EU CONCEDES IMF SEATS

PHIL BERG - OBAMA CRIMES
http://obamacrimes.com/

JERUSALEM DIVIDED

ZECHARIAH 12:1-5 King James Bible
1 The burden of the word of the LORD for Israel, saith the LORD, which stretcheth forth the heavens, and layeth the foundation of the earth, and formeth the spirit of man within him.
2 Behold, I will make Jerusalem a cup of trembling unto all the people round about, when they shall be in the siege both against Judah and against Jerusalem.
3 And in that day will I make Jerusalem a burdensome stone for all people: all that burden themselves with it shall be cut in pieces, though all the people of the earth be gathered together against it.
4 In that day, saith the LORD, I will smite every horse with astonishment, and his rider with madness: and I will open mine eyes upon the house of Judah, and will smite every horse of the people with blindness.
5 And the governors of Judah shall say in their heart, The inhabitants of Jerusalem shall be my strength in the LORD of hosts their God.

JOEL 3:2
2 I will also gather all nations, and will bring them down into the valley of Jehoshaphat, and will plead with them there for my people and for my heritage Israel, whom they have scattered among the nations, and parted my land.

ZECHARIAH 14:1-9 King James Bible
1 Behold, the day of the LORD cometh, and thy spoil shall be divided in the midst of thee.
2 For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city.
3 Then shall the LORD go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle.
4 And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south. 5 And ye shall flee to the valley of the mountains; for the valley of the mountains shall reach unto Azal: yea, ye shall flee, like as ye fled from before the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah: and the LORD my God shall come, and all the saints with thee.
6 And it shall come to pass in that day, that the light shall not be clear, nor dark:
7 But it shall be one day which shall be known to the LORD, not day, nor night: but it shall come to pass, that at evening time it shall be light.
8 And it shall be in that day, that living waters shall go out from Jerusalem; half of them toward the former sea, and half of them toward the hinder sea: in summer and in winter shall it be.
9 And the LORD shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one LORD, and his name one.

Message to World: Jerusalem Gets Top-Priority Development Status
by Hillel Fendel OCT 25,10

The ministerial committee for legislation approved a bill that will grant special benefits to the capital, including incentives for construction in western, eastern and northern Jerusalem.The committee’s approval means the bill will have official government support when it comes up for its Knesset votes. Some 45 MKs are signed on the proposal, which should have no trouble passing in the Knesset.The bill calls for an annual government grant to Jerusalem, as well as an upgrade of its status for the encouragement of investments in education, housing, and employment. Jerusalem will now enjoy the highest-priority classification in the country, with the goal of stopping the recent exodus of young couples – and strengthening the city’s Israeli status.The upgrade in Jerusalem's city status was initiated by MK Uri Ariel (National Union), who said, The true message given by the passage of this bill is the government’s change of direction regarding Jerusalem, and a signal that construction in the city will soon be unfrozen.The bill, which is a set of changes and emendations to the existing Jerusalem Law, specifically encourages the construction of affordable housing complexes, to be accomplished by simplifying the planning and approval processes. Many of the city’s reserves for future housing lie in neighborhoods such as Pisgat Ze’ev, Gilo, Ramot, N’vei Yaakov and Har Homa – which were liberated in the Six Day War in 1967 – and therefore some international condemnation of the bill is expected.

Jerusalem, Complete and United
Though visitors to the city can detect no difference between the built-up neighborhoods that were always part of Jerusalem and those that joined 43 years ago, many in the international community still regard the latter as settlements. However, Israel’s Basic Law: Jerusalem, Capital of Israel, passed in 1980, begins with these words: Jerusalem, complete and united, is the capital of Israel.Mayor Nir Barkat, who worked hard for the bill’s passage, thanked the ministerial committee for legislation, and said, The Knesset’s and government’s formal recognition of the need to strengthen Jerusalem is critical for the city’s future and continued growth. This decision will help Jerusalem to continue to be attractive to the young, to tourists, and to investors.This is a first step towards returning Jerusalem to the map of Israel, MK Ariel said, in terms of young couples and small and medium businesses. It will encourage housing starts in the capital; until now the policy has been to freeze and neglect Jerusalem, and this will hopefully signal a turnaround and new construction in the capital.Communications Minister Moshe Kachlon of the Likud said, Whoever among the Palestinians and the world expects the present Government of Israel to recognize foreign claims of sovereignty in our capital – is mistaken and misleading.(IsraelNationalNews.com)

Contrived Propaganda Tapes Reveal War On Terror Fraud
Paul Joseph Watson Infowars.com October 26, 2010
http://www.infowars.com/contrived-propaganda-tapes-reveal-war-on-terror-fraud/

Just two days after it was revealed that Al-Qaeda mastermind Anwar Al-Awlaki had met with Pentagon top brass only a matter of months after 9/11, an organization founded by the daughter of a former Israeli military intelligence officer released a video tape of Awlaki re-affirming his commitment to global jihad. A group of second graders could probably have come up with a more sophisticated propaganda campaign than that concocted by the SITE group this past weekend.Newly obtained documents released by Fox News on Thursday last week confirmed that Awlaki, the man who helped plot the aborted Christmas Day bombing, the Fort Hood shooting, the Times Square bombing attempt, and who also preached to the alleged 9/11 hijackers, dined at the Pentagon just months after the September 11 attacks.As we have documented, every indication screams out that Awlaki is a double agent working for US intelligence, a chief terrorist patsy-handler for the CIA.Within 48 hours, it was announced that Awlaki had appeared in a new video posted on a jihadist website, in which he praised the actions of the Fort Hood shooter and the Christmas Day bomber.The video was discovered by the SITE organization, which is nothing more than a contractor for the U.S. government, receiving some $500,000 a year annually from Uncle Sam, the majority of which is paid for by U.S. taxpayers. The group was founded by Rita Katz, the daughter of an executed Israeli spy. Katz has worked closely with the Department of Justice, Department of the Treasury, and the Department of Homeland Security.

SITE’s website content was found to be largely copied from the U.S. State Department. SITE’s Terrorism Library, on cursory investigation, looks to be a straight data scrape from the U.S. Department of State’s Patterns of Global Terrorism – 2003, Appendix B, notes SourceWatch.Everything about SITE indicates that it is nothing more than a dummy organization being used by the military-industrial complex to release staged Al-Qaeda videotapes as part of the ongoing propaganda offensive to justify the brutal, pointless and manufactured war on terror.SITE was miraculously able to obtain the highly suspicious September 2007 Bin Laden video tape before it was released by the so-called Al-Qaeda group who had made it.SITE has been positively endorsed by Blackwater USA, the infamous military contractor co-founded by former Navy Seal Erik Prince that was found to have been involved in several massacres of innocent Iraqi civilians.SITE’s continued existence relies on fleecing the American taxpayer by way of contracts with the U.S. government and constantly invoking and hyping the hugely exaggerated threat of alleged Al-Qaeda groups in the Middle East.But it wasn’t just CIA henchman Awlaki who made an appearance this past weekend courtesy of SITE, we were also treated to another Adam (Pearlman) Gadahn video message.Here you are in the battlefield, just like the heroes before you like Muhammad Atta and … Umar Farouk AbdulMutallab, Faisal Shazad and hundreds of others, Gadahn said, referring to the leader of the 9/11 attacks, the man accused of trying to blow up a plane last Christmas, and the would-be Times Square bomber, reports CNN.

SITE claimed it obtained the video from As-Sahab, Al-Qaeda’s supposed media arm. As we previously documented, SITE’s sister organization IntelCenter was caught adding its logo to a supposed Al-Qaeda tape at the same time as the As-Sahab logo was added, indicating the two organizations were one and the same.Adam Pearlman is blatantly an Mossad spy who is releasing fake Al-Qaeda videos to bolster the geopolitical agenda of both the United States and Israel.We are being asked to believe that Pearlman, a former hardcore Jewish Zionist who once wrote stinging essays condemning Muslims as bloodthirsty terrorists, is now preaching the cause of global jihad.Pearlman’s grandfather was none other than the late Carl K. Pearlman; a prominent Jewish urologist in Orange County. Carl was also a member of the board of directors of the Anti-Defamation League, which was caught spying on Americans for Israel in 1993.Israel’s Mossad intelligence agency was caught in 2002 creating a phony Al-Qaeda group to justify attacks on Palestinians.Pearlman has a knack of releasing his tapes at the most politically opportune time for Bush, having first burst onto the scene shortly before the 2004 presidential election and then again right after Katrina when the President’s approval rating was tanking fast.Even more mainstream publications, like the Los Angeles City Beat, have dismissed Pearlman before as nothing more than cartoonish propaganda.Pearlman had a hippy upbringing, a brief but intense flirtation with death metal and before a sudden transformation, once referred to Muslims as bloodthirsty, barbaric terrorists. Pearlman was a hardcore Jewish Zionist and wrote essays and screeds bashing the Muslim faith. He even got into fights at mosques and beat up Muslim worshippers.The timing of the two videos, released in the wake of the embarrassing Awlaki-Pentagon revelation in addition to the Wikileaks controversy, suggests that only the supremely naive would believe that this was anything other than a hastily contrived propaganda stunt aimed at bolstering the exaggerated Muslim terrorist threat while vindicating the war on terror.

Russia's Jewish Population Fading Away?
by Chana Ya'ar OCT 25,10

The Jewish population is slowly disappearing in Russia, with a demographic expert predicting as much as a 25 percent drop in the latest census figures. The vast majority of Jewish children are the offspring of mixed marriages.Mark Kupovetsky, a specialist on Russian Jewish demography, told the RIA Novosti news agency in Moscow last week that he estimated current figures would show up to 60,000 fewer Jews than were found during the 2002 census.Between 1989 and 2002 – the year of the most recent census survey -- some 40 percent of the Jewish population left Russia in a mass emigration, some of whom moved to Israel. However, according to Russian Chief Rabbi and Chabad emissary Rabbi Berel Lazar, many are now returning to Russia, in particular those Jews who had moved to Germany in the 1990s. Nevertheless, by the 2002 census, there were only 233,000 Jews left in Russia, compared with 875,000 Jews who lived in the country in 1959, when the first census was taken following World War II.Kupovetsky, director of biblical and Judaic studies at the Russian State University for the Humanities, explained that most of Russia’s Jews currently live in Moscow and its surrounding communities. Approximately 20 percent of the Jewish population lives in the S. Petersburg area, and the rest of the Jews live in cities with populations of more than a million.

The majority only produce one or two children, he added. Moreover, rampant assimilation also accounts for much of the disappearance of Russia’s Jews; up to 90 percent of Jewish children in the former Soviet Union are the offspring of mixed marriages, Kupovetsky said.As older Jews die, and fewer Russian Jewish babies are born, the Jewish population in the former Soviet Union is beginning to slowly wither away.(IsraelNationalNews.com)

DANIEL 7:23-24
23 Thus he said, The fourth beast(THE EU,REVIVED ROME) shall be the fourth kingdom upon earth,(7TH WORLD EMPIRE) which shall be diverse from all kingdoms, and shall devour the whole earth, and shall tread it down, and break it in pieces.(TRADE BLOCKS)
24 And the ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall arise:(10 NATIONS) and another shall rise after them;(#11 SPAIN) and he shall be diverse from the first, and he shall subdue three kings.(BE HEAD OF 3 KINGS OR NATIONS).

EU concedes IMF seats in historic shake-up
LEIGH PHILLIPS 25.10.2010 @ 09:27 CET

Europe has conceded its overrepresentation within the structure of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), allowing emerging nations a louder voice and a real place at the table on the board of the organisation set up some 60 years ago to oversee the world's financial system.Finance ministers at the Group of 20 nations summit in Gyeongjiu, South Korea, on Saturday (23 October) agreed to the changes, which will see a shift in five to six percent of the votes within the institution toward dynamic, emerging economies, such as China, India and Brazil, and Europe give up two of its seats on the IMF executive board.IMF managing director Dominique Strauss-Kahn, describing the shift as historic, said: This makes for the biggest reform ever in the governance of the institution.The ten biggest members of the Fund ... will be those who deserve to be the biggest members, he added, going on to describe how the membership and quota of the membership are not really representing the importance and weight of the countries in the global economy.Under the agreement, the so-called Brics - Brazil, Russia, India and China - will take their place amongst the IMF's 10 largest shareholders.

How Europe will assess who is to lose their seat was not decided, but pressure will likely fall on the Netherlands and Belgium, until now the 11th and 12th most powerful members of the board in terms of voting share.Belgian finance minister Didier Reynders, in South Korea also in his position as representative of the European Union because his country currently holds the EU's six-month rotating presidency, suggested in an interview with De Tijd, a Belgian economics daily, that the two countries, along with other mid-ranking EU economies, could share their seat.
He also suggested that parallel to changes at the IMF, similar moves could be made within the structure of the G20, with Belgium, the Netherlands and similar-sized EU states given a seat in the G20.The Netherlands however believes it to be premature to be discussing the situation, according to a spokesman for Dutch finance minister Jan Kees de Jager.

EUROPEAN UNION ARMY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ytWmPqY8TE0&feature=player_embedded

DANIEL 7:23-25
23 Thus he said, The fourth beast (EU,REVIVED ROME) shall be the fourth kingdom upon earth,(7TH WORLD EMPIRE) which shall be diverse from all kingdoms, and shall devour the whole earth, and shall tread it down, and break it in pieces.(TRADING BLOCKS)
24 And the ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings(10 NATIONS) that shall arise: and another shall rise after them;(#11 SPAIN) and he shall be diverse from the first, and he shall subdue three kings.( BE HEAD OF 3 NATIONS)
25 And he (EU PRESIDENT) shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.(3 1/2 YRS)

DANIEL 8:23-25
23 And in the latter time of their kingdom, when the transgressors are come to the full, a king (EU DICTATOR) of fierce countenance, and understanding dark sentences,(FROM THE OCCULT) shall stand up.
24 And his power shall be mighty, but not by his own power:(SATANS POWER) and he shall destroy wonderfully, and shall prosper, and practise, and shall destroy the mighty and the holy people.
25 And through his policy also he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand; and he shall magnify himself in his heart, and by peace shall destroy many: he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes;(JESUS) but he shall be broken without hand.

DANIEL 11:36-39
36 And the king (EU DICTATOR) shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvellous things against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished: for that that is determined shall be done.
37 Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers,(THIS EU DICTATOR IS JEWISH) nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all.(CLAIM TO BE GOD)
38 But in his estate shall he honour the God of forces:(WAR) and a god whom his fathers knew not shall he honour with gold, and silver, and with precious stones, and pleasant things.
39 Thus shall he do in the most strong holds with a strange god,(DESTROY TERROR GROUPS) whom he shall acknowledge and increase with glory: and he shall cause them to rule over many,(HIS ARMY LEADERS) and shall divide the land for gain.

REVELATION 19:19
19 And I saw the beast,(EU LEADER) and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against him that sat on the horse,(JESUS) and against his army.(THE RAPTURED CHRISTIANS)

France, Ireland scoop top posts in EU diplomatic corps
ANDREW RETTMAN 25.10.2010 @ 14:26 CET

EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS - French career diplomat Pierre Vimont and Irish EU official David O'Sullivan are to take two of the top posts in the European External Action Service (EEAS).EEAS chief Catherine Ashton made the highly anticipated announcement at an EU foreign ministers' meeting in Luxembourg on Monday (25 October) after a final agreement between member states, MEPs and her own bureau on the legal architecture of the corps.I promised to appoint the brightest and best and in Pierre Vimont as the executive secretary general, and David O'Sullivan as chief operating officer I have done just that. Pierre is held in the highest regard by the diplomatic community and will bring a wealth of knowledge and expertise on foreign policy issues. David has served in the highest capacity in the European Commission, as well as having a diplomatic background, she said in a written statement.The communiqué added that the rest of the EEAS top posts will be filled in the coming weeks. But EU diplomats expect two more big nominations to come out before the weekend.The main outstanding appointments include two deputy secretary generals, five managing directors and the head of its intelligence and crisis-management unit, known as the Joint Situation Centre. The five directors will cover Africa; Asia; post-Soviet and western Balkan countries; North and South America; and human rights and UN relations. Another 80-or-so senior postings to overseas EU embassies are also in the pipeline.German EU official Helga Schmid and Poland's Maciej Popowski, currently working as head of the European Parliament President's cabinet, are being talked about in Brussels as the two likely deputy secretary generals.German EU official Gunnar Wiegand and the Swedish EU special representative for south Caucasus, Peter Semneby, have applied to run the post-Soviet/Balkans department. The head of Finland's intelligence services, Ilkka Salmi, is said to be a leading contender for the Joint Situation Centre post.Ms Ashton's accent on hiring the brightest and best candidates had to be weighed up alongside a need to have geographic and institutional balance in the EEAS cadre.The service must ensure backing from Berlin, Paris and London in order to have clout on the world stage. The EU's newer countries and its smaller members have clamoured for places at the top table. MEPs have also called on Ms Ashton to hire commission staff to protect the communitarian nature of the new institution.

Ms Ashton's Monday statement noted that the 61-year-old Mr Vimont has in the past served as chief of staff to three French foreign ministers and was French ambassador to the EU during the French presidency of the bloc in 2000. It recalled that the 57-year-old Mr O'Sullivan has previously run the European Commission's education and trade departments, was head of cabinet for former commission president Romano Prodi and was commission secretary general.The two men will each earn at least €16,600 a month.The Vimont job description says he will be responsible for the formulation and implementation of policy, ensuring the smooth functioning of the EAS, chairing meetings in Ms Ashton's absence and maintaing relations with EU members and countries beyond the EU. The Brussels-based post includes extensive travel.Mr O'Sullivan is to be responsible for administrative and budgetary management ... strategic communications ... human and financial resources.He will also provide strategic policy guidance and undertake missions from time-to-time on Ms Ashton's behalf.

EU to deploy armed patrols at Greek-Turkish border
VALENTINA POP 25.10.2010 @ 09:23 CET

EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS – The EU is to deploy border patrols in Greece in a bid to stop the increasingly high numbers of irregular migrants crossing over from Turkey, days after Athens was criticised by the United Nations over its appalling conditions for detainees.The situation at the Greek land border with Turkey is increasingly worrying. The flows of people crossing the border irregularly have reached alarming proportions and Greece is manifestly not able to face this situation alone. I am very concerned about the humanitarian situation, home affairs commissioner Cecilia Malmstrom said in a statement on Sunday (24 October).Following a request from the Greek government, the EU will deploy its Rapid Border Intervention Teams (Rabit-s) for the first time since their creation in 2007.Drawn from the member states' national reserve put at the disposal of Frontex, the EU's border control agency, the Rabit-s are mandated to observe national and EU law and will be embedded with Greek border patrols.The Rabit-s have authorisation to access Greek databases and when necessary, use force. They are authorised to carry their service weapons and national uniform, but will wear a blue armband with the EU and Frontex logo.

During their deployment, Rabit-s are regarded as Greek border patrols if any offence is committed against or by them.Frontex naval patrols have in the past come under fire for assisting Italian border guards in pushing back migrants crossing the Mediterranean Sea without offering the minimum humanitarian assistance required under international law.Ms Malmstrom said that she expected proper assistance to be given to all person crossing the border and that the request for international protection will be considered, in full compliance with EU and international standards.Earlier on Sunday, Greek home affairs minister Christos Papoutsis said that a mass influx of irregular migrants was registered every day at the Greek land border with Turkey with the aim of accessing other EU countries.The increasing pressure of illegal migration flows on Greek borders is a clearly European problem that demands a European solution,he said.Last week, the United Nations also called on the EU to do more to lighten the migrant burden on Greece, which it said has catastrophic conditions for detainees. In 2008, 50 percent of irregular migrants arrested in the EU were detained in Greek prisons, but in the first eight months of 2010 the figure rose to 90 percent, the UN said. The detention conditions, as described by UN's special investigator on torture and cruel treatment, are inhuman and degrading ... appalling ... dysfunctional.After neighbouring Mediterranean countries such as Spain, Malta and Italy tightened up their border controls in past years, a bigger influx of migrants is now registered in Greece. According to Frontex, more than three-quarters of the 40,977 people intercepted while trying to enter without proper documents into the EU in the first half of 2010 entered through Greece, mainly coming via Turkey.Politically at odds over the island of Cyprus and with Ankara pressing the EU for visa-free travel, Turkey and Greece nevertheless recently announced systematic bilateral co-operation in the area of migration.

Speaking at a joint press conference in Athens on Friday, Greek premier George Papandreou said that a xenophobic climate is being cultivated in Europe and hoped that bilateral co-operation with Turkey would help alleviate the trend by reducing the wave of migration.Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan meanwhile noted the potential benefits for Greek tourism if the EU visa regime for Turkish citizens was relaxed.

DOCTOR DOCTORIAN FROM ANGEL OF GOD
then the angel said, Financial crisis will come to Asia. I will shake the world.

JAMES 5:1-3
1 Go to now, ye rich men, weep and howl for your miseries that shall come upon you.
2 Your riches are corrupted, and your garments are motheaten.
3 Your gold and silver is cankered; and the rust of them shall be a witness against you, and shall eat your flesh as it were fire. Ye have heaped treasure together for the last days.

REVELATION 18:10,17,19
10 Standing afar off for the fear of her torment, saying, Alas, alas that great city Babylon, that mighty city! for in one hour is thy judgment come.
17 For in one hour so great riches is come to nought. And every shipmaster, and all the company in ships, and sailors, and as many as trade by sea, stood afar off,
19 And they cast dust on their heads, and cried, weeping and wailing, saying, Alas, alas that great city, wherein were made rich all that had ships in the sea by reason of her costliness! for in one hour is she made desolate.

EZEKIEL 7:19
19 They shall cast their silver in the streets, and their gold shall be removed: their silver and their gold shall not be able to deliver them in the day of the wrath of the LORD: they shall not satisfy their souls, neither fill their bowels: because it is the stumblingblock of their iniquity.

REVELATION 13:16-18
16 And he(FALSE POPE) causeth all,(WORLD SOCIALISM) both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:(CHIP IMPLANT)
17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.
18 Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.(6-6-6) A NUMBER SYSTEM

WORLD MARKET RESULTS
http://money.cnn.com/data/world_markets/
CNBC VIDEOS
http://www.cnbc.com/id/15839263/?tabid=15839796&tabheader=false

HALF HOUR DOW RESULTS TUE OCT 26,2010

09:30 AM -1.25
10:00 AM -44.58
10:30 AM +0.64
11:00 AM +3.14
11:30 AM +1.93
12:00 PM -3.56
12:30 PM -1.40
01:00 PM -4.73
01:30 PM +2.23
02:00 PM -21.27
02:30 PM -19.53
03:00 PM -6.25
03:30 PM +5.52
04:00 PM +5.41 11,169.46

S&P 500 1185.64 +0.02

NASDAQ 2497.29 +6.44

GOLD 1,339.70 +0.40

OIL 82.56 +0.04

TSE 300 12,684.70 +21.10

CDNX 1908.07 +7.54

S&P/TSX/60 729.89 +1.21

MORNING,NEWS,STATS

YEAR TO DATE PERFORMANCE
Dow -52 points at 4 minutes of trading today.
Dow -54 points at low today.
Dow +12 points at high today so far.
GOLD opens at $1,330.80.OIL opens at $81.95 today.

AFTERNOON,NEWS,STATS
Dow -54 points at low today so far.
Dow +12 points at high today so far.

WRAPUP,NEWS,STATS
Dow -54 points at low today.
Dow +12 points at high today.

GOLD ALLTIME HIGH $1,375.00 (NOT AT CLOSE)

EARTH WORSHIP

DEUTERONOMY 17:3-4
3 And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded;
4 And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and enquired diligently, and, behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel:

2 KINGS 23:5
5 And he put down the idolatrous priests, whom the kings of Judah had ordained to burn incense in the high places in the cities of Judah, and in the places round about Jerusalem; them also that burned incense unto Baal, to the sun, and to the moon, and to the planets, and to all the host of heaven.

The United Nations’ Socialist Land Redistribution Scheme
By Joseph A. Klein Monday, October 25, 2010 CANADA FREE PRESS

Olivier De Schutter, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, is the author of a report presented on October 20, 2010 to the United Nations General Assembly, which perfectly illustrates the socialist ideology that is all too prevalent amongst United Nations bureaucrats and its so-called experts.The report constitutes little more than an assault on free market capitalism. It is an encomium for government-led wealth redistribution.In his report, Mr. De Schutter blames the free market system for threatening the livelihoods of peasants, fishers, pastoralists, and indigenous peoples. He emphasizes the importance of land redistribution for the realization of the right to food.A right to work, right to communal property, adequate housing Beyond the realization of the right to food itself - which was supposed to define the limit of his area of responsibility - Mr. De Schutter contends that there should also be recognition of universal human rights to adequate housing, a right to work (for landless peasants), and last, but not least, a human right to land. The right to land, he claims, includes the right to communal property — a right of the community rather than of the individual as an alternative to individual property rights.Mr. De Schutter contends that speculation on farmland, the expansion of agrofuels production, and demographic growth in rural areas are all contributing to what he calls global enclosures concentrated in the hands of the few. He even blames land ownership concentration on the effect of measures intended to combat global warming that other UN experts and bureaucrats have been championing.

Measures adopted with a view to climate change mitigation or environmental conservation, which have placed priority on technological and market-based solutions over the deconcentration of land in order to encourage more sustainable land uses, Mr. De Schutter writes in his report, have created further conflicts with the rights of land users.He demands urgent action to reverse inequitable distribution of land. Land does not go to those who need it most, Mr. De Schutter told reporters at a briefing at UN headquarters in which he discussed his report.According to this UN expert, capitalist notions of private property and the titling process tend to reinforce the unequal distribution of land, unfairly favoring those who have access to capital and whose ability to purchase land is greatest.Rather than focusing on strengthening the rights of landowners, States should encourage communal ownership systems, strengthen customary land tenure systems and reinforce tenancy laws to improve the protection of land-users,says Mr. De Schutter.But communal ownership systems - or what used to be called collective farms in the old Communist Soviet Union - may not be enough, according to Mr. De Schutter. He believes that radical programs to achieve equitable redistribution of land may be necessary where the concentration of land ownership is considered by government authorities to be so high as to cause widespread hunger. Systematic change in land rights is essentially his definition of agrarian reform.The UN’s Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food advises that [T]he best way to ensure the right to land and the right to food is precisely to democratize and to secure access to land for the benefit of smallholders. The conclusion is clear: access to land must be recognized as a critical human rights issue.

If those desiring to use someone else’s land happen to take the law in their own hands and occupy land which they do not own, Mr. De Schutter is fine with that. The non-violent occupation of land by landless movements should not be criminalized,he writes in his report.In response to my question at his press briefing, Mr. De Schutter shared a couple of his suggestions with reporters about how governments can best redistribute land. One of his suggestions was to tax large landowners at such a high rate that they will be incentivized to sell their land to small farmers at below market rates. Another suggestion of his was for the government to simply expropriate land from large landholders if the government does not believe that the land is being used productively.The bottom line for Mr. De Schutter is that State-led agrarian reforms (i.e., government-enforced land redistribution) are preferable to market-led agrarian reforms.And, says this UN czar, where UN member states fail to establish land redistribution schemes, they should provide justifications for not having done so.To whom should these justifications be submitted for review? Mr. De Schutter wasn’t very specific, except to suggest some sort of global governance structure:International human rights bodies should consolidate the right to land and take land issues fully into account when ensuring respect for the right to adequate food. The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights could play a leading standard-setting role in clarifying the issue of land as a human right by issuing a general comment in that regard. Acting in their monitoring capacity, human rights bodies should examine the justifications offered by Governments that fail to put in place land redistribution programmes or policies with similar aims, despite the existence of a high degree of concentration of land ownership, combined with a significant level of rural poverty attributable to landlessness or inequitable land distribution.”

The United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights is one of those unaccountable UN bodies of independent experts that monitors the implementation of a UN treaty by its state parties. In this case, the treaty is known as the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which the United States ratified back in 1977 during Jimmy Carter’s thankfully short presidency.The Covenant itself is simply an expression of goals and aspirations of the member states toward which they pledged to work. It provides for international assistance and cooperation toward the improvement of basic conditions in the member states, while leaving it up to each member state to devise its own legislative measures as it deemed appropriate. The Covenant contains no compulsory enforcement provisions. Nor does it provide a basis for interference in the political or judicial mechanisms of each member state.Enter the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which took it upon itself the right to issue its own interpretation of the provisions of the Covenant. The committee took the general aspirational language of the Covenant and filled in the gaps with its own specific elements such as which groups had standing as aggrieved parties, the entitlements ensuing from each right, and the justiciable aspects of each right.For example, the committee expounded on the Covenant’s recognition of a core right to adequate housing as including much more than basic habitability. The committee in its infinite wisdom concluded that (A)dequate housing must be in a location which allows access to employment options, health-care services, schools, child-care centres and other social facilities. Moreover, the committee warned, the building materials used and the policies supporting these must appropriately enable the expression of cultural identity and diversity of housing.The committee went far beyond anything found in the actual Covenant itself by claiming that the right to housing should be ensured to all persons irrespective of income or access to economic resources and instructed the state parties to establish housing subsidies for those unable to obtain affordable housing.One wonders how many of the members of the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights have actually built a house or a business or have risked their own capital to develop land for productive use. Yet it is this unaccountable body, trumpeting their own interpretations of treaty provisions as if those interpretations were to have any binding effect on the member states, to which the UN’s Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food would turn for enforcing his notion of a human right to someone else’s land.Socialism and global governance go very much hand in hand at the United Nations.Joseph A. Klein is the author of a new book entitled Lethal Engagement: Barack Hussein Obama, the United Nations and Radical Islam.

EU business guilty of environmental doublespeak, say NGOs
ANDREW WILLIS 25.10.2010 @ 18:22 CET

EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS - A number of Europe's largest businesses are slowing the pace of environmental reform in the US, while simultaneously warning the EU not to push ahead with greater greenhouse gas emission cuts until other developed regions do likewise, a new report has claimed. The study published on Monday (25 October) by the Climate Action Network Europe, a collection of 130 European environmental and development NGOs, said eight major European firms had contributed $240,200 to US senators who deny climate change or have blocked recent efforts to pass a landmark cap-and-trade bill.A number of big businesses operating in Europe recently called on the EU to move to a 30 percent emissions cut (Photo: Ian Britton)[This] is almost 80 percent of their total spendings in the 2010 senate race, the report said of the money received by the senators. Energy firms dominate the list made up of: Lafarge, GDF-Suez, E.On, BP, BASF, Bayer, Solvay and Arcelor-Mittal.Over the summer US senators ditched legislative efforts to impose a cap-and-trade system for carbon emissions, despite earlier approval by the lower House of Representatives. Senate elections are scheduled for next month.We conclude that the support of European companies is not only targeted at deniers and blockers but that the financial streams are also very strategic, said the study's authors.This behind the scenes behaviour exposes a major hypocrisy in those European headquarter based companies, they added, pointing to recent statements by EU business umbrella groups such as Business Europe. Many companies on the list are members of Business Europe, via their national business federations.In the absence of an international deal securing equally strong action from other economies, any further increase of the EU's unilateral 20 percent emission reduction target would be premature and even counterproductive, the umbrella group said earlier this month, ahead of a meeting of EU environment ministers.

It declined to comment on Monday's report.

Others have pointed to conflicting actions by large multinational companies such as Shell and Solvay on different sides of the Atlantic. They subtly lobby through Business Europe against a unilateral EU cut of 30 percent, while at the same time speaking out against tougher environmental curbs in the US, said Brook Riley, a campaigner with Friends of the Earth.Cracks within business opposition appeared earlier this month however, when a group of firms including Google, Vodafone and BSkyB signed a petition, calling on the EU to increase its emissions target cut to 30per cent by 2020 from 1990 levels.EU environment ministers are set to return to the issue early next year after failing to reach an agreement this month.

AMERICA (POLITICAL BABYLON)

EZEKIEL 39:21
21 And I will set my glory among the heathen, and all the heathen shall see my judgment that I have executed, and my hand that I have laid upon them.

ISAIAH 18:1-2
1 Woe to the land shadowing with wings, which is beyond the rivers of Ethiopia:
2 That sendeth ambassadors by the sea, even in vessels of bulrushes upon the waters, saying, Go, ye swift messengers, to a nation scattered and peeled, to a people terrible from their beginning hitherto; a nation meted out and trodden down, whose land the rivers have spoiled!

JEREMIAH 50:11,37,12
11 Because ye were glad, because ye rejoiced, O ye destroyers of mine heritage, because ye are grown fat as the heifer at grass, and bellow as bulls;(BACKSLIDERS)
37 A sword is upon their horses, and upon their chariots, and upon all the mingled people that are in the midst of her; and they shall become as women: a sword is upon her treasures; and they shall be robbed.(A NATION OF MINGLED PEOPLE)
12 Your mother shall be sore confounded; she that bare you shall be ashamed:(MOTHER ENGLAND) behold, the hindermost of the nations shall be a wilderness, a dry land, and a desert.

JEREMIAH 51:13,7,53
13 O thou that dwellest upon many waters, abundant in treasures, thine end is come, and the measure of thy covetousness.
7 Babylon hath been a golden cup in the LORD's hand, that made all the earth drunken: the nations have drunken of her wine; therefore the nations are mad.
53 Though Babylon should mount up to heaven, and though she should fortify the height of her strength, yet from me shall spoilers come unto her, saith the LORD.

REVELATION 18:3,5,7
3 For all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth are waxed rich through the abundance of her delicacies.
5 For her sins have reached unto heaven, and God hath remembered her iniquities.
7 How much she hath glorified herself, and lived deliciously, so much torment and sorrow give her: for she saith in her heart, I sit a queen, and am no widow, and shall see no sorrow.

JEREMIAH 50:3,24
3 For out of the north there cometh up a nation against her, which shall make her land desolate, and none shall dwell therein: they shall remove, they shall depart, both man and beast.
24 I have laid a snare for thee, and thou art also taken, O Babylon, and thou wast not aware: thou art found, and also caught, because thou hast striven against the LORD. (RUSSIA A SNEAK ATTACK ON AMERICA)

REVELATION 18:9-11,15-21
9 And the kings of the earth, who have committed fornication and lived deliciously with her, shall bewail her, and lament for her, when they shall see the smoke of her burning,(NUKE ATTACK I BELIEVE)
10 Standing afar off for the fear of her torment, saying, Alas, alas that great city Babylon, that mighty city! for in one hour is thy judgment come.
11 And the merchants of the earth shall weep and mourn over her; for no man buyeth their merchandise any more:
15 The merchants of these things, which were made rich by her, shall stand afar off for the fear of her torment, weeping and wailing,
16 And saying, Alas, alas that great city, that was clothed in fine linen, and purple, and scarlet, and decked with gold, and precious stones, and pearls!
17 For in one hour so great riches is come to nought. And every shipmaster, and all the company in ships, and sailors, and as many as trade by sea, stood afar off,
18 And cried when they saw the smoke of her burning, saying, What city is like unto this great city!
19 And they cast dust on their heads, and cried, weeping and wailing, saying, Alas, alas that great city, wherein were made rich all that had ships in the sea by reason of her costliness! for in one hour is she made desolate.
20 Rejoice over her, thou heaven, and ye holy apostles and prophets; for God hath avenged you on her.
21 And a mighty angel took up a stone like a great millstone, and cast it into the sea, saying, Thus with violence shall that great city Babylon be thrown down, and shall be found no more at all.

Bayefsky: U.S. is More Hostile to Israel than it Appears
by Elad Benari OCT 26,10

According to political writer Anne Bayefsky, the Obama administration’s treatment of Israel is not as hostile as it appears, but is, in fact, worse.In an article which appeared last week on the Unity Coalition for Israel’s website, Bayefsky wrote that the U.S. State Department has adopted a practice of saying different things to different audiences. She brought as an example claims by the U.S. that recent speeches delivered the U.N. Human Rights Council were in Israel’s defense, when in fact the remarks American diplomats actually delivered were strikingly different.

While U.S. ambassador to the U.N. Human Rights Council in Geneva, Eileen Donahoe, said during the Council’s last session in October that the Human Rights Council had made historic progress…in advancing the rights of human rights defenders throughout the world, Bayefsky said that Donahoe’s claim turns on the virtue of legitimizing the demonization of Israel in favor of other people’s human rights.Bayefsky explains that during the latest session, the Human Rights Council had before it a report produced by a committee chaired by German lawyer Christian Tomuschat, a former legal adviser to former PA President Yasser Arafat. In the spirit of last year’s Goldstone Report on Operation Cast Lead in Gaza, the Tomuschat Report repeats the claim that Israel engaged in violence against civilians as part of a deliberate policy and criticizes Israel’s legal system for failing to mount a witch hunt for officials at the highest levels. The report also refers to Hamas’ internal investigation of the events during Operation Cast Lead, which exonerates itself from any wrongdoings, and finally concludes that it is not in a position to ascertain the veracity of any of these assertions.According to Bayefsky, when the Human Rights Council took up this report, Ambassador Donahoe told the Human Rights Council: We appreciate that the Tomuschat Committee did not jump to conclusions… and also praised the committee on the grounds that it did not recommend any further UN action, despite the fact that the report was written so that it would guarantee the committee’s reappointment, which did indeed occur.

Furthermore, says Bayefsky, Ambassador Donahoe dropped from her speech the words Because Israel has the right and the demonstrated ability to conduct credible investigations and serious self-scrutiny, further follow-up of the Goldstone Report by UN bodies is unnecessary and unwarranted, a version which appears on the State Department website.Bayefsky adds that this was not a one-time occurrence. A second anti-Israel report, commissioned in June after the flotilla incident, was written following a Human Rights Council investigation created within 48 hours of the incident and carried out by a three-person group that included lawyer Desmond de Silva, who headed a British law office with a Palestinian legal advisor, and hosted the team which is supporting a unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state. De Silva was has told the Human Rights Council that [E]ven if Bin Laden himself was on board the Mavi Marmara, it wouldn’t have made the blockade legal.De Silva and his group said they couldn’t trust Israeli video evidence of the incident, and described the IHH activists on the Marmara as persons genuinely committed to the spirit of humanitarianism. They produced what Bayefsky calls the usual U.N. laundry list of wild accusations and demands, such as prosecuting Israelis for torture.In this case as well, the State Department gave the U.N. a speech by Ambassador Donahoe to post on its website which includes an important defense of Israel, which once again was omitted from her actual delivery. On September 29, several days after Donahoe addressed the Council, it voted to approve both reports.Bayefesky notes that even though at the conclusion of this session, the Human Rights Council maintained its record of having adopted more resolutions and decisions condemning Israel than all other 191 U.N. states combined, the Obama administration still described it as an historic session advancing human rights.This administration’s message is that demonizing Israelis is a price worth paying for the sake of other people’s human rights, concludes Bayfesky. Several developments for anybody else trump several losses for the Jewish state. Legitimizing the Human Rights Council with American membership and financial support is justified regardless of the threat that it poses to the safety and security of the Jewish people. The Obama administration ought to know better. Equality and human dignity cannot be built on the inequality of the few.(IsraelNationalNews.com)

GOP Congress Candidate Rev. Faulkner: Obama Delegitimizes Israel
by Fern Sidman, INN NY Correspondent OCT 24,10

This may be the first time that the Rev. Michael Faulkner is running for elected office, but it is not the first time that Faulkner is running. If the name sounds at all familiar, especially to sports fans, it is because this passionate Christian evangelical minister is also a former NY Jets defensive lineman and has more than ample practice achieving his goals both on the gridiron and on the field of life.

Israel National News spoke with Rev. Faulkner (R) about his campaign to unseat his political rival, Charles Rangel (D-NY); a political icon who has spent the last 40 years representing the people of Manhattan's 15th congressional district, which includes the upper West Side, Harlem and Washington Heights.Rangel, the former chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, has been the subject of media scrutiny as of late because of 13 violations of congressional ethics standards that were leveled against him by House investigators. The allegations include failure to report rental income from vacation property in the Dominican Republic and hundreds of thousands of dollars in additional income and assets on his financial disclosure statements. Other charges focused on Rangel's use of congressional staff and stationery to raise money for a college center in New York named after him; accepting favors and benefits from the donors that may have influenced his congressional actions; use of a subsidized New York apartment as a campaign office instead of a residence; and misuse of the congressional free mail privilege.

I am throwing my hat in the ring and running for Congress because I personally feel, as do my consituents, that greed and corruption is choking the life out of our government" said Faulkner. We are living during one of those times in history when people are saying enough is enough. We need representatives in Congress who do not have a personal agenda, but rather we must elect those who seek to solve the problems that government has imposed on the people. I have always believed that the highest calling is to serve the powerless and to speak for the voiceless, he continued.Rev. Faulkner's position as pastor of the New Horizon Church in Harlem has allowed him to tune in to and gain a hands-on understanding of the issues effecting his constituency. Having received his ordination in December of 1991, Faulkner has rooted himself in the community he serves by leading the ministries specifically geared toward junior and senior high school students as well as managing the church’s programs for the homeless, the prison ministry and an HIV/AIDS program. During his tenure as a minister, numerous city and community outreach programs were conceived and implemented including the development of The Institute for Leadership, a non-profit organization dedicated to making future leaders of the city’s youth. He is a 1992-1993 Coro Leadership New York Fellow and has served as regional chaplain for the New York State Office of Family and Children Services, vice president for community government relations at King’s College and advisor to former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani as a member of the Task Force on Police Community Relations and Commissioner for the City Charter Revision.The jobless rate is my community and others like it is staggering said Faulkner. My plan for creating jobs is based on something we call Jobenomics which is based on a book by economist Chuck Vollmer, with a goal of creating 20 million private sector jobs by the year 2020. The Jobenomics initiative is focused on teaching people to achieve personal freedom and dignity through finding and maintaining meaningful work. Jobenomics will provide mentoring from established coaches and successful individuals. We have also secured relationships with various lending institutions to assist qualified businesses to receive the microfinance loans to these small businesses which have been traditionally underserved by mainstream financial institutions, declared Faulkner.

Faulkner takes issue with the Obama administration's policy of entitlements and government bailouts. I don't believe in entitlements because I feel it diminishes the dignity and value of the American worker. The Talmud explains that the highest form of charity is to give in such a way as to affirm a person's dignity, worth and value. This means that it is much more valuable to give a person a job, meaning a hand up, rather than a check for not working such as a hand out. I will support entrepreneurial initiatives in my community which expand economic opportunities, foster a path to economic self-reliance, and restore the promise of the American Dream, he intoned.As to the thorny issue of health care reform, Rev. Faulkner weighs in on his opinion of the Obamacare plan. This bill was signed into law before any legislators had read it completely, which means they committed the American public and taxpayers to undisclosed and undetermined costs for benefits that will not be fully realized within 10 years, says Faulkner. The health care industry is extremely complex. The amount of federal controls and regulations that were added to this bill to ensure its enforcement are dangerous. I believe a great deal could have been accomplished with stronger tort reform and a deregulation of the interstate health insurance provision. Such deregulation would allow for competition between insurance companies, which would have eventually driven down the cost. We all now wait with baited breath for exactly what these costs will be to every American. This healthcare reform bill is detrimental to New Yorkers as it will cause the loss of thousands of jobs throughout the state and will be responsible for the closure of hundreds of community health care facilities including hospitals and nursing homes, he said.Rev. Faulkner tells INN that he is looking forward to speaking out and making a difference on issues pertaining to foreign affairs as well while in Congress. Let's make it abundantly clear. The pressure that Israel faces under the current administration has got to stop, says Faulkner. Look, I am a proud Zionist and not not ashamed to admit it. I am also a Christian evangelical and my total support is behind Israel because I am enjoined by scripture. I can tell you that millions of other Christian evangelicals feel the same way that I do. We have got to get the message out that the security of the United States is inextricably tied to Israel's security and we have to do everything in our power to ensure that Israel's security is not compromised, he declared.

When asked about President Obama's plans to compel the Netanyahu government to extend the freeze on settlement construction in Judea, Samaria and parts of East Jerusalem, Faulkner says, I am tired of hearing the words occupation and return to 1967 borders when it comes to defining Israel because that simply is not the case. Israel is not an occupying power and thus anyone who says that Jewish settlement construction is an obstacle to peace in the Middle East is just using that as a smokescreen. The real obstacle to peace in that region are terrorists such as Hamas, Hezbollah and other Iranian proxies.As to Rev. Faulkner's perspectives on the creation of a Palestinian state, he says, The Palestinians could have had an independent state in the past but they didn't come to the table. Israel has made territorial compromises and has proffered numerous peace proposals, only to be with resistance by those who really do not want peace. Any proposal for the creation of a Palestinian state must come from Israel and not the US and if such a state is established it must be demilitarized for security reasons.Expressing anger at the myopic view of the Obama administration as it pertains to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Faulkner says, Obama has participated in the delegitimization of Israel through his maltreatment of our best friend and stalwart ally in the region. By doing so he helps to fuel feelings of anti-Semitism. Where does he come off meddling in the internal affairs of Israel? Doesn't our president understand that our best hope for peace lies in solidifying our relationship with Israel rather than alienating her? Doesn't he comprehend the fact that any attack on the Jewish people and their land will be the harbinger for attacks on Christians and other peoples of the Western world? Concerning the Iranian nuclear arms threat, Rev Faulkner is quite clear. You cannot appease these people because they are driven to destroy the West. I don't feel our president should be traveling to the Middle East and apologizing for America's support for Israel. Iran and Syria must be taken to task for underwriting and hosting terrorism in the region and the US should make it clear that we will not negotiate with terrorists under any conditions.Citing the significance of the upcoming November 2nd mid-term elections, Rev. Faulkner makes a heartfelt appeal: This is a most important and critical election that will help define the trajectory that our country, and the world for that matter, is taking. The Jewish people have the opportunity to help Israel through their participation in the electoral process. I look forward to working with my Jewish supporters to make our country stronger and better for future generations.Rev. Faulkner's candidacy has received endorsements from FOX TV commentator Sean Hannity, the New Era Democrats, the Frederick Douglass Foundation, the East Harlem Concerned Pastors, Operation Black Storm, the Black Republicans PAC, the New York and National Right to Life parties, Newt Gingrich, the Republican Party of the State of New York, the Libertarian Party of the State of New York,Harold Augustus, West Harlem Senior Citizen Center, Howard Bernstein, West Harlem Senior Citizen Center, Apostle Edwards, One Way International Ministry, Yvonne Russell, Financial Network, Pastor Nelson, President, World International Chaplaincy, Pastor Debra L Smith, Christ Holiness Temple, Bishop Randall B. Gillis, Overseer, El Shaddei Church, Deacon Diaz, Calvary Baptist Church, Pastor Michael Bozwa, Zion Tabernacle and Chaplain Desiree Bernstein, United Chaplains of the State of New York.(IsraelNationalNews.com)

Netanyahu Sneaks Contested Kollel Funding into Budget
by Gil Ronen OCT 25,10

The opposition Kadima party slammed Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu Monday for his alleged contempt for a High Court ruling regarding stipends for adults who are full time students at yeshivas. The party's statement was issued after media reported that the government had quietly added a sum of 110,885,000 shekels to the Education Ministry's budget for 2011 under the heading minimum income insurance for kollel students.

Kadima accused Netanyahu of cynicism and chutzpah.The funding is seen as a way of circumventing a High Court decision that found the payment of state stipends to adult full-time students (known as avrechim) at the yeshivas geared for them (known as kollels) to be illegal. The court determined that payment of the stipends discriminates against students at other institutes of higher learning, like universities and colleges, and instructed the state to grant similar stipends to students at all institutes of higher learning, or to cease paying the hareidi students.The High Court decision prompted hareidi-religious party United Torah Judaism to initiate a bill that would obligate the state to pay the stipends, by law. This initiative, in turn, created a loud public debate, with many secular politicians and media personalities venting anger at the entire hareidi population. The Prime Minister seemed to successfully quell the furor Monday morning when he announced the formation of a committee to decide the dispute. A few hours later, however, it turned out that the funds for kollel students had been worked into the budget.The Prime Minister's Office responded to the accusations by stating that “the Government is operating in accordance with the High Court's instruction to codify in legislation the insurance for avrechim. At the same time, the government is operating to encourage professional training for avrechim and their entry into employment.The PMO promised that by the end of the year, before the Knesset grants final approval to the state budget, the government will determine a legal formula for distribution of the stipends in accordance with the High Court ruling. If this process is not completed by the time the budget is approved, the PMO added, the finds earmarked for the hareidim will be deposited in the Treasury's reserves.
(IsraelNationalNews.com)

The lie of Separation of Church & State
By Publius Huldah Sunday, October 24, 2010 CANADA FREE PRESS

1. How did it happen that our country became a land where Christian children are forbidden to use the word, God, in the public schools; public school students are forbidden to say prayers at football games; and religious speech is banned from the public square? Read on, and I will show you how judges on the supreme Court perverted our Constitution, prohibited the Free Exercise of Religion, and abridged our Freedom of Speech.

2. We must begin by learning what our Constitution says - and doesn’t say - about religion and speech. The three branches of federal government: Legislative Branch (Art I), Executive Branch (Art II), and Judicial Branch (Art III), have only the enumerated powers delegated to them in the Constitution. All legislative powers granted in the Constitution are vested in Congress (Art I, ¬ß1). This means that no other branch may make law. Since the legislative powers of Congress are enumerated, Congress may make laws only on those specific subjects listed in the Constitution as proper objects of legislation. Since religion & speech are not among the listed powers, Congress may not make any laws about religion or speech.

3. Furthermore, the First Amendment to the Constitution says:Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech…What is an established religion? I will show you how judges on the supreme Court changed the historical definition of that term so that they could eradicate Christian speech from our public square and eliminate speech they don’t like. We will begin by finding out what establishment of religion actually meant when the Constitution was ratified. To do so, we must consult English history, American colonial history, and writings of our Founders.

Established Religion in England

4. Queen Mary I (Bloody Mary), who reigned between 1553-1558, deposed The Church of England which her Father, Henry VIII, had established; re-established the Roman Catholic Church, and burned approximately 300 Protestant dissenters at stake. Elizabeth I, who reigned between 1558-1603, restored the Church of England. Elizabeth’s Act of Uniformity (1559), imposed fines, forfeitures, and imprisonment on church officials who did not conform to approved doctrine & practice; and imposed fines on all persons who, without sufficient excuse, did not attend services of the Church of England. Additional laws illustrative of English Church History from 1558-1640 are here.During the reign of Charles II (1661-1685), the Puritan John Bunyan, author of Pilgrim’s.Progress, was imprisoned for 11 years because he refused to attend services of the established Church of England, and he refused to obtain a license to preach as a nonconformist.

5. The established religions in England, first Roman Catholic, and then Church of England, were supported by “tithes”—mandatory payments of a percentage of the produce of the land, payable by those living within the parish (regardless of their religious preferences) to the parish church, to support it and its clergy:The payment of tithes was a cause of endless dispute between the tithe owners and the tithe payers - between clergy and parishioners - ... In addition, Quakers and other non-conformists objected to paying any tithes to support the established church. Almost every agricultural process and product attracted controversy over its tithe value. By the eighteenth century the complex legislation surrounding the tithe began to have a detrimental effect ... Tithing was seen as increasingly irrelevant to the needs of the community and the developing agricultural industry.

6. So! The essential characteristic of established religion in England up to the time of the founding of our country was coercion by the civil government: The people were forced to practice the established denomination under pain of death, imprisonment & fines, and were forced to financially support the established church.

Established Religions in the American Colonies

7. English settlers in the colonies promptly established their religions! In Massachusetts, where the People established the Congregational Church, only church members could vote between 1631-1664; dissenters (Roger Williams, etc.) were banished; and between 1650-1670, Quakers were whipped, imprisoned, banished, and put to death. In Virginia, where they established the Church of England, penalties for failure to attend services during the early 1600’s included death, prison, and fines. 1 In Maryland, where they established the Church of England, between 1704-1775, Roman Catholic (RC) services could be held only in private homes, RCs could not teach school, inheritance of property by RCs was restricted, and RCs who would not take a certain oath were disfranchised and subject to additional taxes, as well as being forced to contribute to the established church. In Virginia at this time, RCs were forbidden to possess arms, give evidence in court, or hold office unless they took certain oaths. New York and Massachusetts made laws which stayed on the books until the Revolution directing all RCs to leave the realm. Rhode Island’s laws between 1719-1783 prohibited RCs from being freeman or office holders. Not until 1783 were RC’s given full political rights in Rhode Island. In Virginia, no marriage was legal unless performed by a minister of the Church of England. 2

Everyone in Virginia, Maryland, and North & South Carolina was required to contribute to the support of the established Church of England, to maintain the building, pay the minister’s salary, and provide him with a house and plot of land. New York required each county to hire a good sufficient Protestant minister and to levy taxes for his support. By 1760, the Congregational Church was still established in Massachusetts and Connecticut; but Episcopalians, Baptists and Quakers were now tolerated, and no longer required to support of the Congregational Church. 3 Presbyterians of Chester, N.H. objected to being taxed to support the Congregational minister, and in 1740 won the right to be taxed only for their own denomination. Even so, in 1807, the Presbyterians in Chester sold a Quaker’s cow for non-payment of the Minister’s Tax!

Writings of Our Founders
8. As the Spirit of Toleration grew in England and colonial America, criminal penalties for dissenting from the tax-supported established religions were abolished. By 1776, the essential characteristic of established religions, as opposed to tolerated religions, was that the former were supported by tax money (or tithes assessed & collected by law); whereas the latter were supported by voluntary contributions alone. Benjamin Franklin wrote in The London Packet, June 3, 1772 of colonial Americans:They went from England to establish a new country ... where they might enjoy the free exercise of religion ... they granted the lands out in townships, requiring ... that the freeholders should forever support a gospel minister (meaning probably one of the then governing sects) ... Thus, what is commonly called Presbyterianism became the established religion of that country. All went on well in this way while the same religious opinions were general, the support of minister ... being raised by a proportionate tax on the lands. But in process of time, some becoming Quakers, some Baptists, and ... some returning to the Church of England ... objections were made to the payment of a tax appropriated to the support of a church they ... had forsaken. The civil magistrates, however, continued for a time to collect and apply the tax according to the original laws which remained in force ... a payment which it was thought no honest man ought to avoid under the pretense of his having changed his religious persuasion. ... But the practice being clamoured against by the episcopalians as persecution, the legislature of the Province of the Massachusets-Bay, near thirty years since, passed an act for their relief, requiring indeed the tax to be paid as usual, but directing that the ... sums levied from members of the Church of England, should be paid over to the Minister of that Church, with whom such members usually attended divine worship, which Minister had power given him to receive and on occasion to recover the same by law. [emphasis in boldface added; italics in original]Alexander Hamilton wrote in 1775 in his Remarks on the Quebec Bill (No. 11):

The characteristic difference between a tolerated and established religion, consists in this: With respect to the support of the former, the law is passive and improvident, leaving it to those who profess it, to make as much, or as little, provision as they ... judge expedient; and to vary and alter that provision, as their circumstances may require. In this manner, the Presbyterians, and other sects, are tolerated in England. They are allowed to exercise their religion without molestation, and to maintain their clergy as they think proper. These are wholly dependent upon their congregations, and can exact no more than they stipulate and are satisfied to contribute. But with respect to the support of the latter, the law is active and provident. Certain precise dues, (tithes &c.,) are legally annexed to the clerical office, independent on the liberal contributions of the people ...While tithes were the free ... gift of the people ... the Roman church was only in a state of toleration; but when the law came to take cognizance of them, and, by determining their permanent existence, destroyed the free agency of the people, it then resumed the nature of an establishment. [emphasis added]

James Madison wrote in his letter of 1832 to Rev. Adams:In the Colonial State of the Country, there were four examples, R.I., N.J., Penna. and Delaware, & the greater part of N.Y. where there were no religious Establishments; the support of Religion being left to the voluntary associations & contributions of individuals…

9. So! The essential characteristic of an established religion by 1789 was that an established denomination was supported by mandatory taxes or tithes, but tolerated denominations were supported by voluntary offerings of their adherents. Benjamin Franklin’s fascinating letter of 1772 shows that the hot topic of the time was the forcing of dissenters to financially support established religion: In England, dissenters from the Church of England were forced to pay tithes to the clergy of that Church. The English supporters of the Church of England responded that the dissenters in America had no room to complain because they compelled American Anglicans to pay taxes to support the Presbyterian worship!

Whose Powers Are Restricted By The First Amendment?

10. Before we look at supreme Court opinions banning the free exercise of religion & abridging free speech, we must consider: Whose powers are restricted by The First Amendment? It reads:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech…The plain language shows that the First Amendment restricts only Congress’ powers! The People of the States are free to establish (or dis-establish) any religion they want - this is one of the powers retained by the States or the People! Several States did retain their established religions after ratification of the U.S. Constitution in 1789. We saw that in 1807, Presbyterians in Chester, N.H. sold a Quaker’s cow for non-payment of the Minister’s Tax. Not until the Toleration Act of 1819 did the Legislature of N.H. make it illegal for towns, as corporate bodies, to raise money for the support of the gospel. Connecticut did not dis-establish the Congregational Church until they adopted their Constitution of 1818 (see Article Seventh). Massachusetts did not dis-establish the Congregational Church until 1833.

11. So! The First Amendment (1) prohibits Congress from establishing a national denominational religion, (2) prohibits Congress from interfering in the States’ establishments of the religions of their choice, or dis-establishments thereof, and (3) prohibits Congress from abridging the Peoples’ freedom of speech. Everyone understood that no one in the federal government had any authority to cancel, abridge, restrain or modify rights of any denomination or the States’ essential rights of liberty of conscience. The People of Virginia said, when they ratified the U.S. Constitution:We the Delegates of the People of Virginia ... having ... investigated and discussed the proceedings of the Federal Convention ... Do in the name ... of the People of Virginia declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will: that therefore no right of any denomination can be cancelled abridged restrained or modified by the Congress by the Senate or House of Representatives acting in any Capacity by the President or any Department or Officer of the United States except in those instances in which power is given by the Constitution for those purposes: & that among other essential rights the liberty of Conscience and of the Press cannot be cancelled abridged restrained or modified by ANY authority of the United States. With these impressions with a solemn appeal to the Searcher of hearts for the purity of our intentions ...We ... in the name ... of the People of Virginia ... ratify the Constitution recommended on the seventeenth day of September one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven by the Federal Convention for the Government of the United States… [emphasis added]

12. But in Gitlow v. People (1925), judges on the supreme Court asserted - without any justification in Law or Fact - that the 14th Amendment (which applies to the States) 4 incorporates the First Amendment so that the First Amendment now restricts the powers of the States! They said:...we may and do assume that freedom of speech and of the press which are protected by the First Amendment from abridgment by Congress are among the fundamental personal rights and liberties protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment from impairment by the States. We do not regard the incidental statement in Prudential Ins. Co. v. Cheek 5 ....that the Fourteenth Amendment imposes no restrictions on the States concerning freedom of speech, as determinative of this question. (p. 666) [emphasis added] The judges’ new interpretation of the 14th Amendment became the weapon the Court has used to silence Christians and to seize Power over States & local governments. By claiming that the First Amendment restricts the powers of the States & local governments, the Court set itself up as policeman over the States, over counties, over cities & towns, and even over football fields & county court-house lawns! In this way, the Bill of Rights, which was intended to be the States’ and The Peoples’ protection against usurpations of power by the federal government, became the weapon the supreme Court used to usurp power and force their wills on all People in Our Land.

How the Supreme Court Re-defined the Historic Term, Establishment of Religion

13. We have seen that Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, and James Madison said the distinguishing characteristic of an established religion was that the established denomination was supported by mandatory taxes or tithes, whereas tolerated denominations were supported by voluntary offerings of their adherents.

14. Now let us see how judges on the supreme Court re-defined establishment of religion in order to ban prayer in public schools. Engel v. Vitale (1962), is the case where six men outlawed prayer in the public schools. A public school board in New York had directed that the following prayer be said at school:Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our Country.Any student was free to remain seated or leave the room, without any comments by the teacher one way or the other.But six men on the supreme Court said this short, non-denominational and voluntary prayer constituted an establishment of religion in violation of the First Amendment! They (Hugo Black 6 Warren, Clark, Harlan, Brennan, and Douglas) admitted that allowing school children to say this prayer did not really establish a religion! They admitted that the prayer:...does not amount to a total establishment of one particular religious sect to the exclusion of all others—that, indeed, the governmental endorsement of that prayer seems relatively insignificant when compared to the governmental encroachments upon religion which were commonplace 200 years ago…(p.436)

Douglas wrote in his concurring opinion:I cannot say that to authorize this prayer is to establish a religion in the strictly historic meaning of those words. A religion is not established in the usual sense merely by letting those who choose to do so say the prayer that the public school teacher leads. (p.442)But these six men didn’t want children praying in school. So, they just redefined establishment of religion to mean, a religious activity, a prayer (p.424), having public school children hear or recite a prayer that somebody in government composed (pp.425-427), writing or sanctioning official prayers(p.435), and government endorsement of a prayer (p.436).These six men also admitted that even though no coercion was present, and even though the prayer was denominationally neutral, it still constituted an unlawful establishment of religion:The Establishment Clause ... does not depend upon any showing of direct governmental compulsion and is violated by the enactment of laws which establish an official religion whether those laws operate directly to coerce nonobserving individuals or not. (p.430)Douglas said in his concurring opinion:There is no element of compulsion or coercion in New York’s regulation requiring that public schools be opened each day with the ... prayer (p.438); there is ... no effort at indoctrination, and no attempt at exposition ... New York’s prayer ... does not involve any element of proselytizing ... (p.439).

15. They thus redefined established religion to describe what the N.Y. public schools were doing so that they could then outlaw it. They don’t have that right! We have quoted Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton & James Madison as showing that the essence of an established religion is that the civil government selects a particular religious denomination (Roman Catholic or Church of England or Congregational or Presbyterian, etc., and forces everybody to financially support that particular denomination with taxes or tithes. 7

16. Well! Since the evil from which the supreme Court in Engel v. Vitale pretended it sought to protect our public school children was having them recite or hear (if they wanted to) a one-sentence non-denominational prayer which somebody in government composed; that monstrous evil can be avoided if the children write their own prayers, right?

17. Oh no!, said six people on the supreme Court in Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe (2000). Here, a public school district permitted, but did not require, student-initiated, student-led, nonsectarian, non-proselytizing prayer at home football games. But Justices Stevens, Ginsberg, Souter, Breyer, O’Connor, & Kennedy said this constituted an establishment of religion in violation of the First Amendment, because the prayers were public speech authorized by government policy taking place on government property at government sponsored school events, and the policy involved perceived and actual government endorsement of prayer.

The six also said on page 309-310 of their opinion:...School sponsorship of a religious message is impermissible because it sends the ancillary message to members of the audience who are nonadherents that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and an accompanying message to adherents that they are insiders, favored members of the political community Lynch, 465 U.S. at 688 ...
Do you see? They cite themselves—their earlier opinion in Lynch—as authority! 8 Furthermore, making nonadherents feel like outsiders is not a constitutional standard; it is the judges’ own silly standard.The six said on page 310:...We explained in Lee that the preservation and transmission of religious beliefs and worship is a responsibility and a choice committed to the private sphere. 505 U.S. at 589…Again, they cite themselves - their opinion in Lee - as authority! Furthermore, the Constitution does not restrict religion to the private sphere - it forbids Congress from prohibiting its free exercise ANYWHERE!

18. Again, the six judges in Santa Fe re-defined establishment of religion to describe what the Santa Fe School District was doing so that they could then outlaw it.

19. In his dissenting opinion, Rehnquist, joined by Scalia & Thomas, said the majority opinion:...bristles with hostility to all things religious in public life. Neither the holding nor the tone of the opinion is faithful to the meaning of the Establishment Clause, when it is recalled that George Washington himself, at the request of the very Congress which passed the Bill of Rights, proclaimed a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God.... (p. 318) [emphasis added]The One-Way Only Wall of Separation Between Church and State

20. We have all heard the chant, mindlessly recited, separation of church and state. Many believe this phrase is in the Constitution, and that it forbids any Christian influence in the public square. But that is false. The phrase is nowhere in the Constitution, and it is not a constitutional principle. The First Amendment says Congress may not legally establish one [religious] creed as official truth and support it with its full financial and coercive powers; 9 and it may not prohibit the free exercise of religion or religious speech ANYWHERE.

21. We saw that in Connecticut, the Congregational Church was the established religion until Connecticut dis-established that Church with it’s Constitution of 1818. Earlier, on October 7, 1801, Baptists in Danbury, Connecticut wrote a letter to President Thomas Jefferson in which they expressed their distress that in Connecticut, where they were a religious minority,...religion is considered as the first object of legislation; and therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the state) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights; and these favors we receive at the expense of such degrading acknowledgements as are inconsistent with the rights of freemen…*****Sir, we are sensible that the president of the United States is not the national legislator, and also sensible that the national government cannot destroy the laws of each state; but our hopes are strong that the sentiments of our beloved president, which have had such genial effect already, like the radiant beams of the sun, will shine and prevail through all these states…till…tyranny be destroyed from the earth…These Baptists thus expressed their hope that the People of Connecticut would be influenced by Jefferson’s sentiments and dis-establish the Congregational Church in Connecticut.

22. In his response dated January 2, 1802, Jefferson indicated that he hoped the People of Connecticut would follow the example of the whole American people:...Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights…

Jefferson agreed that civil government ought not dictate to People in matters of religious belief, and pointed out that the First Amendment prevents Congress from doing this. He did not say that religion must be relegated to the private sphere! He used the First Amendment as his model - and it restricts only Congress, not religion.Jefferson and the Danbury Baptists both knew the federal government had no authority to dis-establish Connecticut’s official Church.

23. An earlier Draft of Jefferson’s letter with recently discovered text reads:...I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establish-ment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; thus building a wall of eternal separation between Church & State. Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorized only to execute their acts… [emphasis added]

24. Dr. Hutson’s article shows that on Sunday, Jan 3, 1802, right after Jefferson wrote the letter to the Danbury Baptists, he attended worship services in the House of Representatives, where John Leland, a Baptist minister and well known advocate of religious liberty, preached. During the remainder of Jefferson’s two administrations, he attended religious services conducted in the House constantly. Jefferson granted permission to various denominations to worship in executive office buildings, where four-hour communion services were held…Jefferson had no problem with sectarian praying, preaching & communion serving on public property! It could be said that he endorsed Christianity! Those who are so determined to eradicate Christianity from our Country walk on a slender reed when they claim Jefferson as an ally.

25. In Engel v. Vitale, Hugo Black said the reading of the prayer [Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our Country] before children in the N.Y. public schools who chose to hear it:breaches the constitutional wall of separation between Church and State (p.425).Even though this metaphor of wall of separation between church and state is nowhere in the Constitution, this Klansman turned supreme Court justice misrepresented it as a constitutional principle! 10 Furthermore, Hugo Black misapplied the metaphor: The wall of separation metaphor doesn’t apply to what the N.Y. public schools were doing because The State of New York isn’t Congress; and New York, with it’s one sentence non-denominational prayer, wasn’t establishing a religion . What Jefferson’s metaphor applied to was an Act of Congress selecting a particular denomination (Roman Catholic or Episcopalian or Congregational or Presbyterian, or Baptist, etc., and forcing everybody to financially support that particular denomination with taxes or tithes. Congress also may not prohibit the free exercise of religion anywhere [neither may the supreme Court]; and that Jefferson thought religion should have an influence in the public square is clear from all those church services & celebrations of communion which were constantly held in the House of Representatives and the Executive Office Building!

Lawlessness on the Court

26. Let us summarize what the supreme Court has done to free speech and the free exercise of religion throughout our Land. They have violated the First Amendment in four ways:

a) Even though the First Amendment expressly restricts only the law-making powers of Congress, and thus was intended to be the States’ and the Peoples’ protection from Congress; the supreme Court reversed the purpose of the First Amendment so that it became the tool the Court uses to silence speech they don’t like and to suppress the free exercise of a religion they don’t like, all throughout the States, counties, towns & villages, all the way down to football fields & county courthouse lawns.

b) Even though the First Amendment says, an establishment of religion, a phrase which has a distinct historical meaning, the Court from time to time re-defines the term so as to describe the circumstances surrounding religious speech they don’t like so that they can declare it unconstitutional. In effect, they claim the right to sit as a continuing constitutional convention amending the words in the U.S. Constitution to elevate into Law their own WILLS.

c) They outlawed the free exercise of religion; and they outlawed free speech - when the subject is “religious” - because they don’t like it. They took away from their Sovereign—their Creators—a right expressly reserved by us in the U.S. Constitution. Congress may not stop people from praying anywhere, or posting The Ten Commandments anywhere, or preaching in any public areas. Neither may the Supreme Court. But those lawless usurpers took away OUR religions and replaced them with THEIR humanist & statist religion which they seek to force on us.

d) By claiming that their opinions have the effect of law, they made laws respecting religion, and laws abridging speech they don’t like, even though the federal government has no authority to act in this area. When Congress is prohibited from making laws in an area, the supreme Court certainly may not make laws in that area! The only way religion or speech could ever properly get before the supreme Court would be if CONGRESS VIOLATED the First Amendment and Art. I., ¬ß 8 by making a law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or by making a law abridging the freedom of speech. The States and political subdivisions retained the rights to make whatever laws they please respecting religion (subject only to any limitations imposed by their own State Constitutions), and the U.S. Supreme Court has no constitutional authority whatsoever to interfere.

27. In closing, know this: Federal judges do not have lifetime appointments. They serve during good Behaviour only (Art. III, §1). The constitutional remedy for usurping federal judges is impeachment, trial, conviction & removal. Federalist No. 81 (8th para), A. Hamilton.In the Year of our Lord, October 24, 2010 11
Publius Huldah.

1 A History of the Congregational Churches in the United States, Williston Walker (1894), pp 114-149; Google digitized book.

2 A History of the United States: A Century of Colonial History, 1660-1760, Edward Channing (1908), pp 423- 454; Google digitized book.

3 Id.

4 The 14th Amendment (ratified 1868) says, ...No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws…Professor Raoul Berger’s meticulously researched book, Government by Judiciary: The Transformation of the Fourteenth Amendment, proves that the purpose of the 14th Amendment was to protect freed slaves from southern Black Codes which denied them basic rights of citizenship.The 14th Amendment has nothing to do with silencing Christians! John Whitehead’s essay, The Fading Constitution, in The Second American Revolution, Crossway Books (1982), shows how the supreme Court turned the Bill of Rights, which was once a source of freedom against federal governmental interference [into] a source of intervention by the federal government into the very heart of the state governments.PH highly recommends Whitehead’s book to lawyers & laymen alike.

5 Just three years earlier, the supreme Court said in Prudential Ins. Co. v. Cheek (1922):But, as we have stated, neither the Fourteenth Amendment nor any other provision of the Constitution of the United States imposes upon the states any restrictions about freedom of speech ... nor ... does it confer any right of privacy upon either persons or corporations. (page 543) [emphasis added]

Do you see? First it doesn’t; then, three years later - it does!

6 Hugo Black, who wrote the majority opinion in Engel v. Vitale, was a New Deal Democrat, a former Ku Klux Klan member, a supporter of FDR’s court-packing scheme, & FDR’s first appointment to the supreme Court.

7 The majority opinion in Engel v. Vitale is also silly. Between the time Hugo Black changed his white robe for a black robe, he apparently didn’t study Logic: On pp. 425-427, Black discussed the 16th century Established Church of England and its Book of Common Prayer which was approved by Parliament during 1548 & 1549. From that, Black concluded that when somebody in government composes a prayer, such constitutes an establishment of religion, even if the prayer is non-denominational & voluntary! This is the form of Black’s argument:

1st Premise: An established religion wrote a Book of Common Prayer for the public that Parliament approved.

2nd Premise: People in NY State government wrote a one-sentence prayer for the public.

Conclusion: When people in government write a one-sentence prayer for the public, they establish a religion.

Oh my! Black made several errors in Logic, among which are:

(a) The dreaded Fallacy of Four Terms: The Premises don’t connect establish a religion with people in government writing a prayer, so the reasoning is invalid. There are four terms in Black’s argument - and the fourth term, establish a religion, is introduced in the conclusion!!

(b) Black selected one of many activities engaged in by established religions - writing prayers - & concluded that anytime government performs that same activity, such constitutes an establishment of religion. But established religions do many things - you can’t pick one of the things & say that if government does it, government establishes a religion! That’s ridiculous!

(c) Our Founders said the defining characteristic of established religion is that a particular denomination selected by civil government exists on taxes & tithes extracted from the People by force! But Black redefined the term to mean people in government writing a prayer for the public, so as to enable him to rule in the case then before him, that N.Y. established a religion. This is the fallacy of Victory by Definition: one redefines the terms so that one wins. It is intellectually dishonest.

8 They insert their personal views into their opinions and then, in later cases, cite those earlier personal views as authority! This is preposterous and a classic example of the Rule of Men! The judges’ sole authority is to decide cases properly before them; their decisions affect only the parties to the cases, and do not have the force & effect of law on anybody. The Federalist No. 78, A. Hamilton.

9 A Wall of Separation, by James Hutson. The quote is in the next to the last paragraph.

10 Justice Stewart, who dissented, said in Engel v. Vitale:

Moreover, I think that the Court’s task, in this as in all areas of constitutional adjudication is not responsibly aided by the uncritical invocation of metaphors like the wall of separation, a phrase nowhere to be found in the Constitution…(pp.445-446)

11 Art. VII, clause 2, U.S. Constitution, contains an express recognition of the Lordship of Jesus Christ. Is that unconstitutional? I think not—It is, after all, in the Constitution.