and earthquakes."

The number and intensity of earthquakes this century is at a level higher than any other time in history. A staggering number of seismic events occur around the world daily. The earthquake seismic monitor IRIS shows all major earthquakes for the last year. Indicated by yellow and red circles, the seismic events of the last 15 days provides strong evidence of the fulfillment of Matthew 24:7 in our day. By contrast, in the years from 1890 to 1900 there was only one major earthquake in the world.


5. TRIBULATIONS

Matthew 24:8-9 "But all these things are merely the beginning of birth pangs. Then they will deliver you to tribulation, and will kill you, and you will be hated by all nations on account of my name."

6. THE GOSPEL WILL BE PREACHED THROUGHOUT THE WORLD

Matthew 24:14 "And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world for a witness to all the nations, and then the end shall come."

This prophecy has already been fulfilled through television, radio, missionaries, the translation of the Bible into many languages, and the internet. People all over the world now hear the message of Christ from missionaries who have the means to travel the globe, and via technology that allows us to communicate with people on the other side of the world right from our own homes, churches and offices.


TWO CHARACTERISTICS OF THE END OF THE AGE FROM THE APOSTLE PAUL

1. GODLESSNESS IN THE LAST DAYS

II Timothy 3:1-5,7 "But realize this, that in the last days difficult times will come. For men will be lovers of self, lovers of money, boastful, arrogant, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, unloving, unforgiving, malicious gossips, without self-control, brutal, haters of good, treacherous, reckless, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of god; holding to a form of godliness, although they have denied its power; always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth."

2. APOSTASY (FALLING AWAY FROM THE FAITH)

I Timothy 4:1-3 "But the spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons. By means of the hypocrisy of liars seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron, men who forbid marriage and advocate abstaining from foods which God has created to be gratefully shared in by those who believe and know the truth."





Pat Caddell Says: Media Have Become an "Enemy of the American people"




Published on Sep 27, 2012 by aimaccuracy

For full transcript please go to: http://www.aim.org/video/pat-caddell-the-audacity-of-corruption/

In recent remarks to an AIM conference, "ObamaNation: A Day of Truth," former Democratic pollster and analyst Pat Caddell said, "I think we're at the most dangerous time in our political history in terms of the balance of power in the role that the media plays in whether or not we maintain a free democracy." Caddell noted that while First Amendment protections were originally provided to the press so they would protect the liberty and freedom of the public from "organized governmental power," they had clearly relinquished the role of impartial news providers. Nowhere was this more evident than during the tragic death of a U.S. ambassador in Libya that was lied about for nine days, because the press and the administration did not want to admit it was a terrorist attack. "We've had nine days of lies over what happened because they can't dare say it's a terrorist attack, and the press won't push this," said Caddell. "Yesterday there was not a single piece in The New York Times over the question of Libya. Twenty American embassies, yesterday, are under attack. None of that is on the national news. None of it is being pressed in the papers." Caddell added that it is one thing for the news to have a biased view, but "It is another thing to specifically decide that you will not tell the American people information they have a right to know."

.

Antinomianism



Dan Corner

[Permission is granted to duplicate this article in its entirety,
but only without additions, alterations or omissions of any kind,
including the author, ministry name and address at the end.
Nothing may be removed from this page including links to other pages.]





The word antinomianism is a theological term which comes from the Greek anti (against) and nomos meaning law. It refers to the doctrine that it is not necessary for Christians to obey the moral law. In other words, such people who embrace that incorrectly think faith frees the Christian from such obligations. That person would be an antinomian. In our day he would most likely identify himself as being free grace. Though antithetical to Scripture, this view is popularly embraced by many who hold influential positions on radio and TV in our day and believe the teaching of Once Saved Always Saved (or eternal security). [The internet should also be included in that listing and that would include people like false teacher, David J. Stewart.] Under the heading of the carnal Christian, such teachers have especially spread that message:

And so, sometimes out of ignorance or whatever it might be, they attempt to gratify and meet those needs the same Charles Stanleyway they did before they were saved, and therefore, you can’t tell a carnal believer from a lost man. That is, you can’t tell the cold from the carnal because the truth is, they’re both acting the same way. Now, one of them is in Christ and one of them isn’t. One of them is lost and the other one is in Christ. One of them knows about God and knows him in the experience of salvation; the other doesn't know him at all.(1)

As far as overt behavior is concerned, a carnal believer cannot be distinguished from an unbeliever.(2)

So according to Charles Stanley and other popular teachers of our day, a carnal Christian (or antinomian) behaves the same sinful way as the unsaved! That is antinomianism or free grace theology. Sadly others, besides the Stanley and Thieme, have been teaching the same detestable way, yet they seemingly go unchallenged.


Paul can only mean that these carnal Corinthians lived like unsaved men. That clarifies why the word carnal can label both unbelievers and believers, simply because the lifestyles of both are the same. The cure for the unbeliever's carnality is salvation; the cure for the believer's is to grow in the Lord (italics his).(3)
Carnal To have the characteristics of an unsaved life either because one is an unbeliever or because though a believer, one is living like an unsaved person (italics his).(4)
Chuck Swindoll made a similar assertion about one’s understanding of the carnal Christian:

Let me clarify something because many, many in the family of Chuck SwindollGod have no room in their theology for the carnal Christian, which creates tremendous confusion. If you don’t understand the carnal Christian, you will begin to believe that you have fallen from grace. You will believe that you have been born again and then you will think later when you do these number of things, you have not been born again.(5)

According to Chuck Swindoll, one may have a misconception about falling from grace unless he understands the once saved always saved, antinomian, carnal Christian, free grace teaching! Imagine that. Last but not least is Dave Hunt, who calls himself a Berean. He also teaches about the antinomian, but refers to him as a carnal Christian:

He warns them against prostitutes and various other sins unbecoming of Christians. He even declares that a person could have been so carnal that all of his works will be burned up-yet “he himself shall be saved” (1 Cor 3:15). (6)

Hunt is not only wrong there about loss of rewards, but also thinks the sexually immoral man of 1 Cor. 5:1,2 was a Christian even though he was committing sins that even the pagans were not doing. Demon faith won’t save anyone, but these teachers say otherwise! All eternal security teachers are very dangerous people!

To read into carnal and openly teach, as the aforementioned grace changers do, is to dangerously distort the image of Christianity. By fabricating this new type of Christian, who is behaving just like the darkened, God-hating, hell-bound, Christ rejecters, multitudes are being deceived. Some are even re-opened to the greatest possible danger of being thrown into eternal fire, yet are unaware of it. Such proponents have only a false hope. Besides the immediate context of 1 Cor. 3:3, this OSAS concept of the carnal Christian is also refuted Scripturally by the following:

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. (1 Cor. 6:9,10, NASB)

First, Paul stated by question form the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor. 6:9), then told us in the next verse how to identify someone who is unrighteous from their behavior. The sexually immoral, drunkards and the greedy, among others, are included in this group and will, therefore, be excluded from the kingdom of God, unless they turn from their sins and get forgiven. No exception is made for one who previously believed on Christ. This is the true grace teaching, according to Scripture.

Dear reader, do not be deceived by the glib-speaking, teachers in our day, who will present grace in a different way and speak as to appeal to those having “itching ears” (2 Tim. 4:3). Paul also wrote this about a justifying faith:

Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law. (Rom 3:31)

Paul taught against the dietary law and ceremonial law, but upheld the moral law, which is what he is referring to in Rom. 3:31. Remember that truth and Rom. 3:31. That is a very important verse related to this subject. Paul certainly was not an antinomian, like many in our dark day have been taught. Paul taught the faith in Jesus of Nazareth that justifies is a faith that obeys. Paul wrote:

God will give to each person according to what he has done. To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. (Rom. 2:6,7)

Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing. Keeping God’s commands is what counts. (1 Cor 7:19)

He could not have been a free grace person. See also Heb. 5:9; Gal. 6:8,9; 1 John 2:3,4; etc. Remember: If you are not obeying God you do NOT have eternal salvation (Heb. 5:9). Do not be deceived by antinomianism, eternal security carnal Christian or free grace teaching.

For much more information on NO eternal security and salvation in general, please consider ordering our Evangelical books, “The Believer’s Conditional Security and “The Myth of Eternal Security.”

GOD BLESS YOU. 
----------------------------------------------------
End Notes:

(1) Charles Stanley (Atlanta, GA: In Touch Ministries, 1982), Spiritual Vs. Carnal: Study in 1 Corinthians, audiotape #8, PQ092.
(2) R. B. Thieme, Jr., The Prodigal Son (Houston, TX: R. B. Thieme, Jr. Bible Ministries, 1974), p. 8.
(3) Charles C. Ryrie, So Great Salvation (Victor Books, 1989), p. 62.
(4) Ibid., p. 155.
(5) Chuck Swindoll, Clearing the Hurdle of Carnality: Selections from 1 Corinthians, audiotape CHH 5-A.
(6) Dave Hunt, January 2007, The Berean Call, p. 5.

************************************************************************************************

Various Topics:








Join Our Internet Church

PO Box 265, Washington, PA 15301
www.evangelicaloutreach.org


Source
.


Who owns and controls the Federal Reserve




Dr. Edward Flaherty


Is the Federal Reserve System secretly owned and covertly controlled by powerful foreign banking interests? If so, how? These claims, made chiefly by authors Eustace Mullins (1983) and Gary Kah (1991) and repeated by many others, are quite serious because the Fed is the United States central bank and controls U.S. monetary policy. By changing the supply of money in circulation, the Fed influences interest rates, affecting the mortgage payments of millions of families, causing the financial markets to boom or collapse, and prompting the economy to expand or to stumble into recession. Such awesome power presumably would be used to benefit the U.S. economy. Mullins and Kah both argued that the Federal Reserve Bank of New York is owned by foreigners. Although the New York Fed is just one of twelve Federal Reserve banks, controlling it, they claimed, is tantamount to control of the entire System. Foreigners use their command of the New York Fed to manipulate U.S. monetary policy for their own and, as Kah asserted, to further their global political goals, namely the establishment of the sinister New World Order.

This essay examines the accuracy of these claims. Specifically, it investigates the charge that the New York Federal Reserve Bank is owned, directly or indirectly, by foreign elements, whether the New York Fed in effect runs the whole Federal Reserve System, and whether its enormous annual profits accrue primarily to foreigners or to the U.S government. This essay shows that there is little evidence to support the idea of foreign ownership and much that contradicts it. In addition, it presents evidence to show that the New York Fed does not command the entire System, as well as recent data demonstrating that the System's profits are paid to the federal government.

Who Owns the Federal Reserve Bank of New York?

Each of the twelve Federal Reserve Banks is organized into a corporation whose shares are sold to the commercial banks and thrifts operating within the Bank's district. Shareholders elect six of the nine the board of directors for their regional Federal Reserve Bank as well as its president. Mullins reported that the top eight stockholders of the New York Fed were, in order from largest to smallest as of 1983, Citibank, Chase Manhatten, Morgan Guaranty Trust, Chemical Bank, Manufacturers Hanover Trust, Bankers Trust Company, National Bank of North America, and the Bank of New York (Mullins, p. 179). Together, these banks owned about 63 percent of the New York Fed's outstanding stock. Mullins then showed that many of these banks are owned by about a dozen European banking organizations, mostly British, and most notably the Rothschild banking dynasty. Through their American agents they are able to select the board of directors for the New York Fed and to direct U.S. monetary policy. Mullins explained,

'... The most powerful men in the United States were themselves answerable to another power, a foreign power, and a power which had been steadfastly seeking to extend its control over the young republic since its very inception. The power was the financial power of England, centered in the London Branch of the House of Rothschild. The fact was that in 1910, the United States was for all practical purposes being ruled from England, and so it is today' (Mullins, p. 47-48).
He further commented that the day the Federal Reserve Act was passed, "the Constitution ceased to be the governing covenant of the American people, and our liberties were handed over to a small group of international bankers" (Ibid, p. 29).

Unfortunately, Mullins' source for the stockholders of the New York Fed could not be verified. He claimed his source was the Federal Reserve Bulletin, although it has never included shareholder information, nor has any other Federal Reserve periodical. It is difficult researching this particular claim because a Federal Reserve Bank is not a publicly traded corporation and is therefore not required by the Securities and Exchange Commission to publish a list of its major shareholders. The question of ownership can still be addressed, however, by examining the legal rules for acquisition of such stock. The Federal Reserve Act requires national banks and participating state banks to purchase shares of their regional Federal Reserve Bank upon joining the System, thereby becoming "member banks" (12 USCA 282). Since the eight banks Mullins named all operate within the New York Federal Reserve district, and are all nationally chartered banks, they are required to be shareholders of the New York Federal Reserve Bank. They are also probably the major shareholders as Mullins claimed.

Are these eight banks on Mullins' list of stockholders owned by foreigners, what Mullins termed the London Connection? The SEC requires the name of any individual or organization that owns more than 5 percent of the outstanding shares of a publicly traded firm be made public. If foreigners own any shares of Mullins' eight banks, then their portions are not greater than 5 percent at this time. With no significant holdings of the major New York area banks, it does not seem likely that foreign conspirators could direct their actions.

Perhaps foreigners own shares of the New York Federal Reserve Bank directly. The law stipulates a small portion of Federal Reserve stock may be available for sale to the public. No person or organization, however, may own more than $25,000 of such public stock and none of it carries voting rights (12 USCA 283). However, under the terms of the Federal Reserve Act, public stock was only to be sold in the event the sale of stock to member banks did not raise the minimum of $4 million of initial capital for each Federal Reserve Bank when they were organized in 1913 (12 USCA 281). Each Bank was able to raise the necessary amount through member stock sales, and no public stock was ever sold to the non-bank public. In other words, no Federal Reserve stock has ever been sold to foreigners; it has only been sold to banks which are members of the Federal Reserve System (Woodward, 1996).

Regardless of the foreign ownership conjecture, Mullins argued that since the money-center banks of New York owned the largest portion of stock in the New York Fed, they could hand-pick its board of directors and president. This would give them, and hence the London Connection, control over Fed operations and U.S. monetary policy. This argument is faulty because each commercial bank receives one vote regardless of its size, unlike most corporate voting structures in which the number of votes is tied to the number of shares a person holds (Ibid). The New York Federal Reserve district contains over 1,000 member banks, so it is highly unlikely that even the largest and most powerful banks would be able to coerce so many smaller ones to vote in a particular manner. To control the vote of a majority of member banks would mean acquiring a controlling interest in about 500 member banks of the New York district. Such an expenditure would require an outlay in the hundreds of billions of dollars. Surely there is a cheaper path to global domination.

An historical example may make clear that member banks do not control the Federal Reserve's policies. Galbraith (1990) recounted that in the spring of 1929 the New York Stock Exchange was booming. Prices there had been rising considerably, extending the bull market that had begun in 1924. The Federal Reserve Board decided to take steps to arrest the speculative bubble that appeared to have been forming: it raised the cost banks had to pay to borrow from the Federal Reserve and it increased speculators' margin requirements. Charles Mitchell, then the head of National City Bank (today known as Citibank), which was the largest shareholder of the New York Federal Reserve Bank according to Mullins, was so irritated by this decision that in a bank statement he wrote, "We feel that we have an obligation which is paramount to any Federal Reserve warning, or anything else, to avert any dangerous crisis in the money market" (Galbraith, p. 57). National City Bank promised to increase lending to offset any restrictive policies of the Federal Reserve. Wrote Galbraith, "The effect was more than satisfactory: the market took off again. In the three summer months, the increase in prices outran all of the quite impressive increase that had occurred during the entire previous year" (Ibid). If the Fed and its policies were really under the control of its major stockholders, then why did the Federal Reserve Board clearly buck the intent of its single largest shareholder?

This information also eluded fellow conspiracy theorist Gary Kah, who disagreed with Mullins on who owns the New York Fed. His Swiss and Saudi Arabian contacts identified the top eight shareholders as the Rothschild Banks of London and Berlin; Lazard Brothers Banks of Paris; Israel Moses Seif Banks of Italy; Warburg Bank of Hamburg and Amsterdam; Lehman Brothers of New York; Kuhn, Loeb Bank of New York; Chase Manhatten; and Goldman, Sachs of New York (Kah, p. 13). It is impossible to verify Kah's information because it is not known who his "contacts" were. Nevertheless, Kah's list differs substantially from Mullins' compilation. Most interestingly, in Kah's list foreigners own the New York Fed directly without having to own majority interests in U.S. banks, as is the case with Mullins' list. The discrepancies in the two lists mean that at least one of them is wrong, and possibly both. Kah's list is the bogus one because no public stock has ever been issued, so it is not possible for anyone on Kah's list other than Chase Manhatten to own shares of the New York Fed.

Moreover, Kah seemed ignorant of important details about the organization of Federal Reserve stock and management, especially for someone claiming to have done as much research on the subject as he did. He referred to the organizations on his stockholders list as "Class A shareholders," which is curious because Federal Reserve stock is not classified in this manner (Ibid). It can be either member stock, which can be purchased only by commercial banks and thrifts seeking to become members of the Federal Reserve System, or public stock. However, the directors of a Federal Reserve bank are separated into Class A, B, and C categories, depending on how they are appointed (12 USCA 302, 304, 305). Three class A directors are chosen by the member banks. Three class B directors are also elected by the member banks to represent the non-bank sectors of the economy. The final three directors, class C, are picked by the Board of Governors also to represent the non-bank public. This may be the source of Kah's confusion, but it is a relatively simple point that he should have detected had his research efforts been thorough.

Does the New York Fed Call the Shots?
Mullins and Kah further argued that by controlling the New York Fed the international banking elite could command the entire Federal Reserve System, and thus direct U.S. monetary policy for their own profit. "For all practical purposes," Kah stressed, "the Federal Reserve Bank of New York is the Federal Reserve" (Ibid). This is the linchpin of their conspiracy theory because it provides the mechanism by which the international bankers execute their plans.

A brief look at how the Fed's powers over monetary policy are actually distributed shows that the key assumption in the Mullins-Kah conspiracy theory is erroneous. The Federal Reserve System is controlled not by the New York Fed, but by the Board of Governors (the Board) and the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC). The Board is a seven member panel appointed by the President and approved by the Senate. It determines the interest rate, known as the discount rate, for loans to commercial banks and thrifts, selects the required reserve ratio which determines how much of customer deposits a bank must keep on hand (a factor that significantly affects a bank's ability create new loans), and also decides how much new currency Federal Reserve Banks may issue each year (12 USCA 248). The FOMC consists of the members of the Board, the president of the New York Fed, and four presidents from other Fed Banks. The FOMC formulates open market policy, which determines how much in government bonds the Fed Banks may trade, and is the most effective and commonly used of the Fed's monetary policy tools (12 USCA 263). The key point is that a Federal Reserve Bank cannot change its discount rate or required reserve ratio, issue additional currency, or purchase government bonds without the explicit approval of either the Board or the FOMC.

The New York Federal Reserve Bank through its direct and permanent representation on the FOMC has more say on monetary policy than other Federal Reserve Banks, but it still only has one vote of twelve on the FOMC and no say at all in setting the discount rate or the required reserve ratio. If it wanted monetary policy to go in one direction, while the Board and the rest of the FOMC wanted policy to go another, then the New York Fed would be out-voted. The powers over U.S. monetary policy rest firmly with the publicly-appointed Board of Governors and the Federal Open Market Committee, not with the New York Federal Reserve Bank or a group of international conspirators.

Mullins also made a great to-do about the Federal Advisory Council (the Council). This is a panel of twelve representatives appointed by the board of directors of each Fed Bank. The Council meets at least four times each year with the members of the Board to give them their advice and to discuss general economic conditions (12 USCA 261, 262). Many of the members have been bankers, a point not at all missed by Mullins. He speculated that it is able to force its will on the Board of Governors.

The claim that the "advice" of the council members is not binding on the Governors or that it carries no weight is to claim that four times a year, twelve of the most influential bankers in the United States take time from their work to travel to Washington to meet with the Federal Reserve Board merely to drink coffee and exchange pleasantries (Mullins, p. 45).

A point very much missed by Mullins is that the Council has no voting power in Board meetings, and thus has no direct input into monetary policy. In support of his hypothesis that Council members have been able to impose their will on the Board, Mullins offered no evidence, not even an anecdote. Moreover, his Council theory is inconsistent with his general thesis that the Federal Reserve System is manipulated by European banking interests through their control of the New York Fed. If this were true, then why would they also need the Council?

Who Gets the Fed's Profits?
Gary Kah and Thomas Schauf have also maintained that the huge profits of the Federal Reserve System are diverted to its foreign owners through the dividends paid to its stockholders. Kah reported "Each year billions of dollars are 'earned' by Class A stockholders of the Federal Reserve" (Kah, p. 20). Schauf further lamented by asking, "When are the profits of the Fed going to start flowing into the Treasury so that average Americans are no longer burdened with excessive, unnecessary taxes?"

The Federal Reserve System certainly makes large profits. According to the Board's 1995 Annual Report, the System had net income totaling $23.9 billion, which, if it were a single firm, would qualify it as one of the most profitable companies in the world. How were these profits distributed? By an agreement between the Board of Governors and the Treasury, nearly all of the Fed's annual profits are paid to the federal government. Accordingly, a lion's share of $23.4 billion, which represents 97.9 percent of the Federal Reserve's net income, was transferred to the Treasury. The Federal Reserve Banks kept $283 million, and the remaining $231 million was paid to its stockholders as dividends.

Given that less than one percent of the Fed's net earnings are distributed as dividends, it seems that an investor could easily find much more profitable ways to store their wealth than buying Federal Reserve stock. Regarding Schauf's lamentation, the Federal Reserve System has been paying its profits to the Treasury since 1947.

Conclusion
It does not appear that the New York Federal Reserve Bank is owned, either directly or indirectly, by foreigners. Neither Mullins nor Kah provided verifiable sources for their allegations, nor did their mysterious sources agree on exactly who owns the New York Federal Reserve Bank. Moreover, their central assumption that control of the New York Federal Reserve is the same as control of the whole System is wrong and demonstrates a lack of understanding of the System's basic organizational structure. The profits of the Federal Reserve System, again contrary to the assertion of Kah and Schauf, are funneled back to the federal government, not to an "international banking elite." If the U.S. central bank is in the grip of a banking conspiracy, then Mullins and Kah have certainly not uncovered it.

References:
82nd Annual Report, 1995. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. U.S. Government Printing Office.
Galbraith, John K. 1990. A Short History of Financial Euphoria. New York: Whittle Direct Books.
Kah, Gary. 1991. En Route to Global Occupation. Lafayette, La.: Huntington House.
Mullins, Eustace. 1983. Secrets of the Federal Reserve. Staunton, Va.: Bankers Research Institute.
Shauf, Thomas. 1992. The Federal Reserve. Streamwood, IL: FED-UP, Inc.
Woodward, G. Thomas. 1996. "Money and the Federal Reserve System: Myth and Reality." Congressional Research Service
United States Code Annotated. 1994. U.S. Government Printing Office.

Reprinted with permission.


Source