Jesus Christ Is Lord

That every knee should bow and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father!

Posts Tagged ‘capitalism’

A Fundamentalist Or Conservative Evangelical Treatment Of The Racism Issue Is Needed

Posted by Job on July 19, 2010

I admit to being generally skeptical of common popular approach to theology (i.e. a one that attempts to address “issues and concerns”) and prefer instead to rely on exegesis, exposition, application and the wisdom of Bible-believing Christians that have run the race for us. However, some current events have me thinking that perhaps it is time for theologically conservative Christians (by this I mean fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals, or “Bible-believing Christians) need to come up with a Biblical approach to the racism issue. These events include:

Now, for reasons that I will not get into because they are not particularly relevant to the topic at hand, I believe that A) Obama will win re-election and B) the economy will continue to be bad, including possibly a “double-dip” recession. That means that it is very possible race will be a point of division in our country for years to come, and that it will affect a Bible-believing American Christian community in which many blacks will continue to foolishly support Obama and many whites will continue to foolishly support the Republicans. (Similar to A. and B. above, my personal views that Bible-believing Christians have no business supporting Republicans or Democrats is beyond the scope of this topic, other than the point out the obvious fact that both parties indulge in race-baiting.) Thus, it may be in the interests of the Body of Christ for a Bible-based approach to the racism issue to be promoted and defended from our pulpits, in our media outlets, and in our educational institutions during the next few years, and possibly beyond.

But the problem is that it appears that no such program or approach exists. This is not to say that the racism issue has not been addressed in the church arena. The problem is that nearly all of the deep, broad substantial treatments of the topic by those opposed to racism have come from churches and religious movements that can fairly be described as apostate. The “Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.” approach to race is one entirely rooted in liberal theology. It is deceiving, because the language of orthodoxy is used, and so are such time-honored Christian instruments as prayer, fasting, singing, preaching and quoting scripture. However, look a little deeper and you will see that the “Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.” approach is one that denies and rejects a Biblical view of sin. It consciously rejects what the Bible states concerning both original sin that is collective and common to humanity, and the sin nature that afflicts each individual. Liberal theology – and Barack Obama/Jeremiah Wright liberation theology even more so – goes on to deny that both collective sin and individual sin were dealt with by Jesus Christ’s atoning death and resurrection (doctrines that were rejected by Martin Luther King, Jr., as was the virgin birth), and that freedom from sins, including but not limited to racism, comes to members of the Body of Christ only through faith in the person and work of Jesus Christ. Further, that even after salvation through faith occurs, one will struggle with sins – again including racism – because of the influence of “the flesh”, “the old man”, “the body of death”, but that if we are truly penitent and confess, Jesus Christ can be faithfully counted on to forgive our sins. And finally, the ultimate victory over racism, both in a collective original sin of the human condition sense and in a personal individual sense, will only occur when Jesus Christ returns and sets up the eternal kingdom of New Jerusalem for believers, when all believers receive their mansion/place/room in His Father’s house (again all doctrines which liberal and liberation theology Christians reject and deny).

Instead, liberal and liberation theology treats racism not as what the Bible calls sin, but as a social ill or condition. Thus, the Biblical truth that until Jesus Christ returns, racism cannot be eliminated on a large scale, such as in a larger society of unregenerate people, is rejected by them. So is the truth that racism can only be dealt with in the individual believer and in a church comprised of believers by the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ and the ministry of the Holy Spirit. Instead, such people believe that racism can be defeated in the individual with education, and in a society by changing laws, economic and social conditions. That is why the SCLC, NAACP, Rainbow/PUSH and the other alphabet-soup assortment of civil rights groups often led by ministers like Dr. King, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and similar never attempted and do not attempt to battle racism by encouraging racists to repent of their sins and believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Instead, they rely on the same methods as secular organizations:  educational programs, lawsuits and political campaigns. Though they rarely come out and openly admit it, such people believe that the “root cause” of racism is capitalism. In their mind, capitalism is either racism’s cause or its primary enabler.  Therefore, socialism is the ultimate solution to racism in their estimation. They do not claim that socialism would completely end racism and transform the national – and world – society into a post-racial utopia, but they do assert that socialism would render racism as a nonfactor by removing (in their minds) what is primarily responsible for fomenting racial tension and rewarding racist behavior.  In other words, it is not so much that they claim that socialism will change racists hearts, but that it will remove most reasons and opportunities for racist hearts to act, turning racism from appearing sensible and potentially lucrative to being a pointless waste of time. And the true goal of the “anti-racist education programs” that are offered – thanks to the work of pressure groups – in schools, churches and workplaces are actually geared towards getting more people to support socialism – or at least liberal politicians who enact them – than fighting racism. Example: they manipulate people into experiencing white guilt or black anger that is supposed to translate into … well you figure it out. (Please note the extreme irony that the religious right, while purporting to represent the opposite end of the theological spectrum, has resorted to the same tactics as the civil rights movement of the theological left, and also how the religious right often promotes capitalism as the cure for social ills.)

Now of course, the problem is not truly the lies of the enemy as they relate to racism. Quite simply, the enemy lies about everything. Instead, it is the lack of response from Bible-believers. Where liberal Christians have decades of doctrines and actions on the race issue, Bible-believing Christians have … well nothing comparable. Or should I say if it exists, it was often in the form of defending of segregation and slavery in times past, and now often absorbs the racial rhetoric and thinking of conservative leaders and opinion-makers who are not Christians i.e. the aforementioned Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh. To make matters worse, when Bible-believing Christians attempt to address race in a “positive” way, they normally use the constructs provided by liberal Christianity. This is generally by default – because thanks to the media and the educational system it is all they know – and also because no other “positive” way of attempting to address race has been consistently articulated and applied on a large scale. As a result, many – indeed most – fundamentalist and conservative evangelical black churches fully endorse the “Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.” program on race, and so do not a few well-meaning theologically conservative white pastors and congregations.  The result is that race issue is used to get non-Biblical doctrines about sin, human nature and redemption into otherwise doctrinally sound churches, and the resulting confusion is used to slowly get these churches and pastors away from Biblical truth in other areas as well. I may be exaggerating were I to say “first racism, then creation care environmentalism, then supporting abortion and homosexual marriage”, but it would be only an exaggeration. A better illustration is this: before the civil rights movement, there were lots of doctrinally sound evangelical and fundamental black churches, including some entire black denominations dedicated to strong, Bible-based belief and practice. Well, take a look around and see what has happened to these churches – and especially the denominations – since. An entire book has been written on the topic.

So why deal with the racism issue at all in Bible-based Christianity? For the same reason that we deal with homosexuality, abortion, pornography, laziness, theft, adultery, murder, false religions etc.: because it is sin. We are to love God with all our heart, soul and strength and also to love our neighbor. So, we must address racism first because it is a sin that offends and dishonors God, and second because of the negative effect that it has on our neighbor. So, the problem is not the church’s addressing racism, but that it addresses it with liberal theology created by apostates and unbelievers walking in darkness. So, if we ignore the issue we ignore sin, and if we use liberal or liberation theology to address the issue, then those who are walking in the light of Jesus Christ are ignoring that light to follow those who do not have that light and are in the darkness of sin.

Now there has been some excellent treatments of this issue from black preachers over the years. Unfortunately, the civil rights rhetoric has long overtaken it, and these wise words have largely been forgotten. So, what informed, Biblical guidance do black people have to rely on when they experience the sin of racism committed against them? (Allow me to state that the reaction made popular and acceptable by civil rights community, which is “righteous” indignation, an aggrieved posture, and actions and attitude proceeding from them, are generally sinful.) And how are black people to respond to the racism – which does include anger, resentment and defense mechanisms that results from exposure to white racism – that exists in the heart of black people other than with the same repentance, confession, contrition, and reliance on Jesus Christ that is expected of white people? And yes, black people must acknowledge that the civil rights agenda of addressing racism through education, court decisions, laws, and changes to our political, economic, social and cultural systems is doomed to fail. Eliminating Jim Crow – which was unconstitutional anyway – is one thing. Changing the hearts of a mostly unregenerate population is another. Any pastor or church that teaches otherwise is acting in open defiance against the Bible, and such doctrines and the pastors and churches who teach them should be rejected just the same as should those who claim salvation by works, that homosexuality is not a sin, or that there is no Trinity should be. If we don’t accept liberal false doctrines in other areas, why should we when it comes to racism? And yes, the issue of why more blacks won’t join predominantly white churches needs to be addressed, even if it means enduring and overcoming racism. If blacks are willing to confront and overcome racism to attend mostly white schools and colleges and earn a living on mostly white workplaces, why can’t the same be done in attending mostly white churches? I dare say that this may indicate that blacks place a higher priority on getting an education and earning a living than going to church, because blacks are more willing to overcome obstacles in pursuing the first two than the last one. What you fight for is often an indication of where your heart is, and if you are willing to endure discrimination at a job that you know is worldly but not at the church were God calls you to forgive your brothers and sisters and bear their faults just as Christ bears ours, then that constitutes evidence that your heart is more willing to sacrifice for mammon than for Christ’s Body.

As far as white Bible-believing Christians go … the first step is probably severing political conservatism from theological conservatism on the race issue. (Actually, it is a good idea to do that on far more issues than race.) The reason is that the politically conservative position on race basically amounts to the notion that blacks should make all the sacrifices because blacks benefit far more from being in the presence of whites than any harm from racism. It follows from there that since whites receive no real benefits from having blacks in their presence, whites should make no sacrifices at all. Now not only is this illegal in a secular sense, but this type of thinking has no business in the church. Neither should Bible-believing white Christians emulate the apostates on the left by proposing political or economic solutions (i.e. tax cuts, free markets) for what is a spiritual problem. If socialism can’t change hearts or address sin, neither can political conservatism.

As to why theologically conservative white Christians don’t address this issue, there are no good answers. I propose the first is because racism doesn’t appear to negatively affect them personally. So, the issue is “out of sight, out of mind.” The second is likely because of the racist and segregationist history of a lot of denominations, churches and leaders. This is not an issue for the formerly racist Christian entities that have adopted liberal theology, because apparently once you reject the Bible and particularly once you join the left politically and take part in the (destined to fail) attempt to eliminate racism through enacting socialism, all is forgiven. But for those churches and denominations that remain faithful to the Bible, it is a tough situation. Even calling racism and discrimination sinful is mighty difficult, because it would mean that a lot of beloved Christian leaders (and followers) were sinners. To better understand the problem: imagine if the pastor that started your church, the group that founded your denomination or one of your favorite pastor/theologian/evangelist were branded an adulterer. (And also consider that there is a much bigger stigma in our modern society with being considered a racist than an adulterer.)

So, it is understandable that people who attended a seminary that may have been started to support segregation would want to let sleeping dogs lie. Still, how can white pastors, churches and institutions address this issue in more productive – and effective – ways than Bob Jones University’s decision to offer scholarships for “minority students”? (While I think that getting more black students into theologically conservative seminaries is something that absolutely must be done, this is another example of “the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr./racism is caused by capitalism and can be solved with socialism” approach.) Also, it simply is inappropriate to have pastors in racially homogenous churches in Dubuque, Iowa and Bismark, North Dakota to talk about racism all the time. Other things such as efforts to partner black churches with white ones, and also recruiting drives for black members have been tried before with disappointing results, and often do not address the real reasons why blacks do not fellowship with whites in the first place, a fact which truthfully has to do with black resentment against whites as much or more than white racism, and this is compounded by the erroneous thinking by so many blacks (that again are the results of decades of “civil rights movement thinking”) that A) maintaining black institutions for the purposes of using them for political and social agitation is Biblical and necessary and B) it is fine for blacks to nurse and maintain grievances against whites but not the other way around. Again, the arguments for the existence of BET, the Black Miss America pageant, black colleges, Ebony/Jet/Essence Magazines etc. knowing full well that white counterparts would never be tolerated may be fine for the secular arena but have no place in the Body of Christ, and this is a position that white pastors and theologians must boldly take and adhere to. If this means placing the responsibility for ending the fact that “Sunday morning is the most segregated time in America” primarily or disproportionately on blacks, then so be it. Again, the fact that blacks are more than willing to work for white owned and run corporations like BP, IBM, Coca-Cola etc. and attend Harvard, UCLA and Ole Miss while seeking lucre  but won’t do the same when choosing churches leaves them without excuse.

However, the primary area of involvement for white Bible-believing Christians (other than, of course, door-to-door evangelism among blacks) may be in the academy. The liberal and liberation theology people have produced volumes of scholarly work – from technical journal articles to books approachable by general audiences – on the race issue. By contrast, Bible-believing Christians have produced very little that can be used to guide people seeking a sound approach in doctrine and practice on the issue. Further, most of what does exist either attempts to shoehorn the liberal approach into Bible-believing contexts, or relates to cross-cultural missions. As racism is a sin that is manipulated to lead so many Christians – black and white – into errors in doctrine and practice, this situation cannot persist. There must be a well-developed line of discourse as well as practical strategies for confronting the race issue in theologically conservative Christianity just as there is on areas like homosexuality, abortion and feminism. Why should white theologians take the lead? There are several reasons, but the primary one is that for blacks the tendency to adhere to and defend the civil rights mindset is strong. (For example, even in conservative evangelical or fundamentalist Christianity, finding the black pastor that is willing to discuss the theological beliefs of most civil rights leaders, acknowledge that the “civil disobedience” tactics of the civil rights movement were contrary to scripture, or that the “civil rights agenda” is rooted in ideas contrary to scripture and is destined to fail is very hard.) So, it would be far better for the Al Mohlers, Wayne Grudems, R.C. Sprouls and John MacArthurs to start the dialogue on the issue and then have their black counterparts respond. Essentially, black Christian leaders who take the Bible seriously would be required (forced) to articulate why racism should not be viewed and therefore addressed like every other sin.

It amounts to the fact that racism is going to continue to be a snare to larger society, and a major reason for this is that larger society is going to continue to view racism as a social ill that can be corrected with education, economics, government action and the simple passage of time. However, the race riots that occurred barely a week prior to the writing of this shows that it is not the case. Also, the rising numbers and influence of Islam in this country will add another dimension. The black leadership has decided to form political alliances with Islam – and indeed several influential black leaders have converted to that religion – and that will result in more white people viewing blacks as a “fifth column.” But just because race will continue to be a problem for the larger society doesn’t mean that it has to remain a stumblingblock for the church, or at least when the context is Bible-believing black and white Christians who ACCORDING TO SCRIPTURE have more in common with each other than they do with the unregenerate members of their own respective races. To put it simply, just because Sean Hannity and Jesse Jackson hate each other doesn’t mean that black and white Bible-believing Baptists, Presbyterians, Methodists etc. should have each other at arm’s length. Perhaps even more importantly, black and white Christians need to work together in order to close off an avenue that the world so often uses to lead us into things that range from temptation to severe errors in doctrine and practice.

Follow The Three Step Salvation Plan

Posted in Bible, Christianity | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 6 Comments »

The REAL Santa Claus Was Nicholas, Pastor Of The Church At Myra!

Posted by Job on November 27, 2009

Teach your children the truth, not the lie!After reading this Christian parents, you have absolutely no excuse for lying to your children about the lie, which is an evil combination of pagan mythology and American capitalism (i.e. Coca-Cola and department stores) plus the obvious fact that this world much prefers to talk about Santa Claus and other works-based pagan “the spirit of giving” nonsense than about Jesus Christ. Well, the REAL Nicholas was a man who began preaching about Jesus Christ at a young age and suffered mightily for the gospel. Now even this recounting is not totally free of pagan Catholic myth (though not some of the worst pagan nonsense that was developed around this preacher is in here) but the truth of a man who lived and suffered for the gospel of Jesus Christ is still here. Folks, “Santa Claus” is the main reason why Christmas is much more significant in the west than is Easter, a holiday which is much harder to separate from the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Lots of people think St. Nicholas is just another name for Santa Claus.

After all, Santa also is called “Father Christmas” and “Kris Kringle” and other names. Actually, “Santa Claus” is itself a mispronunciation of the Dutch name “SinterKlass,” which was their way of saying St. Nicholas.

But behind all the names is a boy who actually lived in what was then Lycia in the fourth century A.D., about 1,700 years ago. His name was Nicholas. There are many legends about this boy and the man he became, and behind those legends is the story of St. Nicholas.

When Nicholas was a little boy, a plague struck Patara, the town where he lived. Both his parents got sick and died, so Nicholas went to live with his uncle who was a monk in a monastery. His uncle, the abbot, taught him all about God and Jesus from the Bible. Nicholas wanted to become a monk when he grew up.

Nicholas’ parents were wealthy when they died and monks are supposed to be poor. So Nicholas resolved to give away all his money to help those who were needy, especially other children in trouble. He determined to be sneaky, so they would not know from where the money came. For example, a man was selling rugs to pay his debts. His wife and children had no food. Nicholas bought some Turkish rugs from the man, paying him much more than they were worth. Then, making an excuse, he gave the rugs back to the man’s wife.

The most famous story about his generosity involves three girls who could not get married because their father had lost all of his money and could not pay their dowry. The only option for these girls was slavery or, worse, prostitution. Nicholas heard about that and came up with a plan.

When the first daughter was ready to marry, he tossed a stocking full of gold coins through her bedroom window late at night. Using that as her dowry, she was able to marry. Soon after that, Nicholas tossed a sock full of money through the second daughter’s window. She, too, married.

But when Nicholas crept up to the house with a third sock full of money for the youngest daughter, he found all of the windows shut. So he climbed up on the roof of the house and dropped it down the chimney.

It landed in a stocking that had been hung on the fireplace to dry, giving us the tradition of hanging Christmas stockings.

After helping many people, Nicholas started having a strange dream. Not just once but several times — and always the same. In his dream, Jesus gave him a book of Gospels covered with jewels, and the robes of a priest.

When Nicholas told his uncle about the dream, his uncle told him that Jesus must want him to become a priest. Soon he did just that, even though he was still in his teens. As a priest, Nicholas was zealous to tell people about Jesus, and always looking for ways to help people in need or children in trouble. People talked about the kind “boy priest.”

Nicholas lived in a time when the Roman Emperor forcefully ruled much of the world. Nicholas went on a trip to see the Holy Lands. He sailed on a ship to Egypt, famous for its monumental temples and the library and lighthouse at Alexandria. But Egypt was in ruins; the Romans had persecuted and killed many people. Many others were left hungry and poor.

Nicholas also traveled to Palestine to see the places where Jesus had walked — but Jerusalem was also in ruins, the temple torn down and burned. That, too, had been done by the Romans. Nicholas visited with Christians and churches along the way, and encouraged them to help the poor and needy. While there, he had a dream that Jesus was placing a bishop’s crown on his head.

On his way home, the ship he was on got caught in a terrible storm. The ship was tossed and the rigging torn. Some of the sailors were lost at sea, others abandoned the ship and the three left were terribly afraid the ship might crash on the rocks, praying to God for mercy.

Nicholas came up on deck and joined them in their prayer. Just then, the storm stopped and the waters became calm. Very early the next morning, the little ship limped into the nearest port, a city called Myra-in Lycia, a long way from Nicholas’ home.

The three sailors told everyone how their ship had been saved when the young priest, Nicholas, had prayed with them.

“It was like a miracle!” they said.

Nicholas hurried off to a church for morning prayers, to give thanks.

The city of Myra had no bishop at that time. The previous one had died, and the remaining priests could not agree on who to elect as the new bishop. There were three priests at the church that morning, maybe more. They had been praying all night and each had had the same dream, that they were to make the first worshipper who came for morning prayers the new bishop.

Nicholas, a stranger in Myra, and still a youth (but a priest), was the first to arrive. How surprised he was when the priests told him he was to become the bishop. At first he hesitated, but they insisted, telling him of their dreams. Then he remembered his own dream.

So young Nicholas became the bishop of Myra.

Myra was an important city. As its bishop. St. Nicholas was known for his piety and zeal for Jesus and his holy church. When Nicholas taught the gospel, people said it was like receiving precious gems. He was equally concerned about the poor and needy, and helping children and others in trouble. He set a constant example, often helping people in secret ways. Many pagans were converted and baptized through his loving ministry.

But soon Nicholas was imprisoned.

The new Roman emperor, Diocletian, hated Christians and was determined to hunt them all down and kill them, or make them deny their faith. That was someone between 303 and 311 A.D. It was one of the greatest persecutions of the church; many Christians were cruelly tortured and murdered.

The three jailers guarding Nicholas tried and tried to convince him to deny his faith in Jesus. They tortured him. He was hungry and cold and wearing chains, but he taught them about Jesus and his church. He was kind to them, despite their insults. His hair and beard grew long and shaggy. In his suffering, he entrusted Jesus to protect him, and prayed for the other Christians to stand firm.

Eventually, things changed. A new emperor, Constantine, took the throne. He made Christianity the official religion of the empire. Nicholas and other imprisoned Christians were set free. Bishop Nicholas went back to his people in Myra, with his beard white and his face wrinkled.

His eyes sparkled when he talked about Jesus and the church, and he always had something for the poor and needy. He loved children and they loved him, too. Although he still was secretive about helping people, many knew about his kind deeds. But Nicholas could be firm, too — especially when false teachers would try to influence his churches.

In 325 A.D., 300 bishops gathered in the city of Nicaea to discuss the teachings of a man named Arius. He questioned Jesus’ divinity and his teaching had infected many — but not in Myra, thanks to Nicholas’ constant vigilance. Arius claimed that Jesus, as the son of God, was not eternal but created by the father as an instrument for the salvation of the world. Therefore, he was not God by nature, but a changeable creature.

Though Nicholas was not a major figure in the council, it is said that in the midst of the discussions, Nicholas actually slapped Arius for his false teaching. Because of that, some bishops wanted Nicholas removed as bishop — until Jesus and his mother appeared in their dreams and told them differently.

Nicholas died on Dec. 6, 345 or 352 A.D. Hundreds of churches have been named after him.

So this is the real St. Nicholas — an orphaned boy who became a priest and then a bishop. Who gave away all his wealth to the poor and especially to children in trouble. Who stood firm for his lord Jesus and his holy church in the midst of terrible persecution, and opposed false teachers as well.

A movie about the pastor of Myra has been made, but it has had trouble finding a distributor.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1058094/

Posted in Christianity, Jesus Christ | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | 11 Comments »

Paul Washer: Biblical Headship

Posted by Job on May 22, 2009

Regrettably this is an audio – only file, but a must listen nonetheless! I heard this yesterday, detected a great many errors in my attitude and behavior based on it, and have begun to work on personally applying it already!

Posted in Bible, Christianity, Jesus Christ | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

Will John McCain Finish George W. Bush’s Job In Implementing The Financial New World Order?

Posted by Job on October 20, 2008

A financial new world order?
Bush says reforms must improve, not fetter, the free market; Europeans hint at more robust intervention.

When President Bush hosts a world financial summit in the coming weeks, one of the least multilateral American presidents in decades will set in motion what could result in a full reordering of the global financial system.

The series of summits that Mr. Bush announced over the weekend at Camp David with European leaders at his side suggests a broad understanding among them: that the current crisis requires the kind of global regulatory reforms that have eluded major powers in the past.

Europeans especially are speaking of a “Bretton Woods II” that could do for financial markets what the 1944 summit at a resort in New Hampshire did for monetary policy.

But the call for a summit also underscores the degree to which a once go-it-alone presidency has shifted to embrace not only the necessity of international cooperation, but also a role of global leadership.

“Talk of a Bretton Woods II has been around to different degrees for 30 years. But the fact it is getting started with an outgoing administration and especially one that was at the center of a significant crisis between America and Europe, between America and the rest of the world, suggests the recognition that there is urgency in the air,” says Simon Serfaty, an expert in US-Europe relations at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington. “It also adds legitimacy to the coming process.”

That process, which is expected to stretch into next year and a new American administration, will get under way with a summit that Bush will host sometime after Nov. 4, the date of US elections, according to a statement issued Saturday by Bush, French President Nicolas Sarkozy, and European Union Commission President José Manuel Barroso.

The initial summit is expected to be a kind of expanded Group of Eight meeting, assembling the leaders of the most industrialized nations and those of major developing economies like China, India, Brazil, and South Korea. (Please know that inviting developing nations is a major step to a truly global system, as the following step would be to invite the third world nations.) It would aim to assess the current global crisis and to come up with a set of principles of reform.

Actual agreements on reforms could come at subsequent summits, but the initial meeting would allow Bush to place his stamp on the process before leaving office, while also facilitating a continuity of American leadership.

Saturday’s meeting offered a picture of transatlantic unity, but that hardly means the road ahead will be discord-free. Bush says future reforms and new international regulations must improve but not fetter the free market, while European leaders hint at much more robust state intervention with tighter regulations. (Bush has to keep this pretense in order to retain conservative support, especially among evangelicals, for policies that they would never accept from an overt liberal like, say, Clinton or OBAMA. A reason why McCain would be useful. Then again, Obama would be useful in bringing America in line with Europe and getting the nonwhite, er, developing nations to go along too.)

Bush recognized the need for “regulatory institutional changes” but added, “It is essential that we preserve the foundations of democratic capitalism – commitment to free markets, free enterprise, and free trade.” (Speaking with a forked tongue. In an essentially global economy, there will be no more statutory or regulatory barriers between markets, enterprise, and trade between America and Brazil than there are between Alabama and Texas. Ironically, the very ENLIGHTENMENT principles that our oh so wise freemason and deist founding fathers came up with to govern interstate commerce within this own nation, which lest we forget was originally intended as a federalist contract between loosely affiliated largely independent and sovereign states … please recall that “state” actually refers to an individual sovereign political entity and subdivisions between a state are actually called “provinces” or similar … will work quite nicely for global commerce among member nation states – and city – states like THE VATICAN. Please recall that Rome before it became an empire was a city state. For the record, John Calvin’s Geneva, which is credited with inventing modern capitalism, was a city state as well. So despite the endtimes theories of many conservative evangelicals, the economic new world order need not be socialist or communist. It can be capitalist, or merely a union between capitalist and socialist economies just as our own nation has long been a union of more laissez faire economic states and states with heavy government subsidies, wealth distribution, and regulation.)

In response, President Sarkozy said, “The president of the United States is right in saying that protectionism and closing one’s borders is a catastrophe…. But we cannot continue along the same lines,” he added, “because the same problems will trigger the same disasters.”

Mr. Barroso was more succinct: “We need a new global financial order.”

Those words could send shivers through a White House that is suspicious of the current chorus of world leaders – European, Russian, and others less friendly to the US – who are hailing the current economic crisis as a moment to usher in a multipolar world. Bush indicated he seeks to maintain some degree of American stewardship over the financial reform effort when he politely declined the offer of United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon to host the expanded G-8 summit at the UN in New York. (Again, can’t tip off the religious right. Please keep in mind that neither McCain or Obama will be beholden to the opinions of this group in any way.)

Among the issues the White House has indicated it would endorse for a reform agenda are rules for the international flow of investment funds, improved oversight of increasingly global financial institutions, and means of boosting the transparency of international financial transactions and markets. 

But European leaders have called for what sound like much deeper reforms. British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, for example, has proposed a reorganization of the International Monetary Fund – a Bretton Woods institution.

Behind the European proposals is a sense that the financial crisis and America’s darkening economic prospects make this an opportunity for the European Union to play a bigger international role. Last week at the close of a two-day EU summit on the financial crisis, Sarkozy predicted that an international summit would take place before the end of the year because “Europe wants it, Europe demands it. Europe will get it.”

More than a show of unity with a declaration for a series of summits will be needed if the world is truly to come together to address the crisis, some observers note. “Unity of purpose is not found in a meeting or series of meetings. It’s found in purpose,” says Danielle Pletka, vice president for foreign-policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington. (Ah, the Rick Warren Purpose Driven Life language. How convenient. And how disconcerting that a generation of evangelicals is being brainwashed with the New Age doctrines of the new world order globalist Council on Foreign Relations member and pastor to the world’s biggest pornographer Rupert Murdoch in Rick Warren. Also, the “unity” thing is just recreating the tower of Babel so that the second Nimrod, the man of sin or the anti – Christ, can come on the scene.) “Whether that’s something the major players in this crisis can come together on remains to be seen.”

But Mr. Serfaty points out that the Europeans chose to engage the Bush administration, when just a few years ago the deep divisions over the Iraq war were disrupting such cooperation. (A key component to spotting people who are sold out to and working for Satan is their ability to manipulate you into thinking that you are in control when they are secretly calling the shots all along, as that is precisely how Satan works. By the way, who is the better manipulator in this race … McCain or Obama? I give it to Obama, but only by a nose.)

“Rather than seeing any kind of disconnect,” he says, “I think we should emphasize the fact the Europeans are doing what [the Americans] want them to do, in that they are coming together and taking a proactive approach to this crisis.”

So you see, no matter who gets elected, the anti – Christ globalist system is going to be implemented. Do not put your trust in Obama, McCain, or any other thing or person of this world! Instead, put your trust in Jesus Christ!

Follow the three step salvation plan today!

Posted in Christianity | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 14 Comments »

Global financial crisis: does the world need a new banking ‘policeman’?

Posted by Job on October 8, 2008

Global financial crisis: does the world need a new banking ‘policeman’?

By Gordon Rayner, Chief Reporter Last Updated: 1:36AM BST 08 Oct 2008

With war raging across the globe in July 1944, ministers from all 44 Allied nations met at the imposing Mount Washington Hotel in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, to thrash out a set of rules that would govern world finance once Hitler was defeated.

Knowing that greater international trade would help to prevent future wars, and determined to avoid another Great Depression, the delegates signed the Bretton Woods Agreements, creating the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. It was a big vision, driven by grand historical figures: Winston Churchill, Franklin D Roosevelt and the British economist John Maynard Keynes.

But a system that was designed 64 years ago has, not surprisingly, proved ill equipped to deal with the fiendishly complex practices of 21st-century banking that led to the current worldwide crisis.

Neither the IMF, the World Bank nor any other institution has the power to police the global financial system in a way that might have prevented the excessive risk-taking which led to the sub-prime mortgage crisis and, in turn, the credit crunch.

A more recent creation, the G8 group of industrialised nations, looks hopelessly out of date without the emerging economic giants of Brazil, India and China among its ranks. And the “beggar-thy-neighbour” policies of guaranteeing savings that have sprung up in Germany, Greece and Ireland in recent days have shown that even in Europe, co-ordinated economic policy is a myth.

“The current system is in crisis and we have an environment where dog eats dog,” said Bob McKee, of the economic consultancy Independent Strategy. “Electorates will expect more regulation, and politicians will push for it.”

The new Business Secretary, Peter Mandelson, argued last week that new global solutions are needed because “the machinery of global economic governance barely exists”, adding: “It is time for a Bretton Woods for this century.”

Gordon Brown argued as long ago as January 2007 that global regulation was “urgently in need of modernisation and reform”.

So, as the world’s central bankers gather this week in Washington DC for an IMF-World Bank conference to discuss the crisis, the big question they face is whether it is time to establish a global economic “policeman” to ensure the crash of 2008 can never be repeated.

Top of the to-do list for any new or reformed body would be new rules to manage the level of risk that banks and financial institutions are allowed to take on.

Major economies already have regulatory bodies designed to keep financial institutions in check, such as the Financial Services Authority (FSA) in the UK and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in the US. But even if these bodies had done their job properly, opinions differ wildly between different countries over what constitutes an acceptable risk.

Take, for example, the Basle II Accord, a voluntary international agreement which might have seemed a crushing bore when it was published in 2004, but which just might have prevented the credit crunch if the world’s major economies had realised it was actually a good idea.

In essence, Basle II, concocted by the Basle Committee on Banking Supervision, set up by 10 leading economic nations, was designed to make sure banks did not overstretch themselves by lending too much money in relation to the amount of capital they held.

If it had been implemented the moment it was written, Basle II might have prevented the collapse of Northern Rock – which had lent seven times the amount of money it held on deposit – and saved the likes of Lehman Brothers in America. Instead, motivated by national self-interest, not to mention greed, the world’s major economies dithered, so that few, if any, had implemented the agreement by the start of 2008, with 95 countries only able to promise they would adhere to it by 2015.

We can only speculate whether a global policeman would have intervened in another seismic shift in economic policy: the abolition by the US president, Bill Clinton, in 1999 of the Glass-Steagall Act, which had, since 1933, separated retail banks from investment banks.

The Act had been passed during the Great Depression to prevent banks from speculating with depositors’ money, and its repeal by Mr Clinton has been blamed by some commentators for contributing to the current financial crisis, which would have been limited to investment banks if Glass-Steagall had remained in place.

Too late, then, to remedy the missed opportunity of Basle II or to reinstate Glass-Steagall. But a new global regulatory arrangement might come just in time to address another issue troubling the world’s financial watchdogs: mark-to-market accounting, about which we are likely to be hearing a great deal in coming weeks.

Mark to market is a system in which banks must declare the value of assets such as securities on a daily basis, forcing them to be transparent about their balance sheets. The assets must be valued in line with what they would fetch on the open market that day, and if their value has dropped, the banks must raise capital to make up the shortfall, even if they have no intention of selling the assets for another five or 10 years.

Many banks have argued that this is unfair, as those same assets will recover their value in the long term, and marking them down has, they claim, contributed to the current crisis of confidence.

Simon Ward, an economist at New Star Asset Management, said: “This kind of accounting is causing investors to see ghosts in banks’ balance sheets which just don’t exist. If we had suspended mark-to-market accounting a year ago, the current crisis may have been avoided.”

Why has this become such a hot topic in recent days? Because banks in America have exerted such pressure on the SEC that rules on mark-to-market accounting may soon be relaxed, giving American companies an advantage over those in the UK, where the FSA has no intention of following suit.

As chaos reigns in the financial markets, the issue of regulatory reform is never far from the headlines. So what might a new architecture of global economic regulation look like?

In essence, any organisation with the power to police the global economy would have to include representatives of every major country – a United Nations of economic regulation. Robert Zoellick, president of the World Bank, identified the weakness of the current system this week when he said international organisations that excluded countries such as China, India, Brazil, Saudi Arabia, South Africa and Russia were outdated.

Gerard Lyons, a member of the International Council of the Bretton Woods Committee, a steering group for the IMF and World Bank, said: “We need to look at the current crisis and decide what banks have been doing well and what went wrong.

‘The point we’re at now is like the scene in Apollo 13 when one of the mission controllers says they’re facing the worst disaster in Nasa’s history, and his boss points out that it will turn out to be Nasa’s finest hour if they get it right.

“We have an opportunity now to make changes in global banking that make sure we keep all the good bits and eradicate the bad. For example, there is nothing wrong with young people borrowing money against their expected future income if they have genuinely good prospects, but we need to prevent the sort of irresponsible lending to people with poor credit ratings that led to the sub-prime mortgage crisis.

“What we mustn’t do is throw the baby out with the bathwater. The global banking system has helped increase living standards at a faster rate than at any point in history, and we are about to see the emergence of two-thirds of the world’s population into the developed world.”

Danny Gabay, a former Bank of England economist who now works for Fathom Consulting, suggested the answer might already be staring us in the face, in the form of the Bank for International Settlements (BIS), the umbrella organisation for the committee that came up with the sensible Basle II Accord.

“The BIS has been spot on throughout this,” he said. “The problem is that it has no teeth. The IMF tends to couch its warnings about economic problems in very diplomatic language, but the BIS is more independent and much better placed to deal with this if it is given the power to do so.”

The failures of modern global capitalism have been brutally exposed in recent months. Opinion is now hardening around the case for a new global architecture to enforce rules that ensure lessons are learnt and that the actions which have brought free markets to the brink of collapse are never repeated.

It remains to be seen whether the political leaders of 2008 are up to the task. If they are, the first foundations of that new world could be laid in Washington this week.

Posted in Christianity | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments »

The Bailout Passed! The United States of America Is Officially Dead

Posted by Job on October 3, 2008

Well, the United States is gone. Teddy Roosevelt got the ball rolling, and George H. W. Bush finished it off. And did you see where California needs a $7 billion bailout? Amazing. This is just further proof that we cannot put our trust in the things of this world, but can only trust in the Lord Jesus Christ. Incidentally, the flag waving religious right, what are you going to put your trust in now?

Revamped economic bailout picks up 20 votes in House

The Three Step Salvation Plan

Posted in Christianity | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 9 Comments »

Conspiracy Theory: Timing The Bailout So That John McCain’s Victory – And Barack Obama’s Defeat – Hinges On It To Overcome Conservative Opposition

Posted by Job on September 30, 2008

Ordinarily, there is no way that conservatives would support $700 billion in spending, not even the big business corporate welfare neoconservative socialists who looked the other way while George W. Bush spent more than Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Jimmy Carter, and Lyndon B. Johnson ever dreamed. People would recognize that this bailout would A) make the federal government the nation’s biggest owner and broker of private property (in addition to all the public lands that it already owns) and B) increase the government stake and power in the banking and financial services industries. By way of comparison, it would accomplish in the banking industry what Hillary Clinton only tried in the healthcare industry. (But don’t worry: the next president will give us some form of HillaryCare to go with the Bush’s prescription drugs bill.)

But there is ONE WAY to get small government conservatives – or truthfully people merely opposed to the biggest expansion of government since the New Deal – to reject their beliefs and root for this package. (Truthfully, the goal is not so much to get them to support it, but to lessen their opposition so that they will stop calling their congressmen in anger and protest.) What is it? Simple: the same way that the GOP got religious conservatives to fall in line and keep voting for candidates that were not only personally immoral (i.e. Newt Gingrich) but do absolutely on abortion, gay rights, religion in the public square, fighting pornography, etc. … say that it absolutely has to be done or else the other guy will win! 

This is “the lesser of two evils” gambit like never before. Why? 1) Because even if this passes, there is still no guarantee that McCain will win. 2) What good does voting for Republicans do if they are going to spend like Democrats anyway? Please recall: Republicans could have blocked Bill Clinton’s changes to the Community Reinvestment Act back in 1995. They could have reformed the act at any point from 2000 – 2006. And the person who could have led the way: John McCain, either chairman or ranking Republican on the Senate Commerce Committee for most or all of that time. So not only would supporting – or at least not opposing – this bailout not even guarantee a McCain win, even if the guy does win there is absolutely no evidence based on his career in Washington that he will prevent messes like this from happening in the future! 

And why, you ask? The threat of Barack Hussein Obama. Barack Hussein Obama has these people absolutely terrified like nothing before. (By contrast, most Democrats figure that they could live with McCain.) Why? There are a lot of alleged reasons such as his liberalism (when he is really to the left of Bill Clinton on only a few issues) or his inexperience (see Palin, Sarah) or his religious background (as if skulls and bones George “all religions worship the same God” W. Bush or necromancer Ronald Reagan were orthodox) but the main fear is that Obama’s election would mean losing their country. People would feel that any nation that puts Obama in the White House would not be the nation that “our founding fathers created”, the nation that they knew and loved when they were growing up. Obama would be the final victory for counterculture. 

Of course, it is all a scam. George W. Bush appointing an openly homosexual man as AIDS czar, being the first president to pray in a Muslim mosque, and so many other things. Then there was Dick Cheney’s lesbian daughter doing the “Heather Has Two Mommies” thing (funny how the right wingers who attacked Ellen DeGeneres and similar demanded that Cheney’s family be respected) and even creepy stuff like all the times homosexual prostitute Jeff “Gannon” Guckert visited the White House … security records showed the guy electronically signing in BUT NEVER SIGNING OUT!

But the best part is that even if these things weren’t true, this bailout would permanently and drastically alter this nation economically and politically anyway. The bailout would make us some odd mixture between a social democracy and a fascist plutocracy (when I say “fascist” I mean Benito Mussolini’s original definition, which is the corporatization of government power). Now fascism has a strong nationalist element. But guess what … attacking Iran would mean having to strike up the band for the pledge of allegiance and our militaristic anthems for another 10,000 times in every state, city, street corner, and public and CHRISTIAN school on the planet. And a war with Iran wouldn’t be something that affects relatively few Americans like our conflicts in Korea, Viet Nam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Our military is already stretched to the limit and our economy already in shambles due to high oil prices and bank failures. But Iran, a much tougher enemy than an Iraq weakened by over 10 years of U.S. led military and economic aggression, would mean massive casualties and global oil shortages. And what would the rest of the world’s Muslims think? It would be our third war against a Muslim nation in, oh, a decade or so (depending on whether the attack on Iran comes closer to 2009 or 2012). What keeps the other Muslim countries from thinking “we’re next!” and acting accordingly? Oh boy, imagine what will happen if those other nations adopt a policy of “pre – emptive strikes for self defense” like we did in Iraq. Let me say that anyone who has ever read “Animal Farm” knows that patriotic ferver is necessary for regimes to stay in power during tough times. 

But that is going too far in the future. For right now, the fear of Barack Hussein Obama turning Peoria into San Francisco (or Compton) is what will cause conservatives to do the bidding of George W. Bush and Henry Paulson and adopt this disastrous bailout. (As for Hillary Clinton, well the product of white flight suburban Chicago turned out to be not so scary after all … the right wing wags are actually referring to “Hillary Clinton Democrats” in the same breath as “Reagan Democrats.”) That means that whether Barack Obama wins or loses, he will have done his job. If you ever wanted any more proof that ultimately Bush, McCain, and Obama serve the same master, then this is it!

The only question is this: whose master do you serve? Follow The Three Step Salvation Plan

Posted in Christianity | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments »

Richard Holbrooke Would Lead Obama Administration Into War With Iran Just Like McCain!

Posted by Job on September 29, 2008

Iran: And the Beat Goes On The beating of war drums, that is

 

In a last-ditch, all-out effort to pave the way for war with Iran,Israel’s lobby in the U.S. has inaugurated a new front group: United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI). What, “another” neocon front group – why is this important? With Richard Holbrooke, Obama’s most prominent foreign policy advisor – and a likely Secretary of State or National Security Advisor in the Obama administration – joining neocon nutcase James R. Woolsey in the top leadership of this new group, the signal is clear: UANI represents a bipartisan call for war.

In an op ed piece for what else but the War Street Journal, the four horsemen of the apocalypse – Holbrooke, Woolsey, Dennis Ross, the Israel Lobby’s ace-in-the-hole in the Obama camp (please note: Ross is a former George H. W. Bush official who also served in the same capacity under Bill Clinton and trained Condi Rice), and Mark D. Wallace, formerly U.S. representative to the U.N. for management and reform – mirror the joint statement of Obama and McCain on the economic crisis. This is “not a partisan matter” – the War Party is the only party that really matters. “We may have different political allegiances and worldviews, ” they aver,

“Yet we share a common concern – Iran’s drive to be a nuclear state. We believe that Iran’s desire for nuclear weapons is one of the most urgent issues facing America today, because even the most conservative estimates tell us that they could have nuclear weapons soon.

“A nuclear-armed Iran would likely destabilize an already dangerous region that includes Israel, Turkey, Iraq, Afghanistan, India and Pakistan, and pose a direct threat to America’s national security,” etc., etc., etc…

I suppose it’s just a coincidence that the list of threatened countries starts with Israel and ends with the United States, but I wonder…

Leaving the realm of speculation, and entering the region of hard facts: our own National Intelligence Estimate on Iran and its alleged nuclear weapons program shows that the Iranians had a weapons program that they abandoned: “We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program.” While keeping the option open, the Iranian regime has not restarted its nuclear program, according to our spooks, and probably could not iron out all the technical problems and hoarding of nuclear materials until at least 2015 – and even then there is no evidence Tehran has any such intention.

The NIE was issued last year around this time, and afterward Robert Gates spoke to the New York Times Magazine:

“One afternoon in late November, Defense Secretary Robert Gates was flying back to Washington from the Army base at Fort Hood, Tex., where he had spoken with soldiers and spouses about the future of Iraq. Sitting across from him at his desk in the back of the Pentagon’s jet, I asked him about the possibility of another military conflict: U.S. air strikes on Iran. ‘The last thing the Middle East needs now is another war,’ he said quietly. ‘We have to keep all options on the table,’ he went on, reciting the standard caveat. ‘But if Iraq has shown us anything, it’s the unpredictability of war. Once a conflict starts, the statesmen lose control.'”

This was supposed to signal that the much-anticipated U.S. strike on Iran – the imminence of which was predicted with near certainty by a number of commentators, including this one – has been successfully aborted. There was a collective and well-nigh audible sigh of relief, from Tehran to Terre Haute, but some of us were not convinced by this display of official caution. After all, the statesmen have lost control before….

If the NIE was supposed to blast the neocon war campaign out of the water, then its authors did not take into account the persistence – indeed, fanaticism – of the United for War With Iran crowd. The sheer relentlessness of the effort suggests its essential character as a lobbying campaign on behalf of a special interest – in this case, a very special interest. Corporate and professional lobbyists are notably impervious to facts, and tend to cherry-pick according to the interests of their clients, and foreign lobbyists certainly fall into this category. Yet the latter have a certain edge to them, lacking in the others – and Israel’s lobby has the sharpest edge of all.

No one even pretends anymore that the Israel lobby isn’t behind the effort to drag us into another Middle Eastern war. You don’t have to be me, or Mearsheimer and Walt, to make this case: you have only to listen to the public pronouncements of Israel’s leaders, who areopenly demanding that either we strike, or else they will – perhaps, as has been suggested by Benny Morris, with nuclear weapons.

In the U.S., AIPAC, the scandal-rocked central command of Israel’s amen corner, has come out of the shadows, where they remainedduring the run-up to the Iraq war, and taken the lead in calling for harsh sanctions and a military blockade of Iranian ports. Now we have this bipartisan ad hoc committee taking out full page newspaper ads and speaking in the implied names of both major party presidential candidates.

I had to laugh when I read, in the Journal op ed piece, that “Tehran’s development of a nuclear bomb could serve as the ‘starter’s gun’ in a new and potentially deadly arms race in the most volatile region of the world. Many believe that Iran’s neighbors would feel forced to pursue the bomb if it goes nuclear.” Methinks the starter gun went off long off – sometime in the early 1960s, Israel having earlier procured the technology to make the Bomb from the French.

“Iran,” say the four horsemen, “is a deadly and irresponsible world actor, employing terrorist organizations including Hezbollah and Hamas to undermine existing regimes and to foment conflict. Emboldened by the bomb, Iran will become more inclined to sponsor terror, threaten our allies, and support the most deadly elements of the Iraqi insurgency.” One has only to insert “Israel” where Iran sits in those sentences, and the pot-kettle-black aspect of this whole issue is underscored, as is the ridiculous double standard. After all, Israel has surely been emboldened by its possession of nukes, lo these many years, and acted in a manner that could reasonably called irresponsible – and even deadly, now that you mention it. Yet Israel is not only given a pass, but the defining factor of the Middle Eastern strategic environment – Israel’s nuclear arsenal – goes unmentioned by these worthies.

They are full of laughable pronouncements imbued with the solemnity that usually accompanies the argument from authority:

“The world rightfully doubts Tehran’s assertion that it needs nuclear energy and is enriching nuclear materials for strictly peaceful purposes. Iran has vast supplies of inexpensive oil and natural gas, and its construction of nuclear reactors and attempts to perfect the nuclear fuel cycle are exceedingly costly. There is no legitimate economic reason for Iran to pursue nuclear energy.”

Aside from the propriety of assuming to speak for “the world,” one has to ask where the war propagandists have been hiding out lately: haven’t they read about those gas lines in Iran? Sanctions and official corruption have contributed to the country’s shortage, while rationing ensured it would continue. Indeed, the more tireless Iran-ophobes were at one point speculating that the resulting riots might well spell the end for the mullahs.

And I’m surprised they raised the following accusation, considering the context in which it is hurled:

“By continuing to act in open defiance of its treaty obligations under the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty, Iran rejects the inspections mandated by the IAEA and flouts multiple U.N. Security Council resolutions and sanctions.”

Iran is fully within its rights, under the terms of the treaty, to develop a nuclear energy program, which is what they say they are doing – and, as those gas lines attest, they have a real need for it. At any rate, at least Iran has signed the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty, unlike a certain country whose interests seem to be at the heart of the signers’ argument:

At the same time, Iranian leaders declare that Israel is illegitimate and should not exist. President Ahmadinejad specifically calls for Israel to be ‘wiped off from the map,’ while seeking the weapons to do so. Such behavior casts Iran as an international outlier. No one can reasonably suggest that a nuclear-armed Iran will suddenly honor international treaty obligations, acknowledge Israel’s right to exist, or cease efforts to undermine the Arab-Israeli peace process.”

That old canard about wiping Israel off the map has been debunked so many times as a mis-translation of what Ahmadinejad really said – which was something more akin to predicting that Israel would be washed away by the tides of history and demography – yet it keeps bouncing right back. Just like all the other lies spread far and wide by the War Party’s propagandists. Remember that one aboutMohammed Atta meeting a top Iraqi intelligence official at the Prague airport? That one didn’t die until well after the invasion. I wonder how many people still believe Saddam Hussein was behind the 9/11 terrorist attacks? A lie, repeated relentlessly, becomes enmeshed in the public consciousness, and rooting it out is a major operation, with a problematic success rate.

That’s what we do, here at Antiwar.com – root out the lies, and set the record straight. We did it in the run-up to the last war, and we’redoing the same thing when it comes to the Iranian issue. The chances that we’ll succeed, this time, in stopping the rush to war are better now, perhaps, but I wouldn’t bet the farm on it. The forces pushing for war, led by the Israel lobby, are marshalling their supporters for a final push. Even if they don’t pull it off before the election, the Holbrooke-Woolsey Pact will go down in history as the turning point, politically, the crucial juncture when the American elite made the decision to go to war because the Lobby demanded it.

Our political elites speak in unison: accept the bailout, pay trillions to the plutocrats – accept the coming war with Iran – and pay with the lives of your children. Our leaders, their system in crisis, have closed ranks around the slogan of Big Government at home, and progressively bigger wars abroad. If it were one crisis, or the other, Americans might remain impassive. In this case, however, with the economy imploding and the threat of war looming simultaneously, the Washington crowd that thought it could ride out the turbulence is finding it’s a bit more of a bumpy ride than they or anyone else imagined. The people are awakening, but there is a danger in this: without leaders of their own, their rebellion is bound to be inchoate, undirected, and perhaps even violent. As Garet Garrett put it, anticipating this moment some sixty odd years ago:

“No doubt the people know they can have their Republic back if they want it enough to fight for it and to pay the price. The only point is that no leader has yet appeared with the courage to make them choose.”

~ Justin Raimondo

Posted in Christianity | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments »

The Government Has $700 Billion For Bailout But Not $300 Billion To Insure Washington Mutual?

Posted by Job on September 28, 2008

Now I grant you, the $700 billion is to be raised over time with terms negotiated to facilitate the speedy repayment of the money. After all, the savings and loans bailout that had to be done under the LAST president Bush (the Keating scandal that implicated our NEXT president John McCain) was paid off rather quickly. Still, the very fact that we are talking about a $700 billion bailout when this article says that the government seized the assets of Washington Mutual (apparently something that they have the right to do at any time according to their prerogative, which is, you know, interesting in a free market capitalist society THAT DOESN’T EXIST!) because they didn’t have the funds to ensure Washington Mutual’s $307 billion in case they collapse. And keep in mind: the government isn’t even responsible for the entire $307 billion, since FDIC only insures up to $150,000. This adds to IndependentConservative’s thesis that it is all just funny money. See, the money that FDIC needs to ensure is somewhat tangible and real, because people worked for, invested, and saved it. So that needs a level of government protection. But the money that the government talks about … monopoly money, a figment of the imagination, that isn’t worth the number of zeroes that it takes to type it into a computer screen. 

Or at least that is one way of looking at it. I am still interested in the possible fact that the government can seize the assets of any bank at any time for any reason that they wish to contrive and that there is apparently nothing that anyone can do about it. And this makes us different from a socialist – or fascist – government how?

WaMu becomes America’s biggest bank failure

Posted in Christianity | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

The Best Way To Increase State Power: String The Children – ESPECIALLY THE MALES! – Out On ADHD Medication!

Posted by Job on September 3, 2008

I wonder if there is an entry on Christina Hoff Sommers’ work on “The War Against Boys.”

Study: Boys’ parents more likely to report problems

Parents of about 15% of kids spoke to school staff or health care providers about their children’s emotional and behavior problems in the last year, according to a survey released Wednesday, the first-ever to gauge the issue …

Nearly 1 out of 5 boys had parents who discussed such difficulties, and about 1 out of 10 girls, says the report from more than 17,000 parents with children 4 to 17 years old. The survey, released by the National Center for Health Statistics, was done in 2005 and 2006 …

About 5% of children were prescribed medicine, mostly for attention-deficit disorder (ADHD), with another 5% receiving other treatment, such as therapy, alone or combined with medication …

Bringing concerns out in the open is all to the good, says David Fassler, a child and adolescent psychiatrist and clinical professor at the University of Vermont. “More and more American parents are recognizing the symptoms of emotional and behavior problems, and they’re asking for help,” he says. The survey was done after pediatric use of ADHD medications and antipsychotics had skyrocketed, show figures from Medco Health Solutions, a large pharmacy benefit management company

The high number of parents who confide worries shows “the very, very narrow range of normalcy allowed for children these days,” says behavioral pediatrician Lawrence Diller of Walnut Creek Calif., author of The Last Normal Child. “Welcome to the age of anxiety, where more is expected of children academically and in self-discipline, while both parents are working, so there’s less support and structure.” … (And where are these higher expectations created? By the government, especially government schools, and the media! Instead of telling our boys and girls that Jesus Christ loves them, we burden and scare them with all of our demands that have NOTHING to do with their salvation or their walk with Jesus Christ.)

For kids who do get counseling, 39% receive it at school, and 27% at their doctor’s office, the survey finds. (So … people aren’t taking their kids to get counseling AT CHURCH? By the way, it makes no difference whether the counseling takes place in a government school or in the office of a member of the American Psychological Association whose theories are totally given over to the discredited atheistic perversions of Kinsey, Freud, and similar … a person who rejects Jesus Christ cannot truly help your child.) More pediatricians are bringing mental health experts into their offices, or bringing them on-board as consultants, says Jane Foy, a pediatrics professor at Wake Forest University and spokeswoman for the American Academy of Pediatrics. Pediatricians are hearing more about mental health issues, and therapy services are sparse, especially for children whose problems are not severe, she says.

Some school districts have increased their mental health services for students, says Kathy Cowan of the National Association of School Psychologists. “But there’s still a huge dearth of help for kids in many districts,” she adds.

Posted in Christianity | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Big Business Against Christianity: Hallmark Rolls Out Gay Marriage Cards

Posted by Job on August 21, 2008

http://christianpost.com/article/20080821/hallmark-rolls-out-gay-marriage-cards.htm

Posted in Christianity | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Ahab, Jezebel, Naboth, And Hogfarming: The State Taking Native American Land In South Dakota!

Posted by Job on August 18, 2008

This is regrettably old, but still an example of what the state is doing, especially when they can justify it using the pursuit of commerce. And folks wonder why only 2% of Native Americans are Christian when our “Christian nation” has generally behaved in this fashion towards them.

Hello,

I am Oitancan Zephier. I am looking for all the support and publicity I can get in the native community on this hogfarm protest in Marty, SD on the Yankton Sioux Rez. 2 weeks ago the state moved in and started claiming our tribal road. There is a hogfarm being built on state land, surrounded by indian land. It is a tactic to take more land. The Yankton Sioux Tribe is in litigation with the State of South Dakota now. They are saying we’re a diminishing tribe with diminished lands. Our boundaries are undefined so we’re a checkerboard rez.

Recently there has been nearly 50 of us thrown in jail for protesting on the indian land (road) by state officers. They say it’s their road, when in reality we have had jurisdiction on it for the past 15 years. However, there is no physical proof that either of us own it. That would mean it goes back to the original owner in court. That makes us the rightful owner from my understanding of the law. Below you will find an email that I forwarded on to everyone I know. We need support.

Tuesday we have court and will be in jail because of the prejudice of the local government. We need help! We need lawyers. Wednesday the 30th of April we will be rallying at the site near Marty, SD. AIM is planning on coming as well as Dennis Banks. We are awaiting confirmation on his arrival though. Please send to all your friends. I would greatly appreciate it.

People! We need your help! Come to Marty, SD now! We need the help of every nation that is willing to help us! Don’t wait for an invitation. Please! Come help us now! We’re too busy with things here to think of everyone that can help us. We have our hands full with what’s in front of us. Call us. Make suggestions. Give us advise! Whatever it is, help us! We need bodies. We need people! people! people! We need people willing to fight! We need people willing to go to jail by a state officer on indian land! Doesn’t that seem wrong to you? I went to jail while standing on a tribal highway by a South Dakota state deputy, while the Bureau of Indian Affairs watches. That’s what is happening! It is wrong! We need money for bail. Many more of us will be going to jail.

If we don’t fight this, indian people will continue to lose land. Next time it will be your people. Remember when a cry for help came out what ‘reason’ or ‘excuse’ you gave. You’ll get it right back when you need help.

The system keeps us locked in place. It keeps us working, paying bills and plugged into society. In that mindset we’re all robots programmed to do what the government wants us to do pay taxes! Give them money! ‘I gotta feed my family,’ you’re thinking. I know it. I was too, but overcame it. Tunkasina (the grandfather) knows that our fight is right and honorable. Better things will follow for us.

This is really not about a hogfarm! This is about the racist state of south dakota moving in the middle of Indian country and saying, ‘This is our road!’ Tomorrow it will be ‘this is our land!’ We need to fight! We need your help! View videos on You Tube-Yankton Protests

Oi Zephier
Ihanktonwan Dakota
Yankton Sioux Tribe

Posted in Christianity | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

George Bush Lifts Offshore Drilling Ban While Preserving Funding For Planned Parenthood Genocide!

Posted by Job on July 15, 2008

www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,382541,00.html

So, Bush uses his executive power to aid big oil, eh? He could have used that same executive power at any time to stop federally funding Planned Parenthood. Yet he has never done so, and what is more there has never been any real pressure on him to do so from the allegedly pro – life religious right. That George W. Bush fights on behalf of the oil industry while ignoring the screams of pain – and yes, it is a proven medical fact that babies experience pain while they are being murdered – by the unborn shows where his heart is, and it also shows where the heart of the people that continue to support this fellow despite all of the evidence of all of his opposition to Christianity! And by the way … John McCain is no better – and is almost certainly worse – and do not even talk to me about Barack Hussein Obama. None of them will defund Planned Parenthood of tax revenue, while all of them will continue to press the agenda of big business, militarism, new world order globalism, and all manners of sin and perversion.

Posted in Christianity | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 928 other followers

%d bloggers like this: