The porch monkey is mandating murder…

Catholic Church Rejects Surrender Terms from Obama

www.aim.org

By Cliff Kincaid  —   January 30, 2012

My Catholic priest, Father Larry Swink, delivered a homily on Sunday that I told him would make headlines. In the toughest sermon I have ever heard from a pulpit, he attacked the Obama Administration as evil, even demonic, and warned of religious persecution ahead. What was also newsworthy about the sermon was that he cited The Washington Post in agreement—not on the subject of the Obama Administration being evil, but on the matter of its abridgment of the constitutional right to freedom of religion.

What is happening is extraordinary and unprecedented. The Catholic Church is in open revolt against the Obama Administration, with Fr. Swink noting from the pulpit that priests across the archdiocese were joining the call on Sunday to rally Catholics to resistance against the U.S. Government. He said we are entering a time of religious persecution and that Catholics and others will have to make a final decision about which side they are on.

The issue is what the Catholic Bishops have called a “literally unconscionable” edict by the Obama Administration demanding that sterilization, abortifacients and contraception be included in virtually all health plans.

At a time when the media are full of reports about who is ahead and behind in the polls, and who will win the next Republican presidential primary, this incredible uprising in the Catholic Church is something that could not only overshadow the political campaign season, but also may have a major impact on the ultimate outcome—if Republicans know how to handle it. This matter goes beyond partisan politics to the growing perception of an unconstitutional Obama Administration assault on religious freedom. To hear the Catholic Bishops and Priests describe it, our constitutional republic and our freedoms hang in the balance.

The administration claims there is a religious exemption in the mandate, but the bishops say it is so narrow that it fails to cover the vast majority of faith-based organizations, including Catholic hospitals, universities and service organizations that help millions every year. “Ironically,” they say, “not even Jesus & his disciples would have qualified.”

The bishops go on, “Now that the Administration has refused to recognize the Constitutional conscience rights of organizations and individuals who oppose the mandate, the bishops are now urging Catholics and others of good will to fight this unprecedented attack on conscience rights and religious liberty.”

Interestingly, The Washington Post, as Father Swink indicated, agrees with the bishops. The paper said, “In this circumstance, requiring a religiously affiliated employer to spend its own money in a way that violates its religious principles does not make an adequate accommodation for those deeply held views. Having recognized the principle of a religious exemption, the administration should have expanded it.”

So why would the administration pick a major fight with the Catholic Church? There are two main reasons. (1) The administration wants to please its progressive and feminist, secular pro-abortion base. (2) The administration believes Catholics are divided on the issue and will ignore their leaders and follow Obama.

Support for the latter explanation comes in the form of the Obama Administration’s efforts to co-opt the Catholic Church, primarily through appointing nominal Catholics to high-level positions in government and keeping funding going to the church for “social justice” causes. Another player in this effort is the hedge-fund billionaire George Soros, an atheist who nevertheless has found groups that are “Catholic in name only” to accept his financial largesse. These groups, including Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, are designed to give the impression that Catholics are less concerned about issues like stopping abortion and protecting the sanctity of traditional marriage than passing government health care. The Obama/Soros gamble may be backfiring.

It’s true that the bishops went along with Obama’s health care scheme, even lobbying on its behalf. But now they seem to be realizing that the plan was a Trojan Horse designed to force population control measures on the people of the United States. It will be difficult for the bishops to continue working with the administration on other issues, like immigration. They have drawn a line in the sand. They cannot back down.

Father Larry Swink of Jesus The Divine Word Catholic Church in Huntingtown, Maryland, is not alone in his tough language. Pittsburgh Bishop David A. Zubik posted a letter on the Roman Catholic Diocese of Pittsburgh’s website that said, “It is really hard to believe that it happened. It comes like a slap in the face. The Obama administration has just told the Catholics of the United States, ‘To Hell with you!’ There is no other way to put it.” He added, “This whole process of mandating these guidelines undermines the democratic process itself. In this instance, the mandate declares pregnancy a disease, forces a culture of contraception and abortion on society, all while completely bypassing the legislative process.”

You know it’s serious when the bishops are talking about heaven and hell.

Indeed, Fr. Swink opened his discussion of what he described as the evil nature of the Obama Administration by reading from scripture about Jesus casting out demons. He saw the order on health care coverage as the start of religious persecution. The congregation joined him in calls of “Amen” when he challenged them to stand tall with the church.

You cannot expect the secular Washington Post to go along with such rhetoric. But even its liberal editorial writer saw the ramifications of the health care order, perhaps anticipating the confrontation that we now see developing. From the point of view of this liberal paper, the Obama Administration is not only undermining religious freedom but risking a major backlash to its overall “progressive” agenda and even a second term in office.

Some may see this battle as just another church-state dust-up that will be resolved through litigation. But when apocalyptic imagery is used, such as what I heard at my church on Sunday, one must wonder if there is an awakening on the part of the Catholic community and if there is something else going on here besides politics as usual. In short, is the Catholic Church beginning to finally recognize the real nature of the Obama Administration?

God believes in atheists…

II Thessalonians 3:2
And pray that we may be delivered from wicked and evil men, for not everyone has faith…

+++

www.kktv.com

Who will blink first???

Iran hits back at EU with own oil embargo threat

ca.news.yahoo.com

By Robin Pomeroy and Hashem Kalantari    Reuters – Fri, 27 Jan, 2012

TEHRAN (Reuters) – Fighting sanctions with sanctions in a test of strength with the West over its nuclear ambitions, Iran warned on Friday it may halt oil exports to Europe next week in a move calculated to hurt ailing European economies.

The Tehran government grappling with its own economic crisis under Western trade and banking embargoes, will host a rare visit on Sunday by U.N. nuclear inspectors for talks that the ruling clergy may hope can relieve diplomatic pressure as they struggle to bolster public support.

Since the U.N. watchdog lent independent weight in November to the suspicions of Western powers that Iran is using a nuclear energy program to give itself the ability to build atomic bombs, U.S. and EU sanctions and Iranian threats of reprisal against Gulf shipping lanes have disrupted world oil markets and pushed up prices.

Amid forecasts Iran might be able to build a bomb next year, and with President Barack Obama facing re-election campaign questions on how he can make good on promises – to Americans and to Israel – not to tolerate a nuclear-armed Islamic Republic, a decade of dispute risks accelerating towards the brink of war.

The U.S. Treasury Department said on Friday it would send its undersecretary for terrorism and financial intelligence, David Cohen, to Britain, Germany and Switzerland next week to talk about how to enforce sanctions against Iran’s central bank.

Those sanctions aim to starve Iran of funds for developing nuclear weapons.

Western diplomats see little immediate prospect that renewed talks between Iran and the United Nations’ International Atomic Energy Agency, scheduled from Sunday to Tuesday in Tehran, would result much in the way of concessions to Western demands.

For all the tension, there was little clear market response to Friday’s talk by members of Iran’s parliament that they may vote on Sunday to stop sending oil to the European Union – its second biggest customer – as early as next week, to spite EU states that gave themselves until July to enforce an oil import embargo on Iran.

Greek and Italian refineries which rely on Iranian crude face hardships – recession-hit Greeks have bought more than half their oil from Iran lately. But analysts see Arab producers satisfying some shortfall, and demand for Iranian oil from China and other Asian countries that do not back Western sanctions may mean world oil flows are merely diverted rather than blocked.

RHETORIC

Traders admit to wearying of rhetorical thrust and parry.

“They are the masters of bluffing,” one Mediterranean crude oil trader said of remarks by Iranian lawmakers on Friday. “And they aren’t very reliable when they threaten extreme measures,” he said, noting the serious practical difficulties for tankers and storage plants of diverting 700,000 barrels of oil per day.

“That said, we are living in strange and difficult times,” he added, as Brent crude futures gained 0.8 percent to $111.64 on the threat, while disappointing U.S. GDP data pushed prices back.

In Tehran, Hossein Ibrahimi, vice-chairman of parliament’s national security committee, was quoted by the semi-official Fars news agency as saying: “On Sunday, parliament will have to approve a ‘double emergency’ bill calling for a halt in the export of Iranian oil to Europe starting next week.”

Moayed Hosseini-Sadr, a member of the energy committee in the legislature, said there would be no delay of the kind the EU allowed to its members on Monday when it imposed a ban on oil imports from Iran that would take full effect only on July 1.

“If the deputies arrive at the conclusion that the Iranian oil exports to Europe must be halted, parliament will not delay a moment,” Hosseini-Sadr said. “The Europeans will surely be taken by surprise and will understand the power of Iran.”

Echoing President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who said on Thursday that Europe would be the loser from its sanctions policy, the hardline cleric leading Friday prayers at Tehran university jibed: “Why wait six months, why not right away? The answer is clear. They are in trouble; they are grappling with crisis.”

That comment from Ahmad Khatami indicated the pre-emptive export ban is backed by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

The EU accounted for 25 percent of Iranian crude oil sales in the third quarter of 2011. But China, India and others have made clear that they are keen to soak up any spare Iranian oil, even as U.S. Treasury measures to choke Tehran’s dollar trade make it harder to pay for supplies.

SANCTIONS

Highlighting the difficulties of securing global sanctions when many governments, including Russia and China, question their value or say they will only harden Iranian defiance, Turkish state-controlled Halkbank, a key player in handling payments for Iranian oil, said it would keep on doing so.

A manager at the bank told Reuters that, as far as it was concerned, it was not in breach of U.S. financial sanctions.

The EU’s response was muted, saying that Iran’s intentions had been reported. “We want to see Iran coming back to the negotiating table, engaging in meaningful discussion on confidence-building measures and demonstrate the willingness to address concerns over its nuclear program, without preconditions,” said Maja Kocijancic, spokeswoman for EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton.

In Paris, where President Nicolas Sarkozy has been vocal in criticizing Iran, Foreign Ministry spokesman Bernard Valero stressed that EU countries were already in the process of finding alternative supplies of oil and he was dismissive of the comments from Tehran.

“It’s the little game of statements that they carry out artistically,” Valero said.

A senior European executive for an oil company that buys Iranian crude told Reuters there could still be problems for some if Tehran cut off supplies immediately. “We have to wait and be ready. The Iranians have been backed into a corner and it’s hard to predict how they will react,” he said.

Iran’s conservative-dominated parliament has previously shown it is ready to force the government to take action against what it sees as hostility from the West, and oil analyst Samuel Ciszuk said it was likely the assembly would pass the EU ban.

“It makes sense to demonstrate Iranian resolve and that it is not on the back foot, particularly as the measure could hit European refiners at a time of deep economic weakness,” said Ciszuk of London consultancy KBC Energy Economics.

An abrupt halt might, however, force Iran to offer discounts to other buyers in order to shift excess output, he added.

RISKS

Asian buyers might be tempted but are also wary of U.S. disfavor. “Even though China and India could take the opportunity to capitalize on Iran’s weakness, they currently have little appetite for the resulting international fallout,” said Paul Tossetti at consultancy PFC Energy in Washington.

Iran’s clerical establishment, having faced down popular protests which followed Ahmadinejad’s disputed re-election in 2009, is dealing with internal disagreement on policy while preparing to seek public endorsement at a closely managed parliamentary election in March.

Defending Iran’s right to civilian nuclear has been popular, but galloping inflation, which saw the rial formally devalued this week, is fuelling discontent with a ruling class that is also accused of corruption and putting its own interests first.

The diplomatic battleground will move to Tehran with the weekend arrival of an IAEA delegation, expected to number about half a dozen led by inspections chief Herman Nackaerts.

The IAEA director-general, Yukiya Amano, said in Davos on Friday: “I expect through this high level mission Iran tells us everything we need to know and resolve the issue.”

Western officials who work with his agency view that kind of sentiment as diplomatic, but wildly unrealistic.

“Nobody is optimistic,” one envoy said.

(Additional reporting by Fredrik Dahl in Vienna, Richard Mably and Jessica Donati in London, and Glenn Somerville in Washington; writing by Alastair Macdonald; editing by Angus MacSwan and Mohammad Zargham)

————————————————————————–

Related post…

The dollar getting beat up…

Finding ways to get rid of that pesky conscience people have…

I Timothy 4:2
These people will speak lies disguised as truth. Their consciences have been scarred as if branded by a red-hot iron…

+++

The Price of Your Soul: How the Brain Decides Whether to ‘Sell Out’

www.sciencedaily.com

Excerpt…

“The research was funded by the U.S. Office of Naval Research, the Air Force Office of Scientific Research and the National Science Foundation.”

—

ScienceDaily (Jan. 22, 2012) — A neuro-imaging study shows that personal values that people refuse to disavow, even when offered cash to do so, are processed differently in the brain than those values that are willingly sold.

“Our experiment found that the realm of the sacred — whether it’s a strong religious belief, a national identity or a code of ethics — is a distinct cognitive process,” says Gregory Berns, director of the Center for Neuropolicy at Emory University and lead author of the study. The results were published in Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society.

Sacred values prompt greater activation of an area of the brain associated with rules-based, right-or-wrong thought processes, the study showed, as opposed to the regions linked to processing of costs-versus-benefits.

Berns headed a team that included economists and information scientists from Emory University, a psychologist from the New School for Social Research and anthropologists from the Institute Jean Nicod in Paris, France. The research was funded by the U.S. Office of Naval Research, the Air Force Office of Scientific Research and the National Science Foundation.

“We’ve come up with a method to start answering scientific questions about how people make decisions involving sacred values, and that has major implications if you want to better understand what influences human behavior across countries and cultures,” Berns says. “We are seeing how fundamental cultural values are represented in the brain.”

The researchers used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to record the brain responses of 32 U.S. adults during key phases of an experiment. In the first phase, participants were shown statements ranging from the mundane, such as “You are a tea drinker,” to hot-button issues such “You support gay marriage” and “You are Pro-Life.” Each of the 62 statements had a contradictory pair, such as “You are Pro-Choice,” and the participants had to choose one of each pair.

At the end of the experiment, participants were given the option of auctioning their personal statements: Disavowing their previous choices for actual money. The participants could earn as much as $100 per statement by simply agreeing to sign a document stating the opposite of what they believed. They could choose to opt out of the auction for statements they valued highly.

“We used the auction as a measure of integrity for specific statements,” Berns explains. “If a person refused to take money to change a statement, then we considered that value to be personally sacred to them. But if they took money, then we considered that they had low integrity for that statement and that it wasn’t sacred.”

The brain imaging data showed a strong correlation between sacred values and activation of the neural systems associated with evaluating rights and wrongs (the left temporoparietal junction) and semantic rule retrieval (the left ventrolateral prefrontal cortex), but not with systems associated with reward.

“Most public policy is based on offering people incentives and disincentives,” Berns says. “Our findings indicate that it’s unreasonable to think that a policy based on costs-and-benefits analysis will influence people’s behavior when it comes to their sacred personal values, because they are processed in an entirely different brain system than incentives.”

Research participants who reported more active affiliations with organizations, such as churches, sports teams, musical groups and environmental clubs, had stronger brain activity in the same brain regions that correlated to sacred values. “Organized groups may instill values more strongly through the use of rules and social norms,” Berns says.

The experiment also found activation in the amygdala, a brain region associated with emotional reactions, but only in cases where participants refused to take cash to state the opposite of what they believe. “Those statements represent the most repugnant items to the individual,” Berns says, “and would be expected to provoke the most arousal, which is consistent with the idea that when sacred values are violated, that induces moral outrage.”

The study is part of a special issue of the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, titled “The Biology of Cultural Conflict.” Berns edited the special issue, which brings together a dozen articles on the culture of neuroscience, including differences in the neural processing of people on the opposing sides of conflict, from U.S. Democrats and Republicans to Arabs and Israelis.

“As culture changes, it affects our brains, and as our brains change, that affects our culture. You can’t separate the two,” Berns says. “We now have the means to start understanding this relationship, and that’s putting the relatively new field of cultural neuroscience onto the global stage.”

Future conflicts over politics and religion will likely play out biologically, Berns says. Some cultures will choose to change their biology, and in the process, change their culture, he notes. He cites the battles over women’s reproductive rights and gay marriage as ongoing examples.

Full list of questions, and the responses by the subjects.

—————————————————————————-

Hebrews 8:10
For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people…

Portable DNA analyzer…

New portable DNA screener to debut this summer

www.nextgov.com

By William Matthews 02/24/2011

The Homeland Security Department this summer plans to begin testing a DNA analyzer that’s small enough to be easily portable and fast enough to return results in less than an hour.

The analyzer, about the size of a laser printer, initially will be used to determine kinship among refugees and asylum seekers. It also could help establish whether foreigners giving children up for adoption are their parents or other relatives, and help combat child smuggling and human trafficking, said Christopher Miles, biometrics program manager in the DHS Office of Science and Technology.

Only DNA can positively determine family relationships, Miles said Wednesday during a conference on biometrics and national security.

Eventually, the analyzer also could be used to positively identify criminals, illegal immigrants, missing persons and mass casualty victims, he said.

The machine, known as a rapid DNA screener, is expected to cut days or weeks and hundreds of dollars off the per-use cost of DNA analysis.

Using a process called digital microfluidics, the analyzer processes a DNA sample and provides results in less than an hour for under $100 per sample, Miles said. By comparison, it takes days or weeks and about $500 per sample to get results when DNA is tested in a laboratory, he said.

“We’re not about advancing the technology so much as integrating and automating it into a fieldable device,” he said.

Boston-based NetBio, which developed the rapid DNA analyzer for DHS, described it as a “game-changing technology” platform that “consists of instruments, biochips and analytical software.” It eliminates the need for a trained technician and special operating site.

The analyzer was designed for Homeland Security, the military, intelligence and police agencies, the company says on its website.

As with other DNA tests, the process begins with a sample collected on a swab, typically from inside the mouth. The sample is placed in a disposable cartridge, and the analyzer does the rest of the work.

“It’s the same process that occurs in the lab today,” Miles said. But “it will drastically make the system more efficient.”

DHS’ Citizen and Immigration Services bureau is first in line to begin testing the new equipment this summer. A likely priority is testing people who claim to be family members in refugee camps overseas, Miles said.

That’s important because when a refugee is allowed to come to the United States, parents, children and some siblings also could be eligible to enter. Citizen and Immigration Services wants to make sure those who claim to be relatives actually are, he said.

Similarly, the agency wants to make sure children are who their guardians claim them to be. Usually, that sort of identity check might be done with fingerprints, but fingerprints of small children can be unreliable, Miles said.

On an average day, 400 refugees apply to enter the United States, 40 persons are granted asylum and 100 foreign-born children are adopted, according to DHS.

Although DNA analysis speeds identification of people, it raises concerns about privacy and civil liberties, Miles conceded. “We have privacy officers and civil rights and civil liberties officers who are working through all of those questions.”

As a precaution to protect privacy, the analyzer avoids sampling DNA that could identify genetic problems, Miles said. For years, privacy advocates have worried that DNA test results could be used to deny people employment, insurance or entry to the country.

But even the analysis DHS officials want to do could be problematic. DNA test results might reveal that a child is not related to the man thought to be his father. “Is it our role to tell them that?” Miles asked. In some societies, revealing such information could be dangerous to the child and its mother, he said.

Policy hasn’t developed as fast as technology when it comes to DNA analysis, Jim Harper, director of information studies at the libertarian Cato Institute, told Nextgov. “There are still a lot of unknowns. I’m not certain we know what all is being gathered when we examine DNA.” So far, there has been no comprehensive public discussion of what is being gathered, and how it should or shouldn’t be used has not occurred, he said.

The machines are expected to cost about $275,000 apiece, Miles said. “That sounds like a lot of money, but compare that to a laboratory full of equipment that would cost millions of dollars and a building that would cost tens of millions of dollars.”

After the rapid analyzers are in production, he added, the cost is likely to come down.

The gospel according to the manual…

(gospel tract by the late Peter J. Peters, Church of Christ pastor)

—

HOW TO BECOME A CHRISTIAN

By Peter J. Peters

There are a lot of people who understand the Identity issue, and
are not Christians. People are not being told how to become a Christian. Many ministries are addressing the identity issue, but those ministries, for the most part, are not telling people how to become a Christian. In Churches today, most people are not Christians—they have not been born of the water and the spirit. They must do what the Bible tells them to do and not what their preachers tell them to do. And, if you listen to the preachers of the land today, be it a Billy Graham Crusade, or the promise keepers that are now becoming so prominent, or the average Podunk Hollar Judeo-Christian that gives an invitation at the end of the service—they are all being told to accept Jesus Christ as their personal savior and let him come into their heart. But, the Bible does not tell us that. No one in the Bible was ever told to let Jesus Christ come into their heart.

There are a lot of people who will be offended by this message. But, I am going to tell the truth on how to become a Christian. There are a lot of concealed truths in the Bible—therefore, we have to search them out. If you search out the references that you will find in
this message, you will find that the truth is there in clear print on how to become a Christian.

The scriptures contain many truths that are better understood by relating them to the physical world. For example:

1Peter 2-1 “therefore, putting aside all malice and all guile and hypocrisy and envy and slander, like newborn babes, long for the pure milk of the Word, that by it, they may grow in respect to salvation…”

How many people have read this passage, but do not practice it? It tells us that we are to be like newborn babes that long for the pure milk of the Word. I remember one time when I was talking to my son on the phone and I could hear my grandson in the background; he was not happy. When I ask my son what was wrong with him, he said,  “He is longing for milk and his mother is not here.” A baby like that longs for the milk. And the scripture teaches that we are longing for the milk of the Word. These pages absolutely contain the milk of the Word.

1Chorinthians 3-1. “And, brother, I could not speak to you as to spiritual men, but as to men in flesh, as to babes in Christ. I gave you milk to drink, not solid food, for you were not able to receive it. Indeed, even now, you are not yet able; for you are still fleshly.” This teaches that many people are just fleshly (non-spiritual men and women) who want the meat, when they really need is the milk. What they need is to be born and to become babes in Christ.

Hebrews5-12. “For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you have need again to have someone teach you the elementary principles of the oracles of God, and you have come to need milk and not solid food. For everyone who partakes only of milk is not accustomed to the Word of righteousness, for he is a babe. But solid food is for the mature, who because of practice, has his senses trained to discern good and evil.”

Verse 12 says that we need to go back to the milk of the Word. And that is what I am telling you now. You need to become Christians. In life, we often ask each other questions:

What are you going to do when you get out of school?

What are you going to do when you get out of college?

What are you going to do when you get out of the service?

What are you going to do when the kids are grown?

What are you going to do when you retire?

There is another question that you need to be asking—what are you going to do when you die? Particularly, if you haven’t properly addressed this question of how to become a Christian. I am finding out that this thing called life goes by rather quickly and you will be asking yourself that question before you know it, if you are not already doing so. What are you going to do when you die? You need to know how to become a Christian.

There is a passage in Matthew 7 that people should read. Especially, people that have believed the lie “Accept Jesus Christ as your personal savior.” I know that you have heard people say, “I became a Christian on such and such a day, I remember it well; I began to pray and I was born again.” Or, “I was sitting on the front porch and I accepted Jesus Christ as my personal savior and I became a Christian.” Well, no, they did not and neither will you in that way. NO ONE, NO ONE becomes a Christian except by God’s way.

Now, if that does not make you feel good, go find a church that makes you feel good. My job is not to make you feel good. My job is to tell you the truth, and the truth is, no one becomes a Christian by accepting Christ as their personal savior. If you accepted Christ as your personal savior, good for you! But, now, why don’t you do what the Bible says?

The Bible tells us that there would be a people that would be totally deluded on this point. In Matthew 7, Christ had just finished talking about the false prophets.

Matthew 7-15. “Beware of the false prophet, who comes to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly, are ravenous wolves.

Matthew 15-20. “So, then, you will know them by their fruits. Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord’ will enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he who does the will of my Father, who is in heaven.”

Let’s do the fruit test—to see if these creatures are a bunch of fruitcakes. First, you have to recognize that they could be a false prophet. I could be a false prophet—many people believe that I am. I would appreciate the fact that you would be suspicious. You ought to be because the Lord said, “Beware of the false prophet.”

So, what are you supposed to do? You are to do a fruit test. Some people are very convincing, but it is not what they say that is important, but rather do they do the Will of the Father? How are you to know? Take the Bible to see if what they say and what I am saying
is the Will of the Father.

Matthew 7-22. “not everyone that says to Me on that day (the day of judgment), Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name; and, in Your name cast out demons? And in Your name perform many miracles? And then I will declare to them, I never knew you. Depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.”

Let’s analyze that. First of all, in Verse 22, many people on that day believed in Jesus. It is most obvious that they believed because they call him Lord. Did these people in Verse 22 do many works in His name? Did they prophesize in His name? Did they cast out demons? Did they perform many miracles? The answer is yes. Yes. Now, in Verse 23—read it for yourself—“Depart from me you who practice lawlessness.” Were they saved? No, because they did not follow the Will or the law of God. They did not become a Christian God’s way. They obviously thought they were Christians; they pointed out their works—and, they did works. They did perform miracles. They did cast out demons. How? There were tapping into a law of God that says, “Faith moves mountains.” But, they were not saved.

It is clear that these people believed. But, faith is not enough. Why were they surprised? Because they had been listening to false prophets. They were not Christians because they believed the lie that all they had to do was to accept Jesus Christ as their personal savior.
It goes something like this:

“Come forward, if you will. Let us pray together. Come to the altar. Sign this little card. Pray with us. Actually, there is a variety of means, but it all comes back to the doctrine that says faith only. Faith is enough. The previously mentioned people had faith; they had great faith. They had enough faith to do great things—but, they were not saved! They had listened to false prophets. Go to Acts17. Underline Verse 11, and then do it yourself.

Acts 17-11. “ For these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the Word with great eagerness, examining the scriptures daily, to see if these things were so.”

There we see that it is a noble thing in the eyes of God to examine the scriptures in seeking the truth.

If I were to tell you, in answer to the question “How to Become a Christian”, to accept Jesus Christ as your personal savior, then you should examine the scriptures to see if this is right. You should examine the scriptures to see if there was one solitary soul in the entire New Testament that was ever told to accept Jesus Christ as their personal savior. Now, this fact alone should impress you. Here is the biggest lie in Christendom today, besides Jews and God’s chosen people, that’s not in the Bible.

John 3-16. If there is ever a scripture that has been memorized, it is this one.

“For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son so that whomsoever believeth in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.”

This is the verse that is most normally used to promote the “faith only” doctrine. So, all you have to do is believe. NO! You just read a scripture where people believed that Jesus was Lord and yet they were not saved.

There is another passage in this area of belief that is also used to promote this faith only doctrine.

Romans 10-8. “The Word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart. If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you shall be saved. For with the heart man believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth, he confesses, resulting in salvation.”

This verse is so clear. If you believe that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. If you just take John 3-16 and Romans 10-8, then I can understand why you might think all you have to do to become a Christian is to believe in Jesus. But, there are many other scriptures that pertain to this thing called salvation. Belief is not enough. The reason it is not enough is because all people have a problem. This problem is—regardless of your net worth or your lineage or your age or where you come from—we are all sinners.

Romans 3-23. “For all have sinned and have fallen short of the glory of God.”

We have all sinned. John 3-4 says that sin is a transgression against God’s law. One time, when I was in a motel lobby, I saw Dr. Kevorikian on TV (he is the doctor that assists people in committing suicide). He was saying, “What I do might be against what you believe. You might believe what I do is a sin. But, it is not a crime. Man, for a doctor this man was not very smart!! It might be a sin, but not a crime? Sin is a crime. The definition of a crime is, “a violation of the law.” The definition of sin is, “a violation of the law.” Therefore, a crime is a sin and a sin is a crime. Every one of us is a criminal in the eyes of God. So much so that Romans 6-23 says that we are worthy of death as sinners or criminals.

Romans 6-23. “For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.”

You might not consider yourself a criminal. You might say, as most criminals that go to jail, “I am innocent.” But, you must understand that it makes no difference how you perceive yourself when you stand before the judge; what makes a difference is whether or not the judge perceives you as guilty. And, there will be a day of reckoning—a day when you will have judgment. It will make no difference then how much you believe or how you have professed Christ as your savior; if you stand before the judge full of sin, you will hear the gavel come down and you will hear the pronouncement of “guilty”. For, “the wages of sin is death.” Period. So, if we stand before the judge as believers; as people who have professed Christ; as people who have done great works, but we still have sin to account for, then we will be pronounced guilty. Just like the people in Matthew 7.

What I am trying to encourage you to believe is that you are a sinner. Even if you have convinced yourself that you are no longer the criminal worthy of the judgment of death because you have believed or accepted, then you should read in Hebrews 9 about sin. It is important that you understand that just believing in Christ only makes you a believing sinner. Or professing Christ just makes you a professing sinner. There is only one thing that will take care of sin.

Hebrews 9-14. “How much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit, offers himself without blemish to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works, to serve the Living God.”

Notice, it is the blood of Christ that cleanses.

Hebrews 9-22. “According to the law, one may almost say that all things are cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness.”

What you must realize is that you cannot have the forgiveness of sins without the blood of Christ. The shed blood of Christ causes cleansing and forgiveness. If you are a believer —good! I do not want to minimize that because you must believe that Jesus Christ is
the Son of God; that he came in the flesh and died for your sins.

John 8-24: “I said therefore to you that you shall die in your sins for unless you believe that I Am, you shall die in your sins.”

Jesus was saying that unless you believe that He is God manifest in the flesh that you will die in your sins. There once was a preacher, an Identity preacher, even, who preached that Jesus was not God in the flesh. And some people fell for his lies. The reason that I angered so many people years ago when I pointed out his error was that he was a friend to so many. But I don’t care if I made him mad. If your friend is teaching that Jesus is just another God then that person is a false teacher. Christ said that unless you believe that I Am you will die in your sins.

John 1-1, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God,”

John 1 then goes on to say that the Word became flesh, and, unless you believe that, you will never become a Christian. It is absolutely essential that you believe this. But, believing is not enough. That is what this message is all about.

As a believer, you still have your sin and the only thing that will wash away your sin is the blood of Christ.

Mathew 26-28, “For this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.”

There is not a preacher in the land that cannot under-stand this passage. But, we cannot see how that blood is applied to our lives. I can hold up a bar of soap and tell you if you want your hands clean, you will have to believe on the soap. How absurd!! You have to apply the soap in order to get your hands clean. And so it is with the blood. You have to apply the blood to your own lives. How? How the Bible tells you to.

In Acts, Chapter 2, after the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, Christ has told the apostles to go to Jerusalem and wait there until what has been promised to them has come and the baptism of the Holy Spirit has occurred. Peter is preaching on the day of Pentecost—that is, 50 days after the crucifixion.

ACTS 2-36, “Therefore, let all of the house of Israel know for certain that God has made Him both Lord and Christ–this Jesus that you have crucified.”

Acts 2-37, “Now, when they heard this they were pierced to the heart and they said to Peter, ‘Brethren, what shall we do?’”

Peter had filled them with conviction and they were asking him what they needed to do to become a Christian. Now, don’t you think it would be better for you to listen to what the Apostle Peter had to say on the subject of becoming a Christian than to listen to some
preacher telling you to accept Jesus Christ as your personal savior?

Acts 2-38, “And Peter said to them, repent, and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”

Peter did not say, come forward and accept Jesus as your personal savior. Nor did he say to believe. Why didn’t Peter say anything about believing? The answer is simple—it would have been redundant. They were already in the believing state.

Many people that I minister to are in the believing state. They believe in Christ—that he is the great I Am that came in the flesh. But, now, according to Verse 38, what is the first thing that a believer is supposed to do? Repent.

Let’s discuss for a minute what repentance is. Repentance is probably the hardest part in becoming a Christian because you have to acknowledge that you are a sinner—that you are lost. It is sorrow for your sins–a humility–that causes you to repent. But, repentance is more that feeling sorry and humbly acknowledging that you are a sinner. It is a change of heart that leads to a change of action. It is a surrender where you say, “Lord, I am no longer king or queen of my life, but Thy will be done. Whatever you want me to stop doing, I am going to try to stop doing. And, Lord, whatever you want me to do, I will try to do.” Repentance is enthroning Jesus Christ in your life as your master, your Lord, your King. The theme song of sinners might be the famous song sang by Frank Sinatra, “I Did It My Way.” The theme song of Christians would be, “I Did It Thy Way.”

You might notice how little repentance is emphasized in the modern Judeo-Christian faith. They want you to feel good about yourself—to come forward and accept Jesus Christ as your personal savior. I remember one couple telling me that they allowed their young daughter to go to an Assembly of God youth group meeting— one time. It was a party. The music was playing; the drums emitting a jungle beat; the longhaired leader was singing and teaching. When she came home she told her parents that she had learned that God is
cool! God is not cool!! And, he doesn’t want us to be cool, either. He wants us to be either hot or cold, but not cool, not lukewarm. He will puke us out of his mouth if we are cool. Because that is what is being proclaimed from many pulpits—puke! We might call them pukeky pulpits!! They are telling people that God is cool and you, too, can be cool. I’m ok and you’re ok. YOU ARE NOT OK!! And, you never will be ok until you become a Christian the way the Bible instructs. To be a Christian, you must, number one, believe. And, be willing to believe that He is the Great I Am and to confess him as Lord of your life. And, number two, repent or surrender. It is called in the Bible dying to your old way of life. The old man, the sinful man must die.

What else did Peter tell them to do? He said, “Repent and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.

Ephesians 4-6. “There is one body and one Spirit just as also you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all.”

How many hopes are there? ONE.
How many Lords are there? ONE
How many faiths are there? ONE
How many Gods are there? ONE
How many baptisms are there? ONE

There is only one Bible baptism that works in becoming a Christian. It is the one that Peter talked about in Acts 2-38. But, you know, in the world today there are many types of baptism. And two things stand out—the mode and the purpose. For example, the mode might be sprinkling, pouring, emersion, and what I often call dry cleaning (they use no water at all). What is the one mode that God recognizes as baptism? If you look up the meaning of the word in the Concordance you find out that it is baptismal in the Greek and the definition is immerse. In fact, the word was never properly translated from the Greek; rather, it was transliterated. At the time the King James Version was being translated and they came to that word it should have been translated “immerse.” But, they transliterated it
instead, because the church of the day was sprinkling. So they took the Greek letter beta and substituted the English letter B and took the Greek letter alpha and substituted the English letter A and they went from the Greek baptismal to baptize. In the Greek the word baptize means immerse. The word is an onomatopoeia; that is a word that sounds exactly like what it is. For example, when we say the dog barks, that is exactly what a dog sounds like—bark, bark. When the dipper would hit the water, when it would immerse into the water, it made a noise “bap”—that is where baptismal came from. So, immersion is what that Greek word means. We can also prove this from the Word of God.

Romans 6-3,4. “Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? Therefore, we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, in order that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in the newness of life.” Chapter 4 talks about baptism as being buried with Christ in baptism. When you take a dead body, what do you do with it? You bury it. You do not sprinkle a little bit of dirt on it—you bury it! You put it completely under.

Now we have the mode, immersion, what about the purpose? In the church world today, we find all of these different reasons for baptism. When my son was a little boy, I took him to a Methodist Church to be baptized. I just thought that we were supposed to do that. They took this little baby—something you never read about in the Bible, a baby being baptized—and they sprinkled some water on him and they said that they were baptizing him or dedicating him as a dedication to the community. I didn’t know any better—I had never read the Bible. In retrospect, I think “what a communist concept.”

The Baptist Church says baptism is “an outward sign of an inward grace.” They baptize so that you can become a member of their church. You go forward and accept Jesus, and that is when they say you are saved–a Christian. Later, you get baptized. So, there are a lot of different reasons that different churches use for baptism. But, look again at Acts 38 and see that Peter said, “Let each one of you repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins.” What was the purpose of this baptism? The forgiveness of sins. Some preachers might say, “Are you telling me that you have to be baptized for the remission of sins?” No, that is what the Bible says. Why is it that they can see in Matthew 38 that “blood is poured out for the remission of sins”, but cannot see that baptism is for the remission of sins? I will tell you why—because it does not line up
with what they already believe—their actions follow their beliefs. They do not have their heart right with God so that they can see that the Word means just what it says. Baptism is for the remission of sins.

If you want to become a Christian, believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God—the great I Am that came to us in the flesh and died for our sins. You must believe to the point that you are willing to confess with your mouth that He is Lord. And, then do what Peter tells us to do in Acts 2-38, “repent.” That is the surrendering of your life when you say, “Lord, not my will by Thy will be done.” Not what I believe, or what I want to believe, or what they told me to believe, but what Your Word says. Surrender your life. Repentance is analogous to dying to the old way of life—getting rid of the old man. What do you do with dead people? You bury them. Jesus, in the plan of salvation, had to die for our sins. He had to die a bloody death because blood cleanses sin. He was buried in the tomb and on the third day, he resurrected. If you want to become a Christian, this is what you do. As a believer who is repentant, you must die to your old way of life. And then you are buried, as Romans 6-4 says, “we are buried with Christ through baptism.” You are buried in the watery grave of baptism and you are raised up, as the Bible says, to walk in the newness of life. It is so clear when you study it. It is these false teachers that have muddied the waters. Why is it a new life? It is a new life because your sins have been washed away.

So, the Bible teaches that baptism washed away sins. How? Because that is where you come in contact with the blood of Christ. It is just like washing your hands when they are dirty; blood was shed for the remission of sins; baptism is for the remission of sins—that is where the soap is applied to the dirty hands, so to speak. Baptism is where the blood comes into contact with your life. Check for your self.

Acts 22-16, “And, now why do you delay? Arise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on His name.”

Some might question, “So, you are trying to tell me that baptism saves us?” No, I am not trying to tell you that, the Bible tells you that.

1Peter 3- 21, “and corresponding to that, baptism now saves you.”

That is very plain. Baptism saves you.

Remember Acts 2-38? “Repent and let each one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” This is a very important point. God give us, when we repent, and are baptized, the gift of the Holy Spirit. Repentance is saying, “Lord I will try to stop doing what you don’t want me to do and I will try to do what it is that you want me to do.” Notice the word, try. We try because Christian people do not lead perfect lives. We still have battles. But, the difference is that when we are willing to do it His way, He gives us help. The Bible tells us that the Holy Spirit is our helper and that He guides us in all truths. I will share a personal illustration. When I was studying the Bible—I believed and I thought that I was a Christian. I had a particular sin problem. I chewed tobacco—it got so that one can of Skol a day was not enough. One time, about 7 at night, I took the can of Skol and threw it in the trash. About 11 that night, I was digging in that same trash can to retrieve that Skol. And, I said, “God, if chewing this tobacco means that I will go to Hell, then I will just have to go to Hell, because I can’t give it up.” But, when I was baptized for the remission of my sins, I took that Skol can out of my pocket and placed it on a shelf. God gave me the strength, the help that I needed to overcome this habit.

John 16-13. “But, when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth, for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears He will speak and He will disclose to you what is to come.”

One of the reasons that it is so hard to get truth into the churches today is because they are not Christians. If they were Christians, if they had repented and been baptized for the remission of their sins, then the Holy Spirit would guide them into all truths. I have observed, as I minister across the land, that those people that have not been baptized for the remission of their sins cannot not wholly grasp the spiritual truths as well as those who have been—they don’t have the gift of the Holy Spirit to guide them in the truth.

Ephesians teaches us also that baptism seals us in the holy spirit. A king had a seal that no one else had and when he put his seal on something that seal meant that it was his. Much the same is a brand. How do I know which cows in the pasture are mine? Why, the ones with my brand on them. Now, if we have that seal of the Holy Spirit and people start messing with us, then they have Him to contend with because we are His herd.

Some of the questions you might have are, “what about a child.” First of all, does a child have sin? Well, if you are a Catholic, yes, a baby is born of original sin. But, Christ took a child and placed it on his lap and said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.” Can a baby repent of its sins? No. Is there any place in the Bible where a baby is baptized? No.

What about the thief on the cross? That is a different story. He died before Christ and while He was alive, salvation was His to give. Christ gave the thief salvation before He died because it was His to give. But, after His death, while you are living on this side of the cross, you must follow his Last Will and Testament if you want the inheritance. That Will is that you be baptized for the remission of your sins.

What about being rebaptized? Well, yes, according to Acts 19—  “people were rebaptized for the proper reasons. For example, if you were baptized to join a church or to obtain the outward sign of an inward grace, what you need to do is have the one baptism of Ephesians 4-5 and Acts 2-38—baptism for the remission of sins.

1John 4,4 says, “that he who is born of God overcomes the world (that world meaning “world order”). Now, if you were part of the world order and you knew that people born of God would overcome you or conquer you, then what you would do is to try to keep them from being born again—born of God. If you want to be born of God, then believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God, be willing to confess Him as Lord, humbly repent of your sins, and be baptized (immersed) for the forgiveness of your sins. Then you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. That is the way to become a Christian. The only way. Reread this message—examine the scriptures yourself—find out if what I tell you is truth. If you have questions, write to me, or call me. I will gladly answer all of your questions. But, then I will have two questions for you.

“Are you a Christian and what are you going to do when you die?”

Would they purposely target the health of Americans??? Nah… they wouldn’t do that

(dr. robert lustig)

Sugar: The Bitter Truth- March 24, 2011

—

www.youtube.com

Because there are enormous profits in data mining…

(your privacy is for sale… who is the customer???)

+++

Luke 20:20
Watching for their opportunity, the leaders sent spies pretending to be honest men. They tried to get Jesus to say something that could be reported to the Roman governor so he would arrest Jesus…

+++

Google announces privacy changes across products; users can’t opt out

www.washingtonpost.com

By Cecilia Kang, Published: January 24, 2012

Correction:

An earlier version of this article did not make clear that users who have not logged on to Google or one of its other sites, such as YouTube, are not affected by the new Google privacy policy. This version has been updated to include that information.

—

Google will soon know far more about who you are and what you do on the Web.

The Web giant announced Tuesday that it plans to follow the activities of users across nearly all of its ubiquitous sites, including YouTube, Gmail and its leading search engine.

Google has already been collecting some of this information. But for the first time, it is combining data across its Web sites to stitch together a fuller portrait of users.

Consumers won’t be able to opt out of the changes, which take effect March 1. And experts say the policy shift will invite greater scrutiny from federal regulators of the company’s privacy and competitive practices.

The move will help Google better tailor its ads to people’s tastes. If someone watches an NBA clip online and lives in Washington, the firm could advertise Washington Wizards tickets in that person’s Gmail account.

Consumers could also benefit, the company said. When someone is searching for the word “jaguar,” Google would have a better idea of whether the person was interested in the animal or the car. Or the firm might suggest e-mailing contacts in New York when it learns you are planning a trip there.

But consumer advocates say the new policy might upset people who never expected their information would be shared across so many different Web sites.

A user signing up for Gmail, for instance, might never have imagined that the content of his or her messages could affect the experience on seemingly unrelated Web sites such as YouTube.

“Google’s new privacy announcement is frustrating and a little frightening,” said Common Sense Media chief executive James Steyer. “Even if the company believes that tracking users across all platforms improves their services, consumers should still have the option to opt out — especially the kids and teens who are avid users of YouTube, Gmail and Google Search.”

Google can collect information about users when they activate an Android mobile phone, sign into their accounts online or enter search terms. It can also store cookies on people’s computers to see which Web sites they visit or use its popular maps program to estimate their location. However, users who have not logged on to Google or one of its other sites, such as YouTube, are not affected by the new policy.

The change to its privacy policies come as Google is facing stiff competition for the fickle attention of Web surfers. It recently disappointed investors for the first time in several quarters, failing last week to meet earnings predictions. Apple, in contrast, reported record earnings Tuesday that blew past even the most optimistic expectations.

Some analysts said Google’s move is aimed squarely at Apple and Facebook — which have been successful in building unified ecosystems of products that capture people’s attention. Google, in contrast, has adopted a more scattered approach, but an executive said in an interview that the company wants to create a much more seamless environment across its various offerings.

“If you’re signed in, we may combine information you’ve provided from one service with information from other services,” Alma Whitten, Google’s director of privacy for product and engineering, wrote in a blog post.

“In short, we’ll treat you as a single user across all our products, which will mean a simpler, more intuitive Google experience,” she said.

Google said it would notify its hundreds of millions of users of the change through an e-mail and a message on its Web sites. It will apply to all of its services except for Google Wallet, the Chrome browser and Google Books.

The company said the change would simplify the company’s privacy policy — a move that regulators encouraged.

Still, some consumer advocates and lawmakers remained skeptical.

“There is no way anyone expected this,” said Jeffrey Chester, executive director of the Center for Digital Democracy, a privacy advocacy group. “There is no way a user can comprehend the implication of Google collecting across platforms for information about your health, political opinions and financial concerns.”

Added Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass), co-chair of the Congressional Privacy Caucus: “It is imperative that users will be able to decide whether they want their information shared across the spectrum of Google’s offerings.”

Google has increasingly been a focus of Washington regulators.

The company recently settled a privacy complaint by the Federal Trade Commission after it allowed users of its now-defunct social-networking tool Google Buzz to see contacts lists from its e-mail program.

And a previous decision to use its social network data in search results has been included in a broad FTC investigation, according to a person familiar with the matter who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the investigation is private.

Federal officials are also looking at whether Google is running afoul of antitrust rules by using its dominance in online searches to favor its other business lines.

Claudia Farrell, a spokeswoman for the FTC, declined to comment on any interaction between Google and regulators on its new privacy changes.

More on this story:

FAQ: Google’s new privacy policy

Poll: Will you cancel your account?

PHOTOS | What products are impacted by new policy?

Twitter, Facebook, MySpace cry foul on Google search

Google updates social-networking name policy

European privacy proposal includes ‘right to be forgotten’

—————————————————————————

Psalm 37:32
The wicked wait in ambush for the godly, looking for an excuse to kill them…

America celebrates a fiction…

Psalm 4:2
O ye sons of men, how long shall my glory be turned into dishonor? How long will ye love vanity and seek after falsehood???

+++

Excerpts…

“In New York, for example, Mayor Michael Bloomberg recently said there would be no city parade for Iraq War veterans in the foreseeable future because of objections voiced by military officials.” (because the war ain’t over…)

“Most of us were not in favor of the war in Iraq, but the soldiers who fought did the right thing and we support them…” (if the war is against the wishes of the people, then we do not have rule by the people… duhh!!!)

—

St. Louis parade on Iraq War’s end draws thousands

apnews.myway.com

By JIM SALTER    Jan 29, 12:52 AM (ET)

ST. LOUIS (AP) – Looking around at the tens of thousands of people waving American flags and cheering, Army Maj. Rich Radford was moved that so many braved a cold January wind Saturday in St. Louis to honor people like him: Iraq War veterans.

The parade, borne out of a simple conversation between two St. Louis friends a month ago, was the nation’s first big welcome-home for veterans of the war since the last troops were withdrawn from Iraq in December.

“It’s not necessarily overdue, it’s just the right thing,” said Radford, a 23-year Army veteran who walked in the parade alongside his 8-year-old daughter, Aimee, and 12-year-old son, Warren.

Radford was among about 600 veterans, many dressed in camouflage, who walked along downtown streets lined with rows of people clapping and holding signs with messages including “Welcome Home” and “Thanks to our Service Men and Women.” Some of the war-tested troops wiped away tears as they acknowledged the support from a crowd that organizers estimated reached 100,000 people.

Fire trucks with aerial ladders hoisted huge American flags in three different places along the route, with politicians, marching bands – even the Budweiser Clydesdales – joining in. But the large crowd was clearly there to salute men and women in the military, and people cheered wildly as groups of veterans walked by.

That was the hope of organizers Craig Schneider and Tom Appelbaum. Neither man has served in the military but came up with the idea after noticing there had been little fanfare for returning Iraq War veterans aside from gatherings at airports and military bases. No ticker-tape parades or large public celebrations.

Appelbaum, an attorney, and Schneider, a school district technical coordinator, decided something needed to be done. So they sought donations, launched a Facebook page, met with the mayor and mapped a route. The grassroots effort resulted in a huge turnout despite raising only about $35,000 and limited marketing.

That marketing included using a photo of Radford being welcomed home from his second tour in Iraq by his then-6-year-old daughter. The girl had reached up, grabbed his hand and said, “I missed you, daddy.” Radford’s sister caught the moment with her cellphone camera, and the image graced T-shirts and posters for the parade.

Veterans came from around the country, and more than 100 entries – including marching bands, motorcycle groups and military units – signed up ahead of the event, Appelbaum said.

Schneider said he was amazed how everyone, from city officials to military organizations to the media, embraced the parade.

“It was an idea that nobody said no to,” he said. “America was ready for this.”

All that effort by her hometown was especially touching for Gayla Gibson, a 38-year-old Air Force master sergeant who said she spent four months in Iraq – seeing “amputations, broken bones, severe burns from IEDs” – as a medical technician in 2003.

“I think it’s great when people come out to support those who gave their lives and put their lives on the line for this country,” Gibson said.

With 91,000 troops still fighting in Afghanistan, many Iraq veterans could be redeployed – suggesting to some that it’s premature to celebrate their homecoming. In New York, for example, Mayor Michael Bloomberg recently said there would be no city parade for Iraq War veterans in the foreseeable future because of objections voiced by military officials.

But in St. Louis, there was clearly a mood to thank the troops with something big, even among those opposed to the war.

“Most of us were not in favor of the war in Iraq, but the soldiers who fought did the right thing and we support them,” said 72-year-old Susan Cunningham, who attended the parade with the Missouri Progressive Action Group. “I’m glad the war is over and I’m glad they’re home.”

Don Lange, 60, of nearby Sullivan, held his granddaughter along the parade route. His daughter was a military interrogator in Iraq.

“This is something everyplace should do,” Lange said as he watched the parade.

Several veterans of the Vietnam War turned out to show support for the younger troops. Among them was Don Jackson, 63, of Edwardsville, Ill., who said he was thrilled to see the parade honoring Iraq War veterans like his son, Kevin, who joined him at the parade. The 33-year-old Air Force staff sergeant said he’d lost track of how many times he had been deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan as a flying mechanic.

“I hope this snowballs,” he said of the parade. “I hope it goes all across the country. I only wish my friends who I served with were here to see this.”

Looking at all the people around him in camouflage, 29-year-old veteran Matt Wood said he felt honored. He served a year in Iraq with the Illinois National Guard.

“It’s extremely humbling, it’s amazing, to be part of something like this with all of these people who served their country with such honor,” he said.

————————————————————————–

Revelation 22:15
Outside the city are the dogs–the sorcerers, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idol worshipers, and all who love to live a lie…

Facts are stubborn things…

Isaiah 28:15
You boast, “We have struck a bargain to cheat death and have made a deal to dodge the grave. The coming destruction can never touch us, for we have built a strong refuge made of lies and deception.”

—

No Need to Panic About Global Warming

There’s no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to ‘decarbonize’ the world’s economy.

JANUARY 27, 2012

online.wsj.com

From the article…

“Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now.”

Editor’s Note: The following has been signed by the 16 scientists listed at the end of the article:

A candidate for public office in any contemporary democracy may have to consider what, if anything, to do about “global warming.” Candidates should understand that the oft-repeated claim that nearly all scientists demand that something dramatic be done to stop global warming is not true. In fact, a large and growing number of distinguished scientists and engineers do not agree that drastic actions on global warming are needed.

In September, Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ivar Giaever, a supporter of President Obama in the last election, publicly resigned from the American Physical Society (APS) with a letter that begins: “I did not renew [my membership] because I cannot live with the [APS policy] statement: ‘The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.’ In the APS it is OK to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?”

In spite of a multidecade international campaign to enforce the message that increasing amounts of the “pollutant” carbon dioxide will destroy civilization, large numbers of scientists, many very prominent, share the opinions of Dr. Giaever. And the number of scientific “heretics” is growing with each passing year. The reason is a collection of stubborn scientific facts.

Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now. This is known to the warming establishment, as one can see from the 2009 “Climategate” email of climate scientist Kevin Trenberth: “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.” But the warming is only missing if one believes computer models where so-called feedbacks involving water vapor and clouds greatly amplify the small effect of CO2.

The lack of warming for more than a decade—indeed, the smaller-than-predicted warming over the 22 years since the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) began issuing projections—suggests that computer models have greatly exaggerated how much warming additional CO2 can cause. Faced with this embarrassment, those promoting alarm have shifted their drumbeat from warming to weather extremes, to enable anything unusual that happens in our chaotic climate to be ascribed to CO2.

The fact is that CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 is a colorless and odorless gas, exhaled at high concentrations by each of us, and a key component of the biosphere’s life cycle. Plants do so much better with more CO2 that greenhouse operators often increase the CO2 concentrations by factors of three or four to get better growth. This is no surprise since plants and animals evolved when CO2 concentrations were about 10 times larger than they are today. Better plant varieties, chemical fertilizers and agricultural management contributed to the great increase in agricultural yields of the past century, but part of the increase almost certainly came from additional CO2 in the atmosphere.

Although the number of publicly dissenting scientists is growing, many young scientists furtively say that while they also have serious doubts about the global-warming message, they are afraid to speak up for fear of not being promoted—or worse. They have good reason to worry. In 2003, Dr. Chris de Freitas, the editor of the journal Climate Research, dared to publish a peer-reviewed article with the politically incorrect (but factually correct) conclusion that the recent warming is not unusual in the context of climate changes over the past thousand years. The international warming establishment quickly mounted a determined campaign to have Dr. de Freitas removed from his editorial job and fired from his university position. Fortunately, Dr. de Freitas was able to keep his university job.

This is not the way science is supposed to work, but we have seen it before—for example, in the frightening period when Trofim Lysenko hijacked biology in the Soviet Union. Soviet biologists who revealed that they believed in genes, which Lysenko maintained were a bourgeois fiction, were fired from their jobs. Many were sent to the gulag and some were condemned to death.

Why is there so much passion about global warming, and why has the issue become so vexing that the American Physical Society, from which Dr. Giaever resigned a few months ago, refused the seemingly reasonable request by many of its members to remove the word “incontrovertible” from its description of a scientific issue? There are several reasons, but a good place to start is the old question “cui bono?” Or the modern update, “Follow the money.”

Alarmism over climate is of great benefit to many, providing government funding for academic research and a reason for government bureaucracies to grow. Alarmism also offers an excuse for governments to raise taxes, taxpayer-funded subsidies for businesses that understand how to work the political system, and a lure for big donations to charitable foundations promising to save the planet. Lysenko and his team lived very well, and they fiercely defended their dogma and the privileges it brought them.

Speaking for many scientists and engineers who have looked carefully and independently at the science of climate, we have a message to any candidate for public office: There is no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to “decarbonize” the world’s economy. Even if one accepts the inflated climate forecasts of the IPCC, aggressive greenhouse-gas control policies are not justified economically.

Princeton physics professor William Happer on why a large number of scientists don’t believe that carbon dioxide is causing global warming.

A recent study of a wide variety of policy options by Yale economist William Nordhaus showed that nearly the highest benefit-to-cost ratio is achieved for a policy that allows 50 more years of economic growth unimpeded by greenhouse gas controls. This would be especially beneficial to the less-developed parts of the world that would like to share some of the same advantages of material well-being, health and life expectancy that the fully developed parts of the world enjoy now. Many other policy responses would have a negative return on investment. And it is likely that more CO2 and the modest warming that may come with it will be an overall benefit to the planet.

If elected officials feel compelled to “do something” about climate, we recommend supporting the excellent scientists who are increasing our understanding of climate with well-designed instruments on satellites, in the oceans and on land, and in the analysis of observational data. The better we understand climate, the better we can cope with its ever-changing nature, which has complicated human life throughout history. However, much of the huge private and government investment in climate is badly in need of critical review.

Every candidate should support rational measures to protect and improve our environment, but it makes no sense at all to back expensive programs that divert resources from real needs and are based on alarming but untenable claims of “incontrovertible” evidence.

—

Claude Allegre, former director of the Institute for the Study of the Earth, University of Paris; J. Scott Armstrong, cofounder of the Journal of Forecasting and the International Journal of Forecasting; Jan Breslow, head of the Laboratory of Biochemical Genetics and Metabolism, Rockefeller University; Roger Cohen, fellow, American Physical Society; Edward David, member, National Academy of Engineering and National Academy of Sciences; William Happer, professor of physics, Princeton; Michael Kelly, professor of technology, University of Cambridge, U.K.; William Kininmonth, former head of climate research at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology; Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric sciences, MIT; James McGrath, professor of chemistry, Virginia Technical University; Rodney Nichols, former president and CEO of the New York Academy of Sciences; Burt Rutan, aerospace engineer, designer of Voyager and SpaceShipOne; Harrison H. Schmitt, Apollo 17 astronaut and former U.S. senator; Nir Shaviv, professor of astrophysics, Hebrew University, Jerusalem; Henk Tennekes, former director, Royal Dutch Meteorological Service; Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva.

—

Related posts…

Governments not supporting each other’s lies anymore…

Scientist under investigation for alleged misrepresentation…

Corporate logic… if we can make money off of it then it is the truth…