Friday, January 23, 2009

Invitation to Speaking Event January 30, 2009

FURTHER UPDATE: Here's the Barack Obama birth certificate. Looks legally good to me! The certificate number is what we call in the legal profession "redacted" -- something done to protect privacy. When I needed my own birth certificate which I hadn't seen in years and my parents are dead, I had to go the Indiana Department of Health. Looks very similar! Constance

Update to my readers: As most know, I am also a columnist for and appreciate it as a forum. I owe them part VI of my series on "THE HI-JACKING OF EVANGELICALISM" and would love to submit more on global governance. Because of not wanting to hurt Godly and innocent people in the Evangelical world whose careers have sometimes become intermeshed with those with occult agendas, it is taking me longer than I anticipated to do part VI on Abraham Vereide, the Twelve, "Faith with Action" etc. HOWEVER, I am looking at Devvy Kidd's article claiming we do not have a new president, questioning the legitimacy of the offices held by every last United States Senator. I must respectfully and emphatically disassociate myself from her views and expressed commentary which in my opinion comes very close to bordering on inflammatory hate literature. Those views are not my views. While I obviously have strong differences with SOME (not all) aspects of the Barack Obama agenda, most pointedly on right to life issues, I do not question the legitimacy of his election, his inauguration, and his Constitutional right to hold the office to which he was elected.

I have radio programs twice weekly on I understand that one of my programs, at least, is now followed by Devvy Kidd. Please realize that her views are not my views. Further, I do not think our legitimate views are advanced in any way by the type of rhetoric used by Devvy Kidd, at least in her latest column. I confess I have not read her closely -- I probably should start doing so as we write for the same source and broadcast on the same internet station.

Thank you for understanding!


To: Those in Detroit area or can get there on January 30, 2009

"Hello Friends: On January 30 at 6:30 PM we will be proud to sponsor a discussion with Constance Cumbey, a lawyer, author, and radio personality, concerning the New Age Movement, Globalization, and the coming One World Governance. You are invited to attend, the cost is free. Attached is a flyer with a description of the event and a map. Please RSVP to, or by telephone to Alison Lorkowski at (313) 215-1167 [signed:] Ray Monsanto"

If you would like to be included in this event which has no charge and I understand refreshments and a light buffet will be served, please email me at, or call me at 248-253-0333 or my SKYPEIN line of 248-686-1409 and I will pass it on for you to receive your own invitation as long as space permits. Ray Monsanto and Benita Rohm are both brilliant attorneys and long, loyal friends of my work. I am happy they are in Michigan, not all that far from me.


Hope to hear from you!

Comments: 1 – 200 of 279 Newer› Newest»

Will the Freedom Of Choice act take away our right to speake against abortion? I guess what I mean is, Will it be counted as hate speach?
Ahh, Detroit, so close and yet so far away.

David in B.C.
Constance - Would you post the flyer or address so we know where the event is?
Brother Jason - Free speech is a constitutional right, so no law can take that away. No hate speech law can take away freedom of speech, and any law that purports to do so is invalid.
Background on today's "Three-Legged Stool" Presidential comment

A - come on David in BC - 2 1/2 hours down old 96 and say hello

Where are you at again Doug
3-Legged Stool and Agenda 21:

(Rwanda was the first test case)

If we have such great freedom of speech, then why can't we pray in school? I'm not argueing.... I think We should demand prayer back in school. I mean......freedom of speech should be freedom of speech. Where is the Christian voice?
I haven't read the act yet. I am unnerved by his Executive Order to now fund population planning measures in countries using abortion as a "family planning" measure. I'm concerned about the emphasis of the "War on Terror" also and the firing of drone missiles into Pakistan today.
The event will be held at a very large home in Grosse Pointe, Michigan. Invitations will be sent and/or can be sent by email; however, I don't want to jeopardize their security by posting it here. IF I have an email address sent to me at, I can forward the brochure which has a picture of me I don't particularly like! LOL

I suspect we can videotape the evening and make it available that way -- perhaps even Youtube it.

Unrelated, but The Vatican is now on YouTube:

I fully expect there to be a war with Pakistan Obama's presidency. He has said as much.

"In fact -- as should have been apparent to President Bush and Senator McCain -- the central front in the war on terror is not Iraq, and it never was. That's why the second goal of my new strategy will be taking the fight to Al Qaida in Afghanistan and Pakistan."

Ready for a second round of more of the same?

Great idea to do video if possible Constance.

Am sure all would appreciate that. Or at least audio so we can hear. Thanks
audio would suffice
Linked on Drudge today…..

James Lovelock predicts 90% of humanity will be “culled” during this century. British chemist, inventor and environmentalist, Lovelock is best known for formulating the Gaia Hypothesis in the 1970s. He says in the interview that carbon credits will have no impact, and are nothing more than a political scam designed to make some people very wealthy and powerful.

Lovelock now claims that our only hope to save the planet is to start creating massive charcoal banks out of all the organic material we can find.


(home page)


"We encourage all URI Cooperation Circle (CC) member groups to participate in the International Day of Peace. We hope everyonewill observe the Minute of Silence at 12 noon (especially in schools, and atyour Peace Pole if you have one nearby), adding your prayers,meditation or ceremony for peace. You might like to plan a special event aswell, such as an interfaith meeting or a peace concert."

Hmmm...., and a minute of "silent reflection" was called unconstitutional.

I think their hypocrisy slip is showing.
School Moment-Of-Silence Law Ruled Unconstitutional

AP January 21, 2009 06:07 PM

A federal judge has ruled unconstitutional a law passed by the Illinois legislature requiring the state's schools to require a moment of prayer or reflection on the day's activities.

U.S. District Judge Robert W. Gettleman ruled Wednesday the law crosses the line separating church and state under the Constitution.
He says in his ruling that the statute is a "subtle effort" to force students at "impressionable ages" to think about religion.
The ruling came in a suit designed to erase the Illinois Silent Reflection and Student Prayer Act. It was filed by talk show host Rob Sherman, an outspoken atheist, and his daughter, Dawn, a student at Buffalo Grove High School.

This is the same state that is having south side of Chicago public school children do meditation through out the day.

Freedom of speech is being redefined. Just as in the concept of Separation of Church and State. This is what I fear we will see more of with all this new "change". Notice that the schools in the video are from the south side of Chicago....hmmm who was a community organizer there??? Odd coincidence?

So we can not have prayer, now even a moment of silence but we can do organized mediation done by the teachers???

Meditation is how all Occults reach the divine within, and they reach altered states of consciousness.

As these things unfold we will see the real agenda that has been behind all the changes in our Constitution as it has been slowly step by step dismantled. Preparing us for the New Age. The “Change” that everyone is so much now wanting…..


I am so glad to see that you have not been blinded by our superpower status as a nation. So many people I talk with seem to think our freedom of speach is untouchable. That is how we will lose it.... one step at a time.
Brian McClaren, guru of the Emergent Church is getting involved in the Mideast crisis, but also linking himself to Rabbi Michael Lerner, Network of Spiritual Progressives..

If you recall, Lerner was connected to Synagogue 3000 which was set up by Rick Warren.

That would be great Constance to see it on You Tube. Would love to be there, am on the West Coast.
Deception Warning...

Obama intends to open the so-called UFO files. Quoting from an Executive Order signed yesterday:

"For a long time now, there's been too much secrecy in this city. The old rules said that if there was a defensible argument for not disclosing something to the American people, then it should not be disclosed. That era is now over.

Starting today, every agency and department should know that this administration stands on the side not of those who seek to withhold information but those who seek to make it known."

Deception is coming.
Research John Podesta and UFO's for more.
P.S. -

John Podesta speaks about releasing UFO files at National Press Club:

"President Obama has decided to act quickly and decisively in instructing all adminstration officials to take action to implement principles of Open Government and Transparency. In the case of classified X-Files dealing with evidence of UFOs and extraterrestrial life, Obama’s Memoranda will make it easier for the release of such files in cases where national security is not compromised.

The consequences of the release of X-Files of different government agencies and military departments will be momentous if they confirm that extraterrestrial life is visiting Earth."
Regarding UFOs document becoming unclassified....that is just Wonderful news....I say sarcastically.

This may be where the new age beliefs in UFO could get pulled in. They say they are here to help guide us to peace........Space Brothers…or Demons?

I wonder if any of you might try to clear up for me what you see as "occult" mysticism versus "authentic" mysticism such as experiencing a conviction the Lord has put on your heart.
Obama's plan to close Gitmo and suspend for 120 days the trials of those remaining there "until reviewed" sends chills down my spine. The idea the "enemy combatants" could be turned loose upon the world again defies belief. Let's see... Fund foreign abortion (eugenics), harvest embryos (eugenics), let loose a bunch of homocidal terrorists (lunacy), spend more money with a bailout-stimulus pkg and make a tax evader czar (comtemptuous) doesn't seem like governing from the center. But it should work nicely to reduce population and enslave people. All in less than four days.
I am extremely disturbed by Devvy Kidd's column. Please refresh your browser to see the updates I made to today's column. It justified an article by itself, but it was not yet time to replace the present one.

Thanks for calling to my attention the alleged UFO file opening -- if this is true, Oprah Winfrey and her buddy Shirley Maclaine might be working upon him -- the ramifications of SPACE BROTHER input, claimed by Benjamin Creme also, are overwhelming. This is where I came in -- this discussion was taking place in 1981 and was one of the things calling my attention to "the hidden dangers" of the 'New Age' rainbow.
Wonder if Obama is the second beast making everybody worship the first one?
Anonymous said...
I wonder if any of you might try to clear up for me what you see as "occult" mysticism versus "authentic" mysticism such as experiencing a conviction the Lord has put on your heart.
5:17 AM

Scripture is the answer: “by two or more witnesses,” and then it is a personal matter without said experience becoming new Scripture.
“Thy Word is a lamp unto my feet. . . thou hast magnified thy Word above thy name. . . the Scripture cannot be broken. . . God shall keep His Word; He shall preserve them from this generation and for ever. . . Thy Word is settled in heaven.”
One only needs to research WORD in Scripture and see that no other can compare, to no other is such weight of authority ascribed. Jesus said: Sanctify them by Thy Word. . . and for their sakes I sanctify myself.”
Sterling Heights Dave

it seems to me that Obama plans to rule by executive order - short cu tto dictatorship -
I read Devvy article when it hit the net, I am no lawyer but it did not hold to what I have come to expect from her -
The UFO thing, timing is impecable, only thing lacking is a landing and the nephylum telling us they are here for our own good, aazing - simply amazing, especially with alll that had come out last year as the preparation for this.

From Legal Publication AMERICAN LITIGATOR

Litigator of the Week
Gregory Craig, White House Counsel
We could see the lawsuit coming as soon as we watched Chief Justice John Roberts botch his lines in administering the oath of office to President Barack Obama on Tuesday afternoon. Remembering the many (ridiculous) challenges we saw to the citizenship of Obama and Senator John McCain during the presidential campaign, we envisioned a highly motivated and slightly delusional plaintiff questioning the legitimacy of Obama's presidency based on an imperfect recitation of the presidential oath.

Thanks to the thoroughness (and, no doubt, campaign experience) of our Litigator of the Week, we assume the country will be spared the nonsense. White House counsel Gregory Craig, a former Williams & Connolly partner, was among the aides who suggested to President Obama that he retake the oath on his first day in office. "We believe the oath of office was administered effectively and that the president was sworn in appropriately [on Tuesday]," said Craig, according to The New York Times. "But the oath appears in the Constitution itself, and out of an abundance of caution, because there was one word out of sequence, Chief Justice Roberts administered the oath a second time."
I don't get it.
If it was an over abundance of caution that
led them to re administer the oath, then why
did they just toss out the hand on the Bible part ?

Is this the first time that a president has
taken the oath without a Bible ?

I bet it is.
And for that matter, I don't believe that
his inability to produce an American
birth certificate is irrelevant or without
merit. Nor does it jibe with this alleged
over abundance of caution.
When one says "so help me God" as any
New Ager knows, it can mean anything.
But when one says it with one's hand
on a Bible, it is specific.
We're getting systematically ripped off.
If Obama takes that UFO stuff seriously, he will lose a lot of credibility in my eyes. Although, some people have referred to him as a kind of geek. He is tech savvy and I'm sure has a wealth of knowledge concerning superheroes and comic books. I could see him being a fan of X-files and Star Trek and all that. We have Mr. Spock for president.

David in B.C.

Obviously you do get it.
You got it Paul!!!
Paul and OldMan,

Obviously, some people here don't get it. In spite of the overwhelming evidence, Devvy Kidd has become more reprehensible than what has been perpetrated on the American people, most probably through mass hypnosis.

From the executive order yesterday:

"For a long time now, there's been too much secrecy in this city. The old rules said that if there was a defensible argument for not disclosing something to the American people, then it should not be disclosed. That era is now over."

What a hypocrite. He'll open UFO files but refuse to produce his birth certificate and end the speculation.

Sad, how many intelligent people have become oblivious to what's staring them right in the face.

I'm still disturbed by the clear gap in Barack Obama's experience and his popularity. Something is clearly out of sync. The other troubling issues about birth certificate, his very powerful wealthy backers who have a global agenda add to my discomfort.

There isn't much I can do about it but pray, but I question the legitimacy of his citizenship. There are clear facts that would throw this into question, not to mention a reputable member of the Democratic Party going to the Supreme Court over this. Either Philip Berg really wants to destroy his reputation and do something very unpopular, or he knows something that the average American does not..

Personally, I don't believe if Berg is right, he will get anywhere because Obama seems to be the master of brainwashing, and people that are otherwise somewhat intelligent seem to have bought into the Messiah syndrome.

It could be that Americans are feeling so much despair about the economy and the state of the world and are so feed up with what Bush did for 8 years that anyone would look like a breath of fresh air, or it could be that Obama is a master manipulator..

All I know is that his record is somewhat sparse.. His experiences and accomplishments are not exceptional. I am more inclined to think he has above average oratory abilities. Some have suggested Neuro-linguistic programming. Don't know about that although I did just finish the 60+ page document and find that there is a correlation between his speeches and the NLP techniques..

The marketing aspect of his campaign was very sophisticated, including as Maryanne pointed out to all of us the disappearing Phoenix bird.

As for the swearing in incident, I can't say that that was a big deal because "faithfully execute" or "execute faithfully" mean the same thing, and I doubt the legality of his presidency would be hinged on that. An Indonesian or Kenyan citizenship however, would make his presidency illegal.

I would recommend that some of you look at his speeches on internet and pay careful attention to the content, the gestures etc. When you really stop and analyze a lot of what he says, it's illogical and plays heavily to the emotions in very subtile ways.

The media has clearly influenced the election in ways that should be seriously examined. We live in a tv, internet generation where people are not used to using critical thinking. Many when asked, did not even provide a good reason why they voted for him. Sometimes it was his race, sometimes it was a vague sense of "hope" or "change".

You have to give credit where credit is due and the marketing was absolutely masterful, but Obama has a lot of heavy hitters behind him and that doesn't hurt either.



Here is a little review of the racism of Planned Parenthood:


Abortion provider says 'yes' when 'donor' wants to reduce minorities

Posted: February 27, 2008

By Bob Unruh ________________________________





By Tanya L. Green

"…I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing’
therefore choose life, that both you and your descendants may live."

--Deuteronomy 30:19 (NKJV

On the crisp, sunny, fall Columbus Day in 1999, organizers of the "Say So" march approached the steps of the U.S. Supreme Court. The marchers, who were predominantly black pastors and lay persons, concluded their three-day protest at the site of two monumental cases: the school desegregation Brown v. Board of Education (1954) and the pro-abortion Roe v. Wade "rights" in t he latter–converged in the declaration of Rev. Johnny M. Hunter, the march’s sponsor and national director of Life, Education and Resource Network (LEARN), the largest black pro-life organization.

‘"Civil rights’ doesn’t mean anything without a right to life!" declared Hunter. He and the other marchers were protesting the disproportionately high number of abortions in the black community. The high number is no accident. Many Americans–black and white–are unaware of Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger’s Negro Project. Sanger created this program in 1939, after the organization changed its name from the American Birth Control League (ABCL) to the Birth Control Federation of America (BCFA).

The aim of the program was to restrict–many believe exterminate–the black population. Under the pretense of "better health" and "family planning," Sanger cleverly implemented her plan. What’s more shocking is Sanger’s beguilement of black America’s créme de la créme–those prominent, well educated and well-to-do–into executing her scheme. Some within the black elite saw birth control as a means to attain economic empowerment, elevate the race and garner the respect of whites.

The Negro Project has had lasting repercussions in the black community: "We have become victims of genocide by our own hands," cried Hunter at the "Say So" march. more....

Thanks for the quality rebuttal concerning Devvy's questions...

Not sure I agree with everything she says, but like you, and her, I have MANY reservations and unanswered questions...

Of greater concern, those who ask these questions are discredited, marginalized and persecuted. Never answered or honestly addressed.

There are at least three good questions about Obama's citizenship that have never been answered...

Let's see if I can remember and frame these correctly without the details in front of me...

1) Where is his Certificate of Birth? (Not the issued Certificate of Live Birth... those are two very different documents. Obama's half-sister has a COLB from Hawaii, but it is demonstrable that she was born in Indonesia, if I recall my facts right.)

2) Obama's mother, Ann Dunham, was not old enough under the law to confer US citizenship... She was 17. The law at the time of his alleged birth in Hawaii required the conferring parent be 18.

3) Obama attended a state school in Indonesia which REQUIRES Indonesian citizenship. Indonesia does NOT recognize dual citizenship, therefore, he/his parents would have had to renounce his American citizenship (IF he had it in the first place...)

Then of course is the sticky wicket of HIS OWN family members claiming he was born in Kenya (or the sis that on multiple occasions has named different hospitals in Hawaii, none of which have record...

Frankly, I'd just like some honest answers!

I was VERY irritated that the original Berg case was tossed out of the NJ court stating he "had no standing".... That is a real head-scratcher. But worse, that line of mumbo jumbo has been repeated when in fact, ANY citizen should have standing... I did send him an email asking why the suit isn't brought by ANY individual (politico, military officer, etc) who has EVER sworn an oath to "protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic..."

On another note, I found it curious that the VP Oath is worded similarly to all others, while the Presidential Oath of Office was markedly different in its wording... Ideas why?

I'll quit droning on, but this question of citizenship alone, nevermind the simple qualification of having actually done something to merit the most powerful position on the planet, really makes me question his legitimacy.


I have always disagreed with those of my readers questioning Barack Obama's citizenship. I'm personally satisfied through having experienced pregnancy, his mother's relatively young, but LEGALLY ADULT AGE OF 18, and his father's already existing marriage back in Kenya, combined with the broke status of college students that his father would not have had funds DURING A SCHOOL YEAR to have flown a pregnant wife to Kenya and have his child (remember, back then they didn't know BEFORE boy or girl) born in a relatively unsafe Kenyan hospital setting. No. Hawaii is the only thing that makes sense. Hawaii was a state. His mother was CLEARLY A UNITED STATES CITIZEN. The Indonesian use of a stepfather's name was not common -- many families have done that -- and most certainly Barack Obama was living in Hawaii again while still a minor and with his grandparents. It was precisely because of the challenges to his citizenship (raised by Hillary Clinton who many of you liked no better than Obama) that his legal advisors felt they needed to have Obama re-recite the Oath of Office after Justice Roberts had clearly stumbled in the recitation of the Constitutionally set forth oath.

There are real problems with the Obama agenda. OBVIOUSLY, God has permitted his selection/election. We will lose credibility in our warnings and challenges if we dwell on "his citizenship" and "his oath of office."

The oath of office is constitutionally required. His hand was on the Bible for the first oath which was probably all that was required. It was because of the silliness over the citizenship allegations that his advisors demanded it be re-administered. The hand upon the Bible is traditional and beautiful, but it is not a constitutional requirement. If we are going to challenged, let it be done for the right reasons -- not for legally trivial ones that make us look silly in the eyes of the world and add grist to the mill for those who would seek to marginalize us and shut us down.

Obama's mother was 18 when he was born!

From Wikipedia article on "Ann Dunham" who was Barack Obama's mother:

First marriage

In 1960, after she graduated from high school, the Dunham family moved to Hawaii so that her parents could pursue further business opportunities in the new state, and she enrolled at the University of Hawaii at Mānoa. There she met Barack Obama, Sr., a student from Nyang’oma Kogelo in Kenya and the school's first African student, during a Russian language class.[15] She married him on February 2, 1961 in Maui, Hawaii despite some parental opposition to the marriage from both sides.[16][3] Obama Sr.'s other wife, Kezia, granted her consent for him to marry a second wife, in keeping with tribal custom,[17] though Ann Dunham would not find out that her new husband was already married until later.[18] Dunham was three months pregnant at the time of her marriage.[3][19]
On August 4, 1961, at age 18, she gave birth to her first child, Barack Obama II.[20] Later that month, she visited old friends in Washington state with her new baby.[21][22][23][24] She also enrolled at the University of Washington in 1961.[18][23][25]
Obama Sr. completed his degree, and graduated from the University of Hawaii in June 1962 and was offered a scholarship to study in New York City[26] with which he could have supported his family, but he declined it preferring to attend the more prestigious Harvard University.[16] He left for Cambridge, Massachusetts, where he would begin graduate study at Harvard in the fall.[18]
Subsequently, Dunham moved back to Hawaii[23] and filed for divorce in Honolulu in January 1964. Obama Sr. did not contest, and the divorce was granted.[19] Obama Sr. received a Masters degree (MA) in economics from Harvard in 1965[27] and only saw his son again once, in 1971, when Barack was ten years old. After Obama Sr. died in 1982, Ann Dunham visited Kenya.[28]

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation: — "I do solemnly
swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my
Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Article VI of the USA constitution requires "no religious test" for public office. It does require that the Constitution be upheld.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all
executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or
Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office
or public Trust under the United States.
From the Cumbey blogspot archive, this is what Constance Cumbey had to say on her September 4th posting about Wikipedia:

"Why the historical revisionism and why now? I suspect it may have something to do with the newest New Age target year for global governance, 2009, of which Javier Solana yearns to play a more visible role. He knows we are watching -- like hawks -- and although he knows he cannot fool all of the people all of the time, he knows he can fool many of them all the time. Since so many people go to Wikipedia for information, that is where he -- or his groupie, Richard Weiss, aka SQUEAKBOX, are working -- to confuse, not inform."


Increasingly your selective process in everything from what constitutes anti-semitism, to what constitutes New Age belief systems within certain churches have brought me to the point that you are rapidly losing all credibility in my eyes. I'm betting I'm not alone.

You can sing your Seraphim Rose hymns all day and all night, but it does not make up for the fact that the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches have faults that are every bit as egregious (or worse), as those that you have cited within the Protestant, and especially Evangelical Protestant churches. Yet you refuse to come out and publicly admit that the Catholic church has joined the Emergent church leaders in leading the sheep astray! Joyce, to her credit, has been the only one willing and strong enough to speak up honestly regarding the apostasy in the churches- that in spite of being repeatedly attacked by your long-term friendships with those who have no respect whatever for the name of Jesus. Shame on you!

You cite Wikipedia in posting information about Obama's mother, after telling your readers just a few short months ago that Wikipedia's nothing but a source of disinformation and confusion.

You treat guests on your show with little to no respect. Often, you refuse to allow them get a word in edgewise, which has been almost painful to listen to at times. Jerome Corsi, and Oldmanoftheski were perfect examples- that's how important hearing your own words are to you, to the exclusion of all else.

Pride has brought down many good people throughout history. I hope you won't be an addition to the list of God-fearing people who have allowed pride in their own accomplishments get in the way of speaking the ultimate truth.

In your obvious concern that you will be proven wrong about Solana being the BIG BAD CHEESE, for months you have ignored the obvious and neglected to raise the appropriate red flags to your readers about the person who is now enthroned in the White House.

It is impossible to say for certain who the Big Cheese will be. But you have certainly done your best to defend and make excuses for a virulently anti-Messiah type individual.

I repeat-shame on you!
Maybe with this new transparency policy, we can get a look at his college and law school files too....or not

Yet you refuse to come out and publicly admit that the Catholic church has joined the Emergent church leaders.


Agreed. Joyce is the only one speaking out about this. Sad.

Anonymous 2:35

Maybe we can also find out why his wife is no longer allowed to practice law!
If a cop wanted to see our drivers licens and we refused to show them we would be arrested and forced through court to produce them. So......... Why then does not the president of the United States Of America need to prove his citizenship. Can anyone say.... Unfair discrimination. More than that, it is deception.
google: Rockefeller Initiative UFO
The Great Delusion perhaps?
I imagine they announced we are being visited by intelligent ET's (demons) it would greatly advance their plan to 'unify the planet.' An interesting scenario. It would be like the global warming agenda on steroids.
Well Constance,

Instead of jumping through all these hoops and retaining three teams of lawyers as well as spending untold MILLIONS to hide/deceive/obfuscate... Wouldn't it make more sense for him to just produce the Birth Certificate??

This has become a litmus test. He has intentionally chosen deception. (Just a guess, but I bet there is a reason, and I bet the American people would be upset at the truth!)


Dear anonymous,
Where did it go from a discussion about
Obama to a condemnation of Constance ?
I missed that step.
Maybe Joyce also needs to speak out on whether she is a "plant" on this blog. And if so, tell us the reason why!
The PDF download file on Devvy Kidd's column about Conversational Hypnosis Techniques used by Obama mind-boggling.

It's long but very informative in how Obama used this deception to win the election.
The Catholic church, like the various Protestant ones, has its pockets of sin and an impure history. As I have written before on this blog, I experienced a Catholic diocese which was a "good" example of this, and yes, certainly it was like "emergent," although "emergent" is very hard to understand. Just boggles the mind, it does, that "emergent" construct.

The parish here where I live,that is,the Catholic parish, is an example of a congregation which does preach the gospel, probably better than any other congregation I've experienced here, and I made a conscientious try over quite a few years to experience them.

I could elaborate but I think what I would say would be accepted or rejected by individuals through their prior conditioning.

I am attending a Bible study at the Catholic church, and it is very well done, attuned to the gospel. I needed a support group after the death of my husband, and this seems to be a worthy one. I couldn't find a specific bereavement group here in our small town, even though our town has lots of church congregations of all kinds.

So,with Jack Van Impe, I adopt the unpopular stance of defending the Catholic Church--not in toto,but in those things where it IS doing good.

Hello Constance:

Regarding Devvy Kidd's article. I have read some of her writing but not all and have only reviewed the article you have identified in a cursory manner. So I am not endorsing her point of view on all issues or the manner in which she writes.

I am very concerned, though, about our new President and his extreme left, socialist positions on most issues. I believe he's a trojan horse and we will know more of his true nature and agenda as time goes on. And as time goes by, I believe many will be deeply dissapointed when he can't or doesn't deliver on his promises.

I am concerned now with the fact he has not legally supported his birth as a natural born citizen. I have read considerably on this, from a variety of perspectives. The bottomline is that he has not proven he is a US citizen to the legal level required. A statement of live birth from Hawaii is not a birth certificate.

And with so much attention being focused on this, why can't he just provide the certificate? Even for those who believe he is a natural born citizen, why not ask him to show the birth cirtificate so that we can all move past this issue?

There is alot going on now with the fact that we are only two states away from holding a consitutional convention. One key person in Obama's administration has stated that she thinks the citizen reuirement is "the most stupid item in the constitution." And of course, living in CA, our governor has been open about his desire to be president but can't because of not being a natural born citizen. There's more to this issue than it seems on the surface. I believe this is another attack on the constitution -- after all, it's a "living" document.

Dave in CA

Look, we all have a right to our opinion. I know mine stink sometimes. But please, If you post as anonymous, at least leave your name and state. Better yet, register on blogger. If someone wants to post as anonymous on my blog, I'll just erase it. I can't respect the opinion of someone who is afraid to leave their name. I'm sure others feel the same.
As Constance has pointed out many times, the New Age Movement does not discriminate -- but is an equal opportunity offender -- infiltrating ALL churches: Catholic, Protestant and Jewish.

Any one of you who doesn't believe this is true is not only naive - but also in deep denial.

And one of the New Age Movement's goals is to pitt one group against the other to cause dissention, discord and disinformation amoung all three groups.

However, they can't succeed WITHOUT our permission. Are we going to give them that permission?
Thanks Joyce for the heads-up re: Brian McClaren/Rabbi Michael Lerner/Network of Spiritual Progressives. Following up on the Tikkun site I noticed the entire January/February 2009 Issue of Tikkun Magazine is “dedicated” to presenting “Memos To Obama” from a variety of supporters gleaned from the Network of Spiritual Progressives. Rabbi Lerner himself has made quite an offering in his, “Trusting Obama” Here are some excerpts: (Please read all of this in context at the site. I've cut portions of some of the quotes to save space here)

“I have faith that you are going to advance the cause of human liberation and act as a faithful servant of God during your presidency.

I developed this faith in you after you spoke at the Tikkun conference in Chicago in 1996, when we first met. And I was strengthened in that faith after hearing from our local Chicago chapter activists between 1996 and 2006 that you strongly endorsed our progressive middle path on Middle East peace, ..."

"My faith in you was strengthened when you told me that you had read some of my books and that you were reading The Left Hand of God, but even more by our meeting in 2006 when we discussed the Global Marshall Plan... You suggested to me that we reduce the percentage of GMP proposed from 5 percent to 1 percent or 2 percent (we did so). You suggested to me that even with that lower figure, it would take a major transformation of consciousness in Washington, D.C., to get people inside the Beltway to recognize that homeland security could be achieved more effectively by a strategy of generosity and demonstrating real caring for the peoples of the world than through militarism and domination as the sole aspect of our foreign policy—unless we could mount a massive grassroots campaign on behalf of that perspective. YOU MADE IT CLEAR THAT YOU WOULD NOT LEAD SUCH A CAMPAIGN BUT WOULD RESPOND TO IT POSITIVELY IF WE COULD MOBILIZE PEOPLE IN EVERY CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT SUFFICIENT TO BUILD A STRONG CONGRESSIONAL BASE FOR THE NETWORK OF SPIRITUAL PROGRESSIVES’ VERSION OF THE GLOBAL MARSHALL PLAN.” (emphasis mine)

…” You must help people understand that the old way of looking at the world, the Old Bottom Line, is dysfunctional and leads to the dissolution of American society and to the destruction of the planet……”

"In short, Mr. President, it can’t be a world in which we only say, “God bless the United States of America,” unless we quickly add, “and God bless everyone else on this planet, as well.”…

… “You have to insist that our goal is to create a world that is safe for love and caring, a world that educates its youth to recognize that their success as individuals is in part reflected in how much love and caring they can show to others and to the planet Earth, a world in which we overcome the tendency to look at others or the planet merely as instrumentally valuable for what they can give us as individuals. We need to look at the world and at other human beings as embodiments of the sacred, as fundamentally valuable not for what they can do for us but simply as ends in themselves.”…

…” Since you’ve packed your cabinet with traditional insiders, you actually need a gathering of prophetic figures who are not afraid to talk to you in a language that is both more visionary and more confrontational than the insiders have any inclination to be…"

“In any event, we celebrate this incredible moment in human history, thankful to the Force of Healing and Transformation in the universe that makes possible the transformation from that which is to that which ought to be. Recognizing the great possibilities that have been opened, and the great responsibilities that we all have to push you, President Obama, toward your own most visionary and hopeful self, we affirm the ancient statement of the Psalms: This is the day that the Transformative Power of the universe has created; we will rejoice and be happy within it.”

Readers- Take note of the last paragraph above and the way the Rabbi defines God. This gives an entirely different context to the first quote I've copied above. ..."act as a faithful servant of God during your presidency."

The last sentence is Rabbi Lerner’s “new” version of
Psalm 118:24 :
“This is the day which the LORD hath made; we will rejoice and be glad in it.”

I wouldn't necessarily view a Wikipedia article as a credible source of information, especially knowing that the people that run things like wikipedia have an agenda. I use it at times too for unimportant information and am not saying it never says anything true, but don't think it would hold up in a court of law..

It's too bad that the court did not let Berg go through with his process. That would eliminate any doubt in people's minds and we wouldn't be having this conversation right now. If he was a complete crackpot, it would be a different story.

Actually, as Dave said, it would be so much easier if Obama just provided some documentation as to his citizenship and his education credentials. To me this is a no brainer. The citizens of our country have a right to be reassured that he is also a citizen, especially given his very "international" background. It just seems like good common sense.

If the man is a legitimate US citizen, he has nothing to fear.. If he's not, he has something to hide.

I am familiar with some of the issues you mentioned, and it seems like there are several reasons why he might not fit the definition of a "natural born citizen". Most of these things seems fairly easy to disprove if Obama is really a natural born citizen, but consistent with his style, he avoids
addressing anything controversial.

There have been a number of things about him like his involvement with someone from the PLO, Acorn,
Rev Wright, some of his early associations with Communist types.. Any one of these things on its own should have raised a red flag, but all of them together paint an ominous picture and especially with his meteoric rise to power after being relatively unknown.

With someone like this, I would have like to see any and all doubts eliminated, but the American public has evidently fallen in love with Obama, so there is not enough public outcry to have these many questions answered.

The media, who controls the flow of information and is most people's authority on truth ( sadly) has done a brilliant job making Obama into the shining star people are looking for.

The fact that the public actually believes one man is going to solve the problems of our country, or that one man created them is very naive, and the fact that the American public looks for superstars to rescue them, tells me they've been watching too many movies and believe in fairy tales.

I know many people like myself, who are highly skeptical of Obama and his rise to power, but we appear to be in a minority at this point, or at least that's what the polls are telling us..


To all,

Speaking of the Catholic Church, it's a shame to see that they are reinstating Holocause denying priests:

This pope seems to be particularly controversial where it concerns the "Jewish question". He wanted to make Pius XII "a saint". Given is past as part of the Hitler Youth, you would think he would bend over backwards to avoid the appearance of evil but he doesn't seem to mind doing exactly what his enemies accuse him of. The timing of this is very sad because this is the time of year when many remember the liberation of Auschwitz.

While it may not be "heretical" visa via the Catholics to deny Aushwitz, as someone who knows survivors of Aushwitz, who lost their entire family there, it is breaking the command of God that says "thou shall not lie". This pope doesn't seem to care what he does to offend Jews..

To all,

Sadly we see the first sign of who Obama is...He approves of the Saudi peace plan.

Here's the Al Jezeera take on Obama and the "Clash of Civilizations"

Remember, this is their English speaking paper which is actually quite similar to CNN. It's not what Muslims in the Arab world read.

Yes, he's going to heal the "Clash of Civilizations" by making the "Alliance of Civilizations". I think this is what a least of a few of us on the blog are deeply concerned about.. What that looks like exactly, only time will tell. One really good crash of the dollar should sufficiently weaken our country and make us vulnerable.. maybe he will preside over that? We should watch and pray.

Just saw your post now. Need to take a look later. It looks good.
This past week Constance has been sharing with listeners about characteristics of the New Age Movement.
Key to understanding why the movement is dangerous and deceptive from a Biblical “end-times”
perspective , as Constance and others have pointed out, is knowing the “original” from the “counterfeit”. A “counterfeit” DOES NOT MEAN OPPOSITE but rather something
intentionally designed to “imitate” or deceptively represent the original. Recent developments on the world scene, especially those areas related to religion and/or spirituality, are the areas requiring the sharpest spiritual eyes and ears on the part of believers in order to avoid being deceived. We are hearing a great deal these days about “love”, “compassion”, “forgiveness”, and “sharing”. These
are qualities which are said to be advocated, emphasized and encouraged by “all the world’s great faiths” Why then, the need to promote these virtues as “ground rules” (Alliance of Civilizations) for the New World Civilization? Those of us who profess to be believers in Jesus as Lord and Messiah or those of us who see religion as the source of morality and the heart of the promotion of goodness in the world, should, if our faith is genuine, already be living examples of what we say we believe. Think about it. The REAL goal of those who are in the forefront of the promotion of Global Oneness are using a very subtle technique in order to camouflage the REAL transformation that is taking place - which is to replace whatever god-fearing “religious” belief system you hold with a “new” much broader, universally accepted worldview. These self-proclaimed spiritual experts don’t outright label the “religion” being promoted upfront, but prefer to generically refer to it as a“common ground" form of spirituality. Theosophy doesn’t like to call itself a “religion” per se. It prefers to quietly masquerade in a cloak of ambiguity, representing itself as, “the essence of true religion”. The current spokespersons for the worlds religious hierarchy, are IMHO purposely choosing language using a Gandhi style technique. It involves making use of “the point of least resistance” through the use of Bible scripture as well as the “sacred texts” of other “religious traditions” i.e. “All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them.” This serves the purpose of breaking through the natural barrier of resistance, allowing a peaceful shift to the “change of consciousness and transformation” desired. Who’s going to put up a fight against love, compassion, forgiveness, and sharing??? Meanwhile,
the rest of the essential Ancient Wisdom Teachings of Theosophy become mainstream and go unchallenged. Please take a look at this page from the 2008 Theosophy Trust Memorial Library:

Also for more info on Theosophy:

..."always learning but never able to acknowledge the truth." 2Tim 3:7
Great post Rudi!!!!

Bro. Jason Parker and Anonymous

I agree with Bro. Jason Parker
It would make things so much easier if those of you that go by Anonymous would give us a name or register on blogger.

It is almost impossible to carry on a conversation with a person without a name. You can not tell one anonymous apart from another anonymous which becomes very confusing.

Also giving us a name gives you more credibility to what you write. We can go back and see what you said before and get a better understanding of what you are saying. These are some of the reasons so of us have stopped responding to Anonymous questions and posts. I am starting to agree with this philosophy especially because of what I read in today’s blog postings.
Paul re-garding Anonymous

I was wondering the same thing, from Anonymous discussion, how did the conversation about Obama turn into a public crucifixion of Constance?

Personally I feel that this is Constance’s blog site. She named it My Perspective…..which means these are her personal opinions. I feel we all need to be respectful of her and her personal views. It is like going to someone home you are respectful of them when you are in there home. I total believe in a good debate and pointing out other perspectives but what was that all about?

Re:Your comment,

So,with Jack Van Impe, I adopt the unpopular stance of defending the Catholic Church--not in toto,but in those things where it IS doing good.


Re:Your comment

Personally I feel that this is Constance’s blog site. She named it My Perspective…..which means these are her personal opinions. I feel we all need to be respectful of her and her personal views. It is like going to someone home you are respectful of them when you are in there home. I total believe in a good debate and pointing out other perspectives but what was that all about?

BRAVO to you both!

Anyone who knows me, knows that as a Catholic, I do not get into arguments over the religious beliefs or opinions of others unless somebody obnoxiously gets in my face.

No one has to tell me about the theological and ecclesiological differences between the Catholic and Protestant communions. I pretty much know what they are.

And being mindful that I am Constance's guest (like everyone else here) I have tried to avoid focusing on those differences in order to join forces with my non-Catholic Christian brethren for the sake of what we DO agree on (i.e. the Chalcedonian and/or Nicene Creeds) and my non-Christian brethren in order to focus instead on the infiltration of the New Age Movement - both the "left" and "right" wings of that movement - into ALL the Christian and non-Christian (i.e. Jewish) communities.

When I have found it necessary to enter into a religious debate here, I have never put Constance on the spot by asking her to take sides either.

I am also the first one to challenge those so-called "Catholics" who promote New Age teachings disguised as Catholic Christianity.

I was hammering the New Age teachings of critters like former Dominican priest Matthew Fox long BEFORE he was excommunicated, and am STILL hammering the teachings of critters like Father Hans Kung, the late Jesuit priest Pierre Teilhard de Chardin and many others who peddle their heresies while going by the name of "Christian" - whether Catholic OR Protestant!!

When I discuss a specifically Catholic belief here it is either when someone asks me for information or to provide a context so that people will know what I am talking about on specific posts.

But I make sure to let people here know that it IS a specifically Catholic belief being discussed so that Protestant readers who are not well grounded in their own beliefs will not be led to think that the Catholic belief I am discussing is what they are supposed to believe as Protestants. I am not in the habit of TRICKING people into becoming Catholic.

Apart from that, when I began posting here, I was under the impression that this blog was intended by Constance to be a non-sectarian blog.

I never thought it was Constance's intention to pull a "bait and switch" scam to suck Catholics, Jews and others here for the purpose of being trashed, calumniated and/or proselytized.

As a matter of fact, unless Constance tells me otherwise, I STILL do not believe that this was ever the purpose of Constance's blog - and IMHO those who have attempted to hijack this blog in order to use it for this other purpose are merely exploiting Constance's hospitality and good will.

Even though it is not their blog, these people have had the nerve to behave as if THEY have more of a right to express their opinion here than Constance!

I rather suspect Squeakbox who seems to specialize in Javier Solana and New Age does not edit all of Wikipedia. I apologize to the world -- I am still recovering from a very bad cold bordering on 'walking pneumonia' and have not been on line since posting the material on Solana's mother yesterday. I opened the last one first, referring to my 'crucifixion' so I guess I will have to go read on and once again I am being kept from preparing for next Friday and writing a promised chapter for a book being put together by Tom Horn as well as finishing my book and not to mention practicing law.

Trying to keep this spot sane is sometims a challenge!

On the good side, I went to bed ast 9:30 last night and slept to 7:30 this morning . . . needed every last second of it.

Sigh . . .
Rudi 1:52 AM

Great points!

"This past week Constance has been sharing with listeners about characteristics of the New Age Movement.
Key to understanding why the movement is dangerous and deceptive from a Biblical “end-times”
perspective , as Constance and others have pointed out, is knowing the “original” from the “counterfeit”. A “counterfeit” DOES NOT MEAN OPPOSITE but rather something
intentionally designed to “imitate” or deceptively represent the original."

For me, it is clear that our new "president" is as counterfeit as they come... and fits hand in glove with the promotions of the New Age Movement. Mr Obama is as dangerous as the NAM and Devvy Kidd and others are doing a great service to bring this to the attention of as many as they can.

Ten other points that follow should give a good perspecetive of the deception that has been put on the American people... and soon the world! I think that we all know who the father of this deception is!

1. Obama was Not Elected through a Legitimate Democratic Process but through Fraud - While Obama is not the first US President to be fraudulently elected, he is the first in well over a century, since the election of 1876.

Furthermore Obama’s case is unique in several ways. The fraud committed to move him into the White House was multilayered, and began with his own apparent ineligibility to serve in office. It also did not involve only local polling fraud, as was and is commonplace, but the vast well funded ACORN network, backed by local elected officials to perpetrate a massive multi-state electoral fraud operation.

These tactics supersede anything the United States has ever experienced before, and in their degree of sophistication can only be compared to organized crime. Regardless of which party perpetrates such a fraud, allowing it to stand is a knife in the heart of “One Man One Vote” democracy, and renders the entire American system of government into a fraud.

Finally Obama has never won a single election through the democratic process. Rather his operatives have sabotaged his opponents, either using lawyers or smear campaigns conducted through the press.

2. Obama has No Stake in Democracy - Not only was Obama’s election undemocratic, but Obama has never relied on the democratic process to win elections. This makes him an active and present danger to American democracy.

Obama reached the State Senate by using lawyers to disqualify the signatures of his opponents, including his own mentor Alice Palmer, who first gave him his start in politics.

Obama made it to the US Senate when his campaigns pushed dirt about the private lives of first his Democratic Primary opponent Blair Hull and then his Republican opponent Jack Ryan. Both men had been doing better than Obama in the polls and both saw their campaigns destroyed by allegations from their ex-wives promoted and spread by the Obama campaign.

Obama won the Democratic Presidential Primary when his party leadership shortchanged the votes of states such as Florida. He won the Presidential election through ACORN’s well organized campaign of electoral fraud.

As disturbing as all of these facts are, the truly disturbing conclusion is that, Obama has no stake in the survival of American democracy. Democracy is Obama’s enemy. He has never achieved anything because of the democratic process, but despite it. For the first time in our history since the forces of King George III were shown the door, America is ruled by a man to whom the Democratic system is actually a threat.

Obama has subverted Democracy before taking office. What he will do in the White House can only be imagined.

3. Obama is the Product of a Criminal Organization - Many if not most politicians are corrupt, but Obama is the product of an extremely corrupt system that easily crosses the line into organized crime. The cases against Obama associates such as Tony Rezko and Governor Blagojevich, are only the tip of a much larger Chicago iceberg.

And lest anyone assume that Obama would change his ways once in power, stocking his cabinet with crooks, such as Pardongate figure Eric Holder as his Attorney General, or tax cheat Timothy Geithner, shows a disturbing contempt for even going through the motions of putting forward a law abiding cabinet.

There is a fundamental difference between political disagreement and political corruption. There is no bipartisan or patriotic virtue in closing our eyes to criminality on the part of the White House.

4. Obama is Disturbingly Incompetent - As a Junior Senator with very little experience, Obama is unqualified to sit in the big chair. The media has shouted down all questions about his experience, but shouting down the messenger, does not make the problem go away.

Even if Obama were well-intentioned, his lack of experience makes it all too easy for him to begin making very bad decisions. JFK, the man Obama is often compared to, had more experience than Obama and yet he quickly began making basic mistakes, two of which resulted in military conflicts that America lost. Worse still, JFK was perceived as weak and inept by foreign powers. And what goes for JFK, goes double for Obama.

Constantly challenging a clueless administration is the best hope for catching mistakes and problems before they cause catastrophic damage.

5. Obama is Unquestioned - Never before has a White House occupant been worshiped and his actions treated as above reproach by the press, as Obama. The American political systems rests on free speech, on the right to question a candidate. The media has not only abrogated its responsibilities in this regard, it has ruthlessly suppressed and smeared those who would question Obama.

There is a name for such a system. It is tyranny, a system in which the press acts as the naked emperor’s clothes. That is not the American way, and imposing it threatens to mark the end of American Democracy.

The more a politician is treated as Above the Law, the more crucial it is to oppose him. The more a politician is unquestioned, the more we must question him at every turn. The alternative is to give in to a tyranny of manufactured populism created by endlessly feel good coverage in which not even a child dares to cry out, “The Emperor is Naked.”

6. Obama Sympathizes with America’s Enemies - At a time when we need a leader who puts America first, we instead get an occupant who puts everyone but America first. If Obama won’t put America first, then we need to put America first by rejecting his policies and fighting for those that put America first.

7. Obama is Wrong - Whether it’s the Wall Street meltdown or in Iraq, Obama has been wrong time and time again. The policies he has championed have caused the economic recession. The ideas he supported undermined American troops at a crucial time.

Time and time again, Obama has been wrong and his arrogance and inexperience insures that he will go on being wrong. His plans to spend our way deeper and deeper into debt only highlight the start of the high price of Obama’s errors, and what they will cost us.

8. Obama is a Racist - As the product of a racist Church, whose hate speech has has defended, Obama’s inaguration only showcased more examples of racism and fostering racial divisions, e.g. “and when white will embrace what is right.”

The problem is not that Obama is black, the problem is that he is a racist and that he surrounds himself with racists. It has been over half a century since America has been ruled by a racist, in the days when segregation was a fact. The return of racism to power in the White House is a disturbing event with unknown consequences.

9. Obama Threatens Our Survival - Facing severe terrorist and economic threats, Obama’s record of being wrong on both, his corruption, his inexperience and his inability to put anyone but himself first-- poses a grave and severe threat to America and the world.

Rather than bringing reform, Obama brings danger. His weaknesses deeply threaten our economic and physical survival. And the refusal by the press to question him creates an extremely dangerous situation in which he can move from disaster to disaster, shielded by a lapdog press too busy singing praises to the Prince of Chicago, to criticise his actions.

10. Obama Rejects Everything About America - From our rule of law, to our tolerance to our commitment to free enterprise, to our democracy itself-- Obama rejects everything about America that matters, while his acolytes work to remake our country in his own ugly image, greedy, selfish, hateful, egotistical, shallow, ignorant and compulsively deceptive.

We cannot stomach such a cultural and political transformation. America might survive it, but it would emerge as a very different and far uglier place in the process. That is why we must resist from day one, lifting our voices, speaking out, researching, disproving and getting the message out to everyone that Obama is not our President, and not America’s President, and that what we fight for is a restoration of genuine democracy and the rule of law.

-Posted from
Kudos, Rudi and Rose!

Not only is Satan an angel of light, he is also the father of lies--the master deceiver. His use of words is impeccable.

Why should he use the cunning and craftiness of words? It is a blatant affront to The Word who became flesh and dwelt among us.

Hasn't God said, "You shall eat of all the trees..."?

Hasn't God said, "He shall give His angels charge over you...lest you dash your foot against a stone..."?

Hasn't God said, "Do unto others..."?

They overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, the word of their testimony, and that they loved not their lives even unto death.

Stay alert and always keep on praying for all the saints!

BTW, I should have commented earlier regarding the tone of the posts in these last few weeks.

I am an obvious newbie to understanding the NA. It sure has been refreshing to read posts specifically addressing NA issues. They have been informative and very useful.

How disheartening to slip back into this old ditch of accusations and searing criticisms.

Let's let our speech be seasoned with grace so that it edifies the hearers. And if we have a criticism or dissension let us speak so with respect as to elders (not in the chronological sense, but as it regards the depth of understanding and research of the NA).

Thank you all for your helpful comments, prayers and insights.

Blessings! Terri
To Anonymous 2:33

I have a theory that people don't read -- and people like you read selectively -- but here's a story I posted in the last month. The New Age Movement infilitrated just about everywhere -- the strategy was infiltrate and influence as deeply as possible. Then pit the remaining orthodox off against each other. "Emergent Church" is one tiny facet. Is it in the Catholic Church? Most certainly. Orthodox Church? Most certainly. Evangelical ones? BLATANTLY. I am also learning that there has been quite an intelligence gathering network within some of the "Discernment" circles identifying which of us are opposition and where we are.

Confusion always Lucifer's game. I'm not a bit shocked that it continues now. No less that it is coming here to my own board.

Now, for your own either mischaracterization or lack of reading (I'll charitably attribute it to the latter), I'll offer the following in my defense:

Monday, December 29, 2008
The "Emergent Church" also emerges among Catholics

Well, let me go back to reading the rest.

To Rose 10:27

Excellent post on the meditation dangers in school. When I was fighting the Afrocentric teamed up with Waldorf education (Rudolf Steiner) battles in the Detroit public schools in the 1990s, meditation identical to that used by Benjamin Creme where the children were being made to spin their heads to the point that their poor little necks were read to break. Meditation is RELIGION and subject to challenge the same way that they have challenged all else. The "Moment of Silence" as unconstitutional is illogical. How far up in the legal system did it go. Do you have a cite on the case that I can follow up on?


Well, promiscuity and illegitimacy have become much more prevalent than the time Barack Obama was born, but reading that he was conceived 3 months before his parents married, the reason why the birth certificate was not produced is much more understandable, remeembering the context of those times when the date of marriage was on the birth certificate and people would count to make sure the birth had occurred 9 months or more since the marriage.

The Bush administration ostensibly spent hundreds of billions of dollars to supposedly reinvigorate American financial institutions; that did not work. Now Obama will add Trillions. Parallel to the economics is the Middle East politics:
The kingdom has resisted calls for a holy war against Israel, "but every day this restraint becomes more difficult to maintain," this from Prince Turki al- Faisal of Saudi Arabia.

All this reminds me of parents who will not have boundaries and discipline with their children, and wind up with naughty little girls and boys in Charlie’s CHOCOLATE FACTORY. What we get from all our fears is a loss of liberty, (The Patriot Act, National ID, and Conscription). “Follow the money.”
While so much mischief has undermined our culture and our resistance to appropriate governance, our fear of financial pain, our fear of doing what is right against hostel entities has left us whittling away our sovereignty and security. I have talked about Saudi pressure before, but since 1973 I have warned people that Saudi influence would pressure us to side with evil. Israel has given and given, but anyone with half a brain, less than half, knows that what is required is national suicide. In New Hampshire, driving in the snow is a way of life, but in just over a week we have had several highway pile-ups, one of which had 59 cars, trucks, and buses involved; we are flying down a slippery road my friends.
Dear Setterman (very last post):

My fear is that anything Obama and team tries will not work -- they have been left a bankrupted country -- and now the global governance folk will be rushing in -- the trillions proposed will left us even more in that position. I think the till was emptied in the last administration and Bush played his role well in "The Armageddon Script."

Sadly, this may well be a "halleluja moment" for Javier Solana and company who are still laying low, but visible to those of us looking.

Thanks, Rudi, for the Tikkun information. Rabbi Michael Lerner has been known to me for years -- he represents New Age Judaism networked with the rest of the New Agers. I have saved the file from Michael Lerner's letter to Obama. I noticed, inter alia, the following:

1. Obama spoke at one of his conferences in 1996 when he was still relatively unknown -- probably as a Chicago area community organizer.

2. The men have obviously continued to talk.

3. Lerner doesn't like many of Obama's appointment -- the standard political science move of 'broadening the base.'

4. Lerner is trying to hold Barack Obama to "New Age accountability"

5. The New Agers will be watching Barack Obama closely to "hold his feet to the fire"

6. We'd better watch and respectfully interject as well to counter the pressures the New Agers are bringing.


Excellent post as usual.

But a warning is required:

When I opened the first tiny url to the website you linked to, my security system detected a threat...not surprising really, anytime the words "theosophy" and "trust" are linked together, better watch out.

But I did get a quick look at the Thaumaturgic Triangle symbol at the top of the page... the three legged stool we are hearing so much about, the three pillars of an over arching global religious "agreement".....

everything in three's...

....counterfeit, counterfeit, counterfeit.
To Silvia,

I was speaking out about the "emergent church" starting in the 1980s. I am happy now that more are noticing. I do have differences with Joyce -- most notably on her anti-Trinitarian views as well as position that we are still obliged as Christians to follow Jewish ordinances -- which if I have read the gospels and epistles correctly, we are not. That is not to discount Joyce's very valuable contributions to our board which I acknowledge she has made.

To Anonymous 4:49

Googled: Rockefeller Initiative UFO

as you suggested. Noticed with no surprise that the Rockefeller was Laurance Rockefeller, an ardent New Ager who also funded books by Barbara Marx Hubbard and Matthew Fox among many others.

Solana also talks about "three legs", "three pillars", etc.

To Mariel:

A good and thoughful post. Thanks! I think this whole business comes down to who loves God is trying to please Him.

This is the “CHANGE” we have waited for?

Mitchell asserted that Israel and the Palestinians were equally to blame for the Palestinian terror war against Israelis. He recommended that Israel end all Jewish building outside the 1949 armistice lines, and stop fighting Palestinian terrorists.

For all the hoopla about the value of democracy, we seem to forget that the Palestinians voted in Hamas, and we Obama.
You hit the nail on the head, and knowing the counterfeit means really knowing the original, as I mentioned several blogs ago. This is my main gripe today. People are being dumbed down to not know the Word of God. They rely on "professional ministers" and assume that these ministers are never biased or don't make mistakes. I'm not putting down ministers. There are good ones and bad ones, but I'm just saying that we have to be responsible for nurturing our own relationship with God and not depend on professionals and ignore our own study.

This is how people like the Rick Warrens and Brian McClarens of the world have flourished. There are lots of sheep that just blindly follow.

What has been described by Warren, McClaren and Lerner and many others is a social justice kind of message, which assumes that WE can make earth into paradise.. The truth is that one day, probably very soon, God Himself will restore Gan Eden but that is not a Bible believer's primary mission here. Our primary mission here is to bring honor and glory to our Creator and point people to Him.

If we know His Word intimately, we know Him intimately, we will not be deceived by the false shepherd who comes to rob and destroy. The key is His Word. Yeshua's mandate to HIs disciples was to make "disciples". He probably said this in Hebrew, which is talmadin ( students). We are supposed to teach people to obey Him and His Word. The key is not that we make converts...God is the one who saves people. We can't do that, but we can teach them what Yeshua said.

Not once does Yeshua say we can fix the planet, fix the problems of global poverty, have perfect justice. On the contrary He says that the world is going to have wars, and earthquakes and all kinds of climactic problems.. He says the poor we will always have with us, and justice belongs to the Lord. Does that mean that we should neglect poor people or not show justice or not be good stewards of God's creation? No, of course not..

These are just not the central issues for believers to take a solve. If I share the gospel with someone and they are hungry, should I tell them to go home and be well? No, of course not. We have to meet people's physical needs as well as spiritual needs because they can't even hear us if we ignore their physical needs. Yeshua fed the crowds before He preached to them, but you can be sure that the most important thing He did was preach to them.. because man doesn't live by bread alone but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.

The wrong focus is on trying to save a world that is perishing. The other wrong focus is being arrogant enough to think that we have the power to do that.. It's man putting himself in the place of God.

Solomon said, if we humble ourselves before God and turn from our wicked ways, HE WILL HEAL our land. Of course Solomon is talking about the Land of Israel, but the spiritual principals apply.

We need to be zealous for His name, His glory, and His word...not for mother earth and so-called social justice.

The true message is to rest in Him and in His promises and not to take on things He never told us to. If God wants the world to burn up, you can be sure that all the scientists ideas about global warming won't do a thing to prevent this.

If we have our new identity firmly rooted in Yeshua, the good works will follow...That is just the fruit of a life consecrated to Him. Making these "good works" of fixing the planet, stopping poverty, etc. are not not bad in and of themselves. They are just not the principal focus of Bible believers.. When practicing social justice becomes a way to make ourselves good about ourselves we are practicing works based religion.

The most important thing that we can share is what Yeshua has done for our lives...a gift that won't fade or perish that the moths can not destroy, nor the robbers steal. We cannot replace things that don't perish with cheap substitutes which are absolutely going to perish..

If we are going to invest our time and our lives it should be in things that will be raised up imperishable. Those of us who get this are not wasting our time on a planet that is going to be destroyed one day soon. .

The social justice, save the whales folks ( sarcasm) are trying to distract the masses from the fact that God, from the foundation of the world already had the restoration plan, so He must get a good laugh at these people who are trying to accomplish what He already finished. The reason He rested on the Seventh Day ( Shabbat) is was because He already knew how He was going to redeem us, and it was because we must learn to cease from our labors and trust Him. This is what Yeshua's FINISHED WORK is all about, trusting and resting in it..

One of the hardest things for human beings to understand is that God already has it covered. He transcends time, and therefore we can really trust Him to lead us and guide us.. That has been the most liberating thing for me in my life as a believer to know, that I don't have control over much, but He controls everything. I just have to walk in truth and appropriate the promises He has already given me.

Faith is believing in God's promises and resting in them.. The other plan is saying "we have to fix it".

I know you know this Rudi. I just want to articulate the difference between what I hear the new agey types saying, and what I hear in God's Word..

I love this verse.. It's so simple and yet so profound:

Jer. 1:12 Then the LORD said to me, “You have seen well, for aI am watching over My word to perform it.”


Is. 55:11 So will My word be which goes forth from My mouth; It will not return to Me empty, Without accomplishing what I desire, And without succeeding in the matter for which I sent it.

God has already said exactly what He's going to do. It's up to us to discover this and to walk in accordance with His Will.

The Brian McClarens and Rick Warrens will undermine the Word and put the focus on themselves and their power to "change"... Michael Lerner, who doesn't know Yeshua is doing the same.. Obama is telling us we can "be the change".. and as he's saying this, he's disobeying God's Word on issues such as abortion, and the Land of Israel, and most likely gay marriage.. all I can say is good luck to him and God help us.

John 8:51 “Truly, truly, I say to you, if anyone keeps My word he will never see death.”

5083. thre÷w tereo; from a prim. word thro/s (a guard); to watch over, to guard: — continue(m)(1), guard(2), guards(1), heed(2), heeds(1), held(1), keep(27), keep watch over(1), keeping(1), keeping guard over(1), keeps(9), kept(11), kept in custody(4), observe(3), preserve(1), preserved(1), reserved(4), watching over(1). thvØ, th/n, th/ß; see 3588.

The word for "keeping" is the same sense of the word that God gave to Adam "to keep and cultivate" in Genesis.

Keep or guard in this case means the following:
rAmÎv shamar, shaw-mar´; a primitive root; properly, to hedge about (as with thorns), i.e. guard; generally, to protect, attend to, etc.:—beward, be circumspect, take heed (to self), keep(-er, self), mark, look narrowly, observe, preserve, regard, reserve, save (self), sure, (that lay) wait (for), watch(-man).

Adam was supposed to keep the garden in Gan Eden... but Adam didn't "guard it". In Yeshua, we can "guard His Word". We have to know it to keep it.. God wants us to know Him through His Word.

To Susanna,



I don't believe the ordinances are Jewish.. They are Scriptural. It would take way too many pages of your blog to show you how Paul's words have been taken way out of context. ( as it is I know I take too much space)

Paul was saying that we are not saved by our keeping of the Torah.. The Torah was given to all Israel, but God saved Israel when He delivered them from Egypt BEFORE He ever gave them Torah. Abraham was justified before he was circumcised. This is the crux of what Paul is saying. Torah is God's teachings. There is much of Torah we cannot, keep because we are not Levitical priests, there is no Temple, etc., etc.. I promise you in the Kingdom, we will be "keeping Torah" so you might want to start practicing now..

Is. 2:2 ¶ Now it will come about that
In the last days
The mountain of the house of the LORD
Will be established as the chief of the mountains,
And will be raised above the hills;
And call the nations will stream to it.
Is. 2:3 And many peoples will come and say,
“Come, let us go up to the mountain of the LORD,
To the house of the God of Jacob;
That He may teach us concerning His ways
And that we may walk in His paths.”
For the law will go forth afrom Zion

This is clearly a passage that talks about the future, and clearly God has not done away with Torah.. It's unfortunate that our English Bibles translate this word "law" because Torah is not accurately described by that word. The root of the word means "teaching and instructions"'. Torah was never meant to save, not even Israel was saved by observing Torah, but as I've said before ALL Israel is more than just Jews. Jews only represent 2 1/2 tribes of Israel ( Judah, Benjamin and Levy-Southern Kingdom).

All of Israel left Egypt with 12 tribes and the mixed multitude. All of Israel will once again be restored...all 12 tribes to their tribal identities and the aliens who dwell among Israel. I promise you in the kingdom, Israel will not be celebrating Roman feasts, but God's appointments. ( the mo'ed) Not only will Israel be celebrating these but also the nations...

Zech. 14:16 Then it will come about that any who are left of all the nations that went against Jerusalem will ago up from year to year to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, and to celebrate the Feast of Booths.

God is looking for a bride and the feast of booths is the marriage celebration. It's too bad more people don't realize this.. They might be going to the "rehearsal dinner". You don't have to "keep Torah" but the new or newer Covenant is simply Torah put on your mind...It doesn't save us, Yeshua does and when He does He puts His Torah on our minds...if we'll allow Him to.

You will take note that in both verses that I quoted here the nations are included, not just Israel. Torah is not a burden, it's our Father's loving instructions. The death penalty that Torah imposed was done away with by Yeshua. What we are free from is the penalty of death, but our loving Father's instructions are for our good and our blessing.

Speaking of counterfeits.. look at the difference between the feasts of the Eternal, and the feasts that were mixed with pagan traditions.. One is the real thing, the other is a counterfeit. Do we know the real thing when we see it? This is a perfect example of what I was talking about.

1900 years of Church history can make it difficult to hear God's voice, but He's speaking to everyone, not just the Jews. If we show up at His appointments He promises to meet's your choice.


Thanks, for your recent posts.. What the US has done with Saudi Arabia is political and economic and eventually spiritual prostitution.

Saw and interview on an international broadcast with the Saudi Prince. At the end, Madelaine Albright, post Clinton administration was playing "Let's Make a Deal". He gave her something and in exchange she gave him access to Harvard and Georgetown Universities, so that the minds and hearts of our youth could be manipulated a la Alliance of Civilizations...Thanks Madelaine..... a nice Jewish girl selling us out...

meant to say "an interview"' poor English..

Thank you for your comment. You disagree with Joyce on some matters which i understand. I do not agree on everything with Joyce either, however the core doctrine she upholds is correct.

From what i understand she does acknowledge 3 but hesitate to call it "trinity" but she does acknowledge 3 and that's the important issue. Trinity as a word is not found in scripture so she does have a case not naming it as such.

What i like to know from you (you do read the bible) why do you not speak out concerning roman catholisism? Christ never compromised truth for the sake of unity why should you/we?

Whew, reading this blog is an education on every score. Things you wouldn't hear or discuss in other forums; because it isn't "politically correct". Appreciate the candid honesty of everyone that is posting. It's refreshing to hear.

Hope your feeling better now Constance. The piece you wrote on "The Family" and its hijacking of Evangelicalism, is very good history and gives thorough insights. It's all happened so quickly, but the series you've done will help us all to understand why this has happened. Like many other Christians, being saved 36 years and never noticed what was taking place.

I've put all 5 parts on my website for people to read. Perhaps you should consider writing a book on this subject. Something I thought about as I was reading the piece.
I surely am perplexed. First you get all soft on Hillary and now you come down hard on Devy when she is keeping everybody up to date on The Usurper.
I have to wonder when you drank the Kool-Aid.
To Mariel:

A good and thoughful post. Thanks! I think this whole business comes down to who loves God is trying to please Him.


I COULD NOT AGREE MORE _ That is THE bottom line -

I think the claim by whoever Devy is about not having a President or U.S. Senators not being legitimate is far-out. Now, some of these newly appointed senators I could agree with. I mean, why should an impeached governor be allowed to pick a senator. There should have been open elections in my opinion.

How can Obama's election not be legitimate? It's official once the Electoral college does their election. Obama won that. Even the Supreme Court wouldn't consider the case against his citizenship. His birth certificate has been copied on line. It has been posted. The process was just like all the other elections. I mean, some people probably still think Al Gore should've won because of that Florida mess. Thank goodness that didn't happen. Having vile hatred towards Obama shouldn't cloud our judgements.

Of course, maybe I'm wrong and his posted birth certificate is somehow a fake. As long as the rest of the government goes along with him being President, there's nothing we can do to change that. And if he is the antichrist or an agent of the antichrist, it's part of God's plan. We couldn't have stopped Judas, we can't stop Obama.

So, enjoy your freedom while you still have it. Remember to pray, read the Bible, and still be an instrument of God's love.

However, how can someone who was a community organizer, who supposedly believes in giving a voice to those who have none, not be voice for all vulnerable people, including the unborn! They can't speak at all. Can't even stand. Who's their community organizer?

David in B.C.
Hi Constance- Rabbi Lerner mentioning Obama speaking at the 1996 Chicago Summit for Ethics and Meaning and their more recent 2006 communication were what brought me to attention as I read. You’re right about Rabbi Lerner & Co. being temporarily unhappy regarding Obama’s appointments.
Surprising to me , Rahm Emanuel being appointed as Chief of Staff has been a particular
“shock and deep disappointment” as Lerner wrote in this piece.
Obama’s feet most definitely will be held to the fire by the Network of Spiritual Progressives. Rabbi Lerner writes referencing Barack Obama,
“He’s just being political, but once elected he’ll reveal himself committed to the values that he whispered into our ears privately over the course of the past many years.” -Rudi

A clarification:

If i remember correctly from a previous post Joyce made: we are made in the image of God; spirit, mind and body. That's how i understand she perceives The Father, Son and Holy Spirit. As a matter of fact, i do too.

As bad as it sounds.... Maybe these anonymous people(the ones who don't leave a name)should be blocked. That remark about the Kool-Aid was not called for. It is sad to see this blog being abused. Just leave your opinion and move along. Show some class.
Rose and anon- Thanks for your input and comments.

Setterman – “Mischief“…such an appropriate word for the ongoing shenanigans! Trick or Treat? Also, great reminder about who elected Hamas!

YesNaSpanishTown – You are so right. The written Word was given
for revealing the Living Word. Anyone quoting it, no matter who they are, if they point away from The Living and Resurrected Truth -Jesus and use the Word of God as foundation to present another gospel such as “save ourselves” thereby rendering His Sacrifice unnecessary – the result is deception. If anyone here asks, "sez who Rudi?" God said.
The ultimate deception is when scripture is used to edify and deify man. -Rudi

Thanks Oldmanoftheski for the warning and your always excellent comments!
Joyce - Great comments re: the NA version
( Lucifer’s perspective) of what God has said vs what God actually said. “Faith is believing in God's promises and resting in them.. The other plan is saying "we have to fix it".” Over the past couple weeks the #1 area I’ve been disturbed about
is the NAers quoting of scripture to draw support for not only interreligious dialog, but also environmental climate issues, and on an ever increasing level into the political/global governance realm.
Contemplating this and the efforts of man to come up with lasting solutions to the same historical
problems led me to Genesis 3 when, because of sin God pronounced a curse on the earth. This may sound “nuts” to some readers, but, in effect, when you get right down to it, all the modern technological, scientific, and medical advancements have been geared toward overriding the " curse " on the earth and it's inhabitants. Replacing what God said with a lie. The redemption from this curse, as far as this earth and it's inhabitants go, in spite of all the "successes", will not take place until He makes all things new. No matter how much we sugar coat it in order to support our belief that "God has to be in it, or behind it because its beneficial", I can't get away from wondering how these advances have replaced “faith in God” with “faith in God - by way of man.” We can't imagine, most of us, having grown up in an environment where we've had access to everything from electricity, to organ transplants, biometrics and everything in between. what it means to have faith in God apart from man. And through it all we say "thank God" for what we like, forgetting that, behind the scenes is Lucifer trying to postpone the inevitable... His and the earth's final destruction… but not before he and the world's inhabitants have been elevated to the status of godhood. Knowing both good and evil, and increasing knowledge to the point of "having nothing" outside of ourselves, won't "change" the facts of the final outcome.
If one chooses to disengage from the system, either for ourselves or our children, you will immediately be marginalized, even criminally penalized for failure to provide medical treatment should it involve your children. The "privilege" of education is mandated, homeschoolers are regulated, truancy is criminal. I'm not suggesting doctors and medical treatment are evil. I'm not condemning anyone or anything. I'm presenting food for thought, about, how we are subtly shifted from faith in God to dependence on man, from dependence on man to mandate by man, from mandate by man to control.
What is the evidence of our faith, when from the moment of birth our health and well being are regulated by a source other than God? What do we give God ALONE the glory for providing - when all the provision for our needs are met by and through man, with man getting the overwhelming credit? Even by some of us who profess faith, man's accomplishments have become the mediator/conduit through whom God's faithfulness is off-times determined and He is glorified. If this isn't ascending to the position of placing man on the throne and becoming a god unto ourselves, I'm not sure what we expect to see as evidence. The "king who will arise" will be a man like the rest of us, who has "realized" his "godhood" and his ability to manipulate "spiritual forces" i.e. "energy/ scientific forces" to the fullest degree and will perform "great signs and wonders" so convincingly that , "if it were possible" the elect - could be deceived. (Matthew 24) Today, we see regular examples of this lack of biblical discernment and how easily, even if temporarily, people of faith are seduced. The more "science", scientists , and scientific advances become the accepted PROOF of God’s existence and the evidence of God's will ,
rather than what God Himself has said in His Word , we will have exchanged the word of man for the Word of God. –Rudi

"And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God. And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away. And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful." Revelation 21: 3-5

Great post I really liked this statement:

"those who have attempted to hijack this blog in order to use it for this other purpose are merely exploiting Constance's hospitality and good will.

Even though it is not their blog, these people have had the nerve to behave as if THEY have more of a right to express their opinion here than Constance!


YesNaSpanishTown (Terri)

Great statement:

“Let's let our speech be seasoned with grace so that it edifies the hearers. And if we have a criticism or dissension let us speak so with respect as to elders (not in the chronological sense, but as it regards the depth of understanding and research of the NA).”

The whole infighting needs to stop. We need to work together against our common enemy and not attack each other or we are helping our enemy win.

I usually never post extremely long comments, but Fulfilled Prophecy had an article written by Javier Solana to Barack Obama in the Financial Times. Now, I can't find a link there. I had to sign up (for free) just to read the article and it took a few days. So, here's the article:

Five lessons in global diplomacy
By Javier Solana
Published: January 20 2009 19:24 | Last updated: January 20 2009 19:24
The US is not just another country and its president is not just another politician. Who he is, the choices he makes, matter to billions of people around the globe.

There is no need to tell President Barack Obama that the world is messy and complicated or to list the many things that need to be done. We hope that Mr Obama and his team have also noted the places that have seen steady, sometimes dramatic, progress in recent years – China, Indonesia, Brazil and central Europe to name a few.

Successes can look after themselves. It is the problems and failures that he and others will have to focus on. In many cases, we understand the nature of the problem and even know what the solution looks like. Sometimes – in the Middle East, for example – we have known for years. The real question is how to implement it.
Of course, every country is different, every problem particular. But experience over the years (including my own) suggests some key ingredients for tackling international problems.

First, the solution is always political. Civil wars, inter-state conflicts, problems with energy, climate change or nuclear non-proliferation – all of these require political settlements that take account of the interests of all involved.
Power is about more than just military or financial muscle; legitimacy is important too. Sometimes, it is the most important element. There will be no solution in Palestine that does not take account of the rights of the Palestinians, weak as they may appear.
Second, intervention must always serve a political strategy and take account of the fact that foreign policy is all about the domestic politics of others. Domestic politics matter because they limit what is achievable in negotiations (for example, over how much carbon dioxide emissions can be reduced or tariffs cut in trade). This is never more the case than when the problem is a dispute over the control and legitimacy of the state – take the Democratic Republic of Congo or Iraq.
In the Balkans and elsewhere, the aim of crisis management has been to create a space for politics to work. But functioning politics is one thing that foreigners cannot provide; only the locals can do that.
Third, personalities and trust are essential. In a crisis, when institutions and order break down, a handful of leaders become key. For them to risk their future on a settlement requires courage. The reason dealing with Iran is so difficult is the lack of trust – on both sides. To establish at least enough trust to do business together has been my first objective. Diplomatic breakthroughs only become possible when negotiators are willing to take risks because of the trust they have built with each other.
Trust needs to be backed by tangible things: troops to police a ceasefire, trainers to build a police force, monitors for elections or at the border, military guarantees and development assistance. The European Union has ceasefire monitors in Georgia and is helping to build police or armed forces from the DRC to Afghanistan, from Kosovo to Palestine. It has also monitored many elections.
Sending monitors may seem unimpressive. But the mere presence of outside observers changes behaviour. As in physics, the act of observation modifies the behaviour of particles; though instead of producing uncertainty, political observers re-establish confidence.
Fourth, no single country, even the US, can solve problems on its own. The North Korean nuclear issue is inching forward in six-party talks that include China, Japan, South Korea and Russia. The EU has been most successful when it has worked with others: with the UN in Lebanon; with the Association of South East Asian Nations in Aceh/Indonesia; with the US everywhere.
The weakness of regional co-operation in the Middle East is both symptom and cause of the region’s crisis-ridden politics. It is significant that the Arab states have written collectively to Mr Obama on the Middle East peace process. As the EU, we echo their call to push for a settlement.
In the Balkans, the EU and the US have worked consistently in partnership. So have Nato and the EU. One of my first experiences as EU high representative was working with the Nato secretary-general in Skopje on a constitutional settlement between Slav and Albanian communities. This is a reminder that almost all problems are regional and the involvement of neighbours is essential.
But increasingly, diplomacy is about more than mobilising states. We need to find ways to harness the expertise and resources of non-governmental organisations and companies and energise individuals towards shared goals.
Fifth, the best time to deal with a problem is the moment it arises, before positions become entrenched – ideally, before anyone has noticed there is a problem at all. But if that fails, you need to be ready to stick at it for a long time. The EU can be slow but it is quite good at engaging for the long term.
Ultimately, the objective of diplomacy is to create agreed rules. Rules on political participation, demarcation of borders or movements of military equipment. Rules to end conflicts within or between states. Rules to help us address the big issues of our time: climate change, non-proliferation and a sustainable and open global economy.
The accumulation of rules, procedures and institutions sounds like dreary work but it is what global civilisation is built on. Agreed rules make states secure and people free.
The start of a US administration is a special moment. The US and Europe should use it to recommit themselves to the task of building rules, trust and partnerships for our global world.
The writer is EU high representative for common foreign and security policy
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2009

David in B.C.
To Bro. Jason Parker said:
"As bad as it sounds.... Maybe these anonymous people(the ones who don't leave a name)should be blocked. That remark about the Kool-Aid was not called for. It is sad to see this blog being abused. Just leave your opinion and move along. Show some class."


The ones who are "abusing" this blog are not the anonymous posters.

The anonymous posters wouldn't have to jump in and defend themselves so often if certain bloggers WITH NAMES didn't make a career out of posting so much disinformation and propaganda about the Catholic Church.

Yes, they'll be happy to "show some class" - just as soon as the Catholic bashers decide to do the same.
David in B.C.

Re: your comment

However, how can someone who was a community organizer, who supposedly believes in giving a voice to those who have none, not be voice for all vulnerable people, including the unborn! They can't speak at all. Can't even stand. Who's their community organizer?


Unfortunately, Obama's "Lincoln moment" has been overshadowed by his "Margaret Sanger moment" - including Sanger's infamous "Negro Project."


Convince the targeted community to accept their eugenic racist plan by selecting one from their ethnicity to promote it. One of Planned Parenthood's earliest known projects was in 1939. It was called the "Negro Project" — a project designed to control the birth of "human weeds" which was how Margaret Sanger referred to colored people; a project designed to introduce abortion, sterilization and different forms of birth control. This is what a co-eugenic wrote to Margaret Sanger to make sure the "Negro Project" was a success:

Clarence Gamble, heir of Proctor and Gamble, wrote a memorandum in November, 1939 entitled: "Suggestions for the Negro Project." In the letter he suggested black leaders "be placed in positions where it would appear they were in charge."

This is a letter to Clarence Gamble, from Margaret Sanger, in which she wrote,

"We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don't want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."

For those of you that don't know, Barack Obama became a "minister" of Planned Parenthood a long time ago. He's so good at carrying out their racist, murderous, agenda against Afro-Americans and society at large, they gave him a 100% score on his voting record. Planned Parenthood is following the strategy of their racist founder, Margaret Sanger, to the letter. Planed Parenthood is saying, "We have our poster boy! Get him out in front as a lure for their women and men. Get them into our abortion clinics and dismember their children by the millions!" You say absurd? No Way! Planned Parenthood's Valentine cards were sent out to hundreds of thousands of young people in the nation. Whose face is plainly seen waving to them with a big smile? Whose endorsement is given to this racist and calloused organization? Who is used to lure children to give credibility to its hideous plot? Barack Obama, that's who!

On July 17, 2007, Barack Obama said the following before the Planned Parenthood Action Fund:

"Thank You, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you! ($) Thanks to all of you at Planned Parenthood for all the work that you are doing for women all across the country and for families all across the country-and for men who have enough sense to realize you are helping them, all across the country. I want to thank Cecile Richards (national president of Planned Parenthood) for her extraordinary leadership. I am happy to see so many good friends here today, including Steve Trombley and Pam Sutherland from my home state of Illinois. We had a number of battles down in Springfield from many years and it's wonderful to see that they are here today"

The first friend mentioned is, Cecile Richards, who he commends for extraordinary leadership in killing babies who are disproportionately black.

Too bad Obama didn't have had an "Alveda King moment."
The New Age says “God is in everything” ….This is true to this extent….Their “God” has infiltrated every segment of our society, religion ,politics etc.. The enemy is in everything now.

The Dangers of Infighting

To be Watchmen on the Tower we must be watching for the enemy. If we get pulled inside to deal with in-the-tower-issues we have left our post and failed our mission to keep a lookout for the enemy. We then miss the enemy sneaking in.

I fear this is what has happened to our country. So many different faiths fought amongst themselves for so long that we lost site our common enemy. Much of our energies were focused arguing with each other instead of watching the movements of our mutual enemy. So we then contributed to our own demise. That is exactly what the adversary planned. He wants to sow discord, confusion and disillusionment among the Faithful of God, so he could sneak right in right under our noses and make us look judgmental, unloving, petty and really stupid in the process. Then he presents a beautiful, loving and accepting spirituality that is all shiny and new compared to the of old beaten-up faiths. In this way he wins many gullible souls to his side.

I feel that all those that believe in the God of Abraham and are on the hit list of the New Age Occult need to focus on our common enemy and band together and put aside the in-the-tower issues and fight against the real enemy. Instead of gnawing on ourselves, together we need to take a nice big juicy bite out of him. As we get closer there will only be two sides, those that follow Lucifer and those that believe in a God separate from themselves. All the details will become clearer. Our differences will fade away and we will band together against our common enemy. At least I pray that is what we do.

We need to stand together and fight the big battles and try to avoid small ones. Sadly so many of the bones we chase were tossed by the adversary in the first place just to make us run the wrong way, barking after them and making fools out of ourselves in the eyes of those he is winning over, as he points at us laughing.

It is so hard to know what is a smoke screen and where the fire really is….this is the difficult position we all are in. What do we chase, how do we know we are on the right track or not? I tend to look at the big picture, the major patterns. Within those we can get to the truth. The juicy little side bones are fun, and we can find good data there. There is danger in there too; we have to be careful not to run after them too much or we will lose our credibility. In no way do I mean not to investigate things, just be slow to come to judgments based on small amounts of information. Pick your battles carefully because the Enemy does…..

He has them laughing at us when we seem to say there is a conspiracy under every rock. The truth is that the conspiracy is the mountain they are all standing on and the rocks are just pieces coming from that mountain.

Let’s be respectful of each other and our different perspectives. Together we can gather and share data, expose our common enemy and fight against the big issues as one united army. If we do anything else we are falling for his bait, therefore into his hands.

To Bro. Jason Parker 1:47 p.m.:

As I read FOCA, taking away our rights to publicly advocate, at least at abortion mill cum clinic sites could be a real danger. Even without it, I have seen police called and people prosecuted merely for singing hymns outside that could be heard inside. If this law could be interpreted to mean that police failure to curtail demonstrations outside of abortion clinics was failure of the state to protect abortion "rights", I think indeed the risk is real. This is a sad day for America.


I would be the last to say Wikipedia information is infallible. I guess its whoever did the last editing job and whoever did the last hatchet job. There was an excellent Wikipedia article up on Javier Solana until Squeakbox hacked it. I wrote the one he hacked!

But some of the information up on Wikipedia is valuable and good and subject to cross-checking. Like everything else, take the wheat and leave the chaff.

Dear Rose,

Amen, amen!

From Associated Press (1/24/09):

Vatican criticizes Obama on abortion issue

VATICAN CITY – Vatican officials said Saturday they were disappointed by President Barack Obama's decision to end a ban on federal funding for international groups that perform abortions or provide information on them.

Monsignor Rino Fisichella, who heads the Vatican's Pontifical Academy for Life, urged Obama to listen to all voices in America without "the arrogance of those who, being in power, believe they can decide of life and death."

Fisichella said in an interview published Saturday in Corriere della Sera that "if this is one of President Obama's first acts, I have to say, in all due respect, that we're heading quickly toward disappointment."

Obama signed an executive order that ended the ban on Friday, reversing the policy of the Bush administration.

"This deals a harsh blow not only to us Catholics but to all the people across the world who fight against the slaughter of innocents that is carried out with the abortion," another top official with the Academy for Life, Monsignor Elio Sgreccia, told the ANSA news agency.

"Among the many good things that he could have done, Barack Obama instead chose the worst," he was quoted as saying Saturday.
Thanks for your post. Just to add
to what you said;
Regarding Planned Parenthood,
The money for Planned Parenthood had
to come from somewhere. Margeret Sanger
may have been a major player and
a major planner, but the money came from,
and comes from, the Rockefeller Foundation.
It's really just a new face on an old
culture of death called Eugenics, which was
a major component of Naziism.
Dear Silvia:

Which of these different gospels are you advocating:

1. Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and be a member of the ABC Church and thou shalt be saved?

2. Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and be a member of the NBC Church and thou shalt be saved?


The gospel, at least as I understand it is BELIEVE ON THE LORD JESUS CHRIST AND THOU SHALT BE SAVED.

Some Catholics meet this test, some don't. Some Protestants meet this test, some don't.

Basic Catholic doctrine when not corrupted by New Age heresies or other accretiosn clearly affirm that Jesus is the Christ.

I must be doing something right. I've been attacked by Catholics for being allegedly biased against them and now by you and friends for being too friendly to Orthodox and Catholics.

I'm happy God is my judge!

Dear Anonymous on FulfilledProphecy and Solana letter to Barack Obama:

I recall posting all in its entirety on what I believe was the last article before this. Go through the comments section, at least the ones posted by me if you collapse statements and you should find the text in its entirety.

I'm sorry, but in my opinion Devvy's piece was just plain tacky and not up to what I recall as her usual standards. We will get nowhere with that type of what is nearly racist rhetoric which also attacked Michelle Obama and it will diminish our credibility with all for the battles to come. Furthermore, if anything ever happened to the President, God Forbid!, Lord help us as they start examining what they are increasingly calling "incitement."

A word to the wise should be sufficient.

Dear Silvia,

If that is your interpretation of the Trinity, and that is Joyce's, I guess I disagree with both of you. Jesus himself said to baptize in the name of THE FATHER, THE SON, and THE HOLY GHOST.

You interpretation, I'm sorry to say, sounds so very similar to the New Age concept of "body, soul, and spirit . . ."


Thanks for your additional information.

You are absolutely correct in saying that Planned Parenthood is heavily funded by the Rockefeller foundation.




The Guttmacher Institute, which is a division of Planned Parenthood, has also been lavishly funded by the Rockefeller Foundation.


Here are some other links for anyone who might be interested.

Planned Parenthood's Guttmacher Institute Getting Desperate
Latest report Grossly exaggerates number of abortions in U.S. before Roe

Planned Parenthood's Guttmacher Institute Said to Play "fast and loose" With Abortion Stats

Alan Guttmacher Institute Attacks Research Showing Pro-Life Laws Work
Here is an article from Drudge-



Google plans to make PCs historyIndustry critics warn of danger in giving internet leader more power

In essence, it talks about the GDrive, and "cloud computing", where you merely access all your files at the Google website, and so you don't really have control over your stored stuff. If you ask me, it sounds like webtv, only with more bite.
Rudi said: I can't get away from wondering how these advances have replaced “faith in God” with “faith in God - by way of man.” You said it perfectly. But we have to remember that if we evolved then solutions will evolve with us. If evolution is not true and scripture is, then I’m afraid some of us will stand at a Great White Throne Judgment. “Cursed is he that trusts in the arm of flesh.”
I think the tenor of Constance’s blog has greatly improved. There are lots of new ‘faces’ and differing views. Good stuff too, YesNaSpanishTown (Terri), Rose, Bro. Jason Parker and others have added greatly to what has been important information. Long time posters have continued the hard work, while people have with CLASS, like Mac, have slipped information to us from down under. Haven’t heard from ‘Child of God' for a long time, but God bless you where ever you are.
A cultural wake up call: I’m not recommending that anyone see this, but if you want to see what an ever growing segment of our culture thinks of Jesus who loved us and gave Himself for us then you might take note of this, R rated and all. I saw a different presentation, which is what caught my attention earlier today. What was so disheartening was all the approving laughter.
Re: "A cultural wake up call:"
Another reality check as to the times we're living in. Mr. Lynch, might be wise to stay in next time there is a thunderstorm. -Rudi

"And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of." How true.
Dear Constance,

Thank you so very much for takeing the time to research my question. I thought I was just going paranoid. I feel it is very dangerous for Christians to have the attitude that we are untouchable. Although, I was hopeing that I was wrong.
Exactly. That is why God had the children of Ancient Israel rest in dependance on Him the seventh day. Remember, if they collected too much mannah, it would spoil. They had to collect just enough for their consumption on the sixth day so that they would rest on the Seventh and learn to rely on Him.

God deliberately put Ancient Israel in the Wilderness ( the midbar, which means a place of hearing) so that they could learn these lessons BEFORE going into the Promised Land. There are those who suggest the Tribulation period will be a bit like that. We'll have to be listening and trusting for our daily provision...spiritually and physically speaking because God uses metaphor in the Bible to teach us about Himself. Yeshua is the bread of life, not because we literally eat Him, but because we need to "ingest" all who He is and all that He has done to sustain us and keep us until HIs return. The Bible uses many things like this. We are to "sow His Word"..

Are we going to trust God to bring us into the Promised Land. If the testing of our faith is more precious than gold, you can bet that in the days ahead our faith will be tested.

Those that are relying on themselves will not understand what it means to be "in the place of hearing" or "under hearing" as the Bible calls it.

Are we going to believe God at His Word, when everything is falling apart. For those who think they will not experience the would be wise to prepare, in case they're wrong. The only way I can think to prepare for the Tribulation, is really learning to hear God's voice, knowing that He doesn't change and that in the same way He led the Israelites out of Egypt and into the Promised Land, He will lead us if we listen. We must all "cross over" and there were two crossings in the Bible, one out of Egypt, and one into the Promised Land. We have to leave and we must enter. Leaving is when God delivered us by His strong right arm..Entering is learning to walk in dependence on Him.

If we can begin to see these patterns in Scripture, it will help us in the days ahead.

Now many did not make it into the Promised Land. A whole generation perished in the Wilderness for lack of faith, even though they had seen the signs and wonders when God delivered them from Egypt by His strong right hand.

In the same way, we who were formerly slaves to sin were once in "Egypt" and God will bring us to place of hearing... prior to bringing us into the Promised Land. Are we going to trust Him? or are we going to rely on the world system. The world system will provide us with some way of "buying and selling" which will ultimately enslave us to Pharaoh, the snake...Will we know that we must depend on God alone for our sustenance?

In speaking of the generation in the Wilderness Paul tells us several things very clearly. The generation in the desert was "eating the bread of life" ( not literally Yeshua's body, but metaphorically.) and they were getting Living Water from the Rock:

1Cor. 10:3-4 and all aate the same spiritual food and all adrank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock which followed them; and the Rock was Christ.

....but they didn't make it in. They died in the Wilderness and perished. I'm not very hopeful for the generation that perished in the Wilderness. Only Joshua and Caleb, made it in with the new generation who had never seen Egypt. They were born in the Wilderness.

Israel kept saying they were better off under Pharaoh eating garlic and leeks..even though their dead babies were in the Nile.. We have dead babies in the NIle too...It's called abortion, and Pharaoh is still killing the babies and yet people that claim to believe in the Bible have voted for and supported Obama.. If anyone doesn't think God will judge them for that, think again.

1Cor. 10:11 Now these things happened to them as an example, and they were written for our instruction, upon whom cthe ends of the ages have come.


Because Williamson has been mentioned on this blog, I thought I might contribute to everyone's understanding of what has been going on in Roman Catholicism by providing the following information on Williamson.

Except for my belief that the Catholic Sacraments depend upon Christ Who instituted them, I,personally, wouldn't give creatures like Williamson the time of day.

The following Wikipedia article squares with the other articles I have read on the lifting of the SSPX excommunications and on the Williamson case in particular.

Williamson was born in England, the second of three boys to Anglican parents.

He attended Winchester College. After taking a degree in literature at the University of Cambridge, he taught at a college in Ghana.

During this time he was greatly influenced by Malcolm Muggeridge and many believe this started his process of conversion to Catholicism.

During his time in Africa, Williamson met with an elderly Albert Schweitzer in Gabon.

In 1971 Williamson was received into the Roman Catholic Church by Father John Flanagan, an Irish missionary priest working in England.

After some time as a novice at the London Oratory, Williamson entered the International Seminary of St. Pius X at Ecône in Switzerland. In 1976 he was ordained a priest by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.

Williamson's first appointment was as a professor at the German seminary of the Society in Weissbad, and after two years he was named at the St. Pius X International Seminary in Ecône, Switzerland.

In 1983 he was transferred to St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary in Ridgefield, Connecticut. Within a short time he was appointed rector of the seminary which moved to Winona, Minnesota in 1988.

In June 1988 Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre announced his intention to consecrate Williamson and three other priests as bishops.

Lefebvre did not have a pontifical mandate for these consecrations (i.e. permission from the pope), normally required by Canon 1382 of the Code of Canon Law.

On June 17, 1988 Cardinal Bernardin Gantin, Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops sent Williamson a formal canonical warning that he would automatically incur the penalty of excommunication if he were ordained by Lefebvre without papal permission.

On June 30, 1988 Williamson and the three other priests were consecrated bishop by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. On July 1, 1988 Cardinal Gantin issued a declaration stating that Lefebvre, Williamson, and the three other newly-ordained bishops "have incurred ipso facto excommunication latae sententiae reserved to the Apostolic See".

On July 2, 1988, Pope John Paul II issued the apostolic letter Ecclesia Dei in which he reaffirmed the excommunication, and described the consecration as an act of "disobedience to the Roman pontiff in a very grave matter and of supreme importance for the unity of the church", and that "such disobedience - which implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy - constitutes a schismatic act." Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos, head of the commission responsible for implementing Ecclesia Dei, has said this resulted in a "situation of separation, even if it was not a formal schism."

Williamson and his supporters deny the validity of the excommunication, saying that the consecrations were necessary due to a moral and theological crisis in the Catholic Church.

In response to a request made by Bishop Fellay, the excommunication was remitted on January 21, 2009 (Protocol Number 126/2009) by the Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops through the power expressly granted to him by Pope Benedict XVI.

Williamson remained, like the other clergy of the Society, suspended a divinis.

After voicing his views on the Holocaust (see below) in an interview with Swedish television conducted in November 2008 and aired in January 2009, highlighted prior to the broadcast by Der Spiegel Williamson has generated widespread protests and risks prosecution in Germany, where the interview was conducted and where Holocaust denial is illegal and usually punished by imprisonment up to 5 years.

SSPX Bishop Bernard Fellay responded to the controversy by saying that the discussed controversial matters were purely secular, that Williamson was responsible for his own personal comments and that it did not concern the whole of the SSPX, which is exclusively dedicated to the restoration of traditional Roman Catholic doctrine and discipline. Both the Catholic Church of Sweden as well as the District Superior of the SSPX in Sweden and Germany have distanced themselves from anti-semitism and racism.

By a decree of 21 January 2009 (Protocol Number 126/2009), which was issued in response to a renewed request that Bishop Fellay made on behalf of all four bishops whom Lefebvre had consecrated on 30 June 1988, the Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops, by the power expressly granted to him by Pope Benedict XVI, remitted the automatic excommunication that they had thereby incurred, and expressed the wish that this would be followed speedily by full communion of the whole of the Society of Saint Pius X with the Church, thus bearing witness, by the proof of visible unity, to true loyalty and true recognition of the Pope's Magisterium and authority.

The canonical situation of the four bishops thus became the same as that of the other clergy of the Society, who are suspended a divinis.

Abraham Foxman, president of the Anti-Defamation League, wrote to Cardinal Walter Kasper in order to express his opposition to any eventual ecclesial re-integration of Bishop Williamson.

When the excommunication of the four SSPX bishops was lifted nonetheless, Vatican spokesman, Rev. Federico Lombardi, commented that Williamson's views had no impact on the decision. Monsignor Robert Wister, professor of church history, opined that Williamson's comments may be "offensive and erroneous" but "not a heresy" and "not an excommunicable offense", calling Williamson "not a heretic, but ... a liar".

Constance and Silvia,

The way I try to handle Scripture is only saying what it says about itself. The concept of God being echad and yet presenting Himself as Father, Son, Spirit and still be one is something that cannot easily be explained. What I don't want to do is add to Scripture by defining what this is i.e. If God says He is echad, that is good enough for me. If I add man made concepts to explain echad I have done more than God has. Why didn't He just describe Himself this way? I suspect He has a reason. HE said "I will be what I will be".

The Muslims and the Jews and others think that Christians serve 3 gods.. The truth is that no one can really explain God so easily.

I don't want to separate God from His Word or His breath, even if that Word happens to manifest in the flesh, it was with God and was God in the beginning. Now if someone can honestly tell me they really understand this, I'll call them a liar.

My objection to trinity is that we put a man made description on God four hundred years after the fact, to explain Him in our human terms. I think this limits our ability to really hear what He says about Himself in the texts of Scripture.

My other objection is to a Jew who has been given the shema, from their childhood, it discredits anything and everything we have to say because it is contradictory. If God says He's one, that's absolutely good enough for me. I want to know Him as He has revealed Himself. By not making this artificial separation in my mind, I see God as completely united.. as echad.

We should never contradict the Word of God.

Some people over the centuries feel the need to put a doctrine on to explain what they think they see going on in the Bible and in doing so, they don't allow the Word of God to speak for itself.

I don't like to superimpose doctrines over Scripture, but rather let the Word speak for itself.

Big Brother is Watching Us and Trying to Force Oneness In Everything.

I was thinking about these different yet similar topics:

Google and how they are giving our search data to the government under the guise of helping the CDC.

Google is heading to make PCs a thing of the past by giving us storage on their “cloud” like we now do with photos, email..etc..We would just use an easy portal device that would give us access to all of our data held on their servers, causing us to have no privacy.

Google searches every email you send out for key words to use in marketing on the banner ads on you email account site…Your email is being read.

Kindle from Amazon, a great little tool to download books cheaper, quicker and it is handy…. But with Kindle what you read is stored with “them” including all information like: what books you bought, what you highlight in the book and even what page you are on. Very personal information we are willing to just let them have.

Obama wants Medical records centrally computerized.

Sharing of Wealth…..including with the World.

The list goes on and on.

I have noticed a lot of new age followers saying on book reviews…”this should be mandatory reading”. Truth is stranger than fiction you can’t even make up! A tool like Kindle could be used to make sure we read the official documents to teach us “their ways” Libraries are becoming unnecessary. Books at home will be unnecessary. Controlled data will take the place of free access to information. By using our desire to make life easier they guide us to ways in which they can control us easier.

All these things take away our liberty and freedom and individuality. Turning us in to little new age drones.

By accident in a past thread I said a pun. I was talking about the interconnectedness of the new world servers…..referring to Theosophy’s definition. Someone witty here asked if it was a joke about computers. It did have a great double meaning. The interconnectedness of the world servers…. either kind has the enemy working through to bring forth his agenda.

Everything will be “One” including all of our computers, personal information, governments, etc. They will make us “One”. All their propaganda declaring our “Oneness” and telling us separation is the only sin…really fits All areas of their Agenda, not just in a spiritual concept. Have you noticed the word “family” being used? It is getting common now to use that in reference to the followers of the new age. They are after a spiritual, political, human, world, technological, environmental oneness. Most people are embracing it as good “change”.

What is fascinating about the new age is they scream freedom only to immediately conform. It is just like the hippies that were non-conformists…but did they not listen to the same music, say the same ideas and dress and act the same…The difference is they won’t conform to morals or rules by a God, but they happily conform there lives in every other way and if you don’t you are evil. So much for freedom and individuality. It dies with them. Yet that is there platform….. the father of all lies…appears as an Angel of Light only to ensnare the willing and bind them by his chains.

I have a question.. From your perspective do you think it was a mistake for the Pope to reverse their "excommunication"?

Judging from your comment I would say the answer is yes, but I don't want to put words in your mouth.

We must always look at scripture as a whole, not just a few verses to fit what we believe.The Father, The Son,and The Holy Spirit is three persons in one Godhead. This is what scripture tells us.... no exceptions.
That site you posted is very interesting and deserves some more looking at. I just want to point to this ecumenic Evolution Sunday, business and a statement which is made about Scripture, which can downgrade it to "myth". Karen Armstrong is the master of this. If Scripture is only trying to "convey timeless truths" but isn't literal that leaves lots of wiggle room and why not look at someone else's "traditions" that communicate the same timeless truths? This is what Karen does with her books, thus downgrading Scripture to myth that existed at the same time as the Biblical accounts.. She tries to create false oneness by linking everything together and showing how there are pagan parallels to the Biblical stories.

If the "faiths" can agree on evolution and discredit a literal creation story, as it was written, then what else is thrown into question? I would say just about everything.

The attack on the Word, who spoke the creation into being, and dwelled among us in the flesh and is the Creator God Himself.. The Word was with God and the Word WAS God.. ( John 1) is how ground is being made in many churches, denominations etc to cast doubt on God. As Satan said to Eve in the Garden "did God really say?".... nothing new under the sun. This is why I am so insistent on the Word of God.

This is the first time to read Constance's faith in our system and strict belief in Obama's legitimacy. This truly concerns me! It is not only Berg, many suits were filed and one by one refused to be heard by the Supreme Court. (as of Nov 17 in 12 states weer filed, including Mr Alan Keyes. (Go to WND for just some, or

It is Obama who sealed and refuses to reveal his original BC to set the question straight. In WA, the claim was that because the democratic party found him qualified the suit was dropped, though the Constitution and WA st law requires a US citizen. This is a constitutional issue which shocks me that Constance, a lawyer, uses 'reason', over LAW to support her faith that he is the real deal...the electoral college only votes on what is placed before them, the con was that an ineligible (and unwilling to prove eligiblilty) man was allowed to run and win the presidency, and now sits as the president.

Obama (I actually believe was sired by his mentor, Frank Marshall Davis- a communist) but was adopted by his father and was a Muslim Indonesian citizen.

Constance is either purposely blind or unwilling to look at the cases and weigh the question, and vilify anyone who does question.
This may be normal from those who feel he will save them and pay their mortgages, but not a lawyer, book writer, and one who I though weighed facts....I am utterly appalled, and will be wary from now on reading your stuff.

I thought you were a very straight shooter, I see now, you too, are also manipulated by the dialectic and pragmatism. More afraid of riots when it is disclosed he is ineligible for office than for following the LAW.

Even though I profoundly disagree with you on other religious matters, I have to say in good conscience that given the fact that Williamson is a "loose canon" - even among his fellow SSPX confreres - Williamson's anti-Semitic holocaust historical revisionism seriously needs to be addressed by the Catholic Church at some point......and since I DO agree with the article you posted in terms of Willamson's opinions being TOTALLY DESPICABLE albeit his own personal opinions, I would have to answer you YES....whether knowingly or not, Williamson is a LIAR....and IMHO - secularist or not - his excommunication should have been CONDITIONED upon his recanting his anti-Semitic views with regard to the Holocaust.
Please IMMEDIATELY watch this video. It is a fascinating perspective on Barack Obama's role in the New World Order:


If you are going to rely on the Jewish law and ordinances to be saved, you'd better keep the WHOLE THING -- even the apostles confessed they could not do that!

Read Acts 15 with understanding! The gentile believers were counseled to refrain from blood and fornication -- apart from that, they would put no other burdens of the Jewish law upon them.

To anonymous 2:35

What a surprise -- as a lawyer I believe in following the Constitution of the USA. I can't find MY original birth certificate. Obama has certainly released a birth certificate, but people don't seem to be satisfied with it.

The USA Supreme Court which certainly is not, at least yet, Obama dominated turned down appeals from the Hillary Clinton challenges to Obama's citizenship.

Do I stand by the Constitution of the United States. Yes. Do I stand by the Bible. Yes.

Why don't you have the courage to post your name? Mine is hanging out there!

I agree with Joyce on the evolution issues.

Gordon Brown just addressed the nation:

"We could view the threats and challenges we face today as the difficult birth-pangs of a new global order - and our task now as nothing less than making the transition through a new internationalism to the benefits of an expanding global society - not muddling through as pessimists but making the necessary adjustment to a better future and setting the new rules for this new global order."
Oh my, Gordon Brown just used the words: "ORDER OUT OF CHAOS"
Constance said:

"I've been attacked by Catholics for being allegedly biased against them and now by you and friends for being too friendly to Orthodox and Catholics."

Constance, it wasn't meant as an attack, just a question. I'm sorry you feel that way. At least now i know where you stand and that your bible basicly contains only one sentence : BELIEVE ON THE LORD JESUS CHRIST AND THOU SHALT BE SAVED. Tiptoeing on treacherous ground.

Joyce said:

"The concept of God being echad and yet presenting Himself as Father, Son, Spirit and still be one is something that cannot easily be explained."


"difficult birth-pangs of a new global order" The occults always use this term. what do you think of this on Constance? sounnd familar?


I think you will get a kick out of this one. You know are dear friend Kevin Ryerson Shirley MacLaine’s trance channel.

Return of the Revolutionaries

They are claiming the Revolutionaries of the Founding of America have come back through reincarnation as Neale Donald Walsh, Marianne Williamson and others….

Marianne is Abigal Jackson Andrew Jackson wife…
John Hagelin is James Otis
Neale Donald Walsh is Reverend William Walter he was a minister known to James Otis and John and Abigail Adams,

A little light comical reading for this morning….or until people really start lapping this up and all of the sudden Marianne and Neale, John Hagelin are asked to clear up what the constitution really meant because they were really there!

I am so glad they can clear everything up for us……Not
Just some comic relief

WOW!!! This in on Drudge...

According to Pelosi, birth control will "help the economy".

Troubling times we are in.....
I'm wondering if you really read my post. I NEVER said you have to rely on "keeping Torah" to be saved. We are saved, by the strong right arm of God, just like the Israelites were from Egypt.. i.e by Yeshua.

AFTER we are saved, we naturally want to obey God, since the New or Newer Covenant is that Torah is put on our heart. Acts 15 talks about what the new gentile believers should do for "initial fellowship" i.e. eat biblically kosher ( no blood, no strangled animals, no animals sacrificed to idols) and stay away from sexual immorality because....

Now read this verse carefully and tell me why you think James ( Yacov) threw it in there..

Acts 15:20 but that we write to them that they abstain from 1athings contaminated by idols and from bfornication and from cwhat is strangled and from blood.
*******Acts 15:21 “For aMoses from ancient generations has in every city those who preach him, since 1he is read in the synagogues every Sabbath.” *********


Let me translate into modern English. There's a new believer...Do you explain to him or her the whole Bible at once? NO, but if they are involved in blatant sexual sin or doing things that would make it impossible to fellowship then you would deal with the big stuff up front....and after they would go to a congregation and learn the rest of Scripture.. .

At that time James expectation was that the new believers would learn Moses.. Paul did not argue the point with him.

The issue was did they have to be circumcised to be included in the community i.e. circumcision was seen by the Jews of the Second Temple period as a right of a gateway to salvation.

We need to be more observant of these details in the Scriptures when we explain a passage like Acts 15.

Imagine Oprah Winfrey in the Senate seat vacated by Obama! That is what Blagojevich considered.

PTL! that didn't succeed. Now that the issue has been raised let us hope and pray that door to a political career is not opened to Oprah. I'm sure it wouldn't take much to encourage her.

YesNaSpanishTown, when I read the Blago/Oprah story I thought it was a joke.... Seriously, let's pray that she does not find a way to get in to politics.
If Constance had perfect vision, she wouldn't need any of us. As it is, she's open to hearing all our perspectives, limited as they are, which I think is what makes this blog page so special. Put it all together and this blogspot is a real eye opener, aka spiritual dynamite.

That said, my focus, (like some other's here), is on the occult meaning behind the public face of political concepts and actions, and the visual signs of pagan indoctrination/structure popping up all around us.

Please consider:

The “three pillars” terminology is highly symbolic, and I think it will rise to even more prominence in the days ahead. "Three pillars" played a prominent symbolic role in many ancient cultures, and has significant meaning in occult ritualism today.

We’ve recently heard “three pillars” mentioned as a theme in recent political speeches.

The structure of the European Union itself is based on “three pillars”:

· The Community pillar, corresponding to the three Communities: the European Community, the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom) and the former European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) (first pillar);

· The pillar devoted to the common foreign and security policy, which comes under Title V of the EU Treaty (second pillar);

· The pillar devoted to police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters, which comes under Title VI of the EU Treaty (third pillar).

In the opening acknowledgement of her book: The Intergovernmental Pillars of the European Union, [Pub. Date: 11/26/2002 Publisher(s): Oxford University Press, USA] author Eileen Denza refers to the EU’s pillars as the foundation of the “temple”.

[Eileen Denza is a former Legal Councillor to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. She was the legal advisor to the UK representation to the European Community from 1980 to 1983, and was Council to the EC Committee in the House of Lords from 1987 to 1995.]

”The Three Pillars system of the European Union was intended to give flexibility to, and ultimately to extend the area over which the EU could exert its influence. Each of the pillars reflects a different level of integration and centralization, with the result that although the EU can't legislate in all areas, it can still have input into the more politically sensitive and complex policy areas.”

Last week, after assuming the post of US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton claimed that “There are three legs to the stool of American foreign policy: defense, diplomacy, and development.”

Consider that in Freemasonry, every entry level apprentice is taught the “three pillars” of “Wisdom, Strength, and Beauty”, however there is much about the three pillars symbology that is left unsaid.

Looking a little deeper behind the Masonic meaning we find some interesting NA/occult connections….

From the Masonic dictionary website:

“The three-pillar-group, in every ancient mystery or religious system where it occurred as such, was the presentation, symbolically, of a triad. Therefore, a consideration of the Three Pillars of the Lodge brings before the student, for his contemplation, the curious fact that nearly every mystery practiced by the ancient peoples of the world contained its reference, and that an important reference, to a triad. In the mysteries of India the triad was Brahma, Vishnu, Siva; in the Grecian Mysteries the triad was Jupiter, Neptune, Pluto; in the Persian, Ormazad, Mithra, Mithras; in the Gothic, Woden, Friga, Thor; in the Mexican, Tloquenahuaque, Huitzilopochtli, Mictlanteuctli; and so on through the various systems practiced by the ancients.”

“…one realizes at the outset that the conception of a symbolic group of three pillars is not by any means one confined exclusively to Masonry; in not a few of the ancient mysteries and religious systems some symbolic meaning was assigned to a group comprised of three pillars.”

“The symbolistic conception of three grouped pillars was contained in the Druidical Mysteries.”

“The Three Supporting Pillars of the Lodge are, considered as a group, the symbol of Him Whose Wisdom contrived the World, Whose Strength supports the World, Whose Beauty adorns the World-- Deity.”

In Islam during the Hajj, in a pagan ritual that predates Mohammed, pilgrims cast stones at “three pillars” which, interestingly enough, represent the devil. (I am reminded of Christ's admonition against casting stones…. "If there be one among you who is without sin, let him be the first to cast a stone".)

The emerging global ‘governance/religion/authority’ is based on a conceptual ‘three pillar” structure. It will look and sound quite benevolent in order to be widely accepted. But just like the original tower of Babel, it is built without a sure foundation.
Iceland says coalition government has collapsed--Global financial crisis sparked problems; prime minister to resign

Who will help them? Do any of us have a guess who that will be....?

Glad to hear we can agree on some things, once in a while...

Thanks for your answer.

That brings up one very important point then about the Pope...Is he really infallible? That's a rhetorical question. I'm outraged that he would make a statement that is such a slap in the face to survivors and families of survivors..

How can the man who is supposed to be the spiritual leader of the Catholic Church look upon lying about something as important as the Shoah, as insignificant, especially as you rightly pointed out... when the man did not repent. It seems to me that people who are in positions of spiritual responsibility should be above and beyond this kind of behavior..

It's especially troubling to me as a Jew who lost many family members in the Shoah, that the Pope used the occasion of the week of the celebration of the liberation of Auschwitz which is celebrated all over, to make such a decision. I have several dear friends that lost their entire family in Auschwitz and they are some of the nicest people I have ever met. It grieves me to see the memories of their family members and their own suffering be made a mockery of.

One has to wonder what kind of statement he was making.. The Pope is many things, but stupid is not one of them, so I find it difficult to believe that he was unaware of the timing and implications of his decision, especially given the incredible rise in anti-semitism in Europe on the heels of the Gaza war. People, synagogues and stores that have no connection to Gaza have been attacked by angry Arab crowds in Europe.

Just as he made the very strategic remarks a few years back about Mohamed, in Germany, I believe the Pope well understood the implications of the important timing of this decision.

Not blaming you for this. Obviously as a Catholic, you are on the right side of this issue, which is comforting. I would have been worried if you went along with that. All that to say, I don't hold you responsible for the decisions that the leadership of the Catholic Church make.

....but actions like this do not endear the Pope to me at all, in fact it confirms my suspicions about him...


And I would add to what I said before, I don't feel the need to explain it. I am very okay with the fact that some things about God are just beyond our total comprehension and don't feel the need to explain any more than God has explained Himself. I'm very comfortable not adding to what God says about Himself. People sometimes act like your a heretic if you deny the trinity, meanwhile the Bible itself does not speak of a trinity.

Could it be that by having this concept of trinity, we are putting "another face on God" a face that He in fact did not give us?

From Drudge-



The Wall St Journal runs an artilce about Davos in Switzerland where all the big cheese go to discuss money, and this year's take on what will be discussed. I think it bears reading, even if you (like I) don't have a great grasp of economics.
Old Man of the ski,

Thank you for very insightful explanation of the 3 pillars.. Makes Rick Warren's "three-legged stool" even more interesting to say the least.


p.s In spite of the many imperfections of the format of the blog, I think there's lots of interesting stuff to be gleaned from it.... It draws a diverse group which is what makes it a little difficult at times.

As the situation stands right now. The Lifting of the ex-communication on the SSPX does not mean they will be re-instated. They still remain in a state of separation and not in union with Rome. It simply means that it's not longer heretical for them to celebrate Mass or the sacraments, the same way that it;s not for the Orthodox's.

They will have to work at proving themselves and get in line with the teachings of the Catholic Church if they want union.

As for Bishop Williamson , I agree with Susanna, he;s a real problem and the SSPX will have to take steps to distance themselves from him. I predict a fallout between them anytime soon though.

I hope this explains things.


"Mama Sarah Obama has started her journey to the US to witness the swearing-in of her grandson Barack Obama as the 44th American President.

And she is not travelling empty-handed. As a grandmother, she is carrying special gifts for her grandson — a Luo traditional three-legged stool, a flywhisk and a shield, which are symbols of leadership. "I wanted to give him a spear too, but I have been told that due to security reasons, I will not be allowed to board a plane with it," Mama Sarah told The Standard. "

Maybe this is what was being referenced?

I appreciate your attempt to clarify, but I think the damage is done, at least as far as the Jews are concerned.

Again, I'll repeat that the Pope is not a stupid man and knows exactly how this would be interpreted.


Re:your comment

That brings up one very important point then about the Pope...Is he really infallible? That's a rhetorical question.

Of course, I am well aware that you and other non-Catholic Christians do not agree with the dogma of papal infallibility, and I certainly do respect your choice(s) even though I do not agree with it.

If, as a Roman Catholic, I believe that the Pope really IS infallible, it is because I believe that by the action of the Holy Spirit, the Pope is preserved from even the possibility of error when he solemnly declares or promulgates to the Church a dogmatic teaching on faith or morals as being contained in divine revelation, or at least being intimately connected to divine revelation. In other words, it is something that the Holy Spirit PREVENTS the pope from doing....namely, formally teaching error.

When the Pope (1) intends to teach (2) by virtue of his supreme authority (3) on a matter of faith and morals (4) to the whole Church, he is preserved by the Holy Spirit from error. His teaching act is therefore called "infallible" and the teaching which he articulates is termed "irreformable".

The infallible teachings of the pope must be based on, or at least not contradict, Sacred Tradition or Sacred Scripture.

Papal infallibility does not signify that the pope is impeccable, (i.e. that he is specially exempt from being able to sin.)

There have been plenty of "black popes" in the history of the Catholic Church who have demonstrated that papal infallibility does not depend upon the personal sanctity of any pope. It depends on Christ and on the Holy Spirit.

Papal infallibility also doesn't signify that the pope is infallible when discussing things like politics, history or merely expressing a private opinion about something.

Catholics believe, moreover, that the following Scriptural passages support the Pope's infallibility:

John 1:42,
Mark 3:16
Matthew 16:18
Matthew 7:24-28,

John 21:15-17 ("Feed my lambs."/"Feed my sheep.") (stated three times)

Luke 10:16 ("He that heareth you, heareth me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me; and he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me.")

Luke 22:31-32 ("confirm thy brethren")

Acts 15:28 ("For it hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us, ...") ("the Apostles speak with voice of Holy Ghost")

Matthew 10:2 ("And the names of the twelve apostles are these: The first, Simon who is called Peter,...") (Peter is first.)

Matthew 16:19 ("whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven") (Also used to defend the sacrament of Confession)

Catholic theologian and Medievalist Dr. Ludwig Ott also points out many passages in Scripture which indicate that Peter was given a primary role with respect to the other Apostles:

Mark 5:37,
Matthew 17:1,
Matthew 26:37,
Luke 5:3,
Matthew 17:27,
Luke 22:32,
Luke 24:34,
1 Corinthians 15:5 (Fund., Bk. IV, Pt. 2, Ch. 2, §5).

Again, this is a Roman Catholic belief, and if people disagree with it, I respect that.

But I also think that people should at least make sure they understand what it is that they are disagreeing with.
Hi Savvy,

Actually, Bishop Fellay who is presently the leader of the SSPX has already distanced himself and the SSPX from Williamson's hateful ignorant comments.

It wouldn't surprise me to learn that soon Bishop Williamson will be "invited" by Church authorities to tender his "401.2 resignation" -with special emphasis on the ".2" which under Canon Law translates to mean "unsuited for the fulfilment of his office".

While Williamson remained excommunicated, he could simply thumb his nose at the Pope and those cardinals who will now be among his religious superiors. It won't be so easy for him to do that now.

Indeed, Pope Benedict is definitely NOT a stupid man.
Joyce drew our attention to The Clergy Letter Project, thank you Joyce. A as I see it this is one more HUGE outreach mechanism i.e. “strand/bridge of, and thereby “networked” with ALL of the “evolutionary spirituality”, “evolutionary consciousness”, New Age global web.

This particular segment is “religious” in design as the signers of the letter are“spiritual” leaders from “Christian clergy”
(11,812 signatures as of 1/26/09) Rabbis from various branches of Judaism
(432 signatures as of1/26/09), and Unitarian Universalists
(126 signatures as of 1/26/09).

The “resources – written and/or recommended by Clergy Project members” is the evidence, in my view, that directly connects the signers to the more recognizable “change agents” working within the greater New Age Hierarchy. One on the list, I easily recognize is ‘The Great Story’.
The leadership of ‘The Great Story’ is Michael Dowd and Connie Barlow who, “embody the marriage of religion and science as husband and wife.” The “portal” they, along with other “New Thought” leaders have entered main stream American politics is through the environmental, and Climate change issues .Praise for their work comes from “science and spiritual” leaders such as Barbara Marx Hubbard, Duane Elgin, and Thomas Berry. They themselves highly recommend resources such as Global Mindshift, What Is Enlightenment? Magazine, Andrew Cohen, Pan Magazine - The quarterly magazine of World Pantheism, Elisabet Sahtouris , Barbara Marx Hubbard Center for Conscious Evolution and everything in between. These facts alone should leave no doubt as to the, not so well disguised, roots of The Clergy Letter Project as well as it’s clear comradeship with The Darwin Project which Dorothy told us about a few month’s back. Thanks again, Dorothy. -Rudi
SSPX membership is estimated at 300,000 in Europe. The SSPX movement has flourished under excommunication of its "bishops" who grow more radically right wing and virulently anti Vatican II, anti pope, and anti semetic. Who can rein them in? Only the pope. If Benedict can attract large portions of the membership back into the Church, the SSPX will weaken. The pope took a first step by increasing accessibility to the Tridentine rite. The lifting of the excommunication beakons the members back. The SSPX bishops are another matter because they are not diocesan lack ordination by papal authorization. The pope will succeed here as the SSPX leadership is weakened. Hang on to your false mitre, Williamson. Benedict has outfoxed you.
This article from the Guardian.CO.UK:
"Barack Obama gave the go-ahead for his first military action yesterday, missile strikes against suspected militants in Pakistan which killed at least 18 people."

"Four days after assuming the presidency, he was consulted by US commanders before they launched the two attacks. Although Obama has abandoned many of the "war on terror" policies of George Bush while he was president, he is not retreating from the hunt for Osama bin Laden and other al-Qaida leaders."

"The US missiles were fired by unmanned Predator drones, which hang in the sky gathering intelligence through surveillance and, when commanded and directed by remote control, to launch attacks."

"The strikes will help Obama portray himself as a leader who, though ready to shift the balance of American power towards diplomacy, is not afraid of military action."


Check out this article on today's

Obama snubs vets, skips Heroes ball
Becomes 1st new president to miss inauguration event

I use the word "trinity" because it seems like a logical reference to The Father, The Son and the Holy Ghost. 1.God, 2.Son, 3.Holy Ghost. I can count ;-) All three communicate throughout scripture.

I don't know what to make of this and i don't want to make anything out of this because it is not given to us yet to fully understand/comprehend this.

What i do know is God is one so these three are one. One hint He has given us is that we are made in His Image.

As for putting "another face on God" by referring to The Father, Son and Holy Ghost as trinity, i don't think so. They are three and they are in unity as One. When a couple marries they will become 1 flesh (echad) 2 persons but 1 flesh.


Joyce wrote: "Lerner was connected to Synagogue 3000 which was set up by Rick Warren."

I don't recall. What is your source for this assertion?

As I see that project it is a loosely knit network of synagogues and churches that provides multifaceted activities dealing with localized learning. The activities themselves are run by local institutions; some of these being churches and others synagogues of various outlooks and denominations.

Each group speaks for itself.

More on “three pillars’…

In doing a search on “three pillars”, one finds them just about everywhere. In addition to my earlier post, there are also “three pillars” referenced in Kabbalah, (Jewish mysticism), as well as obvious implications in regards to the Christian concept of the “trinity”.

The Encyclopedia Judaica explains these three “supernal lights” this way:

“…above all emanated powers, there exist in "the root of all roots" three hidden lights which have no beginning, "for they are the name and essence of the root of all roots... It is stressed that these three lights constitute one essence and one root which is "infinitely hidden" (ne'lam ad le-ein sof) [literally: hidden until Eyn-Sof], forming a kind of kabbalistic trinity that precedes the emanation of the ten Sefirot.... In the terminology of the Kabbalah these three lights are called tzachtzachot (splendors)…Christians later found an allusion to their own doctrine of the trinity in this theory. (Article on Kabbalah p. 563)”

“These three lights/pillars form a t’lita (trinity) as described in the Zohar:”

“Thus are YHWH; ELOHEYNU; YHWH but one unity, three substantive beings which are one; and this is indicated by the voice which a person uses in reading the words, "Hear, O Israel," thereby comprehending with the understanding the most perfect unity of EYN SOF (the boundless one); because all three are read with one voice, which indicates a trinity [t'lita]. (The Zohar Vol. 2 p. 43)”

And the Jewish Encyclopedia says:

“The Cabala, on the other hand, especially the Zohar, its fundamental work, was far less hostile to the dogma of the Trinity, since by its speculations regarding the father, the son, and the spirit, it evolved a new trinity... (Vol. 12, p. 261)”

“These three pillars or three supernal lights are often identified by the names of the three highest Sefirot which head up each column (Keter (Crown), Chokmah (Wisdom), Binah (Understanding)).”

I certainly do not presume to know anything about Kabbalah, nor can I vouch for the accuracy of the references I cited above. I'm not studious enough, nor do I intend to take the time to differentiate between Madonna's brand of Kabbalah and the historic/Rabbinical.... But the point I'm trying to make is just how vital and universal the "three pillar' symbolic structure is to a multitude of cultures and religions down through the ages.

It should be no surprise then, that "three pillars" are being used to build the overarching globalist model. The statement, "As above, so below" takes on added meaning in light of our increased understanding of the "three pillar" construct.

That's my perspective anyway.

Sylvia wrote: "As for putting "another face on God" by referring to The Father, Son and Holy Ghost as trinity, i don't think so. They are three and they are in unity as One. When a couple marries they will become 1 flesh (echad) 2 persons but 1 flesh."

I respect your belief but please don't use a Hebrew word (echad: meaning one) to justify it without understanding the nuances of the word.

"Echad" is similar to the word "one" in that it can mean either a group (one couple) OR a single individual entity (one person).

Context is critical.

So to use the word to prove a group godhead is off the mark. You may provide other proofs but this should not be one of them.

The word "echad" is used by missionaries to prove the Trinity because it is a key word in the Jewish declaration of monotheisstic faith:

"Sh'ma Yisrael, Adonai Elohaynu, Adonai Echad." Meaning: "Listen Israel; the Lord is our God. The Lord is One."

That means, in a Jewish context, that God is neither a plurality, trinity or duality. Otherwise, why say it at all?

Peace and blessing,
Kenyan Parliament On
Obama's Birth There
From Devvy Kidd

This is the official web site of the Kenyan Parliament:
This is from a session November 5, 2008:
"Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, the President-elect, Mr. Obama, is a son of the soil of this country. Every other country in this continent is celebrating the Obama win. It is only proper and fitting that the country which he originates from should show the same excitement, pomp and colour. I, therefore, seek leave of the House that we adjourn to discuss the issue...."
"What I have in mind is the famous Kennedy airlifts of the 1960s when many Kenyans were, due the friendship with the then Government and the late Tom Joseph Mboya, given the opportunity to travel to the United States of America as a result of [The Vice-President and Minister for Home Affairs] which we now have an African American of Kenyan origin being President-elect. This is momentous. At 4.00 o'clock this morning, Senator Barrack Obama called me at midnight and told me: "Mr. Vice President, could you make sure you sort out this problem?" I want to assure him that the problem has since been sorted out...."
"Kenya is going to receive a lot of attention, but let it not be negative because we are the home of the President-Elect of the USA."
"Could we allow him to move a Motion for Adjournment so we could also continue the celebrations of having a Kenyan ruling the USA?"
"..than a time when the Great America has a President-elect who has his roots in the great Republic of Kenya."
There is discussion about Obama's "homecoming."
These records are somewhere on Orly's site 'cause I've seen them:
"Excerpts of Ca Assembly show Soetoro from Indonesia receiving foreign exchange student aid. Maybe AP should stop drinking Obama cool aid for a minute or two and start serious investigative reporting about him."

Bro. Parker said: "Will the Freedom Of Choice act take away our right to speake against abortion? I guess what I mean is, Will it be counted as hate speach?"

Worse than this; the act could be used to ban the Bible altogether because of its proscription of homosexuality.

It becomes a religious freedom issue that, in the name of freedom, removes freedom of speech.

I've been following the "God is One" comment thread and felt like I should quote an important verse that puts the concept of the Trinity into perspective a bit.

John 1:1-2 - In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God. Vs. 3 - All things were made by Him; without Him was not made any thing that was made.

John 1:14 - And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us, (and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

There are more examples of the God having three parts, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. But this is a very clear example of who Jesus was.
I was wondering why Obama is so bent on the homosexual and abortion agenda. I guess it comes down to this, Obama will use these items to persecute the church. I had posted this subject on my blog the other day and had a comment in disagreement. Also, at church some people did not agree with my sermon on the subject. I just wanted other opinions. Thanks to all.
Bro. Parker,

The Freedom of Choice would overturn all state laws concerning abortion, including parental notification laws, partial-birth abortion bans, state waiting periods, and bans on state funding of abortions. This would amount to hundreds of laws today. The legislation, which would legalize abortion-on-demand in all 50 states and U.S. territories, says that “this act applies to every Federal, State and local statute, ordinance, regulations, administrative order, decision, policy, practice, or other action enacted, adopted or implemented before, on, or after the date of enactment of this act.”

And it prohibits interference with reproductive health services, including abortion and "in the regulation or provision of benefits, facilities, services and information."

Faith based insitutions could be at risk, because they would be denied federal funding if they refuse to perform abortions.

On freedom of speech the following great article shows where new age pc is leading us though it about a lot more than speech:

The following copyrighted document is provided under Fair Use principles. Statement at end!

Wall St. Journal

How Modern Law Makes Us Powerless
The real barrier to Barack Obama's 'responsibility' era.


Calling for a "new era of responsibility" in his inaugural address, President Barack Obama reminded us that there are no limits to "what free men and women can achieve." Indeed. America achieved greatness as the can-do society. This is, after all, the country of Thomas Paine and barn raisings, of Grange halls and Google. Other countries shared, at least in part, our political freedoms, but America had something different -- a belief in the power of each individual. President Obama's clarion call of self-determination -- "Yes We Can" -- hearkens back to the core of our culture.

David KleinBut there's a threshold problem for our new president. Americans don't feel free to reach inside themselves and make a difference. The growth of litigation and regulation has injected a paralyzing uncertainty into everyday choices. All around us are warnings and legal risks. The modern credo is not "Yes We Can" but "No You Can't." Our sense of powerlessness is pervasive. Those who deal with the public are the most discouraged. Most doctors say they wouldn't advise their children to go into medicine. Government service is seen as a bureaucratic morass, not a noble calling. Make a difference? You can't even show basic human kindness for fear of legal action. Teachers across America are instructed never to put an arm around a crying child.

The idea of freedom as personal power got pushed aside in recent decades by a new idea of freedom -- where the focus is on the rights of whoever might disagree. Daily life in America has been transformed. Ordinary choices -- by teachers, doctors, officials, managers, even volunteers -- are paralyzed by legal self-consciousness. Did you check the rules? Who will be responsible if there's an accident? A pediatrician in North Carolina noted that "I don't deal with patients the same way any more. You wouldn't want to say something off the cuff that might be used against you."

Here we stand, facing the worst economy since the Great Depression, and Americans no longer feel free to do anything about it. We have lost the idea, at every level of social life, that people can grab hold of a problem and fix it. Defensiveness has swept across the country like a cold wave. We have become a culture of rule followers, trained to frame every solution in terms of existing law or possible legal risk. The person of responsibility is replaced by the person of caution. When in doubt, don't.

The Opinion Journal Widget
Download Opinion Journal's widget and link to the most important editorials and op-eds of the day from your blog or Web page.
All this law, we're told, is just the price of making sure society is in working order. But society is not working. Disorder disrupts learning all day long in many public schools -- the result in part, studies by NYU Professor Richard Arum found, of the rise of student rights. Health care is like a nervous breakdown in slow motion. Costs are out of control, yet the incentive for doctors is to order whatever tests the insurance will pay for. Taking risks is no longer the badge of courage, but reason enough to get sued. There's an epidemic of child obesity, but kids aren't allowed to take the normal risks of childhood. Broward County, Fla., has even banned running at recess.

The flaw, and the cure, lie in our conception of freedom. We think of freedom as political freedom. We're certainly free to live and work where we want, and to pull the lever in the ballot box. But freedom should also include the power of personal conviction and the authority to use your common sense. Analyzing the American character, Alexis de Tocqueville, considered "freedom less necessary in great things than in little ones. . . . Subjection in minor affairs does not drive men to resistance, but it crosses them at every turn, till they are led to sacrifice their own will. Thus their spirit is gradually broken and their character enervated."

This is not an ideological point. Freedom in daily choices is essential for practical reasons -- necessary for government officials and judges as well as for teachers, doctors and entrepreneurs. The new legal order doesn't honor the individuality of human accomplishment. People accomplish things by focusing on the goal, and letting their instincts, mainly subconscious, try to get them there. "Amazingly few people," management guru Peter Drucker observed, "know how they get things done." Most things happen, the philosopher Michael Polanyi wrote, through "the usual process of trial and error by which we feel our way to success." Thomas Edison put it this way: "Nothing that's any good works by itself. You got to make the damn thing work."

Modern law pulls the rug out from under all those human powers and substitutes instead a debilitating self-consciousness. Teachers lose their authority, Prof. Arum found, because the overhang of law causes "hesitation, doubt and weakening of conviction." Skyrocketing health-care costs are impossible to contain as long as doctors go through the day thinking about how they will defend themselves if a sick person sues.

The overlay of law on daily choices destroys the human instinct needed to get things done. Bureaucracy can't teach. Rules don't make things happen. Accomplishment is personal. Anyone who has felt the pride of a job well done knows this.

How do we restore Americans' freedom in daily choices? Freedom is notoriously malleable towards self-interest. "We all declare for liberty," Abraham Lincoln observed, "but in using the same word we do not all mean the same thing."

Freedom, however, is not just a shoving match. Freedom has a formal structure. It has two components:

1) Law sets boundaries that proscribe what we must do or can't do -- you must not steal, you must pay taxes.

2) Those same legal boundaries protect an open field of free choice in all other matters.

The forgotten idea is the second component -- that law must affirmatively define an area free from legal interference. Law must provide "frontiers, not artificially drawn," as philosopher Isaiah Berlin put it, "within which men should be inviolable."

This idea has been lost to our age. When advancing the cause of freedom, law today is all proscription and no protection. There are no boundaries, just a moving mudbank comprised of accumulating bureaucracy and whatever claims people unilaterally choose to assert. People wade through law all day long. Any disagreement in the workplace, any accident, any incidental touching of a child, any sick person who gets sicker, any bad grade in school -- you name it. Law has poured into daily life.

In Today's Opinion Journal


The Stimulus Time MachineStates of Distress


Information Age: Bad News Is Better Than No News
– L. Gordon CrovitzThe Americas: Drug Gangs Have Mexico on the Ropes
– Mary Anastasia O'Grady


Geithner Is Exactly Wrong on China Trade
– Bret SwansonWatch Out for Stimulus 'Leaks'
– George MelloanCongress Needs to Help the Economy Fast
– John Kerry and Kent ConradThe solution is not just to start paring back all the law -- that would take 10 lifetimes, like trying to prune the jungle. We need to abandon the idea that freedom is a legal maze, where each daily choice is like picking the right answer on a multiple-choice test. We need to set a new goal for law -- to define an open area of free choice. This requires judges and legislatures to affirmatively assert social norms of what's reasonable and what's not. "The first requirement of a sound body of law," Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. wrote, "is that it should correspond with the actual feelings and demands of the community."

The profile of authority structures needed to defend daily freedoms is not hard to imagine. Judges would aspire to keep lawsuits reasonable, understanding that what people sue for ends up defining the boundaries of free interaction. Schools would be run by the instincts and values of the humans in charge -- not by bureaucratic micromanagement -- and be held accountable for how they do. Government officials would have flexibility to meet public goals, also with accountability. Public choices would aspire to balance for the common good, not, generally, to appease someone's rights.

Reviving the can-do spirit that made America great requires a legal overhaul of historic dimension. We must scrape away decades of accumulated legal sediment and replace it with coherent legal goals and authority mechanisms, designed to affirmatively protect individual freedom in daily choices. "A little rebellion now and then is a good thing," Thomas Jefferson wrote to James Madison, "and as necessary in the political world as storms are in the physical . . . ." The goal is not to change our public goals. The goal is make it possible for free citizens to achieve them.

Mr. Howard, a lawyer, is chair of Common Good (, and author of the new book "Life Without Lawyers," published this month by W.W. Norton & Co.

Please add your comments to the Opinion Journal forum.

Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page A15
Copyright 2008 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. Distribution and use of this material are governed by our Subscriber Agreement and by copyright law. For non-personal use or to order multiple copies, please contact Dow Jones Reprints at 1-800-843-0008 or visit


This message contains copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I am making the material available for news reporting, criticism, comment, and teaching purposes in an effort to advance understanding of international, political, human rights, economic, democracy, social justice issues, etc. I believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material herein is distributed non-commercially, i.e., without profit, to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for educational and research purposes. For more information go to:

If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
I am kinda surprised that a blog site that is regarding the new age is discussing Trinity instead of the topic the blog is about. But since you guys are, I have a few questions.

In bible studies I learn just not to talk about this. I am confused when the bible scriptures say things like these in regards to the belief in Trinity.

Matthew 26
39”Going a little farther, he fell with his face to the ground and prayed, "My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will."

The two different wills makes me really think. How can the same being have different wills yet be the same being? I would think two separate wills would prove they are two separate beings? Yet with the same purpose, therefore being one in purpose as we read in John 17 in reference to Father, Jesus and the disciples.

John 17

“11 I will remain in the world no longer, but they are still in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name—the name you gave me—so that they may be one as we are one.”

They are one as we are one? Does that mean that Jesus and Father they are one in purpose and doctrine yet two beings with distinct roles? Because we are not one being with them.
18”As you sent me into the world, I have sent them into the world.”

Father sent Jesus as Jesus sent the disciples….does that mean Jesus is doing what His Father did and showing them what His Father taught Him? He says that early in the verses. It does not lessen Jesus being God of this Earth but does make him a separate being.

21 that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22 I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: 23 I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.

25 "Righteous Father, though the world does not know you, I know you, and they know that you have sent me. 26 I have made you known to them, and will continue to make you known in order that the love you have for me may be in them and that I myself may be in them."

It sounds like one in purpose not body. It can not mean that we are to become one with the Father and Jesus as one being as Hinduism teaches and the new age teaches. It sounds pretty new age to me and that is scary.

John 17:28

28"You heard me say, 'I am going away and I am coming back to you.' If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.

Jesus say the Father is greater then Him? How can he be greater then Himself?

Matt 3
16”As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and lighting on him. 17And a voice from heaven said, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased."

They appear as separate personages here, so why do we think they are one being? Why is Father please with himself?

In my NIV bible there is no mentioned of the Godhead yet in the King James it is mentioned at least 3 times. Therefore there could be a Godhead that comprises of Father, Jesus and the Holy Ghost.

Col. 2: 9
9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
Acts 17: 29
29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man’s device.
Rom. 1: 20
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Why does the NIV not explained in the Godhead?

I am not wanting to argue just asking. Trinity is so much part of Christianity as defined by a council in the 4th century ad. I rather read the bible without the additional philosophy of Trinity, because I can not find it in the scriptures, but I find verses like these and it makes me wonder where did Trinity really come from.

It is interesting that the Hindu pantheon is rule over by a trinity. Also believed by Hindus to be three sides or manifestation of a single God essences. In Hindu religion the word Advatar means externalization of a deity. A god can be externalized or expressed in multiple avatars of that god. It is a mystical relationship not to be comprehended by mortal minds.

It make me think since this concept of trinity came in the church between the death of the apostles and the council of Nicaea about 300 years after Christ. The doctrine of the Trinity is not taught in the bible or named Trinity. You do find the word Godhead in the King James version which may be close to the idea. But could also be interpreted as a heavenly council of 3 distinct beings acting as one. I am concerned that the idea of Trinity could have come from the east. Like all the Gnostic ideas. It does not make the bible incorrect, just the word trinity and the interpretation there of intermingled with teaching of men and not the teaching of the bible. Leaving the bible as correct and perfect. But leaving me not trusting Trinity. I am not telling anyone what to believe just sharing my concerns and questions.

To Mary (9:36 PM):

"Go ye therefore and teach all nations baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." (Matthew 28:19)
To Mary (9:36 PM):
Re: the Trinity - you said:
"In bible studies I learn just not to talk about this."


Mary, if your bible study group is making you feel uncomfortable or intimidated by talking or asking about the Trinity - then my suggestion for you is to find another bible study group.
Some of your links got cut off, but I did find this one from the beginning of the link you sent:

Amazing connections. Laszlo has his fingers in everything.

No, I don't believe in papal infallibility or in popes at all for that matter, as you well know. It seems funny to me that he is not supposed to make mistakes on interpretation of Scripture and yet can make such a obvious blatant mistake on reversing the excommunication of the Shoah denier.

Seems to me a doctrine of infallibility would be a very self-serving one for popes to have, but it's an enormous stretch to find it in Scripture. If one was "infallible about Scripture, certainly that one should also be infallible on matters concerning this Shoah denier.

One must ask which spirit was guiding him on that?

First of all, I hate writing another long comment, but I don't know how else to do sorry.

When I say putting another face on God, I simply mean describing Him in a way He does not describe Himself.

When Moses asked Him who he should say sent him God responds by saying , I will be what I will be.. My point is God did not represent Himself as "trinity" but as I will be what I will be, which is good enough for me. He does say that He's echad which means when Yeshua says this...He's confirming this notion of composite unity and identifying Himself as deity. He also says I AM when being questioned before His death, revealing to us that He is the I will be what I will be..

In Colassians it says all of the fulness of deity dwells in Him, in bodily form. He has clearly told us though, that He is the I WILL BE WHAT I WILL BE, thereby identifying Himself back to God that Moses met at the burning bush.

Yeshua says:

John 8:58 Jesus said to them, ‘Verily, verily, I say to you, Before Abraham’s coming — I am;’

He says this in a number of places which is sometimes obscured by the translators adding "he" after the I AM, but if you go to the original Greek text, it's not there. When God said He would reveal Himself as I Will Be What I will Be.. He wasn't kidding. Abraham knew Him as El Shaddai, but Moses knew Him as I Will Be what I will be.. Remember, Moses was asking, "who should I say sent me?"

In John, He is identified as the Word through which the creation was created, in the beginning, referring directly back to Genesis 1. It also says that the Word was with God and the Word Was God.

Do you really understand that? God creates by speech and Yeshua was the very Word that created and He was actually God, obviously not in bodily form at this point but now revealing Himself in bodily form. Do I understand all of this? Can you explain to me how someone can be a Word, create by His very breath and dwell in bodily form?

If someone can explain to me how God can appear in a bush that isn't consumed, a pillar of smoke, a pillar of fire, as the "angel of God" who wrestles with Jacob.. Jacob says, "I have seen God and I didn't die". We have a similar situation going on with Abraham and the 3 visitors, and it says the Lord ( YHVH) appeared to him.

In Genesis 1 it says, a deep wind from God was hovering over the water or the Spirit of God was hovering over the water ( ruach being wind or breath) Remembering that God creates through His speech i.e. His breath can see how these doctrines of man can obscure what's going on in this picture. Is this ruach part of God or something separate. Well, I submit to you it depends on how you translate the word ruach. No one would separate you from your breath.. but if suddenly your breath became "a spirit" it sounds like we have a separate entity now...Do you see where I'm coming from.

I just don't want to simplify something that is so amazing an complex by putting a little box around it and trying to contain it. I have an awesome respect for the Scriptures, but I don't profess to know everything there is to know about them. I prefer to discover what they say, than put theological concepts over them and then try to make the Scriptures conform to theological concepts if that makes sense.

I used to just accept prefabricated doctrines, but I discovered something interesting. Men make mistakes and then these mistakes become institutionalized and passed down century after century. I won't be specific here, but if you've read my older posts you will know what I mean by this. Once you see this, you can not look at Scripture the same way. Jews and Christians both do this. What I mean is we have a preconceived idea about God and we construct our theology on it.

The men and women in the Bible who walked with God, met Him in amazing ways. They didn't question, "why are you showing yourself to me in a burning bush? " You're supposed to be God, and God is not in a burning bush.. or why are you revealing yourself as a man, God is not supposed to be a man. When they heard His voice, they simply knew it and followed. This is called relationship and looks very different from religion. When I read the Bible, I see relationships between man and His Creator..

What did it look like to be dwelling "in delight" with God ( Gan Eden)? This is how I want to know God, not in prepackaged theology. I hope that makes sense.

If all man's doctrines were true, we would have literally hundreds of different doctrines out there that people insist are the absolute truth.( infallible) Some of the ones that exist actually do not permit people to see what the Scriptures say.

That's all I really have to understand. I just believe that we try to put God into theological boxes, instead of discovering who He is in the Scriptures. Theologians spend lots of time trying to come up with doctrinal truths so that they can confine God in them...

I once had a conversation with a brilliant theologian( which I am not) who wrote many, many books and I brought up a verse that did not fit his theology of dispensationalism.. He said "yes, that verse has always disturbed me, so maybe one day I'll have to write another book". Point is men have a need to confine God in their doctrine or theology and God will always far exceed our ability to define Him. Once we learn this, we can get to know Him instead of defining Him.

I must say I'm shocked at the posts here of late. I don't see much Christlike behavior, with some of you bickering like children. Shame on you!


I don't think it wise to write off Obama's birth certificate/or lack of one prematurely. Use your wonderful lawyer skills on this one.
Welcome back.

Don't remember the context of my comment. Could you refresh my memory.

Synagogue 3000 was initially established with lots of help from Rick Warren. He did the training in the early phases with the rabbis, but the videos of this have been removed from the web. That was at least 4 years ago, to my best recollection.

As for the Michael Lerner comment, please give me the context and I'll tell you what I meant.

I don't think these synagogues are too, too loose in their affiliation. They are now meeting with the emerging church.

One of the leaders of Synagogue 3000 was trained by Shechter-Shalomi but I don't think that's what I meant:

....but I don't think this was the context of my comment.

I know a bit about the history of Leadership Network, which Emergent also came out of. I would call it a little more than a loose affiliation, although you are right in saying each synagogue is run independently...same for the churches in it... they are not a denomination, but there is a certain underlying ideology that links them, and the origins of it are Peter Drucker's idea that you could apply marketing tactics to religious institutions.

It certainly paved the way for the Emergent Church folks who are the branch of Christianity who are into mysticism. I think they will find a common bond with the Synagogue 3000 folks who seem to be interested in similar kinds of spirituality albeit from a Jewish point of view. Emergent has just had a big meeting with the Catholics, if you missed it:

Emergent has also met with the Synagogue 3000 folk and will continue to:

Under the guise of discussing common "postmodern" problems, their common bond will be Jewish and Christian mysticism..

If you refresh my memory maybe I can respond more accurately to your question.


The very fact that Judaism interprets "echad" as singularity instead of composite unity the reason they can't see Yeshua. I agree with you that Judaism interprets this way, but how do you explain a God who has revealed Himself as the I Will Be what I will Be.....Is He limited by Judaism's interpretation.

You prove my very point. When men put God in a box, they cannot see nor hear Him.

Why can God not reveal Himself in bodily form...if He so choses? Yeshua said He was echad with the Father...That's what got Him stoned. Paul says, in Yeshua was all of the fulness of deity in bodily form..sometimes God shows up in a burning bush, but sometimes He comes in bodily form... no contradiction here.. I'm sure you agree that God creates with His breath/His Word. He spoke the creation into existence.

I want to point out to Christians that the terminology that they use leads to confusion... Now I know you are set in your ways and don't believe Yeshua can be echad with His Father, but that's not the discussion here. The discussion is with Christians who have made up "new terminology" to describe God in a way that He never described Himself.. He used I Am Who I am, El Shaddai, The Word, Yeshua, etc. but never did God say He was a trinity.

I am simply going to the Scriptures and quoting what they say, since my opinion is not worth much.

The other point that I want to make is that Yeshua's Jewish followers never called Him part of a trinity either, so I want to stick with what Scripture says when I describe God...that's my point.

It was only in later times with the creation of a religion when men tried to "codify" who Yeshua was that the trinity doctrine was created. I submit to you that with the codification of Torah, the very same thing happened in Judaism that happened in Christianity. In both cases, it created problems..

With the restoration of all things, we will no longer do this, but we will be in face to face relationship with Abba...just like when Adam and Eve were with Him in delight.

Zech. 14:9 ¶And the LORD will be king over all the earth; in that day the LORD will be the only one, and His name the only one.

Rev. 22:3 aThere will no longer be any curse; and the throne of God and of the Lamb will be in it, and His bond-servants will serve Him; they will see His face, and His name will be on their foreheads. And there will no longer be any night; and they 1will not have need bof the light of a lamp nor the light of the sun, because the Lord God will illumine them; and they will reign forever and ever.
And ahe said to me, “These words are faithful and true”; and the Lord, the God of the spirits of the prophets, dsent His angel to show to His bond-servants the things which must soon take place. And behold, aI am coming quickly. Blessed is he who heeds the words of the prophecy of this book.”

and the last verse says this:

Rev. 22:20 He who testifies to these things says, “Yes, I am coming quickly.” Amen. Come, Lord Jesus.

Paul in his wisdom said:

1Cor. 13:12 For now we asee in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I will know fully just as I also have been fully known.

I think Paul was saying, we don't see the whole picture yet... but one day we we can either hang to our "isms" and look at things through our familiar grid, or we can search God's face.. I've done both and can say honestly it's more rewarding to seek Him with all of our hearts and not rely on our own understanding because sometimes, our understanding is flawed.

Still praying for you..

Shalom in Yeshua,

Okay, I see it now... What I was connecting from an earlier post was the deception in the "social justice gospel" be it in Christianity or Judaism. I don't believe that we can "fix the planet". If you go back and read the whole context we were talking about wrong goals and deceptive messages..

I do believe that Michael Lerner has this in common with Rick Warren, the Emergent Church and others like Bono... I think you understood my commments out of their original context. Sorry, I couldn't remember what you were referring to at first. I think their was a link to something Michael Lerner had in Tikkun magazine and I was just connecting that to the goals of the others.

If you go back and read all of my comments and Rudi's I think the comment will make more sense.

That was a tremendous video on President Obama. Quite a shocking presentation and similarity to the two men, and the harsh reality of what is ahead. The One World Order is just ahead and it's full speed ahead, very possibly with this man at the helm. If it is coming that quick, it must be God's plan for these last days of time. Thank you, for sharing it. I've posted it on my website for all to see.

You are so right when you say:

"I used to just accept prefabricated doctrines, but I discovered something interesting. Men make mistakes and then these mistakes become institutionalized and passed down century after century."

Exactly, that's what makes me very cautious as well. That's why it's so important to think for yourself, pray for guidance and not reading scripture with what someone else told you in mind. If it's pre-interpret by someone else it's hard to find its true meanings.

What occurred to me is it right to "count" in the first place? 1+1+1=3 which ofcourse makes 3, maybe it should be 1x1x1=1 which makes 1 and is it by the latest calculation justified to name it "trinity"? Tough question.

Joyce said:

"This is called relationship and looks very different from religion. When I read the Bible, I see relationships between man and His Creator..

What did it look like to be dwelling "in delight" with God ( Gan Eden)? This is how I want to know God, not in prepackaged theology. I hope that makes sense."

That definitely makes sense! It's true.

Len, regarding your interesting article on free speech, political correctness, and a constipated legal system which has helped to cripple our freedoms, I observe that once we had local rule and now we mean local for the world. As frail and limited as it could be, the Christian tradition of American communities had, in part, a self-regulating code which worked sufficiently to give a safe vibrancy to the community. LITTLE HOUSE ON THE PRAIRE sort of thing, but now we have the HOOD, we have DAYS of OUR LIVES, and any number of cultural expressions of existentialism. We have thrown caution to the wind for the acceptance of evolution, for release of our animal instincts, because the Puritans, for example, have often preferred rigidity over love. I think an example which is being used in modern film is the homosexual son being hated by “THE CHISTIAN FATHER.” Another example is the “CHRISTIAN” family ostracizing their pregnant daughter. Even on Constance’s blog site, HER blog site, we can be rigid and obnoxious.
Someone had enough class to say make your point and let it stand without being nasty; we can’t, nor should we try and control or manipulate others out of fear or power: “If the same Spirit that raised Christ from the dead dwells in you, He that raised Jesus from the dead shall quicken your mortal bodies. . .” The ultimate question: is that Spirit in you? As we sing in church: “Jesus is the answer for the world today.” But Jesus must have sway in the lives of those He has changed, He must have preeminence. Someone mentioned looking through a glass darkly, but just before that Bible quote is the rule of love, which we at our peril seek to undermine. “The love of many will grow cold. . . God gave His life for us and we should give our lives for the brethren.”
Good morning!

I have a busy day today. Snow is expected here tonight. I will do MY PERSPECTIVE internet radio tonight at 8 p.m. Eastern Time (5 p.m. Pacific time) on internet radio at Tonight I will do the second part of my series on basics of the New Age Movement.

join us in the chatroom!


I am also troubled by what I perceive as your belief that somehow one gains "Brownie points" with God by keeping aspects of the Jewish law that specifically gentile believers were exempted from in that Acts 15 conference. I have lots of questions about your theology, including but not limited to the 10 Lost Tribes one which in my opinion comes dangerously close to British Israelism.

Prove me wrong.

Refresh your browser to see Barack Obama's birth certificate.

Dear Setterman and Len,

I love you both, but sometimes I wonder if some of us wouldn't be throwing stones at the woman adulteress Jesus pardoned after saying to her accusers, "let he who is without sin cast the first stone . . ."

We are ALL sinners, come short of the glory of God! But for His mercy we would ALL be without hope.

Amen, Setterman.

Obama interview on Arab TV:

Is this the beginning of Creme's promise that:

" Maitreya's message can be summarized as "share and save the world". He will seek to inspire humanity to see itself as one family, and to create world peace through sharing, economic justice and global cooperation. "

I think the Christmas miracle for occultists and New Agers was the fact that Obama was elected president. Especially since Venus is supposedly the planet for fallen angels according to some occultists.

Has anyone seen the UFO video? Supposedly a UFO was spotted over the Washington monument during the Inauguration.(No planes were allowed in the air space that day.) In my opinion it's been photo shopped, but get ready for more of this stuff from our friends at CNN and Fox News.

Also, the witches cleaned up DC for Obama after the election:

Glad they cleaned up after themselves!


Excellent article on your blog! I did warn people here not to use Google desktop after my own experience with it. Just spent the last week cleaning up my own problems on my computer, a malware package called Dbghlp32, which I also was infected with about 6 months ago.

Would advise all to not trust Norton , if that's the security you use. The bug went right past Norton in my computer.

I've got to agree with Constance about how unclassy Devvy Kidd sounded in the way she criticized Michelle Obama's clothing. I thought the gold suit was quite tasteful, especially after the black widow contraption she wore on election night! However, I do admire Kidd's bravery for keeping Obama's mysterious past in the forefront.

I don't believe he was born in Kenya, however, but I also don't believe his father was Obama senior.

I also don't agree with the poster who said he was the Son of Frank Davis, either. Has anyone seen the resemblance between Obama and Malcolm X? I know it sounds ridiculous but it would sure explain a lot as regards Obama's Chicago/Reverend Wright/Ayres/ Farrukan Messiah/Saul Alinsky history.

Look at this picture from Israel Insider:

Then read here: (Thanks to Dorothy for this one!)

(He definitely has his mother's ears however! Just look at the popular picture of her with the mantilla on her head)

Also there's no way, IMHO that he would not have inherited some of Obama senior's physical characteristics, which were classically Luo. (Sloped back forehead, round full face, small chin, short stature, large lips, etc.)


President Barry Little doesn't have the same ring to it, does it? Also Obama named his first daughter Malia. Think about it.

Young Grasshopper
Brother Jason,

Do you think Obama is more radical on issues like homosexuality and abortion compared to Bill Clinton or other Democrats? It's kind of part of their platform. so, really it's Democrats in general who pose a threat, not just Obama. Many gays were infuriated at Obama picking Rick Warren for the invocation. Comparing Rick Warren to David Duke.

David in Battle Creek
The matter of Obama’s birth certificate will continue to fuel speculation, without end I’m afraid. The “final report” on the matter from Atlas Shrugged website makes a pretty strong case that we have been duped. But it seems to me it’s not going to matter much.

When I worked as a backcountry ranger for the USFS in Wyoming, I was given a booklet containing “Citation of Infraction’s”, which I doled out to outfitters and hikers who broke the Forest Service rules. Since I was not actually a law enforcement officer, these citations were in reality nothing more than a citizen’s complaint. When I returned to the FS office I gave copies of my completed citations to a qualified law enforcement ranger, who then mailed out a slightly different form called an “Infraction Citation”. It was my understanding that these were the actual legally binding citations, whereas the ones I had given out were not. (Note: I could have the names of these documents reversed, my memory is not so good anymore), but the point is, we pulled off a deception on the citizens who believed the original document which I gave them had the same legal authority as the one they received later in the mail. As far as my understanding goes, I was little more than a wandering “traffic camera” taking snap shots of violations.

I expect we will see exactly the same type of thing becoming more widespread in our own neighborhoods as the Obama administration get’s going full steam.

That's the bigger picture.
If there's anybody Obama clearly resembles, in my opinion, it is his grandfather, Stanley Dunham. I have absolutely no reason to doubt that Obama, Sr. was his dad. The Malcolm X speculation is way outside any realm of credible possibility to my thinking. Although Rev. Jeremiah Wright was hostile to America (and in my opinion, not all that surprising given treatment of Blacks/Negroes in his younger days, events which I can personally remember -- my mother witnessed KKK parades in the ball park of Weisser Park in Fort Wayne, Indiana -- she was born in 1923). However, in fairness to Rev. Wright based on the one speech I saw him deliver via television, his Christology was orthodox. Moreover, I heard him with my own ears condemn Louis Farrakhan.

There is plenty with the new Obama administration which disturbs me, but I am afraid that the silly speculation will push him even more into the Solana/New World Order / Alliance of Civilizations camp and hasten our own demise.

And, YG, I agree with you that Michelle Obama's inauguration day and evening ball clothing was beautiful. So was the tan suit she wore on the weekend events.

I still have friends -- many of them -- in Detroit -- who will stick up for me and could intercede on my/our behalf to Obama with one phone call if necessary. I would like to leave it that way. I am not interested in the least in becoming any part of a racial war, some of which this discussion appears to almost border upon.

Can you find your "Certificate of Live Birth" -- ORIGINAL -- signed by the physician -- kept intact by your mother? If so, you are luckier than me OR MY SON? I regret to say that when my son married, I had to go to the Detroit Board of Health and apply for a copy of his birth certificate. Some mother I am -- I keep track of everybody else's documents, including legal documents, and thousands upon thousands of pieces of New Age trivia and could not find his birth certificate when he needed it. What is produced is a Birth Certificate -- it gives the place where he was born, Oahu, Hawaii, it gives the date, and it gives the time. What else were you seeking -- one from the hospital with footprints? There are valid security reasons that should not be disseminated. Let's put the birth certificate issue to rest!

The "Picture" of berry's birth cert. is as convincing as a picture I have of Bigfoot exiting a UFO.

In Hawaii (Honolulu) back in the early sixties, Birth announcements were posted in the news paper same as was my wife’s was, born October 15 1965 in that same hospital. News paper Archives are harder to fake than an photoshop j-peg. If I wanted to prove where and when I was born (San Diego 1962),it would not be a problem as I have a paper trail. We all have a paper trail. Where's berry's trail?
Maybe you haven't read my posts, but for your benefit I will repeat it, but please read it carefully and try to track with what I'm saying, so at least you will understand where I am getting this from..the Scriptures..You might discover some verses that you haven't paid attention to before..

First of all the Torah is not Jewish law. Torah is teachings and instructions and there is a legal sense of it as well, but it is much, much more than that. Secondly, it is not "Jewish". God gave Torah to ALL Israel and the mixed multitude that came out of Egypt with Israel.

Okay, let's look first at who came out of Egypt at the Exodus:

Ex. 12:37-38 Now the sons of Israel journeyed from bRameses to Succoth, about csix hundred thousand men on foot, aside from children. A mixed multitude also went up with them, along with flocks and herds, a very large number of livestock.

Nowhere in Torah do we see the expression Jews being used.. It was the "sons of Israel" and the aliens that dwelt among them.

In Torah, the instructions apply to the sons of Israel and the strangers dwelling among them:

Lev. 24:22 ‘There shall be aone 1standard for you; it shall be for the stranger as well as the native, for I am the LORD your God.’”

The strangers became part of Israel. Caleb for instance was a Kenizzite, so NOT a native born Israelite, but he attached himself to the tribe of Judah..

Num. 32:11-12 ‘aNone of the men who came up from Egypt, from twenty years old and upward, shall see the land which I swore to Abraham, to Isaac and to Jacob; for they did not follow Me fully, except Caleb the son of Jephunneh the Kenizzite and Joshua the son of Nun, afor they have followed the LORD fully

He was a full fledged member of the tribe of Judah:

Num. 13:6 from the tribe of Judah, aCaleb the son of Jephunneh;

Okay, next let's look at who crossed over into the Promised Land with Joshua:

Josh. 3:17 And the priests who carried the ark of the covenant of the LORD stood firm aon dry ground in the middle of the Jordan while all Israel crossed on dry ground, until all the nation had finished crossing the Jordan.

Never, ever do we see the word "Jews" used in all of Joshua. So when is the first time we see the word Jews used in the Bible and who is it referring to?

It is after Judah is led away to Babylonian exile:

2Kings 25:21 Then the king of Babylon struck them down and put them to death at Riblah in the land of Hamath. aSo Judah was led away into exile from its land.

Here is the first usage of the word several verses later:

2Kings 25:25 ¶ aBut it came about in the seventh month, that Ishmael the son of Nethaniah, the son of Elishama, of the royal 1family, came 2with ten men and struck Gedaliah down so that he died along with the Jews and the Chaldeans who were with him at Mizpah.

The word in Hebrew is Yehudi.. In the Halot lexicon let's look at the meaning:

1. belonging to Judah, Judaean,

As you remember Jacob, whose name was changed to Israel had 12 sons who became the nation of Israel.. Judah was the fourth son of the wife Leah. When the Kingdom split in two after the reign of King Solomon...Judah ( Judah, Benjamin and Levi) became the Southern Kingdom.

Here are some of the verses that talk about this:

1Kings 12:21-25 aNow when Rehoboam had come to Jerusalem, he assembled all the house of Judah and the tribe of Benjamin, 180,000 chosen men who were warriors, to fight against the house of Israel to restore the kingdom to Rehoboam the son of Solomon. But the word of God came to aShemaiah the man of God, saying, “Speak to Rehoboam the son of Solomon, king of Judah, and to all the house of Judah and Benjamin and to the arest of the people, saying, ‘Thus says the LORD, “You must not go up and fight against your 1relatives the sons of Israel; return every man to his house, afor this thing has come from Me.”’” So they listened to the word of the LORD, and returned and went their way according to the word of the LORD. Then Jeroboam built Shechem in the hill country of Ephraim, and lived 1there. And he went out from there and built Penuel.

Rehoboam was Solomon's son, King of Judah, and Jeroboam was from the tribe of Ephraim.. The Kingdom of Israel was never whole again from that day, although there were probably some who crossed over from the Northern Kingdom to join Judah. All those who were associated with Judah from that time on ( whether they were actually from Judah, Benjamin, Levi or another tribe who joined them) were called Jews. .

The Northern Kingdom which is also called the House of Israel, or Ephraim at different times in Scripture went into Assyrian exile. There were several waves of this exile, but I will just give you a few verses:

2Kings 17:6 In the ninth year of Hoshea, athe king of Assyria captured Samaria and bcarried Israel away into exile to Assyria, and csettled them in Halah and Habor, on the river of dGozan, and ein the cities of the Medes.

2Ki 17:23-24 auntil the LORD removed Israel from His sight, as He spoke through all His servants the prophets. aSo Israel was carried away into exile from their own land to Assyria until this day. aThe king of Assyria brought men from Babylon and from Cuthah and from 1bAvva and from cHamath and Sepharvaim, and settled them in the cities of Samaria in place of the sons of Israel. So they possessed Samaria and lived in its cities.

Here is God's dealings with the House of Judah and the House of Israel, which you can see are quite different:

Hos. 1:4-7 And the LORD said to him, “Name him aJezreel; for yet a little while, and bI will 1punish the house of Jehu for the bloodshed of Jezreel, and cI will put an end to the kingdom of the house of Israel. “On that day I will abreak the bow of Israel in the bvalley of Jezreel.” Then she conceived again and gave birth to a daughter. And 1the LORD said to him, “Name her 2Lo-ruhamah, for I will no longer ahave compassion on the house of Israel, that I would ever forgive them. “But I will have acompassion on the house of Judah and bdeliver them by the LORD their God, and will not deliver them by cbow, sword, battle, horses or horsemen.”

God said He would put an end to the House of Israel, but He would have compassion on Judah, so is this forever? No.

Hos. 1:10 ¶ 1Yet the number of the sons of Israel
Will be like the asand of the sea,
Which cannot be measured or numbered;
And bin the place
Where it is said to them,
“You are cnot My people,”
It will be said to them,
“You are the dsons of the living God.”
Hos. 1:11 And the asons of Judah and the sons of Israel will be bgathered together,
And they will appoint for themselves cone leader,
And they will go up from the land,
For great will be the day of Jezreel.

Has it happened yet? No..

All of the prophets speak of this regathering and reconciliation with the House of Judah and the House of Israel.. Ezekiel 37:15-28

Who is the New ( newer) Covenant and what is the definition of the New Covenant:

Jer. 31:31 ¶ “aBehold, days are coming,” declares the LORD, “when I will make a bnew covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah,
Jer. 31:32 not like the acovenant which I made with their fathers in the day I btook them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My ccovenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them,” declares the LORD.
Jer. 31:33 “But athis is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days,” declares the LORD, “bI will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and cI will be their God, and they shall be My people.

The New Covenant is with the House of Israel and the House of Judah ( Jews).. and it consists of God writing His Torah ( the hebrew word in this passage) on their hearts....

Did God cancel this covenant? Let's see who Yeshua was sending his disciples to:

Matt. 10:6 but rather go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

I hope you can see that the Jews are not ALL Israel, but only 2 1/2 tribes if you count the Levites who were among them. The House of Israel went into semi-permanent exile, but not only that they lost their identity. Remember, in Torah, exile is the punishment for disobedience, spiritual harlotry. Kind of like cheating on your husband...since Torah was like the marriage contract..

Hos. 7:8 Ephraim mixes himself with the 1nations;
Ephraim has become a cake not turned.

Ephraim has assimilated into the nations.. This is Bible, not British Israelism. British Israelism is a doctrine that says the tribes are in the Western nations and that the Royal family are descendants of Israel.. I NEVER SAID THAT.. All I said was that the Northern Kingdom did not come back, and that is Biblically and Historically accurate. Numerically speaking 2-3 million Israelites, left Egypt with the mixed multitude 3500 years ago roughly, Today we have 15 million Jews in the world, including conversions.. Mathematically, even with all the killing and persecutions of Israel, that doesn't add up..

Historically, it is know that the Assyrian empire scattered their enemies to not let them regroup. Biblically God says it, so therefore I believe God..

So, there awaits a future restoration of All Israel..

God speaking:

Amos 9:9 “For behold, I am commanding,
And I will ashake the house of Israel among all nations
As grain is shaken in a sieve,
But not a 1kernel will fall to the ground.

Not only that, but if we go back and look at the blessings that Israel gave to his sons and grandsons, they are incredibly prophetic. Let's look at Gen 48:

Gen. 48:17 ¶ When Joseph saw that his father alaid his right hand on Ephraim’s head, it displeased him; and he grasped his father’s hand to remove it from Ephraim’s head to Manasseh’s head.
Gen. 48:18 Joseph said to his father, “Not so, my father, for this one is the firstborn. Place your right hand on his head.”
Gen. 48:19 But his father refused and said, “I know, my son, I know; he also will become a people and he also will be great. However, his younger brother shall be greater than he, and ahis 1descendants shall become a 2multitude of nations.”

If you remember the story, when Israel's about to die, he adopts Ephraim and Manassah giving them the status of sonship ( even though their mother was an Egyptian). Len will argue with me on this but here it is in black and white:

Gen. 48:5 “Now your two sons, who were born to you in the land of Egypt before I came to you in Egypt, are mine; aEphraim and Manasseh shall be mine, as bReuben and Simeon are.

Reuben and Simeon lost the status of first born for some indiscretions they committed.. Reuben slept with Jacob's concubine, and Simeon and Levi slaughtered the men of Shechem who violated Dinah their sister..

Ephraim receives the double portion, and is told he will become a melo hagoyim literally the fulness of the nations or the multitude of nations.

Now if you look back at he verse in Hosea and see what happened to Ephraim/the House of Israel/the Northern Kingdom... This is exactly what happened..

Judah receives a different promise from Israel and that is that the sceptre won't depart until Shiloh comes:

Gen. 49:10 “aThe scepter shall not depart from Judah,
Nor the ruler’s staff from between his feet,
1Until Shiloh comes,
And bto him shall be the obedience of the peoples.

Judah probably deserved to be punished as much as Israel did, but God had a different plan for the house of we know ultimately that plan resulted in the incarnation of Yeshua, who was from the tribe of Judah.

So, you can see that all of Israel are not Jews, and that the new/newer covenant is with ALL Israel, both houses, so how does Ephraim come back? Let's see what Paul has to say about this..

I'm quoting to you from the Young's literal Bible because it correctly translates the word ethnos to nations:

Rom. 9:24 not only out of Jews, but also out of nations,
Rom. 9:25 ¶ as also in Hosea He saith, ‘I will call what [is] not My people — My people; and her not beloved — Beloved,
Rom. 9:26 and it shall be — in the place where it was said to them, Ye [are] not My people; there they shall be called sons of the living God.’
Rom. 9:27 And Isaiah doth cry concerning Israel, ‘If the number of the sons of Israel may be as the sand of the sea, the remnant shall be saved;

He quotes directly from Hosea and Isaiah who are both talking about the Northern Kingdom.. Now when most people read this passage they think it's about the "gentiles" . Well yes and no, Israel has become just like the gentiles. We can no longer distinguish who Israel is but as the gospel goes out to the nations, guess what...All Israel is saved...

Let's look at Paul again in Romans 11:

Rom. 11:25 For I do not wish you to be ignorant, brethren, of this secret — that ye may not be wise in your own conceits — that hardness in part to Israel hath happened till the fulness of the nations may come in;

What is the "fulness of the nations"...? It is the same expression used in Genesis 48 to describe the blessing to Ephraim.. He would become the "fulness of the nations" or the multitude of the nations. Here it is in Strong's:

4393. aølVm mlo}, mel-o´; rarely awølVm mlowf, mel-o´; or wølVm mlow(Ezekiel 41:8), mel-o´; from 4390; fulness (literally or figuratively):—x all along, x all that is (there-)in, fill, (x that whereof...was) full, fulness, (hand-)full, multitude.

Okay, now we have established that the Jews are not "all Israel". We have established that the kingdom is divided but God will unite it one day..

Now why do we want to walk in the truth of Torah.. We just established that in the "new covenant" which in fact is with both Houses of Israel, that Torah would be put on our hearts....which is really better translated "mind". The word "leb" in Hebrew means "mind". Now logically, why would God want to put Torah on the minds of Israel if He was doing away with it..

So we have to understand that Torah is put on our minds when we are "born-again".. When we receive our new identity in Yeshua, our old man dies and we are receive a new identity in Yeshua... I hope you can see this in Romans.. It's very clear.. Unless you are "born-again" Yeshua said to Nicodemus, a teacher of Israel who Yeshua expected to know this, "you will not see the kingdom of God". So what happens in this new birth. Spiritually speaking we are seen as the righteousness of Yeshua, the spotless, blameless Lamb of God..

Did we do anything to earn or deserve this? No! Not a thing.. This is God's grace which works in our lives when we by faith believe in Yeshua's atoning work for us, but I have also shown you that the New Covenant is with Israel...I prefer to say newer or better, because what it does is renew the Covenant that was broken. Yeshua did for Israel, what Israel could not do for itself. He obeyed Torah perfectly.
He gave correct interpretation to Torah..

Legally speaking, we are acquitted of the death penalty.. In that sense and in that sense alone, we are no longer "under law". In fact the expression "under law" means exactly that.. Before we were under the penalty of death that the Torah defined.
Does this mean Torah was done away with? No!

1John 3:4 Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness; and asin is lawlessness.

There is only one word in Greek for law, any kind of law and that is nomos.. so be aware that law doesn't always mean Torah in the Apostles writings.

How do we define what sin is? The Torah.. Once we are declared just because of Yeshua the Torah is put on our heart and we desire to obey...we want to walk in the truth. Acts 15 instructions come right out of Torah. It's absurd to say that these are not Torah.. let's look:

Lev. 3:17 ‘It is a aperpetual statute throughout your generations in all your dwellings: you shall not eat any fat bor any blood.’”

Strangling an animal is not only cruel but the blood doesn't come out, so proper killing of animals is important in the Torah:

Deut. 12:16 “Only you shall not eat the blood; byou are to pour it out on the ground like water.

The pagans of that time period used to strangle their animals. Pigs would not have even been considered food by James, so there was no reason for him to name animals that were not considered food to begin with.

Lev 18 teaches about sexual immorality. The whole chapter says "you shall not uncover the nakedness of....

Lev. 18:5-6 ‘So you shall keep My statutes and My judgments, aby which a man may live if he does them; I am the LORD. ‘None of you shall approach any blood relative 1of his to uncover nakedness; I am the LORD.

Sexual immorality is against Torah. Idolatry is against Torah, so eating meat sacrificed to idols which would be an act of worship to that idol would obviously be a Torah violation:

Lev. 26:1 ‘You shall not make for yourselves idols, nor shall you set up for yourselves ban image or ca sacred pillar, nor shall you place a figured stone in your land to bow down to it; for I am the LORD your God.

God is a jealous God and hates anything to do with idols.. That's why Israel was exiled in the first place.

Okay, lets look for some statements about Torah that are affirmative..

Acts 15:20-21 but that we write to them that they abstain from 1athings contaminated by idols and from bfornication and from cwhat is strangled and from blood. “For aMoses from ancient generations has in every city those who preach him, since 1he is read in the synagogues every Sabbath.”

Help me out here, but after giving Torah instructions for the new believers from the nations...they would go to the synagogue and hear Moses.. What are they going to learn in the synagogue hearing Moses?? Torah!!!

What do we do with this passage, Paul is doing the rites of purificaiton ( from Torah) and the Jews are zealous for Torah:

Acts 21:20 And when they heard it they began aglorifying God; and they said to him, “You see, brother, how many 1thousands there are among the Jews of those who have believed, and they are all bzealous for the Law;
Acts 21:21 and they have been told about you, that you are ateaching all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them bnot to circumcise their children nor to 1walk according to cthe customs.
Acts 21:22 “What, then, is to be done? They will certainly hear that you have come.
Acts 21:23 “Therefore do this that we tell you. We have four men who 1aare under a vow;
Acts 21:24 take them and apurify yourself along with them, and 1pay their expenses so that they may bshave their 2heads; and all will know that there is nothing to the things which they have been told about you, but that you yourself also walk orderly, keeping the Law.

Okay, who was the dragon enraged with?

Rev. 12:17 So the dragon was enraged with the woman, and went off to amake war with the rest of her 1bchildren, who ckeep the commandments of God and dhold to the testimony of Jesus.

The ones who believe in Yeshua and kept the commandments.. Where do these commandments come from? Torah!!!

What will we be doing in the Last Days:

Is. 2:3 And many peoples will come and say,
“Come, let us go up to the mountain of the LORD,
To the house of the God of Jacob;
That He may teach us 1concerning His ways
And that we may walk in His paths.”
For the 2law will go forth afrom Zion
And the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.

The Torah is going out from Zion!!!

In the Last days:

Zech. 8:23 Thus said the LORD of Hosts: In those days, ten men from nations of every tongue will take hold — they will take hold of every Jew by a corner of his cloak and say, “Let us go with you, for we have heard that God is with you.”

The corner of a Jew's garment is the tzizits which represents the keeping of the commandments.

Matt. 14:36 and they implored Him that they might just touch athe fringe of His cloak; and as many as btouched it were cured.

Yeshua wore tzizits.

Num. 15:38 “Speak to the sons of Israel, and tell them that they shall make for themselves atassels on the corners of their garments throughout their generations, and that they shall put on the tassel of each corner a cord of blue. Num. 15:39 “It shall be a tassel for you to look at and aremember all the commandments of the LORD, so as to do them and not follow after your own heart and your own eyes, after which you played the harlot,

The blue fringe, the color, represents God's righteousness. It's a very special dye made from a particular snail which is quite rare and difficult to find.

Again in the last days:

Mic. 4:2 aMany nations will come and say,
“bCome and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD
And to the house of the God of Jacob,
That cHe may teach us about His ways
And that we may walk in His paths.”
For dfrom Zion will go forth the law,
Even the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.

Matt. 5:17 ¶ “Do not think that I came to abolish the aLaw or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.
Matt. 5:18 “For truly I say to you, auntil heaven and earth pass away, not 1the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.
Matt. 5:19 “Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches 1others to do the same, shall be called least ain the kingdom of heaven; but whoever 2keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Let's look at the sense of the Greek word for fulfill:

1603. e˙kplhro/w; ekpleœrooœ: perfect ekpepleœroœka; to fill full, to fill up completely; metaphorically, teœn epangelian,

Yeshua said He did not come to abolish Torah...He came to accomplish all that is in it, but also to give it its proper meaning..

Yeshua says it plainly, yet we misinterpret Paul who would never contradict Yeshua and think that Paul would go against the Torah. Paul was simply saying that we cannot be justified by keeping Torah. Abraham and all the other heros of the faith are justified by faith, so that is not a new concept.

The problem is we don't understand the context of Second Temple Judaism when we read Paul and we think he is against Torah observance. It's clear that he isn't. He just doesn't want the believers coming in from the nations to think that they have to be circumcised to be acceptable to God. The dividing wall in the Temple ( not a Torah concept) was put up in 2nd Temple period to keep the "uncircumcised" in a separate court. Now with the coming of Yeshua, there were those saying these new believers had to be circumcised as if God's Spirit touching them and bringing them to repentance was not enough. It's not that circumcision in itself was bad.. It's the way it was being used to say your not justified unless you're circumcised.

Salvation has never been an act of human hands.. Yeshua's name means that salvation is of God.. Paul did not want the new believers to be confused about this.

All of Ezekile 47-49 talks about the Millennial it hasn't been fulfilled yet, and what do we see.. God will keep His promises to all 12 tribes and the aliens who dwell among them.I won't post all of it but read it. It's amazing.

Ezek. 47:13 ¶ Thus says the Lord 1GOD, “This shall be the aboundary by which you shall divide the land for an inheritance among the twelve tribes of Israel; Joseph shall have two bportions.

Ezek. 47:23 “And in the tribe with which the alien stays, there you shall give him his inheritance,” declares the Lord GOD.

Ezek. 48:35 “The city shall be 18,000 cubits round about; and the name of the city from that day shall be, ‘1The LORD is there.’”

Clinton and others were just as radical by there belief(so are all democrats, if they admit it or not) as obama. Although, obama is signing ex orders one after the other, more than any other President in his first week. Clinton realy wanted a global system as well.obama has pushed socialism to a higher level. Also, the EU is in a better position to help now. To answer the question: I think all liberals are anti God. I never said that obama is worse than any other democrat. He is just the leader they needed. This may cause people to get upset with me but.... I have trouble with anyone who says they are a Christian and a democrat. You can't agree with the democrat agenda and be a christian. To be tolerent to sin is to sin. I have posted such material on my blog. Feel free to click my name and check it out.

Thanks for asking my opinion David.
1 – 200 of 279 Newer› Newest» Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Subscribe to Posts [Atom]