Thursday, September 27, 2012
Could you imagine going to jail for your faith? A recent report warns that it could happen.
CBN News investigated the growing wave of hostility to Christianity in America that's led to hundreds of court cases.
No Religion Allowed
Angela Hildenbrand faced the very real possibility of going to jail for her faith. The trouble began when a federal judge ruled that no one at her Texas high school could pray or even use words like "prayer" or "amen" during the 2011 graduation ceremonies.
As class valedictorian, Hildenbrand felt God deserved the praise, even if it meant jail for her.
"I was definitely preparing myself to have to make that sort of tough decision and mentally prepare myself for what well could be coming next," she told CBN News.
Hildenbrand's case is just one of more than 640 cases of religious hostility cited in a new report by the Liberty Institute. General Counsel Jeff Mateer, who takes on many of these cases, helped put the survey together.
"The atheists and the secularists are well-organized and they're well-funded," the Liberty Institute attorney told CBN News.
"The rate of hostility to people of faith is overwhelming," he said. "It's increasing. Every day, we're getting calls."
One call involved the Veterans Administration demanding to preview Scott Rainey's prayer for a Memorial Day ceremony at Houston National Cemetery.
They told Rainey, who pastors the Living Word Church of the Nazarene in Houston, he couldn't pray "in Jesus' name."
"I have never said a prayer in my life where I didn't end it saying 'in the name of Jesus Christ I pray, amen,'" Pastor Rainey said.
Contending for the Faith
Mateer is also working to save this veteran's memorial cross in San Diego, one of several cases that could have serious national consequences if courts order their removal.
"Are we going to bulldoze all those crosses?" Mateer asked. "We're going to sandblast God from the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier?"
But Mateer says the good news is, when believers fight back, they usually win.
"You need to stand up and fight," he said. "And that's exactly what Angela did."
Just one day before Hildenbrand's graduation, an appeals court ruled she could pray and say whatever she wanted.
"I thank You for Your great love for us and for our great nation, where we are free," she prayed at her graduation. "And it's in Jesus' name I pray, amen."
Courts eventually ruled that Pastor Rainey -- and all veterans at burials -- are allowed to freely express their faith.
But there is an across-the-board assault of religious hostility, and Americans' religious liberty hangs in the balance.
Iran has unveiled what it says is a new "indigenous" long-range unmanned drone capable of flying over most of the Middle East, state media report.
The Shahed (Witness) 129 had a range of 2,000km (1,240 miles) and could be equipped with bombs and missiles, the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps said.
It is reportedly capable of carrying out reconnaissance and combat missions.
Last year, the Iranian authorities displayed a US drone which they claimed to have brought down electronically.
The US insisted that Iran neither shot down the the RQ-170 Sentinel nor used electronic warfare or cyber-technology to force it from the sky. They blamed a malfunction.
Later, the head of the IRGC's aerospace programme, Amir Ali Hajizadeh, said it was trying to build a copy of the drone. It is not clear whether the Shahed 129 bears any resemblance.Defences 'ready'
The unveiling of the drone follows a major naval exercise in the Gulf by the US and its allies.
Thirty countries participated in the manoeuvres designed to test the international community's capacity to deal with mines that could hamper shipping in the Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz, through which a fifth of the world's oil supply is transported.
The exercises took place amid heightened tensions between the West and Iran over the Islamic Republic's nuclear programme.
On Monday, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said he was not concerned by the threat that Israel could launch a military strike on Iran's nuclear facilities.
"Fundamentally we do not take seriously the threats of the Zionists," he told reporters in New York. "We have all the defensive means at our disposal and we are ready to defend ourselves."
He also ignored a plea by UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon for both sides to avoid "incendiary rhetoric" by saying the modern state of Israel had "no roots" in the Middle East and would eventually be "eliminated".
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu recently warned that Iran was only six or seven months from having "90%" of what it needed to make a nuclear bomb, and urged the US to draw a "red line" which if crossed would lead to military intervention.
Iran insists its nuclear programme is solely for peaceful purposes.
The Jewish New Year that began last week doesn't seem to hold much optimism for Israeli citizens: A majority rates the chance of a war breaking out with Iran in the coming year as "high" or "medium," according to a new Haaretz-Dialog survey.
And half of Israelis say they either "fear" or "greatly fear" for the state's continued existence if such a war breaks out.
Only a quarter of those questioned said they do not fear for the state's future in a scenario in which Israel and Iran go to war. Something has evidently happened to Israelis' famed self-confidence.
While the question of fear for the state's existence has not been asked in previous opinion polls, it can reasonably be assumed that this is an exceptional finding. That should please Iran's leaders, who have proclaimed several times recently that the Zionist state's days are numbered.
In contrast, it should worry Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who is to deliver an important speech on the Iranian issue to the UN General Assembly this evening. It should also worry Defense Minister Ehud Barak, who has said on more than one occasion that fears about the result of an Israeli attack on Iran are exaggerated, and that the number of Israeli deaths would not exceed 500.
Barak's efforts to calm the public have evidently come to nothing. One has to admit the public is scared. Apparently, the public believes President Shimon Peres and the many senior defense officials who have warned that an Israeli attack could have disastrous repercussions.
Nevertheless, the survey shows that the public's collective anxiety is not harming Netanyahu's status or endangering his chances of forming a coalition after the next election, assuming the election were held today.
The poll, supervised by Tel Aviv University statistician Prof. Camil Fuchs, was conducted at the beginning of the week.
A volcano has erupted on Indonesia's Sumatra island, spewing thick grey smoke up to 1.5 kilometres into the sky.
Monitoring official Suparno says Mount Marapi's eruption on Wednesday is its strongest since August last year, when its status was raised to level three out of four.
Suparno, who uses one name, says there is no plan for an evacuation because the nearest villages are far beyond the danger zone of three kilometres from the crater.
Marapi is among about 129 active volcanos in Indonesia, which is located on the Pacific Ring of Fire, an arc of volcanos and fault lines encircling the Pacific Basin.
Its last major eruption in 1992 killed a climber and injured several others, including two American tourists.
The latest round of extraordinary Federal Reserve stimulus is risky and leaves little room to maneuver should another crisis hit, economist Lawrence Lindsey told CNBC’s“Squawk Box” on Wednesday.
Lindsey said that with the Fed purchasing at least $40 billion a month in mortgage debt through QE3, “they are buying the entire deficit.” (Read more: Fed Pulls Trigger, to Buy Mortgages in Effort to Lower Rates.)
“I have no problem doing extraordinary things in extraordinary times,” said Lindsey, a former White House economic advisor under former president George W. Bush who now runs his own consulting firm.
Lindsay said he agreed with the Fed’s first two rounds of quantitative easing. Now, with the economy now growing closer to its trend rate, “doing something that’s really out of the ordinary is risking things.”
He added, “If this becomes the new ordinary, it’s hard to imagine the Fed’s maneuvering room” should another crisis hit. (Read More: Why Fed Policy Just Like the NFL Refs: El-Erian.)
The central bank's recently announced bid to stimulate the economy has also taken the pressure off politicians to deal with the U.S. fiscal cliff, Lindsay argued, which could result in destabilizing tax hikes and spending cuts automatically taking effect early next year.
“The Fed, maybe because it can't do otherwise, has told the Congress: 'We're going to buy your bonds no matter what,'” Lindsey said. “I think that's keeping the pressure off the president, off the Congress.”
The effective of QE3 on interest rates may also keep Congress from reining in borrowing.
“If the (Fed) chairman’s estimates of the effectiveness of QE3 on interest rates come true, we’re going to be down to an average cost of borrowing for the government of 0.6 of a percentage point,” Lindsey said. “Why would any Congress not borrow and spend if they could borrow at 60 basis points?”
US Business News
Planet Earth may be 4.5 billion years old, but that doesn't mean it can't serve up a shattering surprise now and again.
Such was the case on April 11 when two massive earthquakes erupted beneath the Indian Ocean off the coast of the Indonesian island of Sumatra, far from the usual danger zones. Now scientists say the seafloor ruptures are part of a long suspected, yet never before observed, event: the slow-motion splitting of a vast tectonic plate.
The first of the quakes, a magnitude 8.7, was 20 times more powerful than California's long anticipated "big one" and tore a complex network of faults deep in the ocean floor. The violence also triggered unusually large aftershocks thousands of miles away, including four off North America's western coast.
"It was jaw-dropping," said Thorne Lay, a professor of Earth and planetary sciences at UC Santa Cruz. "It was like nothing we'd ever seen."
At first, Lay wondered whether the computer code he used to analyze earthquakes was wrong. Eventually, he and other scientists realized that they had documented the breakup of the Indo-Australian plate into two pieces, an epic process that began roughly 50 million years ago and will continue for tens of millions more. Lay and other scientists reported their findings online Wednesday in the journal Nature.
Most great earthquakes occur along plate borders, where one plate dives beneath the adjoining plate and sinks deep into Earth's mantle, a process called subduction. The April 11 quakes, however, occurred in the middle of the plate and involved a number of strike-slip faults, meaning the ground on one side of the fault moves horizontally past ground on the other side.
Scientists say the 8.7 main shock broke four faults. The quake lasted 2 minutes and 40 seconds — most last just seconds — and was followed by a second main shock, of magnitude 8.2, two hours later.
Unlike the magnitude 9.1 temblor that struck in the same region on Dec. 26, 2004, and created a deadly tsunami, the April 11 quakes did not cause similar destruction. That's because horizontally moving strike-slip faults do not induce the massive, vertical displacement of water that thrust faults do on the borders of plates.
The type of interplate faults involved in the Sumatran quakes are the result of monumental forces, some of which drove the land mass of India into Asia millions of years ago and lifted the Himalayan Mountains. As the Indo-Australian plate continues to slide northwest, the western portion of the plate, where India is, has been grinding against and underneath Asia. But the eastern portion of the plate, which contains Australia, keeps on moving without the same obstruction. That difference creates squeezing pressure in the area where the quakes occurred.
Joseph Herrin (09-26-2012)
Opening Line from Declaration of Independence by Thomas Jefferson
Thomas Jefferson chose as the opening line to the Declaration of Independence the words:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.
In the 1940s, George Orwell published the book Animal Farm in which he made a clever reference to these words of Jefferson. What is interesting is that Orwell wrote his political satire as an attack on communism, but the literary reference of what is perhaps the most famous line in his book points back to America’s founding document. Indeed, the entire plot of Animal Farm could very well be the story of America.
In Orwell’s book a group of animals revolt against the farm’s owner who is a severe alcoholic. The farmer, a Mr. Jones, neglects to feed and care for the farm animals so they run him off of the farm. Although Orwell may not have intended this association, there is a parallel found here between the colonialists of America who banded together to overthrown the rule of the King of England whom they accused of mistreating them.
Old Major, the old boar on the Manor Farm, calls the animals on the farm for a meeting, where he compares the humans to parasites and teaches the animals a revolutionary song, 'Beasts of England.' When Major dies, two young pigs, Snowball and Napoleon, assume command and turn his dream into a philosophy. The animals revolt and drive the drunken and irresponsible Mr. Jones from the farm, renaming it "Animal Farm." They adopt Seven Commandments of Animal-ism, the most important of which is, "All animals are equal."
I question whether Orwell did not secretly have America in mind when he wrote this book. After all, America’s conflict was with England, and the most important commandment of the animals does not derive from the founding documents of Communist Russia, but from the Declaration of Independence of America.
The application to America becomes more apparent as the book progresses. The animals, having driven out Mr. Jones, set up their own government based upon a type of Constitution that includes a Bill of Rights. These rights are seven in total.
1. Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
2. Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
3. No animal shall wear clothes.
4. No animal shall sleep in a bed.
5. No animal shall drink alcohol.
6. No animal shall kill any other animal.
7. All animals are equal.
Over time, one of the pigs (Napoleon) begins taking the pups away from the dogs when they are born and trains them as his personal protection force. Napoleon then drives away Snowball, wresting control of the farm to himself. He ends the full community meetings of the animals and sets up a committee of pigs that will govern the farm. Napoleon begins to take the best food and supplies of the farm for his personal use, and that of the other pigs, while also altering the laws to benefit his committee. Following are some of the changes enacted to the original seven commandments.
“No animal shall sleep in a bed,” becomes “No animal shall sleep in a bed with sheets.”
“No animal shall drink alcohol,” is changed to “No animal shall drink alcohol to excess.”
“No animal shall kill any other animal,” becomes “No animal shall kill any other animal without cause.”
Yet, the greatest change, and most noteworthy, is that “All animals are equal” is restated as “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”
Some Animals Are More Equal Than Others
As I have studied the history of America, I have observed that this last tenet has been in evidence among American government ever since its founding as a nation separate from England. Some months back I read the book The Secret Destiny of America by Manly P. Hall. Manly Hall is a Masonic author greatly admired by men of the lodge. In 1944 he published the aforementioned book, setting forth a case for America fulfilling her destiny as “the new Atlantis.”
Manly Hall makes reference to the writing Critias that was authored by the Greek philosopher Plato in the fourth century B.C.. In Critias Plato imagines a dialogue between Socrates and a man named Critias, who was named as a descendant of the Greek politician Solon. Critias is telling Socrates of a trip made by his forebear to Egypt, where Solon was shown mysteries by the Egyptian priests who guarded the wisdom of that ancient nation. What Solon was shown related to the lost kingdom of Atlantis.
What stood out to me in Manly Hall’s review of this ancient writing was the claim that Atlantis was ruled over by “philosopher kings.” These were men who had achieved an illumined state through self-discipline and self-improvement. They were also learned in ancient wisdom, and these qualities commended these men as nature’s only true aristocracy. It was suggested by Manly Hall that certain men reach a state of moral and philosophical advancement that sets them apart from the common man as being worthy of ruling over others.
THE destruction of Atlantis, as described by Plato in the “Critias,” can be interpreted as a political fable. The tradition of the Lost Empire as descended from Solon was enlarged and embellished according to the formulas of the Orphic theology; but it does not follow necessarily that Plato intended to disparage the idea that a lost continent had actually existed west of Europe. Plato was a philosopher; he saw in the account of the fall of Atlantis an admirable opportunity to summarize his convictions concerning government and politics.
The “Critias” first describes the blessed state of the Atlantean people under the benevolent rulership of ten kings who were bound together in a league. These kings were monarchs over seven islands and three great continents. From the fable we can infer that the ten rulers of the Atlantic league were philosopher kings, endowed with all virtues and wise guardians of the public good. These kings obeyed the laws of the divine father of their house, Poseidon, god of the seas...
In this way Plato describes the government of the Golden Age, in which men live on earth according to the laws of heaven.
By the three great continents of Atlantis are to be understood, Europe, Asia, and Africa; and by the seven islands, all the lesser peoples of the earth. The league of the ten kings is the cooperative commonwealth of mankind, the natural and proper form of human government. The Atlantis, therefore, is the archetype or the pattern of right government, which existed in ancient days but was destroyed by the selfishness and ignorance of men.
Plato, it must be remembered, was a monarchist by philosophic conviction, but his ideal king was the wise man perfect in the virtues and the natural ruler of those less informed than himself. This king was the father of his people, impersonal and unselfish, dedicated to the public good, a servant of both the gods and his fellow men. This king was descended of a divine race; that is, he belonged to the Order of the Illumined; for those who come to a state of wisdom then belong to the family of the heroes - perfected human beings.
Plato's monarchy was therefore a philosophic democracy; for all men had the right to become wise through self-discipline and self-improvement. One who achieved this state was by virtue of his own action a superior man, and this superiority was the only aristocracy recognized by Natural Law.
[Source: The Secret Destiny of America, Manly P. Hall]
What Manly P. Hall describes here is a manifestation of Masonic theology. Freemasonry claims to exist to “make good men better.” The various degrees of Masonry are displayed as a ladder, signifying man’s advancement toward godhood.
Steps of Freemasonry
This mythos of Freemasonry is not some obscure idea. It is well known by those who have founded and perpetuated America’s government. We saw in theApotheosis of Washington, painted on the interior of the Capitol Dome, the belief that men can attain to godhood by self-discipline and self-improvement. Freemasonry purports to be the guardian of this method of self-improvement, and the guardian of all secret wisdom that men lack. At the top of the Masonic pyramid is the all-seeing eye, representing not only Lucifer, but those elite men who attain to godhood through Luciferian means. Satan’s first lie to mankind was “You shall be as God.” This is a lie he has not deviated from in his long career.
Although not all the men involved in the formation of America as a nation were Freemasons, one common thought held among them was that there are various classes of men. There is the rabble who are incapable of governing themselves, and there are those who are enlightened. Thomas Jefferson was an adherent to the philosophy of The Enlightenment. Manly Hall, writing as a Freemason, spoke of “the Order of the Illumined.” Although different in form, both The Enlightenment and Freemasonry have the same author. They both hold to a view that certain men are by virtue of their wisdom and moral virtues qualified to govern, while the vast majority of mankind needs to be governed, and true power must be withheld from them. This philosophy is not unlike Orwell’s description of the pigs’ attitude in the book Animal Farm declaring that some animals (pigs in particular) are more equal than others.
I found the above graphic online quite appropriate as it incorporates the figure of a pyramid, with an opening at the top where one might commonly see the all seeing eye. In the window is a pig who has determined that he is better than others, and has the divine right to rule over lesser creatures. Surely Yahweh sees the lies of Satan, the deceptions of Freemasonry, the delusions of the Illuminati, and the pride of the proponents of a New World Order in a similar fashion.
As I was preparing for this series of writings I became acquainted with a book titledAn Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States by Charles A. Beard. This book, originally published in 1913, the same year that the Federal Reserve Act was passed (which strikes me as an interesting “coincidence”), sets forth an articulate, clearly argued, and meticulously documented case that America’s Constitution was written by men of property and substance to give them specific advantages and protections from the rest of the American population. Having read the book, I am persuaded that the author’s viewpoint is correct. At the end of the book there is a section where he sums up the book’s major points. I will paraphrase since some of the language used by the author is archaic, or obscure.
The people involved in the design and adoption of the U.S. Constitution can be divided into four economic groups: banking, public securities, manufacturing, and trade and shipping.
The first firm steps toward the formation of the Constitution were taken by a small and active group of men who were motivated by personal financial and property interests.
The framing of the Constitution was not a democratic process.
A large percentage of the American population who lacked property, was excluded from having any input into the formation of the Constitution by voting qualifications that were in force in a majority of the states. A man could not vote unless he paid a certain amount of taxes, or owned a specific amount of land, in most of the states.
The members of the Philadelphia Convention which drafted the Constitution were, with few exceptions, immediately, directly, and personally interested in, and derived economic advantages from, the establishment of the new system.
The Constitution was ratified by a vote of probably not more than 1/6th of adult males in the existing states.
Historical evidence reveals that the voters of New York, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Virginia, and South Carolina did NOT approve the ratification of the Constitution, but state representatives with financial interests approved it anyway.
During the ratification process for the Constitution, it became clear that the moneyed and propertied classes supported it, while the small farmers and debtors (a majority of the American population) opposed it. Many of this latter group were unable to vote due to voting qualifications that favored those with property and money.
What Charles Beard’s book reveals is that America’s government has never been in the hands of the common man, nor was the Constitution written to give every citizen of the nation equal rights. This document was formed primarily to protect the propertied classes from the rabble, and to give them distinct advantages upon its passage.
One of the means by which the men gathered at the Constitutional Convention stood to gain financially was related to land scrip, a form of payment issued by the Federal government to pay soldiers during the war, and for payment of government debts. America had vast tracts of western land that had not been developed, and the government being short on cash, offered land scrip in its stead. This land scrip was worth only what it could be sold for. As long as the Native American Indians remained a threat (legitimately so, for they were having their lands forcibly wrested from them), and settlement and development of the land was delayed, the scrip was worth only pennies an acre.
Many soldiers after the war needed money and sold their scrip for a pittance to speculators who bought it up in anticipation of its value rising. The men speculating in this land scrip foresaw that once a strong Federal government was in place that the value of this Scrip would greatly increase. A strong federal government could raise a standing army to fight the Indians, and promote settlement of these western lands. Beard writes, “Every leading capitalist of the time thoroughly understood the relation of a new constitution to the rise in land values beyond the Alleghenies.”
Charles Beard proceeds in his book to show from existing records, the financial condition of each man that participated in the Constitutional Convention, and how they stood to gain financially, or materially, through passage of this document. Beard sums up this lengthy section of his book with the following statements:
The overwhelming majority of its members, at least five-sixths, were immediately, directly, and personally interested in the outcome of their labors at Philadelphia, and were to a greater or less extent economic beneficiaries from the adoption of the Constitution.
1. Public security interests were extensively represented in the Convention. Of the fifty-five members who attended, no less than forty appear on records of the Treasury Department...
2. Personal assets invested in lands for speculation was represented by at least fourteen members...
3. Personal assets in the form of money loaned at interest was represented by at least twenty-four members...
4. Personal assets in mercantile, manufacturing, and shipping lines was represented by at least eleven members...
5. Personal assets in slaves was represented by at least fifteen members...
It cannot be said, therefore, that the members of the Convention were “disinterested.” On the contrary, we are forced to accept the profoundly significant conclusion that they knew through their personal experiences in economic affairs the precise results which the new government that they were setting up was designed to attain.
Beard proceeds to set forth cogent arguments for the design of the government. He presents a convincing view of the separation of powers as a means by which the moneyed and propertied classes could protect themselves against the popular will of the people. By separating the government into Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches, and by staggering the election of public officials (Representatives - 2 years; Senators - 6 years; President - 4 years; Supreme Court - Lifetime Appointment), the Convention members were insuring that a sudden popular uprising against the moneyed and propertied classes would be stymied. It would be nearly impossible to pass any sweeping reforms that would adversely effect that aristocratic class of Americans who were men of money and property.
Keep in mind that many of these men at the Convention were Freemasons. There was a prevailing conviction among them (expressed in the words of Manly Hall) that certain men were born to govern, and the majority of men must in turn be content to be governed by others. Charles Beard writes of the “notions of government which were common to the Federalists” at that time. One of the Convention members was George Clymer who asserted that “a representative of the people is appointed to think FOR and not WITH his constituents.”
James Madison took detailed notes of the Convention and recorded the following about John Dickinson of Delaware. “Mr. Dickinson had a very different idea of the tendency of vesting the right of suffrage in the freeholders of the country. He considered them as the best guardians of liberty; And the restriction of the right to them as a necessary defense against the dangerous influence of those multitudes without property and without principle, with which our Country like all others, will in time abound.”
The men who participated in the Convention by and large were opposed to “leveling democracy.” They believed that it was dangerous for the unpropertied classes to have equal say as those with property. Many of the convention members wanted to establish a property clause in the Constitution whereby only those with significant property could vote. The reason such a restriction did not find its way into the Constitution is that the members never could come to agreement on what those requirements should be. The sticking point was that some of the men present had large land holdings, but very little actual cash or stocks or bonds. Others were flush with cash and various financial instruments, but had little in the way of real property. In the end, they chose to leave it to the states to establish voting qualifications, which most had in place already.
In his book, Beard cites Alexander Hamilton:
All communities divide themselves into the few and the many. The first are the rich and well born, the other the mass of the people. The voice of the people has been said to be the voice of God; and however generally this maxim has been quoted and believed, it is not true in fact. The people are turbulent and changing; they seldom judge or determine right. Give therefore to the first class a distinct, permanent share in the government. They will check the unsteadiness of the second...
There were numerous members of the Constitutional Convention who argued that a permanent aristocracy should be built into America’s government. Some made reference to the House of Lords in England, and suggested that America should have something similar. A few, however, were opposed to giving power to an aristocracy. Governeur Morris of Pennsylvania weighed in on the issue. He said:
The sound of (the word) Aristocracy, therefore had no effect on him. It was the thing, not the name, to which he was opposed, and one of his principal objections to the Constitution as it is now before us, is that it threatens this Country with an Aristocracy. The Aristocracy will grow out of the House of Representatives... Give the votes to the people who have no property, and they will sell them to the rich who will be able to buy them.
Some of the Convention members argued that Senators should not be paid, for they believed this would insure that only wealthy men would apply for the positions, keeping the Senate firmly in the hands of the moneyed and propertied class.
Roger Sherman believed in reducing the popular influence in the new government to the minimum... The people, he said, immediately should have as little to do as may be about the government. They want (lack) information and are constantly liable to be misled.
When it came time to vote on ratification of the Constitution, it is little wonder that the population was deeply divided. Beard provides vote counts by city and region that demonstrate that the small farmers, who were far more common than today, and the common laborers, were overwhelmingly opposed to the Constitution. The rural areas voted against the Constitution. It was the cities where the merchants, bankers, shippers, and other men of wealth congregated that voted in favor of the Constitution.
In this chapter I am building a bridge to what follows. It has been my intent to demonstrate that there has always been a ruling elite in the nation. They are guided by an unseen hand. The government follows a course that is steered y what Manly Hall refers to as “the Order of the Illumined.”
As the nation has grown in population, and the middle class has burgeoned, new methods had to be developed to insure the continuance of the rule of America’s aristocracy. The chief tool has been deception. This should not be surprising when one considers what has been set forth thus far in this series. A nation whose founding fathers were Freemasons, deists, disciples of the Enlightenment, and members of groups such as the Hellfire Club, who formed counsels in the Green Dragon Tavern, and adopted the image of a serpent as an emblem of their rebellion, may disguise themselves as servants of righteousness, but the truth will come out in the end.
II Corinthians 11:14-15
No wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. Therefore it is not surprising if his servants also disguise themselves as servants of righteousness, whose end will be according to their deeds.
Spain is due to enact its austerity budget for 2013 on Thursday, against a backdrop of a deteriorating economy and 25% unemployment rate.
Madrid is expected to set out 39bn euros ($50bn; £31bn) worth of savings, tax rises, and structural reforms.
It comes amid further protests this week, and growing expectations that Spain will seek a bailout from its eurozone partners.
On Friday, results of a stress test on Spain's banks are due to be released.
Spain's borrowing costs rose back to danger levels on Wednesday and the stock market fell.
Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy fuelled expectations that Spain would ask for a bailout when he told the Wall Street Journal on Wednesday that if borrowing costs were "too high for too long", then "I can assure you 100% that I would ask for this bailout".
The economic situation remains grim, with figures from the central bank on Wednesday showing the country's recession deepened as economic output fell.
"Available data for the third quarter of the year suggest output continued to fall at a significant pace, in an environment in which financial tension remained at very high levels," the Bank of Spain said in a monthly report.
The Madrid stock exchange closed 4% down on Wednesday, and the interest rate on Spanish 10-year sovereign debt rose above 6%.
Last week, Spain's second biggest bank, BBVA, estimated that up to another 60bn euros (£48bn; $78bn) will be needed to bail out the sector.
We're going to get a budget which is credible neither for the markets, nor for the European partners”Sony KapoorManaging director, Re-Define
About 20bn euros has already been allocated to troubled banks.
Spain, the eurozone's fourth largest economy, fell back into recession in the last quarter of 2011, the second recession since the bursting of the country's property bubble.
But with a shrinking economy and unrest in the country, reducing the deficit via further austerity measures may prove a difficult task for the government.
The government has predicted a budget deficit this year of about 6.3%, but many analysts estimate it will be nearer 7% or higher.
The basic outline for the budget has been known since July, but not exactly where the cuts and savings will come from.'Not credible'
There has been speculation that the budget could include such things as taxes on shares transactions, "green taxes" on emissions or eliminating tax breaks, and even possibly ending inflation-linked pensions.
Madrid has already said that it wants to claw back a total of more than 150bn euros between 2012 and 2014: 62bn euros this year, 39bn euros in 2013, and 50bn euros in 2014.
But many analysts remain sceptical that it would be enough to resolve Spain's economic woes.
Sony Kapoor, managing director of the think-tank Re-Define, told the BBC: "I'm afraid we're going to get a budget which is credible neither for the markets, nor for the European partners.
"It's going to try and meet too many objectives all at the same time, serve too many masters, and end up not serving any of them."
The prospect of further cuts sparked off another wave of demonstrations, and more speculation about the succession of the wealthy Catalonia region.
Despite the public anger, Mr Rajoy said sacrifices were necessary.
"We know what we have to do, and since we know it, we're doing it," he said in a speech in New York.
"We also know this entails a lot of sacrifices distributed... evenly throughout the Spanish society," he said.
But Boris Schlossberg, managing director at New York-based BK Asset, said: "Spain is in a vicious cycle, because austerity is hurting economic activity and revenues, which causes greater fiscal gaps.
"People are starting to realise this, and the political will to absorb these sacrifices is diminishing by the hour," he said.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu left for New York in the immediate aftermath of the Yom Kippur fast on Wednesday evening, to address the annual General Assembly of the United Nations on Thursday and conduct meetings with several world leaders.
Shortly before flying out, Netanyahu bitterly castigated Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s speech to the UN earlier Wednesday, and those who stayed in the room to hear it. “On the day that we pray to be inscribed in the Book of Life,” the prime minister said in reference to Yom Kippur, “the authoritarian Iranian regime takes every opportunity to condemn us to death.”
He added: “The Iranian oppressor chose to call in public, in front of the entire world, for our disappearance… That is a black day for those who chose to to remain in the room and listen to these accusatory words.”
Netanyahu said his own speech on Thursday would constitute “our response,” and also pledged to “use every possible means” to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.
Netanyahu’s speech, which aides said would contain “significant” content, might be tweaked until the last minute, officials told The Times of Israel. Netanyahu will be speaking shortly after Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas addresses the gathering.
A report Tuesday in Maariv claimed Netanyahu would specify “red lines” which, if crossed by Iran, would prompt military action. But officials did not confirm this, although it is understood that the address will focus primarily on the Iranian threat, and go into detail about Tehran’s nuclear program and the specifics of the advances made by Iran despite international sanctions.
“I will reiterate that the most dangerous country in the world must not be allowed to arm itself with the most dangerous weapon in the world,” Netanyahu said Sunday during the weekly cabinet meeting.
Netanyahu is expected to try to rally support for tougher sanctions and underline his demand that the international community — most especially the United States — halt Iran’s race to a nuclear weapons capability.
In announcing four weeks ago that he had decided to fly to New York for the gathering — even though it falls inconveniently in the Jewish calendar, beginning on Yom Kippur and ending just ahead of Sukkot — Netanyahu said he was going “to tell the nations of the world in a loud and clear voice the truth about the Iranian regime of terror, which constitutes the greatest threat to world peace.”
Surprisingly, Netanyahu’s visit will not include a meeting with Obama, because of what the White House claimed were scheduling difficulties. At one point the White House said no such meeting had been sought, prompting the remarkable charge by an unnamed aide to the prime minister that the White House was lying.
Although Obama, in the midst of his reelection campaign, with elections just weeks away, has not been meeting with any foreign leaders during his time in New York, his unwillingness to make time for Netanyahu has been widely discussed in American media. Some newspapers pointed out that he did find room in his schedule for appearances on several talk shows in recent days, including an interview with ABC’s “The View” on Monday.
The failure to overcome the scheduling difficulties appears to underline the tensions and differences between the two allied leaderships on Iran — not as regards the threat posed by the rogue nuclear program, but as regards the urgency of a possible resort to military force.
Netanyahu had indicated in recent months that he was contemplating ordering a military strike at Iranian nuclear facilities, but the administration made public its opposition to the idea. Appearing to backtrack, the prime minister urged Obama to at least publicly set “red lines” for US-led military intervention, but was rebuffed again.
A bitter Netanyahu then declared that those who were not prepared to set red lines for Iran had no “moral right to place a red light” in front of a possible Israeli strike.
Obama, in a TV interview earlier this week, appeared to dismiss the pressure from Netanyahu for a tougher stance on Iran as “noise,” and his staff proved immovable as regards a possible meeting, even though the prime minister’s aides indicated that he would fly from New York to Washington if necessary.
Is Mahmoud Abbas willing to resume talks with Israel?
Netanyahu’s delegation will arrive in New York on Thursday morning, just a few hours before his scheduled speech.
Addressing the gathering an hour ahead of him, Abbas is expected to announce his intention in principle to ask the General Assembly to upgrade Palestine’s status from that of an observer entity to a non-member state — a move opposed by Israel and the US, but one that is much less dramatic than his failed bid last September to have Palestine admitted by the UN Security Council as a full-fledged UN member state.
Jerusalem is staunchly opposed to the Palestinian gambit, with officials insisting that a genuine resolution of the conflict can only result from negotiations between the two sides and not unilateral actions. Israeli leaders know that the 193 member-states of the General Assembly, where no country has a veto right, would overwhelmingly vote in favor of upgrading Palestine.
Abbas has reportedly promised Obama to hold off on formally seeking the upgrade at this week’s GA, and to do so, instead, only after the US presidential elections in November.
On Tuesday, Haaretz reported that Abbas has agreed to resume negotiations with Israel if Jerusalem freezes all settlement construction in the West Bank. Abbas also promised “a positive statement” about the historic connection between Israel and the Jewish people during his address, according to the paper.
Netanyahu, who is being accompanied to New York by his wife Sarah, is staying in the US for only three days. On Thursday, after his speech, he will meet with European Union foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon and US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton.
Minutes after the Sabbath ends, the prime minister’s delegation will head back to the airport to arrive in Israel on Sunday afternoon, hours before the start of the Sukkot holiday.
Times 0f Israel
France to Eliminate Words ‘Mother,’ ‘Father’ From Documents Read more on Newsmax.com: France to Eliminate Words ‘Mother,’ ‘Father’ From Documents Important: Do You Support Pres. Obama's Re-Election? Vote Here Now!
A proposal to legalize gay marriage in France would also abolish all references to “mothers” and fathers” in official documents.
Under the draft bill, same-sex marriages would become legal, and gay couples would have the same rights to adopt children as heterosexual couples.
The bill would also do away with all references to “mothers and fathers” in the civil code and replace them with the gender-neutral term “parents.”
The draft law, which has outraged the Catholic Church, is expected to be presented to French President Francois Hollande on Oct. 31.
In an open letter titled “Prayer for France,” leading French Catholics opposed the bill, saying, “Children should not be subjected to adults’ desires and conflicts, so they can full benefit from the love of their mother and father,” according to The Daily Telegraph.
Read more on Newsmax.com: France to Eliminate Words ‘Mother,’ ‘Father’ From Documents
ANN ARBOR, MI – U.S. Army Lieutenant General (Ret.) William "Jerry" Boykin, in a recent World Net Daily radio interview, confirmed that people with high security clearances connected to the Muslim Brotherhood hold important positions in every major federal agency including the Pentagon and the Department of Defense.
The Muslim Brotherhood is a radical Islamist organization that has vowed the destruction of America from within.
General Boykin has the credentials to back up his conclusions. He was one of the original members of the U.S. Army's Delta Force which he ultimately led in combat operations. He also served a tour in the CIA during which time he participated in clandestine operations throughout the world. He served his last four years in the Army as Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence.
Lt. Gen. Boykin, who currently serves as Executive Vice President of the Family Research Council, blasted Republicans for condemning Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., who sounded the alarm by questioning the Brotherhood ties of Huma Abedin, a top assistant to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Boykin said that neither Republicans nor Democrats want to protest too loudly over concerns of being branded intolerant.
The Thomas More Law Center now represents LTC Matthew Dooley, a 1994 graduate of the U. S. Military Academy at West Point.
GEN Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff had LTC Dooley fired as an instructor at the Joint Forces Staff College in order to appease Muslim groups and the White House who wanted all training materials offensive to Islam purged and all trainers using those materials disciplined.
Thomas More Law Center
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Wednesday called for the end of the “hegemonic” powers of the United States and Israel, whom he described as “the uncivilized Zionists.” He said the world would ”soon” see new “global management” by the Twelfth Imam, also known as the “Mahdi,” and his deputy, Jesus Christ.
This was Ahmadinejad’s eighth and likely final annual address to the opening fall session of the United Nations General Assembly. He is expected to finish his second term in office in June 2013. In each of his past U.N. speeches, he prayed for the soon coming of the so-called Islamic messiah. This time he went much further, offering his most detailed explanation to date of his Shia Islamic eschatology (End Times theology) and his understanding of the coming rule of the Twelfth Imam.
Ahmadinejad told the leaders of the world gathered in Manhattan that he had come this time “to voice the divine and humanitarian message…to you and to the whole world.”
“God Almighty has promised us a man of kindness, a man who loves people and loves absolute justice, a man who is a perfect human being and is named Imam Al-Mahdi, a man who will come in the company of Jesus Christ, peace be upon Him, and the righteous,” he said. Calling the Mahdi “the Ultimate Savior,” Ahmadinejad said his arrival on earth “will mark a new beginning, a rebirth and a resurrection. It will be the beginning of peace, lasting security and genuine life.”
Ahmadinejad said the coming reign of the Twelfth Imam on earth “will bring about an eternally bright future for mankind, not by force or waging wars but through thought awakening and developing kindness in everyone.” The Iranian leader did not offer a specific timetable, but he did say the “sweet scent” of the Mahdi’s global reign “will soon reach all the territories in Asia, Europe, Africa and the U.S.”
Despite his insistence that the Twelfth Imam’s reign would come without war, Shia eschatology experts say the opposite is true. As I document in my non-fiction book, Inside The Revolution, and dramatize in my most recent political thrillers, The Tehran Initiative and The Twelfth Imam, Islamic theologians say Muslim political leaders today are supposed to set into motion the annihilation of Judeo-Christian civilization as we know it and create the conditions of chaos and carnage to hasten the arrival of the Twelfth Imam. Then the Mahdi is supposed to turn all these wars and killings to his advantage and establish justice and peace. As I have both described and documented in my books, it is this Shia End Times theology that is driving Iranian foreign policy today. This is why the mullahs in Tehran are working so hard to pursue nuclear weapons and the means to deliver the, to prepare the way for the rise of this Islamic kingdom or caliphate.
On Sunday upon arriving in New York City, in fact, Ahmadinejad wasted no time in announcing that Israel must be “eliminated” from the earth. He dismissed any concern about a possible Israeli preemptive military strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities. What’s more, he also refused to distance himself from – much less disagree with – the statement of a senior Revolutionary Guard commander in Tehran who said earlier that day that for the first time Iran itself is actively considering a preemptive military strike against Israel and an attack on American military bases and personnel, and that a war with Israel could turn into “World War III.”
In a CNN interview with Piers Morgan, Ahmadinejad appeared to speak directly to the coming doom of the U.S. and Israel. Speaking of America’s role as the world’s only superpower, he said he believe an “historic period in the world is coming to an end, an era during which power has set the first and last word. Those holding the keys to power have set the fate of many populations. That era is coming to an end.” He later added that the State of Israel is “at the end of the line.”
Few world leaders are taking Ahmadinejad’s eschatology seriously. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, however, understands it. I’ve discussed it with him personally. Indeed, it is why he and his senior advisors in Jerusalem are seriously contemplating preemptive military action, to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of Ahmadinejad and men like him who are members of an apocalyptic, genocidal death cult determined to bring about a nuclear holocaust and the End of Days.
Just before leaving Israel for New York to address the U.N., Netanyahu reacted to Ahmadinejad’s speech. “On the day that we pray to be inscribed in the Book of Life,” the prime minister said in reference to Yom Kippur, “the authoritarian Iranian regime takes every opportunity to condemn us to death.” He added: “The Iranian oppressor chose to call in public, in front of the entire world, for our disappearance… That is a black day for those who chose to to remain in the room and listen to these accusatory words.” The Times of Israel reported that Netanyahu said his own speech on Thursday would constitute “our response,” and also pledged to “use every possible means” to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.
The following are key excerpts from the address, specifically related to the coming of the Twelfth Imam:
Mr. President, Friends and Dear Colleagues,
Creating peace and lasting security with decent life for all, although a great and a historic mission can be accomplished. The Almighty God has not left us alone in this mission and has said that it will surely happen. If it doesn’t, then it will be contradictory to his wisdom.
– God Almighty has promised us a man of kindness, a man who loves people and loves absolute justice, a man who is a perfect human being and is named Imam A1-Mahdi, a man who will come in the company of Jesus Christ (PBUH) and the righteous. By using the inherent potential of all the worthy men and women of all nations and I repeat, the inherent potential of “all the worthy men and women of all nations” he will lead humanity into achieving its glorious and eternal ideals.
– The arrival of the Ultimate Savior will mark a new beginning, a rebirth and a resurrection. It will be the beginning of peace, lasting security and genuine life.
– His arrival will be the end of oppression, immorality, poverty, discrimination and the beginning of justice, love and empathy.
– He will come and he will cut through ignorance, superstition, prejudice by opening the gates of science and knowledge. He will establish a world brimful of prudence and he will prepare the ground for the collective, active and constructive participation of all in the global management.
– He will come to grant kindness, hope, freedom and dignity to all humanity as a girl.
– He will come so mankind will taste the pleasure of being human and being in the company of other humans.
– He will come so that hands will be joined, hearts will be filled with love and thoughts will be purified to be at service of security, welfare and happiness for all.
– He will come to return all children of Adam irrespective of their skin colors to their innate origin after a long history of separation and division linking them to eternal happiness.
– The arrival of the Ultimate Savior, Jesus Christ and the Righteous will bring about an eternally bright future for mankind, not by force or waging wars but through thought awakening and developing kindness in everyone. Their arrival will breathe a new life in the cold and frozen body of the world. He will bless humanity with a spring that puts an end to our winter of ignorance, poverty and war with the tidings of a season of blooming.
– Now we can sense the sweet scent and the soulful breeze of the spring, a spring that has just begun and doesn’t belong to a specific race, ethnicity, nation or a region, a spring that will soon reach all the territories in Asia, Europe, Africa and the US.
– He will be the spring of all the justice-seekers, freedom-lovers and the followers of heavenly prophets. He will be the spring of humanity and the greenery of all ages.
– Let us join hands and clear the way for his eventual arrival with empathy and cooperation, in harmony and unity. Let us march on this path to salvation for the thirsty souls of humanity to taste immortal joy and grace.
Joel Rosemberg´s Blog