Pretty bad when they have made Church's into GOVERNMENTAL Agencies. what happened to separation between Church and State.
Executive Orders Executive Order 13397 created a new Center for Faith-Based & Community Initiatives at the Department of Homeland Security on March 7, 2006. Executive Order 13199 created the White House Office of Faith-Based & Community Initiatives on January 29, 2001. Executive Order 13198 created five Centers for Faith-Based & Community Initiatives on January 29, 2001. Executive Order 13280 created two Centers for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives on December 12, 2002. Executive Order 13279 requires equal protection for faith-based and community organizations as of December 12, 2002. Executive Order 13342 created three new Centers for Faith-Based & Community Initiatives at the Departments of Commerce and Veterans Affairs and the Small Business Administration on June 1, 2004. http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/fbci/executive-orders.html
Short study on the right wing christian movement..some links at the bottom show the military in Churches. They are not of God. looks like more of a military operation to me. these were collected last year, to see who was controlling the religious right. I am sure there is more information out there. this is just a sample....that w worked on to get an idea, what drives the religious right.
this gives the picture of who is the front for the evangelical so called Christians.
question lies with the membership on the Council for National Policy. Two of the members are Pat Robertson and Jesuit Avery Cardinal Dulles
U.S. Christians create umbrella organization to lobby for Israel
http://www.rickross.com/reference/tv_preachers/tv_preachers7.html NEWS OF RELIGIOUS CONFLICT & INTOLERANCE - 2002-SEP ... Fundamentalist and other Evangelical pastors John Hagee, Marilyn Hickey and ... They carried signs that read "God Hates Fags," "God Hates America," and ... www.religioustolerance.org/news_02sep.htm - 40k - Cached - Similar pages
On Sunday evening, November, 21, 2004, Cornerstone Church hosted the 24th Annual "A Night to Honor Israel." It
Evangelicals To Launch 'Christian AIPAC'
By Ilan Chaim Jerusalem Post 2-3-6
A leading US evangelist is forming an umbrella organization under which all pro-Israel Christians in America can speak as one in support of the Jewish state.
Pastor John C. Hagee of San Antonio, Texas, is to launch Christians United for Israel (CUFI) at an invitation-only "Summit on Israel" next Tuesday at his Cornerstone Church.
The Texas-size church seats 5,000 worshipers and has some 17,000 members, but the summit will host a much smaller congregation: the spiritual leaders of an estimated 30 million US Christians.
"Think of CUFI as a Christian version of AIPAC [the American Israel Public Affairs Committee]," Hagee told The Jerusalem Post. "We need to be able to respond instantly to Washington with our concerns about Israel. We must join forces to speak as one group and move as one body to [respond to] the crisis Israel will be facing in the near future."
Hagee declined to specify which crisis, noting that Israel faces one "every day the sun comes up." But at the top of the CUFI agenda is what the pastor calls "the Bible issue," namely what he considers to be the mistaken policy of trading parts of the biblical Land of Israel for peace, an agenda that AIPAC, for example, neglects.
Accordingly, Hagee says, CUFI intends to "interact with the government in Washington" and persuade it "to stop pressuring Israel to give up land for peace. Besides the fact that this does not work, Israel has a Bible mandate for the land. Now that Gaza has been given to Hamas, it has a military foothold a thousand yards from Jerusalem."
CUFI's Washington efforts are to be led by national director Hagee and a blue-ribbon board supervising 12 regional directors, each of whom is responsible for four states.
"Every state in the Union, every congressional district" will be accounted for, Hagee says. Board members comprise an evangelical who's who, including Jerry Falwell, Benny Hinn, Jack Hayford, George Morrison, Rod Parsley and Steven Strang. Televangelist Pat Robertson is to attend the summit, but is not on the board.
Asked whether this had anything to do with Robertson's infamous attribution of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's stroke to divine retribution for the withdrawal from Gaza, Hagee called Robertson's remark "insensitive and unnecessary." He also derided similar attempts to link Hurricane Katrina or other disasters to the Gaza disengagement, saying, "We have no desire to try to guess God's opinion about a storm."
CUFI aims to speak for Israel, but not to Israel, particularly during the present election campaign. While the organization supports moving the American Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, its main concern is "the Bible issue" and not Israeli politics. To this end, Hagee says, CUFI will back "whoever is for keeping the land."
that explains this http://shlonkombakazay.blogspot.com/2005/02/efficient-version-holy-st-its-fascist.html The brain washing that goes on is incredible! Gives a new meaning to Onward Christian Soldiers. truly all of it is disgusting.. Scripting these events as God had a hand in them all. Talk about dumbing down this nation they have done a fine job. Organized religion is used to control the people. These are good examples. thank you for bringing this to the board. I just hope these so called Christian soldiers have an Epiphany!!!!!!.. I hope that the shock and awe of the truth will send them into action against this Cabal, I hope to heck they wake up and wake up fast. NORTHCOM is the Evangelical Church. What an eye opener...what evil.
Joint Chief OF Staff former wife Kay Griggs is all over the net telling how our Big Brass is compromised.. this all fits. with the mind control operations, the drugging , the pedophilia, the black mailing. man what evil.
Have you ever heard of the CuttingEdge.org site? <http://cuttingedge.org/ > He is former military Top Secret Crypto and writes about how the Illuminati loves to "telegraph its punches" by airing the disaster movies, etc. in which they are telling us what they intend to do in the future ( and I see tell-tale signs in TV shows, commercials, etc. all the time). One of CuttingEdge's recent subscriber articles added even more insight, that the mystic Kaballahists (atheist Jews at the top of the cabal) who practice Kaballah, in order for their "curse" to be "successful," they MUST let the accursed erson/people KNOW IN ADVANCE what they intend to do to them for it to be a success. So that's explains it as well. And the fact the History Channel aired that show TODAY of ALL days, hmmmm, that's some AMAZING TIMING if you ask me. (26th = 2x13).
Another topic that might interest you: There are so-called evangelical "prophets" that frequent the "Christian channels" but who really are "insiders" with NORTHCOM, so the so-called "prophecies" they are giving are really nothing more than the FUTURE PLANS of the cabal. If you have time for it, the info is fascinating and just shows how far these guys will go to deceive people. Here's a good one for starters -- this lady is one heck of a researcher:
THE PROPHECIES OF CHUCK PIERCE OR �INSIDER KNOWLEDGE� ABOUT FUTURE DISASTERS IN THE U.S. FLORIDA, NEW ORLEANS, BATON ROUGE, HOUSTON, GALVESTON, ST. LOUIS, DETROIT, LOS ANGELES, SAN FRANCISCO < http://watch.pair.com/chuck-pierce.html > [...] The prophecies of Chuck Pierce should be taken seriously, not because he and other self-styled �apostles� in the US Strategic Prayer Network are prophets of God, but because they have advance insider knowledge of these man-orchestrated events. We think it is no coincidence that the Global Harvest Ministries of Wagner and Pierce, Dutch Sheets' Springs Harvest Fellowship and the U.S. Northern Command (NORTHCOM), which oversees and coordinates all military operations in North America, are all located in Colorado Springs!!! - (Ted Haggard and his church and org are one of that bunch! Ted Haggard is president of the NEA, Nat'l Evangelical Assoc. /bg) In fact, Colorado Springs is now the home of more than 100 Christian ministries and organizations as well as five military bases: Fort Carson, Peterson Air Force Base, Schriever Air Force Base, The United States Air Force Academy, and NORAD. NORTHCOM is located at Fort Peterson AFB on Cheyenne Mountain which is also a center of Homeland Security Operations. Sometimes called the "military-religious industrial complex of Colorado Springs," there are many signs that this area is the central command of the military religious Order of the Knights of the Temple, the Knights Templar . The following is compilation of selected prophecies by Chuck Pierce interspersed with our own commentary on the agenda of the occult establishment from which Pierce clearly receives his information. ... The full article here: < http://watch.pair.com/chuck-pierce.html>
Privacy advocates and search industry watchers have long warned that the vast and valuable stores of data collected by search engine companies could be vulnerable to thieves, rogue employees, mishaps or even government subpoenas.
Four major search companies were served with government subpoenas for their search data last year, and now once again, privacy advocates can say, “We told you so.”
AOL’s misstep last week in briefly posting some 19 million Internet search queries made by more than 600,000 of its unwitting customers has reminded many Americans that their private searches — for solutions to debt or bunions or loneliness — are not entirely their own.
So, as one privacy group has asserted, is AOL’s blunder likely to be the search industry’s “Data Valdez,” like the 1989 Exxon oil spill that became the rallying cry for the environmental movement?
Maybe. But in an era when powerful commercial and legal forces ally in favor of holding on to data, and where the surrender of one’s digital soul happens almost imperceptibly, change is not likely to come swiftly.
Most of the major search engines like Google, Yahoo and MSN collect and store information on what terms are searched, when they were queried and what computer and browser was used. And to the extent that the information can be used to match historic search behavior emanating from a specific computer, it is a hot commodity.
As it stands now, little with regard to search queries is private. No laws clearly place search requests off-limits to advertisers, law enforcement agencies or academic researchers, beyond the terms that companies set themselves.
“This is a discussion that we as a society need to have,” said Kevin Bankston, a lawyer with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a rights organization based in San Francisco.
Mr. Bankston’s group, which is spearheading a class-action lawsuit against AT&T for sharing consumer phone records with the National Security Agency, issued an alert this week calling the AOL incident a “Data Valdez,” asserting that it may be in violation of the Electronic Communications and Privacy Act, which regulates some forms of online communications.
“I am very skeptical of any claims that the monetary worth of this information to these companies is worth the privacy trade-off to millions of people,” Mr. Bankston said.
That is not to say that marketers are not keenly interested in being able to push ads to a particular computer based on the types of searches coming from that address over time. For users who register as members with some search engines, including Yahoo, this is already happening — although consumers are unlikely to realize it.
Which is why privacy advocates question whether such advertising models are appropriate in the first place.
“In many contexts, consumers already have the expectation that information about their cultural consumption will not be sold,” said Chris Jay Hoofnagle, a senior researcher at Boalt Hall School of Law at the University of California, Berkeley. “They understand that the library items that they check out, the specific television shows that they watch, the videos that they rent are protected information.”
Indeed, legislation like the Cable TV Privacy Act of 1984 and the Video Privacy Protection Act of 1988 were tailored to keep the specific choices consumers make in their daily diet of cultural ephemera off limits.
There are exceptions: video “genre preferences,” for instance, may be disclosed for marketing purposes.
And of course, such fare as magazine subscription lists and club membership information are bought and sold for marketing purposes all the time.
But how to characterize a search engine’s vast catalog, not of what an individual bought, rented or subscribed to, but merely what he or she was curious about — perhaps only for a moment in time — for reasons that are impossible to know?
That’s one thing that the culture and the law need to address fully, Mr. Hoofnagle suggested. And simply relying on the terms of service posted by Internet companies to sort things out, he said, is not enough.
“The problem with the consent model is that users don’t read the terms and it’s hard to comprehend what the effect of storing the data over time will be,” Mr. Hoofnagle said. “And there’s a corresponding promise that the company will protect the data,” he added, “and sometimes, obviously, those promises are broken.”
Indeed, AOL’s publication of user search data comes in a social context that is newly sensitive about data leaks.
“Part of this conversation should be about the responsibility of companies to maintain data securely,” said Mr. Hoofnagle, who was among several privacy advocates who were critical of ChoicePoint, the large commercial data broker, in the months before the disclosure in February last year that criminals had foiled its screening protocols and gained access to consumer information.
“The longer companies hold onto information, the greater the risk,” Mr. Hoofnagle said.
The ChoicePoint debacle, in fact, was a watershed moment for data security law, at least at the state level, with at least 30 states enacting some form of breach-notification legislation requiring businesses to notify consumers if their information is compromised.
Numerous bills have been proposed in Congress as well, but pitched battles between privacy advocates, who seek comprehensive data protections for consumers, and the financial industry, which wants to limit any onerous legislation and pre-empt tougher state laws, have stalled progress.
It is not surprising, then, that a bill by Representative Edward J. Markey, Democrat of Massachusetts, that seeks to force Web sites, including search engines, to purge old data, has not moved since its introduction in February.
“Corporate negligence with consumers’ personal information shouldn’t be tolerated by average Americans, the financial markets, or the federal government,” Representative Markey said in an e-mail message.
The bill was inspired by the Justice Department’s subpoenas for search data held by MSN, Yahoo, AOL and Google this year — a move aimed at bolstering the government’s efforts to uphold an online child pornography law. Google was alone in resisting the subpoena in federal court, which mostly sided with the company, granting the government access only to information on Web site addresses returned in Google searches, rather than search terms entered by users.
And yet the vast data troves held by search engines and Internet companies of all stripes continue to present an irresistible investigatory target, particularly in an era of terrorist plots like the one that seriously disrupted British airports, and much of the rest of global aviation this week.
In December, the European Parliament passed sweeping data retention rules aimed at the telecommunications and Internet industries, requiring that fixed-line and cellphone records, e-mail and Internet logs be stored for up to two years. The measure was lauded by law enforcement groups but decried by privacy advocates and even industry, which would have to find space — and money — to store it all.
Congress, too, has toyed with the idea of drafting data retention legislation, and Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales has signaled on numerous occasions that he would like to see that happen.
Speaking at the Search Engine Strategies 2006 Conference and Expo in San Jose, Calif., on Wednesday, Google’s chief executive, Eric E. Schmidt, suggested that government interest in the sort of information Google archives remains a chief concern for his company.
“I’ve always worried that the query stream was a fertile ground for governments to randomly snoop on people,” he said.
In a public forum with Danny Sullivan, the editor of Search Engine Watch, an online news blog, and the San Jose event’s organizer, Mr. Schmidt was asked about the AOL incident. “It’s obviously a terrible thing, and the data as released was obviously not anonymized enough,” Mr. Schmidt said.
Mr. Schmidt also said his company, which stores every query its visitors make, deploys numerous safeguards to protect and keep that data anonymous, and that he was confident that “this sort of thing would not happen with Google — although,” he added, “you can never say never.”
That might be the battle cry of privacy advocates, who wonder why any company that doesn’t have to, and that wants to maintain the faith of its customers, would bother to hang onto so much data.
“This AOL breach is just a tiny drop in the giant pool of information that these companies have collected,” Mr. Bankston said. “The sensitivity of this data cannot be overemphasized.”
A similar sentiment was at the heart of an e-mail message sent to employees by AOL’s own chief executive, Jonathan F. Miller, on Wednesday.
“We work so hard to protect this kind of information, and yet it was made public without review by our privacy experts, undermining years of industry leadership in a single act,” Mr. Miller wrote. “The reaction has been a powerful reminder of how quickly a company such as AOL can forfeit the good will we have worked for years to engender.”
U.S. Judge Finds Wiretapping Plan Violates the Law
U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor Amy Leang, Detroit Free Press via Associated Press
Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales said Thursday that the administration would do all it could to continue an eavesdropping program ruled unconstitutional by Judge Anna Diggs Taylor of federal court. Harqaz N. Ghanbari/Associated Press
By ADAM LIPTAK and ERIC LICHTBLAU Published: August 18, 2006
A federal judge ruled yesterday that the National Security Agency’s program to wiretap the international communications of some Americans without a court warrant violated the Constitution, and she ordered it shut down.
The ruling was the first judicial assessment of the Bush administration’s arguments in defense of the surveillance program, which has provoked fierce legal and political debate since it was disclosed last December. But the issue is far from settled, with the Justice Department filing an immediate appeal and succeeding in allowing the wiretapping to continue for the time being.
In a sweeping decision that drew on history, the constitutional separation of powers and the Bill of Rights, Judge Anna Diggs Taylor of United States District Court in Detroit rejected almost every administration argument.
Judge Taylor ruled that the program violated both the Fourth Amendment and a 1978 law that requires warrants from a secret court for intelligence wiretaps involving people in the United States. She rejected the administration’s repeated assertions that a 2001 Congressional authorization and the president’s constitutional authority allowed the program.
“It was never the intent of the framers to give the president such unfettered control, particularly when his actions blatantly disregard the parameters clearly enumerated in the Bill of Rights,” she wrote. “The three separate branches of government were developed as a check and balance for one another.”
Republicans said the decision was the work of a liberal judge advancing a partisan agenda. Judge Taylor, 73, worked in the civil rights movement, supported Jimmy Carter’s presidential campaign and was appointed to the bench by him in 1979. She was the first black woman to serve on the Detroit federal trial court.
She has ruled for the A.C.L.U. in a lawsuit challenging religious displays on municipal property. But she has also struck down a Detroit ordinance favoring minority contractors. “Her reputation is for being a real by-the-books judge,” said Evan H. Caminker, the dean of the University of Michigan Law School.
The government said it would ask Judge Taylor to stay her order at a hearing on Sept. 7.
The Justice Department and the American Civil Liberties Union — which brought the case in Detroit on behalf of a group of lawyers, scholars, journalists and others — agreed that her order would not be enforced until then, but lawyers for the A.C.L.U. said they would oppose any further stay.
Administration officials made it clear that they would fight to have the ruling overturned because, they said, it would weaken the country’s defenses if allowed to stand.
Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, at a hastily called news conference after the decision, said he was both surprised and disappointed by the ruling on the operation, which focuses on communications of people suspected of ties to Al Qaeda.
Administration officials “believe very strongly that the program is lawful,” said Mr. Gonzales, a main architect of the program as White House counsel and the biggest defender of its legality in a series of public pronouncements that began after the program was disclosed by The New York Times last December.
“We’re going to do everything we can do in the courts to allow this program to continue,” he said, because it “has been effective in protecting America.”
Tony Snow, the White House spokesman, also described the surveillance program as a vital and lawful tool. “The whole point is to detect and prevent terrorist attacks before they can be carried out,” Mr. Snow said. “The terrorist surveillance program is firmly grounded in law and regularly reviewed to make sure steps are taken to protect civil liberties.”
Democrats applauded the ruling as an important affirmation of the rule of law, while lawyers for the A.C.L.U. said Judge Taylor’s decision was a sequel to the Supreme Court’s decision in June in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld that struck down the administration’s plans to try detainees held in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, for war crimes.
“It’s another nail in the coffin of executive unilateralism,” said Jameel Jaffer, an A.C.L.U. lawyer.
But allies of the administration called the decision legally questionable and politically motivated.
“It is an appallingly bad opinion, bad from both a philosophical and technical perspective, manifesting strong bias,” said David B. Rivkin, an official in the administrations of President Ronald Reagan and the first President Bush. “It is guaranteed to be overturned.”
Mr. Gonzales would not say whether the program played any role in foiling a plot last week to set off bombs in airliners bound for the United States from Britain. But Speaker J. Dennis Hastert, Republican of Illinois, suggested that it did play a role in the investigation.
In a written statement criticizing Judge Taylor’s ruling, Mr. Hastert defended the wiretapping operation and said that “our terrorist surveillance programs are critical to fighting the war on terror and saved the day by foiling the London terror plot.”
His office declined to elaborate.
Mr. Gonzales said he expected that the ruling would play a role in the debate in Congress over how and whether to change federal eavesdropping laws. But he said the exact impact was “hard to predict.”
Among competing proposals, Republican leaders have proposed legislation that would specifically permit the wiretapping program. Some Democrats, however, have introduced legislation that would restrict, or in some cases ban altogether, the government from conducting wiretaps on Americans without a warrant.
The White House is backing a plan, drafted by Senator Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania, with the blessing of President Bush, that would allow a secret court to review the legality of the operation.
But in the view of critics, it could also broaden the president’s authority to conduct such operations. Mr. Gonzales said it appeared to administration lawyers that the Specter legislation, if passed by Congress, “would address some of the concerns raised by the judge in her opinion.”
Another element of the Specter legislation would force other lawsuits over the program — like the one brought by the A.C.L.U. in Detroit — to be consolidated into a single action to be heard by the secret court.
Judge Taylor rejected the government’s threshold argument that she should not hear the case at all because it concerned state secrets. Dismissal on those grounds was not required, she wrote, because the central facts in the case — the existence of the program, the lack of warrants and the focus on communications in which one party is in the United States — have been acknowledged by the government.
The government also argued that the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue because they had not suffered concrete harm from the program. Judge Taylor ruled that the plaintiffs “are stifled in their ability to vigorously conduct research, interact with sources, talk with clients and, in the case of the attorney plaintiffs, uphold their oath of providing effective and ethical representation of their clients.”
Some plaintiffs, the judge wrote, have had to incur travel expenses to visit clients and others to avoid possible monitoring of their communications.
Going beyond the arguments offered against the wiretapping program by many legal scholars, Judge Taylor ruled that it violated not only the 1978 law, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, but also the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures.
The Supreme Court has never addressed the question of whether electronic surveillance of partly domestic communication violates the Fourth Amendment. Judge Taylor concluded that the wiretapping program is “obviously in violation of the Fourth Amendment.”
The president also violated the Constitution’s separation of powers doctrines, Judge Taylor ruled. Neither a September 2001 Congressional authorization to use military force against Al Qaeda nor the president’s inherent constitutional powers allow him to violate the 1978 law or the Fourth Amendment, she said.
“There are no hereditary kings in America and no powers not created by the Constitution,” she wrote, rejecting what she called the administration’s assertion that the president “has been granted the inherent power to violate not only the laws of the Congress but the First and Fourth Amendments of the Constitution itself.”
Republicans attacked the decision. “It is disappointing that a judge would take it upon herself to disarm America during a time of war,” said Representative Peter Hoekstra, Republican of Michigan, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.
Judge Taylor did give the government a minor victory, rejecting on national security grounds a challenge to a separate surveillance program involving data mining. That ruling is consistent with recent decisions of federal courts in San Francisco and Chicago.
Judges in those cases drew a distinction between the wiretapping program, which the administration has acknowledged and defended, and the data mining program, which has not been officially confirmed.
- - -
Related
Opinion: A.C.L.U. v. N.S.A. (pdf) [ http://news.findlaw.com/nytimes/docs/nsa/aclunsa81706opn.pdf (F6 comment and note -- a critically important decision and an interesting read, straight to the point and absolutely correct -- this is precisely what is supposed to happen in our system in the face of out-of-control fascists controlling and abusing the power of the executive -- now we'll see what happens next -- and of course, as is the case with all linked pdfs, you can just right-click the link and do a 'save as' to save a copy of the opinion to your computer)]
Bush Lets U.S. Spy on Callers Without Courts (Dec. 16. 2005) [ http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/16/politics/16program.html (F6 note -- my next post, a reply to this post -- this was THE major article that broke the story; I was out of action at that time, and it hasn't been posted here before]
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
