"Are ye not as children of the Ethiopians unto me, O children of Israel? saith the LORD."
Amos 9:7

 

• Anglican priest and Telegraph religion editor George Pitcher commented, in part: “If you use it for the benefit of others, employing your time and skill as well as just dispensing the dosh, then you’re probably of more benefit to the world than a former rich bloke in a hovel halfway up a mountain.” (We added the italics.)
• ArabianMoney.net in Dubai asked, “Is he mad or just eccentric?”

Passions over 'prosperity gospel': Was Jesus wealthy?

(CNN -- Each Christmas, Christians tell stories about the poor baby Jesus born in a lowly manger because there was no room in the inn.
But the Rev. C. Thomas Anderson, senior pastor of the Living Word Bible Church in Mesa, Arizona, preaches a version of the Christmas story that says baby Jesus wasn't so poor after all.
Anderson says Jesus couldn't have been poor because he received lucrative gifts -- gold, frankincense and myrrh -- at birth. Jesus had to be wealthy because the Roman soldiers who crucified him gambled for his expensive undergarments. Even Jesus' parents, Mary and Joseph, lived and traveled in style, he says.
"Mary and Joseph took a Cadillac to get to Bethlehem because the finest transportation of their day was a donkey," says Anderson. "Poor people ate their donkey. Only the wealthy used it as transportation."
Many Christians see Jesus as the poor, itinerant preacher who had "no place to lay his head." But as Christians gather around the globe this year to celebrate the birth of Jesus, another group of Christians are insisting that Jesus' beginnings weren't so humble.
They say that Jesus was never poor -- and neither should his followers be. Their claim is embedded in the doctrine known as the prosperity gospel, which holds that God rewards the faithful with financial prosperity and spiritual gifts.

A clash of gospels?

The prosperity gospel has attracted plenty of critics. But popular televangelists such as the late Oral Roberts, Kenneth Hagin and, today, Creflo Dollar have built megachurches and a global audience by equating piety with prosperity.
The prosperity gospel, however, clashes with the traditional depictions of Jesus as poor. That's because the traditional image of Jesus as destitute is wrong, says the Rev. Tom Brown, senior pastor of the Word of Life Church in El Paso, Texas.
"I believe he was the richest man on the face of the earth because he had God as his source."
--Rev. Tom Brown, pastor of Word of Life Church, El Paso, Texas
The proof, he says, is scattered throughout the New Testament. One example: The 12th chapter of the Gospel of John says that Jesus had a treasurer, or a "keeper of the money bag."
"The last time I checked, poor people don't have treasurers to take care their money," says Brown, author of "Devil, Demons and Spiritual Warfare."
A debate over the economic status of Jesus may seem nonsensical to some. Does it really matter whether Jesus was rich or poor?
It matters to people like Luke Timothy Johnson, a prominent New Testament scholar and author. He says that a rich Jesus is a distortion of history and a threat to one of Christianity's core teachings: God's identification with the poor.
"If Jesus reveals God, there is something powerful about God appearing and working among the poor," says Johnson, a New Testament professor at Emory University's Candler School of Theology in Atlanta, Georgia.
"Jesus' lifestyle is not of one in a gated community or a corporate office," says Johnson, a former Benedictine monk. "You don't have to go through a security gate to get to Jesus. People touch him. He reached out and touched children. His accessibility is one of the most powerful messages of Christianity. In Jesus, God is with us, and the majority of us are poor."

'The poor won't follow the poor'

Some prosperity preachers extract a different message from the same biblical texts. Brown, the El Paso minister, says he doesn't say that Jesus was rich because he wants to give people an excuse to live self-indulgent lives. He wants people to understand that Jesus used his material and spiritual riches to help people -- and so should they.
Brown says Jesus' own words prove that he wasn't poor.
"Jesus said you will always have the poor, but you will not always have me," Brown says. "Jesus did not affirm himself as being part of the poor class...
"I believe he was the richest man on the face of the earth because he had God as his source," Brown says.
Jesus' wealth is evident even in the Gospel accounts of his execution, some pastors say.
The New Testament reports that Roman soldiers gambled for Jesus' clothing while he hung on the cross. They wouldn't gamble for Jesus' clothing unless it was expensive, Anderson says.
"I don't know anybody -- even Pamela Anderson -- that would have people gambling for his underwear," Anderson says. "That was some fine stuff he wore."
Anderson says Jesus never would have had disciples or a large following if he was poor. He would not have been able to command their respect.
"The poor will follow the rich, the rich will follow the rich, but the rich will never follow the poor," Anderson says.

Twisting scripture for personal gain?

Johnson, the Emory University New Testament professor, calls Anderson's argument "completely illogical."
The only way you can make Jesus into a rich man is by advocating torturous interpretations and by being wholly naive historically.
--Bruce W. Longenecker
"So Martin Luther King must have been a millionaire," he says. "Crowds followed Siddhartha Buddha and he was poor. And mobs followed Mahatma Gandhi, and Gandhi wore a diaper, for God's sake."
The argument that Jesus was wealthy because the soldiers gambled for his clothes at his crucifixion doesn't makes historical sense, either, says Johnson, author of "Among the Gentiles: Greco-Roman Religion and Christianity."
"Crucifixion was the sort of execution carried out for slaves and for rebels," Johnson says. "It wasn't an execution for wealthy people."
A Baylor University religion professor who specializes in the study of the poor in the Greco-Roman world also says there is "no way" that Jesus could be considered wealthy.
Bruce W. Longenecker says life in Jesus' world was brutal. About 90 percent of people lived in poverty. A famine or a bad crop could ruin a family. There was no middle class.
"In the ancient world, you were relatively poor or filthy rich, there's very little in-between," says Longenecker, author of "Engaging Economics: New Testament Scenarios and Early Christian Reception."
The New Testament is full of parables where Jesus actually condemns the rich and praises the poor, Longenecker says. In the sixth chapter of the Gospel of Luke, Jesus actually curses the rich, he says.
"The only way you can make Jesus into a rich man is by advocating torturous interpretations and by being wholly naive historically," Longenecker says.
Anderson, the Arizona pastor, doesn't buy that argument. He says the church has actually been damaged by teaching that Jesus was poor. God wants his followers to be rich, not for selfish gain, but to help others in need and spread the gospel.
When he first preached that Jesus wasn't poor to his church, Anderson says he "ruffled some feathers."
Now, he says, his church has 9,000 members and a global ministry.
"That's so pathetic, to say that Jesus was struggling alone in the dust and dirt," Anderson says. "That just makes no sense whatsoever. He was constantly in a state of wealth."

 

Do You Believe this happens in America?

You might think this cannot happen in America. A young Muslim woman converts to Christianity and both Islam and the State of Ohio are working against her.  Political paybacks are more important than her life. And what is happening as I write this is chilling because the fate of many more hang in the balance if this woman loses.
 
I have written about Rifqa Bary once before. She is 17 years old and when she became a believer a year ago, her parents threatened to kill her. She then hitchhiked to Florida and found refuge in a church. Due to corruption both in Florida and Ohio, she is now in a prison-like ordeal. She is back in Ohio and has an attorney who has some ties to the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR). Her parents are a part of an extremist mosque in Columbus.
 
Rifqa is being denied some basic things such as a telephone, Internet access, and school. She is quite isolated as there has been no "approved visitation" list. Hard core criminals may have more rights than Rifqa.

 
Perhaps the largest Somali community in the U.S. is in the Columbus, Ohio area. It is 70,000 and growing. It is reported that Gov. Strickland has financial ties to this community because of campaign contributions. 

Rifqa has become a "test case" for Muslims. They would like to prove that Muslims cannot break free even in America.  She is being watched by every subjugated Muslim in America who would like to flee Islam. So far, they are not getting much encouragement.
 
Judges in that area are sensitive to the political climate and the Somali community and thus it would seem Rifqa Bary doesn't stand a chance. But with God, all things are possible!
 

It is imperative that Rifqa break the Islamic machine.  Will all Americans stand up for religious freedom? Or will we wallow in apathy as a nation, too comfortable to get involved?
 
The showdown will be December 22 at a dependency hearing in Columbus, Ohio.  You can hear more about this on my radio program aired this past weekend here.

Visit www.defendchristians.org for more information. But here are three suggestions for you:
 
1)     Pray for her court appearance and 
         safety. 
2)     Contact Gov. Strickland here.
3)     Send an encouraging card, but know 
         that it will be read by the authorities.

           Rifqa Bary
           c/o Angela Lloyd
           255C Drinko Hall
           55 West 12th Avenue
           Columbus, OH 43201

If you write to Gov. Strickland, please be polite, as it could appear that you represent this ministry. And mean-spirited e-mails never have a positive impact.
 
Radical Muslims are very proud of the "honor killings" when someone in their family embarrasses them.  This is not limited to the Islamic part of the world. Several young women in the U.S. have been slaughtered for dressing too Western or dating the wrong boyfriend. In Rifqa's case, she met Jesus and became a Christian. This may be the supreme offense!
 
I pray that Christians won't let her down.

To better understand this, visit our "Islam & Arabs" category at my Web site. 

 

 

Texas televangelist Benny Hinn refused entry to Britain

(Joe Skipper/Reuters)
Out in the cold: Benny Hinn had been due to speak to thousands of Pentecostal Christians at the ExCel Centre in London

An American Christian preacher has been turned away from Britain, leaving thousands of people stranded at an evangelical rally in London this weekend.
Benny Hinn, from Texas, who draws large crowds to his Pentecostal revival rallies, was turned back at Stansted airport under new rules on visiting ministers of religion.
Many thousands of Pentecostal Christians travelled from across Britain and Europe and booked long weekend breaks in the capital’s hotels for his mission at the ExCeL exhibition centre in Docklands, East London, which had been due to begin on Thursday night.
They were left disappointed after Border Agency officials turned him back when he landed with his private jet because he had failed to obtain a “letter of sponsorship” from a church.

Instead, Mr Hinn flew on to Paris and tried to enter Britain at Luton airport but was again turned back. He was on his way back to France last night.
Jill Masefield, who lives in Bristol, said that she and thousands of other followers had been left waiting for Mr Hinn to appear at the free preaching event, not knowing why he had not appeared.Instead, another pastor preached and requested donations of up to £1,000.
“He’s been coming here for years and years,” she said. “I think it is very unfair that they have blocked him now. It has cost me a fortune in hotel bills and I feel we have been led up the garden path. It is extremely unfair.”

The Benny Hinn “fire conference and miracle service” was scheduled to last three days. Among the “miracles” the Texan preacher performs are those in which he instructs participants to “let the bodies hit the floor”. The routine is featured on YouTube videos that show the devout falling down backwards, “slain in the spirit”.

A spokeswoman for ExCeL said thatMr Hinn had been turned back at immigration and would not be coming. Staff at the exhibition centre were meeting last night to decide whether to provide another evangelical preacher in his place.

Mr Hinn has visited before without any problem but the Home Office has changed the rules for ministers of religion. He fell foul of tier five of the new points-based system for all visitors to Britain, which came into effect last November. One of the aims of the new rules was to combat extremism and prevent teachers of religious hate entering the country.
A Border Agency spokesman said: “Under the UK’s tough new points-based system, religious workers must obtain a valid certificate of sponsorship prior to arriving in the UK. These rules are designed to make sure that a legitimate sponsor is linked to each application to enter the UK for work purposes.
“These rules are applied objectively and clearly set out for travellers. People who arrive without the required documentation can be refused entry to the UK.”

 

MSN Money is conditioning people to accept an implantable chip! In their everyday lives.

Actual implementation of the Mark of the Beast cannot be far away when an attempt like this to mainstream an implantable chip is fomented on a public unaware of Biblical prophecy.

NEWS BRIEF: "Pay with a wave of your hand?", MSN Money, 9/11/2009

"It's a simple concept, really: You inject a miniature radio frequency identifier the size of a grain of rice between your thumb and forefinger and, with a wave of your hand, unlock doors, turn on lights, start your car or pay for your drinks at an ultrachic nightspot ... Forget the science of it -- and yes, it does work remarkably well. Forget the convenience of it. Forget that similar identifying technologies, from bar codes to mag stripes, overcame similar obstacles and are now ubiquitous."

For years, Bible scholars have been teaching that the False Prophet of Revelation 13 will act on behalf of Antichrist to force all people of the world to take a 'mark' of some sort underneath the skin, either in the right hand or the forehead. These scholars have also maintained that, somehow, technology had to discover a way to implant this 'mark' under the skin just as the Bible foretells.

Now, science has developed just this kind of 'mark', an implantable chip. New Age authors speak boldly of this new technology and they insist that their New Age Christ will force everyone on earth to take it on the pain of death, just as the prophecy foretells. Now, this effort has reached a high point within our culture: Mass Media is touting how incredibly easy this technology is to use and how wonderfully convenient it will prove to be in everyday life!

But, this news story admits that some people are put off by this technology -- because of the 'Mark of the Beast' connotation.

" 'The problem is, the whole concept is a little geeky for most of us, nauseating for some, Orwellian for a few and even apocalyptic for a smattering of religious fundamentalists ... There is sort of an icky quality to implanting something', says Rome Jette, the vice president for smart cards at Versatile Card Technology, a Downers Grove, Ill., card manufacturer that ships 1.5 billion cards worldwide a year."

With great dismay, I see that this Vice President of Versatile Card Technology considers that we "religious fundamentalists" are down to just a "smattering". The time when Antichrist will arise with his False Prophet and force everyone to take this implantable "Mark of the Beast" is coming very quickly. The very fact that major companies are beginning to promote implantable technology as being so convenient and so everyday is itself a major sign that the End of the Age is coming rapidly!

At which point will the lie told by Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins come to fruition for Antichrist? Do you remember the "Left Behind" series of books? In the last three books, LaHaye portrayed the scene where a Chinese Christian named Chang was "forced" to take the Mark of the Beast, and was still just fine spiritually, and still headed for Heaven. In fact, Chang was portrayed as being able to work more effectively for Jesus because he had taken the Mark!

We posted two articles on this subject and encourage you to read them, as the "Left Behind" series was quite a while ago and many Christians did not read all of the series.

The prophetic point will come soon when the False Prophet is forcing all the peoples of the world to take the Antichrist's Mark of the Beast, without which no one can buy or sell. As people are deciding whether they would allow the Mark to be implanted under their skin, they will vaguely remember some Christian preacher who wrote in a series of novels the scenario where a Christian was forced to take the Mark and was still allowed to go to Heaven.

In fact, the last book of the series -- "The Glorious Appearing" -- depicts Jesus assuring Chang that his taking of the Mark of the Beast did not cause him to lose his salvation (Page 326).

No Christian preacher or teacher should ever even suggest that a person could take the devil's Mark under any circumstance and still go to heaven. The old saying, "Give Satan an inch and he will take a mile" certainly applies to this situation. When billions of people are under the extreme stress of either taking Antichrist's Mark of the Beastor be beheaded, untold numbers will vaguely remember this christian author who wrote a book depicting that if a person is "forced" to take the Mark, he can still go to Heaven.

The time is coming quickly when this horrible spiritual lie will spawn Satan's intended harvest of souls for his kingdom!

 

Global Research, April 6, 2009

The Financial New World Order: Towards a Global Currency and World Government

by Andrew Gavin Marshall
Introduction 

Following the 2009 G20 summit, plans were announced for implementing the creation of a new global currency to replace the US dollar’s role as the world reserve currency. Point 19 of the communiqué released by the G20 at the end of the Summit stated, “We have agreed to support a general SDR allocation which will inject $250bn (£170bn) into the world economy and increase global liquidity.” SDRs, or Special Drawing Rights, are “a synthetic paper currency issued by the International Monetary Fund.” As the Telegraph reported, “the G20 leaders have activated the IMF's power to create money and begin global "quantitative easing". In doing so, they are putting a de facto world currency into play. It is outside the control of any sovereign body. Conspiracy theorists will love it.”[1]

The article continued in stating that, “There is now a world currency in waiting. In time, SDRs are likely to evolve into a parking place for the foreign holdings of central banks, led by the People's Bank of China.” Further, “The creation of a Financial Stability Board looks like the first step towards a global financial regulator,” or, in other words, a global central bank.

It is important to take a closer look at these “solutions” being proposed and implemented in the midst of the current global financial crisis. These are not new suggestions, as they have been in the plans of the global elite for a long time. However, in the midst of the current crisis, the elite have fast-tracked their agenda of forging a New World Order in finance. It is important to address the background to these proposed and imposed “solutions” and what effects they will have on the International Monetary System (IMS) and the global political economy as a whole.

 A New Bretton-Woods 

In October of 2008, Gordon Brown, Prime Minister of the UK, said that we “must have a new Bretton Woods - building a new international financial architecture for the years ahead.” He continued in saying that, “we must now reform the international financial system around the agreed principles of transparency, integrity, responsibility, good housekeeping and co-operation across borders.” An article in the Telegraph reported that Gordon Brown would want “to see the IMF reformed to become a ‘global central bank’ closely monitoring the international economy and financial system.”[2]

On October 17, 2008, Prime Minister Gordon Brown wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post in which he said, “This week, European leaders came together to propose the guiding principles that we believe should underpin this new Bretton Woods: transparency, sound banking, responsibility, integrity and global governance. We agreed that urgent decisions implementing these principles should be made to root out the irresponsible and often undisclosed lending at the heart of our problems. To do this, we need cross-border supervision of financial institutions; shared global standards for accounting and regulation; a more responsible approach to executive remuneration that rewards hard work, effort and enterprise but not irresponsible risk-taking; and the renewal of our international institutions to make them effective early-warning systems for the world economy.[Emphasis added]”[3]

In early October 2008, it was reported that, “as the world's central bankers gather this week in Washington DC for an IMF-World Bank conference to discuss the crisis, the big question they face is whether it is time to establish a global economic "policeman" to ensure the crash of 2008 can never be repeated.” Further, “any organisation with the power to police the global economy would have to include representatives of every major country – a United Nations of economic regulation.” A former governor of the Bank of England suggested that, “the answer might already be staring us in the face, in the form of the Bank for International Settlements (BIS),” however, “The problem is that it has no teeth. The IMF tends to couch its warnings about economic problems in very diplomatic language, but the BIS is more independent and much better placed to deal with this if it is given the power to do so.”[4]

Emergence of Regional Currencies 

On January 1, 1999, the European Union established the Euro as its regional currency. The Euro has grown in prominence over the past several years. However, it is not to be the only regional currency in the world. There are moves and calls for other regional currencies throughout the world.

In 2007, Foreign Affairs, the journal of the Council on Foreign Relations, ran an article titled, The End of National Currency, in which it began by discussing the volatility of international currency markets, and that very few “real” solutions have been proposed to address successive currency crises. The author poses the question, “will restoring lost sovereignty to governments put an end to financial instability?” He answers by stating that, “This is a dangerous misdiagnosis,” and that, “The right course is not to return to a mythical past of monetary sovereignty, with governments controlling local interest and exchange rates in blissful ignorance of the rest of the world. Governments must let go of the fatal notion that nationhood requires them to make and control the money used in their territory. National currencies and global markets simply do not mix; together they make a deadly brew of currency crises and geopolitical tension and create ready pretexts for damaging protectionism. In order to globalize safely, countries should abandon monetary nationalism and abolish unwanted currencies, the source of much of today's instability.”

The author explains that, “Monetary nationalism is simply incompatible with globalization. It has always been, even if this has only become apparent since the 1970s, when all the world's governments rendered their currencies intrinsically worthless.” The author states that, “Since economic development outside the process of globalization is no longer possible, countries should abandon monetary nationalism. Governments should replace national currencies with the dollar or the euro or, in the case of Asia, collaborate to produce a new multinational currency over a comparably large and economically diversified area.” Essentially, according to the author, the solution lies in regional currencies.[5]

In October of 2008, “European Central Bank council member Ewald Nowotny said a ``tri-polar'' global currency system is developing between Asia, Europe and the U.S. and that he's skeptical the U.S. dollar's centrality can be revived.”[6]

 The Union of South American Nations  

The Union of South American Nations (UNASUR) was established on May 23, 2008, with the headquarters to be in Ecuador, the South American Parliament to be in Bolivia, and the Bank of the South to be in Venezuela. As the BBC reported, “The leaders of 12 South American nations have formed a regional body aimed at boosting economic and political integration in the region,” and that, “The Unasur members are Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Guyana, Paraguay, Peru, Suriname, Uruguay and Venezuela.”[7]

The week following the announcement of the Union, it was reported that, “Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva said Monday that South American nations will seek a common currency as part of the region's integration efforts following the creation of the Union of South American Nations.” He was quoted as saying, “We are proceeding so as, in the future, we have a common central bank and a common currency.”[8]

 The Gulf Cooperation Council and a Regional Currency 

In 2005, the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), a regional trade bloc among Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE), announced the goal of creating a single common currency by 2010. It was reported that, “An economically united and efficient GCC is clearly a more interesting proposition for larger companies than each individual economy, especially given the impediments to trade evident within the region. This is why trade relations within the GCC have been a core focus of late.” Further, “The natural extension of this trend for increased integration is to introduce a common currency in order to further facilitate trade between the different countries.” It was announced that, “the region's central bankers had agreed to pursue monetary union in a similar fashion to the rules used in Europe.”[9]

In June of 2008, it was reported that, “Gulf Arab central bankers agreed to create the nucleus of a joint central bank next year in a major step forward for monetary union but signaled that a new common currency would not be in circulation by an agreed 2010 target.”[10] In 2002, it was announced that the “Gulf states say they are seeking advice from the European Central Bank on their monetary union programme.” In February of 2008, Oman announced that it would not be joining the monetary union. In November of 2008, it was announced that the “Final monetary union draft says Gulf central bank will be independent from governments of member states.”[11]

In March of 2009, it was reported that, “The GCC should not rush into forming a single currency as member states need to work out the framework for a regional central bank, Saudi Arabia's Central Bank Governor Muhammad Al Jasser.” Jasser was further quoted as saying, “It took the European Union 45 years to put together a single currency. We should not rush.” In 2008, with the global financial crisis, new problems were posed for the GCC initiative, as “Pressure mounted last year on the GCC members to drop their currency pegs as inflation accelerated above 10 per cent in five of the six countries. All of the member states except Kuwait peg their currencies to the dollar and tend to follow the US Federal Reserve when setting interest rates.”[12]

An Asian Monetary Union 

   
In 1997, the Brookings Institution, a prominent American think tank, discussed the possibilities of an East Asian Monetary Union, stating that, “the question for the 21st century is whether analogous monetary blocs will form in East Asia (and, for that matter, in the Western Hemisphere). With the dollar, the yen, and the single European currency floating against one another, other small open economies will be tempted to link up to one of the three.” However, “the linkage will be possible only if accompanied by radical changes in institutional arrangements like those contemplated by the European Union. The spread of capital mobility and political democratization will make it prohibitively difficult to peg exchange rates unilaterally. Pegging will require international cooperation, and effective cooperation will require measures akin to monetary unification.”[13]

           
In 2001, Asia Times Online wrote an article discussing a speech given by economist Robert A. Mundell at Bangkok's Chulalongkorn University, at which he stated that, “[t]he "Asean plus three" (the 10 members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations plus China, Japan, and Korea) ‘should look to the European Union as a model for closer integration of monetary policy, trade and eventually, currency integration’.”[14]

           
On May 6, 2005, the website of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) announced that, “China, Japan, South Korea and the 10 members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) have agreed to expand their network of bilateral currency swaps into what could become a virtual Asian Monetary Fund,” and that, “[f]inance officials of the 13 nations, who met in the sidelines of the Asian Development Bank (ADB) annual conference in Istanbul, appeared determined to turn their various bilateral agreements into some sort of multilateral accord, although none of the officials would directly call it an Asian Monetary Fund.”[15]

           
In August of 2005, the San Francisco Federal Reserve Bank published a report on the prospects of an East Asian Monetary Union, stating that East Asia satisfies the criteria for joining a monetary union, however, it states that compared to the European initiative, “The implication is that achieving any monetary arrangement, including a common currency, is much more difficult in East Asia.” It further states that, “In Europe, a monetary union was achievable primarily because it was part of the larger process of political integration,” however, “There is no apparent desire for political integration in East Asia, partly because of the great differences among those countries in terms of political systems, culture, and shared history. As a result of their own particular histories, East Asian countries remain particularly jealous of their sovereignty.”

           
Another major problem, as presented by the San Francisco Fed, is that, “East Asian governments appear much more suspicious of strong supranational institutions,” and thus, “in East Asia, sovereignty concerns have left governments reluctant to delegate significant authority to supranational bodies, at least so far.” It explains that as opposed to the steps taken to create a monetary union in Europe, “no broad free trade agreements have been achieved among the largest countries in the region, Japan, Korea, Taiwan, and China.” Another problem is that, “East Asia does not appear to have an obvious candidate for an internal anchor currency for a cooperative exchange rate arrangement. Most successful new currencies have been started on the back of an existing currency, establishing confidence in its convertibility, thus linking the old with the new.”

           
The report concludes that, “exchange rate stabilization and monetary integration are unlikely in the near term. Nevertheless, East Asia is integrating through trade, even without an emphasis on formal trade liberalization agreements,” and that, “there is evidence of growing financial cooperation in the region, including the development of regional arrangements for providing liquidity during crises through bilateral foreign exchange swaps, regional economic surveillance discussions, and the development of regional bond markets.” Ultimately, “East Asia might also proceed along the same path [as Europe], first with loose agreements to stabilize currencies, followed later by tighter agreements, and culminating ultimately in adoption of a common anchor—and, after that, maybe an East Asia dollar.”[16]

           
In 2007, it was reported that, “Asia may need to establish its own monetary fund if it is to cope with future financial shocks similar to that which rocked the region 10 years ago,” and that, “Further Asian financial integration is the best antidote for Asian future financial crises.”[17]

           
In September of 2007, Forbes reported that, “An East Asian monetary union anchored by Japan is feasible but the region lacks the political will to do it, the Asian Development Bank said.” Pradumna Rana, an Asian Development Bank (ADB) economist, said that, “it appears feasible to establish a currency union in East Asia -- particularly among Indonesia, Japan, (South) Korea, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore and Thailand,” and that, “The economic potential for monetary integration in Asia is strong, even though the political underpinnings of such an accord are not yet in place.” Further, “the real integration at the trade levels 'will actually reinforce the economic case for monetary union in Asia, in a similar way that real-sector integration did so in Europe,” and ultimately, “the road to an Asian monetary union could proceed on a 'multi-track, multi-speed' basis with a seamless Asian free trade area the goal on the trade side.”[18] In April of 2008, it was reported that, “ASEAN bank deputy governors and financial deputy ministers have met in Vietnam's central Da Nang city, discussing issues on the financial and monetary integration and cooperation in the region.”[19]

 African Monetary Union 

Currently, Africa has several different monetary union initiatives, as well as some existing monetary unions within the continent. One initiative is the “monetary union project of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS),” which is a “regional group of 15 countries in West Africa.” Among the members are those of an already-existing monetary union in the region, the West African Economic and Monetary Union (WAEMU). The ECOWAS consists of Benin, Burkina Faso, Cote d’Ivoire, Guinea, Guinea Bissau, Mali, Niger, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Togo, Cape Verde, Liberia, Ghana, Gambia, and Nigeria.[20]

The African Union was founded in 2002, and is an intergovernmental organization consisting of 53 African states. In 2003, the Brookings Institution produced a paper on African economic integration. In it, the authors started by stating that, “Africa, like other regions of the world, is fixing its sights on creating a common currency. Already, there are projects for regional monetary unions, and the bidding process for an eventual African central bank is about to begin.” It states that, “A common currency was also an objective of the Organization for African Unity and the African Economic Community, the predecessors of the AU,” and further, that, “The 1991 Abuja Treaty establishing the African Economic Community outlines six stages for achieving a single monetary zone for Africa that were set to be completed by approximately 2028. In the early stages, regional cooperation and integration within Africa would be strengthened, and this could involve regional monetary unions. The final stage involves the establishment of the African Central Bank (ACB) and creation of a single African currency and an African Economic and Monetary Union.”

The paper further states that the African Central Bank (ACB) “would not be created until around 2020, [but] the bidding process for its location is likely to begin soon,” however, “there are plans for creating various regional monetary unions, which would presumably form building blocks for the single African central bank and currency.”[21]

In August of 2008, “Governors of African Central Banks convened in Kigali Serena Hotel to discuss issues concerning the creation of three African Union (AU) financial institutions,” following “the AU resolution to form the African Monetary Fund (AMF), African Central Bank (ACB) and the African Investment Bank (AIB).” The central bank governors “agreed that when established, the ACB would solely issue and manage Africa's single currency and monetary authority of the continent's economy.”[22]

On March 2, 2009, it was reported that, “The African Union will sign a memorandum of understanding this month with Nigeria on the establishment of a continental central bank,” and that, “The institution will be based in the Nigerian capital, Abuja, African Union Commissioner for Economic Affairs Maxwell Mkwezalamba told reporters.” Further, “As an intermediate step to the creation of the bank, the pan- African body will establish an African Monetary Institute within the next three years, he said at a meeting of African economists in the city,” and he was quoted as saying, “We have agreed to work with the Association of African Central Bank Governors to set up a joint technical committee to look into the preparation of a joint strategy.”[23]

The website for the Kenyan Ministry of Foreign Affairs reported that, “The African Union Commissioner for Economic Affairs Dr. Maxwell Mkwezalamba has expressed optimism for the adoption of a common currency for Africa,” and that the main theme discussed at the AU Commission meeting in Kenya was, “Towards the Creation of a Single African Currency: Review of the Creation of a Single African Currency: Which optimal Approach to be adopted to accelerate the creation of the unique continental currency.”[24]

 A North American Monetary Union and the Amero

 In January of 2008, I wrote an article documenting the moves toward the creation of a North American currency, likely under the name Amero. [See: Andrew G. Marshall, North-American Monetary Integration: Here Comes the Amero. Global Research: January 20, 2008] I will briefly outline the information presented in that article here.

In 1999, the Fraser Institute, a prominent and highly influential Canadian think tank, published a report written by Economics professor and former MP, Herbert Grubel, called, The Case for the Amero: The Economics and Politics of a North American Monetary Union. He wrote that, “The plan for a North American Monetary Union presented in this study is designed to include Canada, the United States, and Mexcio,” and a “North American Central Bank, like the European Central Bank, will have a constitution making it responsible only for the maintenance of price stability and not for full employment.”[25] He opined that, “sovereignty is not infinitely valuable. The merit of giving up some aspects of sovereignty should be determined by the gains brought by such a sacrifice,” and that, “It is important to note that in practice Canada has given up its economic sovereignty in many areas, the most important of which involve the World Trade Organization (formerly the GATT), the North American Free Trade Agreement,” as well as the International Monetary Fund and World Bank.[26]

Also in 1999, the C.D. Howe Institute, another of Canada’s most prominent think tanks, produced a report titled, From Fixing to Monetary Union: Options for North American Currency Integration. In this document, it was written that, “The easiest way to broach the notion of a NAMU [North American Monetary Union] is to view it as the North American equivalent of the European Monetary Union (EMU) and, by extension, the euro.”[27] It further stated that the fact that “a NAMU would mean the end of sovereignty in Canadian monetary policy is clear. Most obviously, it would mean abandoning a made-in-Canada inflation rate for a US or NAMU inflation rate.”[28]

In May of 2007, Canada’s then Governor of the Central Bank of Canada, David Dodge, said that, “North America could one day embrace a euro-style single currency,” and that, “Some proponents have dubbed the single North American currency the ‘amero’.” Answering questions following his speech, Dodge said that, “a single currency was ‘possible’.”[29]

In November of 2007, one of Canada’s richest billionaires, Stephen Jarislowsky, also a member of the board of the C.D. Howe Institute, told a Canadian Parliamentary committee that, “Canada should replace its dollar with a North American currency, or peg it to the U.S. greenback, to avoid the exchange rate shifts the loonie has experienced,” and that, “I think we have to really seriously start thinking of the model of a continental currency just like Europe.”[30]

Former Mexican President Vicente Fox, while appearing on Larry King Live in 2007, was asked a question regarding the possibility of a common currency for Latin America, to which he responded by saying, “Long term, very long term. What we propose together, President Bush and myself, it's ALCA, which is a trade union for all of the Americas. And everything was running fluently until Hugo Chavez came. He decided to isolate himself. He decided to combat the idea and destroy the idea.” Larry King then asked, “It's going to be like the euro dollar, you mean?” to which Fox responded, “Well, that would be long, long term. I think the processes to go, first step into is trading agreement. And then further on, a new vision, like we are trying to do with NAFTA.”[31]

In January of 2008, Herbert Grubel, the author who coined the term “amero” for the Fraser Institute report, wrote an article for the Financial Post, in which he recommends fixing the Canadian loonie to the US dollar at a fixed exchange rate, but that there are inherent problems with having the US Federal Reserve thus control Canadian interest rates. He then wrote that, “there is a solution to this lack of credibility. In Europe, it came through the creation of the euro and formal end of the ability of national central banks to set interest rates. The analogous creation of the amero is not possible without the unlikely co-operation of the United States. This leaves the credibility issue to be solved by the unilateral adoption of a currency board, which would ensure that international payments imbalances automatically lead to changes in Canada's money supply and interest rates until the imbalances are ended, all without any actions by the Bank of Canada or influence by politicians. It would be desirable to create simultaneously the currency board and a New Canadian Dollar valued at par with the U.S. dollar. With longer-run competitiveness assured at US90¢ to the U.S. dollar.”[32]

In January of 2009, an online publication of the Wall Street Journal, called Market Watch, discussed the possibility of hyperinflation of the United States dollar, and then stated, regarding the possibility of an amero, “On its face, while difficult to imagine, it makes intuitive sense. The ability to combine Canadian natural resources, American ingenuity and cheap Mexican labor would allow North America to compete better on a global stage.” The author further states that, “If forward policy attempts to induce more debt rather than allowing savings and obligations to align, we must respect the potential for a system shock. We may need to let a two-tier currency gain traction if the dollar meaningfully debases from current levels,” and that, “If this dynamic plays out -- and I've got no insight that it will -- the global balance of powers would fragment into four primary regions: North America, Europe, Asia and the Middle East. In such a scenario, ramifications would manifest through social unrest and geopolitical conflict.”[33]

 A Global Currency

 The Phoenix 

In 1988, The Economist ran an article titled, Get Ready for the Phoenix, in which they wrote, “THIRTY years from now, Americans, Japanese, Europeans, and people in many other rich countries and some relatively poor ones will probably be paying for their shopping with the same currency. Prices will be quoted not in dollars, yen or D-marks but in, let's say, the phoenix. The phoenix will be favoured by companies and shoppers because it will be more convenient than today's national currencies, which by then will seem a quaint cause of much disruption to economic life in the late twentieth century.”

The article stated that, “The market crash [of 1987] taught [governments] that the pretence of policy cooperation can be worse than nothing, and that until real co-operation is feasible (ie, until governments surrender some economic sovereignty) further attempts to peg currencies will flounder.” Amazingly the article states that, “Several more big exchange-rate upsets, a few more stockmarket crashes and probably a slump or two will be needed before politicians are willing to face squarely up to that choice. This points to a muddled sequence of emergency followed by patch-up followed by emergency, stretching out far beyond 2018-except for two things. As time passes, the damage caused by currency instability is gradually going to mount; and the very trends that will make it mount are making the utopia of monetary union feasible.”

Further, the article stated that, “The phoenix zone would impose tight constraints on national governments. There would be no such thing, for instance, as a national monetary policy. The world phoenix supply would be fixed by a new central bank, descended perhaps from the IMF. The world inflation rate-and hence, within narrow margins, each national inflation rate-would be in its charge. Each country could use taxes and public spending to offset temporary falls in demand, but it would have to borrow rather than print money to finance its budget deficit.” The author admits that, “This means a big loss of economic sovereignty, but the trends that make the phoenix so appealing are taking that sovereignty away in any case. Even in a world of more-or-less floating exchange rates, individual governments have seen their policy independence checked by an unfriendly outside world.”

The article concludes in stating that, “The phoenix would probably start as a cocktail of national currencies, just as the Special Drawing Right is today. In time, though, its value against national currencies would cease to matter, because people would choose it for its convenience and the stability of its purchasing power.” The last sentence states, “Pencil in the phoenix for around 2018, and welcome it when it comes.”[34]

Recommendations for a Global Currency

In 1998, the IMF Survey discussed a speech given by James Tobin, a prominent American economist, in which he argued that, “A single global currency might offer a viable alternative to the floating rate.” He further stated that, “there was still a great need” for “lenders of last resort.”[35]

In 1999, economist Judy Shelton addressed the US House of Representatives Committee on Banking and Financial Services. In her testimony, she stated that, “The continued expansion of free trade, the increased integration of financial markets and the advent of electronic commerce are all working to bring about the need for an international monetary standard---a global unit of account.” She further explained that, “Regional currency unions seem to be the next step in the evolution toward some kind of global monetary order. Europe has already adopted a single currency. Asia may organize into a regional currency bloc to offer protection against speculative assaults on the individual currencies of weaker nations. Numerous countries in Latin America are considering various monetary arrangements to insulate them from financial contagion and avoid the economic consequences of devaluation. An important question is whether this process of monetary evolution will be intelligently directed or whether it will simply be driven by events. In my opinion, political leadership can play a decisive role in helping to build a more orderly, rational monetary system than the current free-for-all approach to exchange rate relations.”

She further stated that, “As we have seen in Europe, the sequence of development is (1) you build a common market, and (2) you establish a common currency. Indeed, until you have a common currency, you don’t truly have an efficient common market.” She concludes by stating, “Ideally, every nation should stand willing to convert its currency at a fixed rate into a universal reserve asset. That would automatically create a global monetary union based on a common unit of account. The alternative path to a stable monetary order is to forge a common currency anchored to an asset of intrinsic value. While the current momentum for dollarization should be encouraged, especially for Mexico and Canada, in the end the stability of the global monetary order should not rest on any single nation.”[36]

Paul Volcker, former Governor of the Federal Reserve Board, stated in 2000, that, “If we are to have a truly global economy, a single world currency makes sense.” In a speech delivered by a member of the Executive Board of the European Central Bank, it was stated that Paul Volcker “might be right, and we might one day have a single world currency. Maybe European integration, in the same way as any other regional integration, could be seen as a step towards the ideal situation of a fully integrated world. If and when this world will see the light of day is impossible to say. However, what I can say is that this vision seems as impossible now to most of us as a European monetary union seemed 50 years ago, when the process of European integration started.”[37]

In 2000, the IMF held an international conference and published a brief report titled, One World, One Currency: Destination or Delusion?, in which it was stated that, “As perceptions grow that the world is gradually segmenting into a few regional currency blocs, the logical extension of such a trend also emerges as a theoretical possibility: a single world currency. If so many countries see benefits from currency integration, would a world currency not maximize these benefits?”

It outlines how, “The dollar bloc, already underpinned by the strength of the U.S. economy, has been extended further by dollarization and regional free trade pacts. The euro bloc represents an economic union that is intended to become a full political union likely to expand into Central and Eastern Europe. A yen bloc may emerge from current proposals for Asian monetary cooperation. A currency union may emerge among Mercosur members in Latin America, a geographical currency zone already exists around the South African rand, and a merger of the Australian and New Zealand dollars is a perennial topic in Oceania.”

The summary states that, “The same commercial efficiencies, economies of scale, and physical imperatives that drive regional currencies together also presumably exist on the next level—the global scale.” Further, it reported that, “The smaller and more vulnerable economies of the world—those that the international community is now trying hardest to help—would have most to gain from the certainty and stability that would accompany a single world currency.”[38] Keep in mind, this document was produced by the IMF, and so its recommendations for what it says would likely “help” the smaller and more vulnerable countries of the world, should be taken with a grain – or bucket – of salt.

Economist Robert A. Mundell has long called for a global currency. On his website, he states that the creation of a global currency is “a project that would restore a needed coherence to the international monetary system, give the International Monetary Fund a function that would help it to promote stability, and be a catalyst for international harmony.” He states that, “The benefits from a world currency would be enormous. Prices all over the world would be denominated in the same unit and would be kept equal in different parts of the world to the extent that the law of one price was allowed to work itself out. Apart from tariffs and controls, trade between countries would be as easy as it is between states of the United States.”[39]

 Renewed Calls for a Global Currency

On March 16, 2009, Russia suggested that, “the G20 summit in London in April should start establishing a system of managing the process of globalization and consider the possibility of creating a supra-national reserve currency or a ‘super-reserve currency’.” Russia called for “the creation of a supra-national reserve currency that will be issued by international financial institutions,” and that, “It looks expedient to reconsider the role of the IMF in that process and also to determine the possibility and need for taking measures that would allow for the SDRs (Special Drawing Rights) to become a super-reserve currency recognized by the world community.”[40]

On March 23, 2009, it was reported that China’s central bank “proposed replacing the US dollar as the international reserve currency with a new global system controlled by the International Monetary Fund.” The goal would be for the world reserve currency that is “disconnected from individual nations and is able to remain stable in the long run, thus removing the inherent deficiencies caused by using credit-based national currencies.” The chief China economist for HSBC stated that, “This is a clear sign that China, as the largest holder of US dollar financial assets, is concerned about the potential inflationary risk of the US Federal Reserve printing money.” The Governor of the People’s Bank of China, the central bank, “suggested expanding the role of special drawing rights, which were introduced by the IMF in 1969 to support the Bretton Woods fixed exchange rate regime but became less relevant once that collapsed in the 1970s.” Currently, “the value of SDRs is based on a basket of four currencies – the US dollar, yen, euro and sterling – and they are used largely as a unit of account by the IMF and some other international organizations.”

However, “China’s proposal would expand the basket of currencies forming the basis of SDR valuation to all major economies and set up a settlement system between SDRs and other currencies so they could be used in international trade and financial transactions. Countries would entrust a portion of their SDR reserves to the IMF to manage collectively on their behalf and SDRs would gradually replace existing reserve currencies.”[41]

On March 25, Timothy Geithner, Treasury Secretary and former President of the New York Federal Reserve, spoke at the Council on Foreign Relations, when asked a question about his thoughts on the Chinese proposal for the global reserve currency, Geithner replied that, “I haven't read the governor's proposal.  He's a remarkably -- a very thoughtful, very careful, distinguished central banker.  Generally find him sensible on every issue.  But as I understand his proposal, it's a proposal designed to increase the use of the IMF's special drawing rights.  And we're actually quite open to that suggestion.  But you should think of it as rather evolutionary, building on the current architectures, than -- rather than -- rather than moving us to global monetary union [Emphasis added].”[42]

In late March, it was reported that, “A United Nations panel of economists has proposed a new global currency reserve that would take over the US dollar-based system used for decades by international banks,” and that, “An independently administered reserve currency could operate without conflicts posed by the US dollar and keep commodity prices more stable.”[43]

A recent article in the Economic Times stated that, “The world is not yet ready for an international reserve currency, but is ready to begin the process of shifting to such a currency. Otherwise, it would remain too vulnerable to the hegemonic nation,” as in, the United States.[44] Another article in the Economic Times started by proclaiming that, “the world certainly needs an international currency.” Further, the article stated that, “With an unwillingness to accept dollars and the absence of an alternative, international payments system can go into a freeze beyond the control of monetary authorities leading the world economy into a Great Depression,” and that, “In order to avoid such a calamity, the international community should immediately revive the idea of the Substitution Account mooted in 1971, under which official holders of dollars can deposit their unwanted dollars in a special account in the IMF with the values of deposits denominated in an international currency such as the SDR of the IMF.”[45]

Amidst fears of a falling dollar as a result of the increased open discussion of a new global currency, it was reported that, “The dollar’s role as a reserve currency won’t be threatened by a nine-fold expansion in the International Monetary Fund’s unit of account, according to UBS AG, ING Groep NV and Citigroup Inc.” This was reported following the recent G20 meeting, at which, “Group of 20 leaders yesterday gave approval for the agency to raise $250 billion by issuing Special Drawing Rights, or SDRs, the artificial currency that the IMF uses to settle accounts among its member nations. It also agreed to put another $500 billion into the IMF’s war chest.”[46] In other words, the large global financial institutions came to the rhetorical rescue of the dollar, so as not to precipitate a crisis in its current standing, so that they can continue with quietly forming a new global currency.

  Creating a World Central Bank 

In 1998, Jeffrey Garten wrote an article for the New York Times advocating a “global Fed.” Garten was former Dean of the Yale School of Management, former Undersecretary of Commerce for International Trade in the Clinton administration, previously served on the White House Council on International Economic Policy under the Nixon administration and on the policy planning staffs of Secretaries of State Henry Kissinger and Cyrus Vance of the Ford and Carter administrations, former Managing Director at Lehman Brothers, and is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. In his article written in 1998, he stated that, “over time the United States set up crucial central institutions -- the Securities and Exchange Commission (1933), the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (1934) and, most important, the Federal Reserve (1913). In so doing, America became a managed national economy. These organizations were created to make capitalism work, to prevent destructive business cycles and to moderate the harsh, invisible hand of Adam Smith.”

He then explained that, “This is what now must occur on a global scale. The world needs an institution that has a hand on the economic rudder when the seas become stormy. It needs a global central bank.” He explains that, “Simply trying to coordinate the world's powerful central banks -- the Fed and the new European Central Bank, for instance -- wouldn't work,” and that, “Effective collaboration among finance ministries and treasuries is also unlikely to materialize. These agencies are responsible to elected legislatures, and politics in the industrial countries is more preoccupied with internal events than with international stability.”

He then postulates that, “An independent central bank with responsibility for maintaining global financial stability is the only way out. No one else can do what is needed: inject more money into the system to spur growth, reduce the sky-high debts of emerging markets, and oversee the operations of shaky financial institutions. A global central bank could provide more money to the world economy when it is rapidly losing steam.” Further, “Such a bank would play an oversight role for banks and other financial institutions everywhere, providing some uniform standards for prudent lending in places like China and Mexico. [However, t]he regulation need not be heavy-handed.” Garten continues, “There are two ways a global central bank could be financed. It could have lines of credit from all central banks, drawing on them in bad times and repaying when the markets turn up. Alternately -- and admittedly more difficult to carry out -- it could be financed by a very modest tariff on all trade, collected at the point of importation, or by a tax on certain global financial transactions.”

Interestingly, Garten states that, “One thing that would not be acceptable would be for the bank to be at the mercy of short-term-oriented legislatures.” In essence, it is not to be accountable to the people of the world. So, he asks the question, “To whom would a global central bank be accountable? It would have too much power to be governed only by technocrats, although it must be led by the best of them. One possibility would be to link the new bank to an enlarged Group of Seven -- perhaps a ''G-15'' [or in today’s context, the G20] that would include the G-7 plus rotating members like Mexico, Brazil, South Africa, Poland, India, China and South Korea.” He further states that, “There would have to be very close collaboration” between the global bank and the Fed, and that, “The global bank would not operate within the United States, and it would not be able to override the decisions of our central bank. But it could supply the missing international ingredient -- emergency financing for cash-starved emerging markets. It wouldn't affect American mortgage rates, but it could help the profitability of American multinational companies by creating a healthier global environment for their businesses.”[47]

In September of 2008, Jeffrey Garten wrote an article for the Financial Times in which he stated that, “Even if the US’s massive financial rescue operation succeeds, it should be followed by something even more far-reaching – the establishment of a Global Monetary Authority to oversee markets that have become borderless.” He emphasized the “need for a new Global Monetary Authority. It would set the tone for capital markets in a way that would not be viscerally opposed to a strong public oversight function with rules for intervention, and would return to capital formation the goal of economic growth and development rather than trading for its own sake.”

Further, the “GMA would be a reinsurer or discounter for certain obligations held by central banks. It would scrutinise the regulatory activities of national authorities with more teeth than the IMF has and oversee the implementation of a limited number of global regulations. It would monitor global risks and establish an effective early warning system with more clout to sound alarms than the BIS has.” Moreover, “The biggest global financial companies would have to register with the GMA and be subject to its monitoring, or be blacklisted. That includes commercial companies and banks, but also sovereign wealth funds, gigantic hedge funds and private equity firms.” He recommends that its board “include central bankers not just from the US, UK, the eurozone and Japan, but also China, Saudi Arabia and Brazil. It would be financed by mandatory contributions from every capable country and from insurance-type premiums from global financial companies – publicly listed, government owned, and privately held alike.”[48]

In October of 2008, it was reported that Morgan Stanley CEO John Mack stated that, “it may take continued international coordination to fully unlock the credit markets and resolve the financial crisis, perhaps even by forming a new global body to oversee the process.”[49]

In late October of 2008, Jeffrey Garten wrote an article for Newsweek in which he stated that, “leaders should begin laying the groundwork for establishing a global central bank.” He explained that, “There was a time when the U.S. Federal Reserve played this role [as governing financial authority of the world], as the prime financial institution of the world's most powerful economy, overseeing the one global currency. But with the growth of capital markets, the rise of currencies like the euro and the emergence of powerful players such as China, the shift of wealth to Asia and the Persian Gulf and, of course, the deep-seated problems in the American economy itself, the Fed no longer has the capability to lead single-handedly.”

He explains the criteria and operations of a world central bank, saying that, “It could be the lead regulator of big global financial institutions, such as Citigroup or Deutsche Bank, whose activities spill across borders,” as well as “act as a bankruptcy court when big global banks that operate in multiple countries need to be restructured. It could oversee not just the big commercial banks, such as Mitsubishi UFJ, but also the "alternative" financial system that has developed in recent years, consisting of hedge funds, private-equity groups and sovereign wealth funds—all of which are now substantially unregulated.” Further, it “could have influence over key exchange rates, and might lead a new monetary conference to realign the dollar and the yuan, for example, for one of its first missions would be to deal with the great financial imbalances that hang like a sword over the world economy.”

He further postulates that, “A global central bank would not eliminate the need for the Federal Reserve or other national central banks, which will still have frontline responsibility for sound regulatory policies and monetary stability in their respective countries. But it would have heavy influence over them when it comes to following policies that are compatible with global growth and financial stability. For example, it would work with key countries to better coordinate national stimulus programs when the world enters a recession, as is happening now, so that the cumulative impact of the various national efforts do not so dramatically overshoot that they plant the seeds for a crisis of global inflation. This is a big threat as government spending everywhere goes into overdrive.”[50]

In January of 2009, it was reported that, “one clear solution to avoid a repeat of the problems would be the establishment of a "global central bank" – with the IMF and World Bank being unable to prevent the financial meltdown.” Dr. William Overholt, senior research fellow at Harvard's Kennedy School, formerly with the Rand Institute, gave a speech in Dubai in which he said that, “To avoid another crisis, we need an ability to manage global liquidity. Theoretically that could be achieved through some kind of global central bank, or through the creation of a global currency, or through global acceptance of a set of rules with sanctions and a dispute settlement mechanism.”[51]

Guillermo Calvo, Professor of Economics, International and Public Affairs at Columbia University wrote an article for VOX in late March of 2009. Calvo is the former Chief Economist of the Inter-American Development Bank, and is currently a Research Associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) and President of the International Economic Association and the former Senior Advisor in the Research Department of the IMF.

He wrote that, “Credit availability is not ensured by stricter financial regulation. In fact, it can be counterproductive unless it is accompanied by the establishment of a lender of last resort (LOLR) that radically softens the severity of financial crisis by providing timely credit lines. With that aim in mind, the 20th century saw the creation of national or regional central banks in charge of a subset of the capital market. It has now become apparent that the realm of existing central banks is very limited and the world has no institution that fulfils the necessary global role. The IMF is moving in that direction, but it is still too small and too limited to adequately do so.”

He advocates that, “the first proposal that I would like to make is that the topic of financial regulation should be discussed together with the issue of a global lender of last resort.” Further, he proposed that, “international financial institutions must be quickly endowed with considerably more firepower to help emerging economies through the deleveraging period.”[52]

 A “New World Order” in Banking 

In March of 2008, following the collapse of Bear Stearns, Reuters reported on a document released by research firm CreditSights, which said that, “Financial firms face a ‘new world order’,” and that, “More industry consolidation and acquisitions may follow after JPMorgan Chase & Co.” Further, “In the event of future consolidation, potential acquirers identified by CreditSights include JPMorganChase, Wells Fargo, US Bancorp, Goldman Sachs and Bank of America.”[53]

In June of 2008, before he was Treasury Secretary in the Obama administration, Timothy Geithner, as head of the New York Federal Reserve, wrote an article for the Financial Times following his attendance at the 2008 Bilderberg conference, in which he wrote that, “Banks and investment banks whose health is crucial to the global financial system should operate under a unified regulatory framework,” and he said that, “the US Federal Reserve should play a "central role" in the new regulatory framework, working closely with supervisors in the US and around the world.”[54]

In November of 2008, The National, a prominent United Arab Emirate newspaper, reported on Baron David de Rothschild accompanying Prime Minister Gordon Brown on a visit to the Middle East, although not as a “part of the official party” accompanying Brown. Following an interview with the Baron, it was reported that, “Rothschild shares most people’s view that there is a new world order. In his opinion, banks will deleverage and there will be a new form of global governance.”[55]

In February of 2009, the Times Online reported that a “New world order in banking [is] necessary,” and that, “It is increasingly evident that the world needs a new banking system and that it should not bear much resemblance to the one that has failed so spectacularly.”[56] But of course, the ones that are shaping this new banking system are the champions of the previous banking system. The solutions that will follow are simply the extensions of the current system, only sped up through the necessity posed by the current crisis.

 An Emerging Global Government 

A recent article in the Financial Post stated that, “The danger in the present course is that if the world moves to a “super sovereign” reserve currency engineered by experts, such as the “UN Commission of Experts” led by Nobel laureate economist Joseph Stiglitz, we would give up the possibility of a spontaneous money order and financial harmony for a centrally planned order and the politicization of money. Such a regime change would endanger not only the future value of money but, more importantly, our freedom and prosperity.”[57]

Further, “An uncomfortable characteristic of the new world order may well turn out to be that global income gaps will widen because the rising powers, such as China, India and Brazil, regard those below them on the ladder as potential rivals.” The author further states that, “The new world order thus won't necessarily be any better than the old one,” and that, “What is certain, though, is that global affairs are going to be considerably different from now on.”[58]

In April of 2009, Robert Zoellick, President of the World Bank, said that, “If leaders are serious about creating new global responsibilities or governance, let them start by modernising multilateralism to empower the WTO, the IMF, and the World Bank Group to monitor national policies.”[59]

David Rothkopf, a scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, former Deputy Undersecretary of Commerce for International Trade in the Clinton administration, and former managing director of Kissinger and Associates, and a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, recently wrote a book titled, Superclass: The Global Power Elite and the World They are Making, of which he is certainly a member. When discussing the role and agenda of the global “superclass”, he states that, “In a world of global movements and threats that don’t present their passports at national borders, it is no longer possible for a nation-state acting alone to fulfill its portion of the social contract.”[60]

He writes that, “even the international organizations and alliances we have today, flawed as they are, would have seemed impossible until recently, notably the success of the European Union – a unitary democratic state the size of India. The evolution and achievements of such entities against all odds suggest not isolated instances but an overall trend in the direction of what Tennyson called “the Parliament of Man,” or ‘universal law’.” He states that he is “optimistic that progress will continue to be made,” but it will be difficult, because it “undercuts many national and local power structures and cultural concepts that have foundations deep in the bedrock of human civilization, namely the notion of sovereignty.”[61]

He further writes that, “Mechanisms of global governance are more achievable in today’s environment,” and that these mechanisms “are often creative with temporary solutions to urgent problems that cannot wait for the world to embrace a bigger and more controversial idea like real global government.”[62]

In December of 2008, the Financial Times ran an article written by Gideon Rachman, a past Bilderberg attendee, who wrote that, “for the first time in my life, I think the formation of some sort of world government is plausible,” and that, “A ‘world government’ would involve much more than co-operation between nations. It would be an entity with state-like characteristics, backed by a body of laws. The European Union has already set up a continental government for 27 countries, which could be a model. The EU has a supreme court, a currency, thousands of pages of law, a large civil service and the ability to deploy military force.”

He then asks if the European model could “go global,” and states that there are three reasons for thinking that may be the case. First, he states, “it is increasingly clear that the most difficult issues facing national governments are international in nature: there is global warming, a global financial crisis and a ‘global war on terror’.” Secondly, he states that, “It could be done,” largely as a result of the transport and communications revolutions having “shrunk the world.” Thirdly, this is made possible through an awakening “change in the political atmosphere,” as “The financial crisis and climate change are pushing national governments towards global solutions, even in countries such as China and the US that are traditionally fierce guardians of national sovereignty.”

He quoted an adviser to French President Nicolas Sarkozy as saying, “Global governance is just a euphemism for global government,” and that the “core of the international financial crisis is that we have global financial markets and no global rule of law.” However, Rachman states that any push towards a global government “will be a painful, slow process.” He then states that a key problem in this push can be explained with an example from the EU, which “has suffered a series of humiliating defeats in referendums, when plans for “ever closer union” have been referred to the voters. In general, the Union has progressed fastest when far-reaching deals have been agreed by technocrats and politicians – and then pushed through without direct reference to the voters. International governance tends to be effective, only when it is anti-democratic. [Emphasis added]”[63]

In November of 2008, the United States National Intelligence Council (NIC), the US intelligence community’s “center for midterm and long-term strategic thinking,” released a report that it produced in collaboration with numerous think tanks, consulting firms, academic institutions and hundreds of other experts, among them are the Atlantic Council of the United States, the Wilson Center, RAND Corporation, the Brookings Institution, American Enterprise Institute, Texas A&M University, the Council on Foreign Relations and Chatham House in London.[64]

The report, titled, Global Trends 2025: A Transformed World, outlines the current global political and economic trends that the world may be going through by the year 2025. In terms of the financial crisis, it states that solving this “will require long-term efforts to establish a new international system.”[65] It suggests that as the “China-model” for development becomes increasingly attractive, there may be a “decline in democratization” for emerging economies, authoritarian regimes, and “weak democracies frustrated by years of economic underperformance.” Further, the dollar will cease to be the global reserve currency, as there would likely be a “move away from the dollar.”[66]

It states that the dollar will become “something of a first among equals in a basket of currencies by 2025. This could occur suddenly in the wake of a crisis, or gradually with global rebalancing.”[67] The report elaborates on the construction of a new international system, stating that, “By 2025, nation-states will no longer be the only – and often not the most important – actors on the world stage and the ‘international system’ will have morphed to accommodate the new reality. But the transformation will be incomplete and uneven.” Further, it would be “unlikely to see an overarching, comprehensive, unitary approach to global governance. Current trends suggest that global governance in 2025 will be a patchwork of overlapping, often ad hoc and fragmented efforts, with shifting coalitions of member nations, international organizations, social movements, NGOs, philanthropic foundations, and companies.” It also notes that, “Most of the pressing transnational problems – including climate change, regulation of globalized financial markets, migration, failing states, crime networks, etc. – are unlikely to be effectively resolved by the actions of individual nation-states. The need for effective global governance will increase faster than existing mechanisms can respond.”[68]

The report discusses the topic of regionalism, stating that, “Greater Asian integration, if it occurs, could fill the vacuum left by a weakening multilaterally based international order but could also further undermine that order. In the aftermath of the 1997 Asian financial crisis, a remarkable series of pan-Asian ventures—the most significant being ASEAN + 3—began to take root.  Although few would argue that an Asian counterpart to the EU is a likely outcome even by 2025, if 1997 is taken as a starting point, Asia arguably has evolved more rapidly over the last decade than the European integration did in its first decade(s).” It further states that, “movement over the next 15 years toward an Asian basket of currencies—if not an Asian currency unit as a third reserve—is more than a theoretical possibility.”

It elaborates that, “Asian regionalism would have global implications, possibly sparking or reinforcing a trend toward three trade and financial clusters that could become quasi-blocs (North America, Europe, and East Asia).” These blocs “would have implications for the ability to achieve future global World Trade Organization agreements and regional clusters could compete in the setting of trans-regional product standards for IT, biotech, nanotech, intellectual property rights, and other ‘new economy’ products.”[69]

Of great importance to address, and reflecting similar assumptions made by Rachman in his article advocating for a world government, is the topic of democratization, saying that, “advances are likely to slow and globalization will subject many recently democratized countries to increasing social and economic pressures that could undermine liberal institutions.” This is largely because “the better economic performance of many authoritarian governments could sow doubts among some about democracy as the best form of government.  The surveys we consulted indicated that many East Asians put greater emphasis on good management, including increasing standards of livings, than democracy.” Further, “even in many well-established democracies, surveys show growing frustration with the current workings of democratic government and questioning among elites over the ability of democratic governments to take the bold actions necessary to deal rapidly and effectively with the growing number of transnational challenges.”[70]

 Conclusion

Ultimately, what this implies is that the future of the global political economy is one of increasing moves toward a global system of governance, or a world government, with a world central bank and global currency; and that, concurrently, these developments are likely to materialize in the face of and as a result of a decline in democracy around the world, and thus, a rise in authoritarianism. What we are witnessing is the creation of a New World Order, composed of a totalitarian global government structure.

In fact, the very concept of a global currency and global central bank is authoritarian in its very nature, as it removes any vestiges of oversight and accountability away from the people of the world, and toward a small, increasingly interconnected group of international elites.

As Carroll Quigley explained in his monumental book, Tragedy and Hope, “[T]he powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able  to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences. The apex of the system was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basle, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world’s central banks which were themselves private corporations.”[71]

Indeed, the current “solutions” being proposed to the global financial crisis benefit those that caused the crisis over those that are poised to suffer the most as a result of the crisis: the disappearing middle classes, the world’s dispossessed, poor, indebted people. The proposed solutions to this crisis represent the manifestations and actualization of the ultimate generational goals of the global elite; and thus, represent the least favourable conditions for the vast majority of the world’s people.

It is imperative that the world’s people throw their weight against these “solutions” and usher in a new era of world order, one of the People’s World Order; with the solution lying in local governance and local economies, so that the people have greater roles in determining the future and structure of their own political-economy, and thus, their own society. With this alternative of localized political economies, in conjunction with an unprecedented global population and international democratization of communication through the internet, we have the means and possibility before us to forge the most diverse manifestation of cultures and societies that humanity has ever known.

The answer lies in the individual’s internalization of human power and destination, and a rejection of the externalization of power and human destiny to a global authority of which all but a select few people have access to. To internalize human power and destiny is to realize the gift of a human mind, which has the ability to engage in thought beyond the material, such as food and shelter, and venture into the realm of the conceptual. Each individual possesses – within themselves – the ability to think critically about themselves and their own life; now is the time to utilize this ability with the aim of internalizing the concepts and questions of human power and destiny: Why are we here? Where are we going? Where should we be going? How do we get there?

 The supposed answers to these questions are offered to us by a tiny global elite who fear the repercussions of what would take place if the people of the world were to begin to answer these questions themselves. I do not know the answers to these questions, but I do know that the answers lie in the human mind and spirit, that which has overcome and will continue to overcome the greatest of challenges to humanity, and will, without doubt, triumph over the New World Order.

Alberta Pastor Fined $7000 and Ordered to Publicly Apologize and Remain Silent on Homosexuality

By Tim Waggoner

OTTAWA, June 9, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - On Friday, the Alberta Human Rights Commission ordered Alberta pastor Stephen Boissoin to desist from expressing his views on homosexuality in any sort of public forum. He was also commanded to pay damages equivalent to $7,000 as a result of the tribunal's November decision to side with complainant and homosexual activist Dr. Darren Lund. The tribunal has also called for Boissoin to personally apologize to Lund via a public statement in the local newspaper.

The remedy order demands the pastor to pay $5,000 to Lund personally for the "time and energy" he has expended and for the "ridicule and harassment" he has faced. Combined with that financial burden, Boissoin must also pay up to $2,000 in expenses to one of Lund's witness, provided she produces records of such costs.

Boissoin was first hauled before the Human Rights Commission to answer to a complaint filed by Lund, an assistant professor at the University of Calgary. Lund made his complaint after Boissoin published a letter to the editor in the Red Deer Advocate, in which he denounced homosexuality as immoral and dangerous, and called into question new gay-rights curricula permeating the province's educational system.

"Children as young as five and six years of age are being subjected to psychologically and physiologically damaging pro-homosexual literature and guidance in the public school system; all under the fraudulent guise of equal rights," wrote Boissoin in the letter.

In an interview, Boissoin told LifeSiteNews.com that he's under attack not only for his letter, but more significantly for his beliefs.

"The point I am trying to make here is what's being attacked at the core is what I believe, according to my personal beliefs and my religious beliefs."

Most disturbingly, says Boissoin, is that the ruling calls for him to "cease publishing in newspapers, by email, on the radio, in public speeches, or on the internet, in future, disparaging remarks about gays and homosexuals." Boissoin wondered to what extent the right to freedom of expression in Canada will be deteriorated, stating, "I am not allowed to hold on to my views."

The pastor also maintained that his beliefs are founded not on hate or malice, but derive from a personal concern for the family and society rooted not only in faith, but also in science.

"I am not allowed to hold my views, but the Lunds of the world are allowed to bring gay ministers into schools, they are allowed to present scientifically baseless teachings to kids that people are born gay."

"I am all for tolerance, I don't want to see anyone who calls themselves homosexual be discriminated against," added Boissoin. "At the same time I believe it is a behaviour, there is no scientific proof that anyone is born gay, but these teens are taught in our school systems that that is the way it is, that people are born homosexual."

Boissoin then addressed the potential implications of what he called a scientifically baseless pro-homosexual curriculum being taught in schools. "When you deem something acceptable, you increase the likelihood that they will participate in that, and that's a great concern to me," he said.

Boissoin also accused Lund of concidently defaming him in another local newspaper, which either refused to publish Boissoin's rebuts or edited them severely.

He concluded by commenting on the Remedy order and the entire ordeal, which over the last six years has consumed tremendous time, energy and money - both from the pockets of taxpayers and Boissoin.

"Absurd - beyond absurd. I will never make a public apology; I stand by what I said. My context has never been taken into consideration. Lund's context has always been taken into consideration."

This will not be the last edition to the Boissoin story as he admitted to LifeSiteNews.com that he "will be appealing to an actual court of law."

Boissoin's is the latest in the string of actions by human rights commissions at both the national and provincial levels which have the nation in an uproar over the threat to freedom of speech and freedom of religion posed by the human rights commissions.

The Alberta government, which created the human rights commission, has ultimate authority over the Commission and its mandate, rules and who is appointed to the commission.

 

WORLD LEADERS CONSIDERING SINGLE CURRENCY AMIDST SEVERE GLOBAL ECONOMIC CRISIS

* Will Barak join Netanyahu's government by Sunday?

By Joel C. Rosenberg

(Washington, D.C., March 19, 2009) -- Amidst the global economic crisis in which upwards of 45% of the world's wealth has been lost in the last 18 months, talk of radically restructuring the global economic system is growing. In recent weeks, leaders in Europe, Africa and the Middle East have proposed scrapping the current economic order and going to a single common currency.

A story in yesterday's Moscow Times is creating quite a stir in particular. At the April 2nd meeting of world leaders in London (the G20), the Kremlin is reportedly set to propose a new global common currency system to replace the U.S. dollar as the international currency of choice.

The story notes that "the Kremlin's call for a common currency is not the first in recent days. Speaking at an economic conference in Astana, Kazakhstan, last week, Kazakh President Nursultan Nazarbayev proposed a global currency called the 'acmetal' - a conflation of the words 'acme' and 'capital.' He also suggested that the Eurasian Economic Community, a loose group of five former Soviet republics including Kazakhstan and Russia, adopt a single noncash currency - the yevraz - to insulate itself from the global economic crisis…."

"Nazarbayev's proposal...garner[ed] support from at least one prominent source -- Columbia University professor Robert Mundell, who was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1999 for his role in creating the euro. Speaking at the same conference with Nazarbayev, he said the idea had 'great promise.' The Kremlin document also called for national banks and international financial institutions to diversify their foreign currency reserves. It said the global financial system should be restructured to prevent future crises and proposed holding an international conference after the G20 summit to adopt conventions on a new global financial structure."

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad last week called for a single regional currency for 400 million Muslims in the Middle East. "The process of obtaining one single currency in the trade and exchanges among members, and in the next stages with other countries and neighbors, should be designed," the Iranian leader said March 11th.

Libyan leader Muammar Ghadafi, recently elected leader of the African Union of states, is calling for a single continental currency for all of Africa and has persuaded 200 tribal leaders to call him the "King of kings." The BBC reported in February that Ghadafi "envisages a single African military force, a single currency and a single passport for Africans to move freely around the continent."

Now comes a new story on this morning on the Reuters news wire: "U.N. PANEL SAYS WORLD SHOULD DITCH DOLLAR."

"A U.N. panel will next week recommend that the world ditch the dollar as its reserve currency in favor of a shared basket of currencies, a member of the panel said on Wednesday, adding to pressure on the dollar," the story noted. "Currency specialist Avinash Persaud, a member of the panel of experts, told a Reuters Funds Summit in Luxembourg that the proposal was to create something like the old Ecu, or European currency unit, that was a hard-traded, weighted basket. Persaud, chairman of consultants Intelligence Capital and a former currency chief at JPMorgan, said the recommendation would be one of a number delivered to the United Nations on March 25 by the U.N. Commission of Experts on International Financial Reform. 'It is a good moment to move to a shared reserve currency,' he said."

The "Euro" is the model many are looking to, in part because 20% of the world's foreign exchange reserves are already held in euros. Last year, the EU celebrated the 10 year anniversary of the creation of the "euro."

These are curious developments given that scholars of Bible prophecy have long noted that according to the Scriptures, in the "last days" the world will see the emergence of an entirely new international financial architecture, complete with a single common global currency created and mandated by the leaders of Europe. The Bible indicates that eventualoly no one on earth will be able to engage in commerce without "buying in" to the new cashless system. The prophecy is found in Revelation 13:16-17, which reads: "And he [the world leader that emerges from a revived Europe] causes all, the small and the great, and the rich and the poor, and the free men and slaves, to be given a mark on their right hand or on their forehead, and he provides that no one can buy or to sell, except the one who has the mark, either the name of the beast or the number of his name."

Cynics and skeptics have long dismissed such talk as the province of "religious nuts" and "prophecy buffs." But the discussion is now being advanced by major world leaders. It's too soon to say where this will all lead, but these are certainly developments worth watching

Gospel of wealth' facing scrutiny

By ERIC GORSKI, AP Religion Writer Thu Dec 27, 2:56 PM ET
The message flickered into Cindy Fleenor's living room each night: Be faithful in how you live and how you give, the television preachers said, and God will shower you with material riches.
And so the 53-year-old accountant from the Tampa, Fla., area pledged $500 a year to Joyce Meyer, the evangelist whose frank talk about recovering from childhood sexual abuse was so inspirational. She wrote checks to flamboyant faith healer Benny Hinn and a local preacher-made-good, Paula White.
Only the blessings didn't come. Fleenor ended up borrowing money from friends and payday loan companies just to buy groceries. At first she believed the explanation given on television: Her faith wasn't strong enough.
"I wanted to believe God wanted to do something great with me like he was doing with them," she said. "I'm angry and bitter about it. Right now, I don't watch anyone on TV hardly."
All three of the groups Fleenor supported are among six major Christian television ministries under scrutiny by a senator who is asking questions about the evangelists' lavish spending and possible abuses of their tax-exempt status.
The probe by Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa, the ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, has brought new scrutiny to the underlying belief that brings in millions of dollars and fills churches from Atlanta to Los Angeles — the "Gospel of Prosperity," or the notion that God wants to bless the faithful with earthly riches.
All six ministries under investigation preach the prosperity gospel to varying degrees.
Proponents call it a biblically sound message of hope. Others say it is a distortion that makes evangelists rich and preys on the vulnerable. They say it has evolved from "it's all right to make money" to it's all right for the pastor to drive a Bentley, live in an oceanside home and travel by private jet.
"More and more people are desperate and grasping at straws and want something that will alleviate their pain or financial crisis," said Michael Palmer, dean of the divinity school at Regent University, founded by Pat Robertson. "It's a growing problem."
The modern-day prosperity movement can largely be traced back to evangelist Oral Roberts' teachings. Roberts' disciples have spread his theology and vocabulary (Roberts and other evangelists, such as Meyer, call their donors "partners.") And several popular prosperity preachers, including some now under investigation, have served on the Oral Roberts University board.
Grassley is asking the ministries for financial records on salaries, spending practices, private jets and other perks. The investigation, coupled with a financial scandal at ORU that forced out Roberts' son and heir, Richard, has some wondering whether the prosperity gospel is facing a day of reckoning.
While few expect the movement to disappear, the scrutiny could force greater financial transparency and oversight in a movement known for secrecy.
Most scholars trace the origins of prosperity theology to E.W. Kenyon, an evangelical pastor from the first half of the 20th century.
But it wasn't until the postwar era — and a pair of evangelists from Tulsa, Okla. — that "health and wealth" theology became a fixture in Pentecostal and charismatic churches.
Oral Roberts and Kenneth Hagin — and later, Kenneth Copeland — trained tens of thousands of evangelists with a message that resonated with an emerging middle class, said David Edwin Harrell Jr., a Roberts biographer. Copeland is among those now being investigated.
"What Oral did was develop a theology that made it OK to prosper," Harrell said. "He let Pentecostals be faithful to the old-time truths their grandparents embraced and be part of the modern world, where they could have good jobs and make money."
The teachings took on various names — "Name It and Claim It," "Word of Faith," the prosperity gospel.
Prosperity preachers say that it isn't all about money — that God's blessings extend to health, relationships and being well-off enough to help others.
They have Bible verses at the ready to make their case. One oft-cited verse, in Paul's Second Epistle to the Corinthians, reads: "Yet for your sakes he became poor, that you by his poverty might become rich."
Critics acknowledge the idea that God wants to bless his followers has a Biblical basis, but say prosperity preachers take verses out of context. The prosperity crowd also fails to acknowledge Biblical accounts that show God doesn't always reward faithful believers, Palmer said.
The Book of Job is a case study in piety unrewarded, and a chapter in the Book of Hebrews includes a litany of believers who were tortured and martyred, Palmer said.
Yet the prosperity gospel continues to draw crowds, particularly lower- and middle-income people who, critics say, have the greatest motivation and the most to lose. The prosperity message is spreading to black churches, attracting elderly people with disposable incomes, and reaching huge churches in Africa and other developing parts of the world.
One of the teaching's attractions is that it doesn't dwell on traditional Christian themes of heaven and hell but on answering pressing concerns of the here and now, said Brian McLaren, a liberal evangelical author and pastor.
But the prosperity gospel, McLaren said, not only preys on the hope of the vulnerable, it puts too much emphasis on individual success and happiness.
"We've pretty much ignored what the Bible says about systemic injustice," he said.
The checks and balances central to Christian denominations are largely lacking in prosperity churches. One of the pastors in the Grassley probe, Bishop Eddie Long of suburban Atlanta, has written that God told him to get rid of the "ungodly governmental structure" of a deacon board.
Some ministers hold up their own wealth as evidence that the teaching works. Atlanta-area pastor Creflo Dollar, who is fighting Grassley's inquiry, owns a Rolls Royce and multimillion-dollar homes and travels in a church-owned Learjet.
In a letter to Grassley, Dollar's attorney calls the prosperity gospel a "deeply held religious belief" grounded in Scripture and therefore a protected religious freedom. Grassley has said his probe is not about theology.
But even some prosperity gospel critics — like the Rev. Adam Hamilton of 15,000-member United Methodist Church of the Resurrection in suburban Kansas City, Mo. — say that the investigation is entering a minefield.
"How do you determine how much money a minister like this is able to make when the basic theology is that wealth is OK?" said Hamilton, an Oral Roberts graduate who later left the charismatic movement. "That gets into theological questions."
There is evidence of change. Joyce Meyer Ministries, for one, enacted financial reforms in recent years, including making audited financial statements public.
Meyer, who has promised to cooperate fully with Grassley, issued a statement emphasizing that a prosperity gospel "that solely equates blessing with financial gain is out of balance and could damage a person's walk with God."

Contrarian Chronicles 5/21/2007 12:01 AM ET
Ignoring the lessons of 1929

The similarities of the lead-up to the great market crash to today's economic environment are obvious. Don't say you weren't warned.

By Bill Fleckenstein

The economic and financial landscape of 2007 bears striking similarities to 1929. Back then, there were large, unregulated pool operators and other insiders constantly muscling the tape in whatever direction they chose. The public, too, was involved, thinking the country was experiencing a new era. Meanwhile, business began deteriorating in the spring of 1929, though the partying in stocks lasted until the fall.
'Only Yesterday'
To give you a flavor of those times, I'd like to quote from Frederick Lewis Allen's "Only Yesterday," which is one of my favorite books about 1929: "Mergers of industrial corporations and of banks were taking place with greater frequency than ever before, prompted not merely by the desire to reduce overhead expenses and avoid the rigors of cut-throat competition, but often by sheer corporate megalomania. (My emphasis.) And every rumor of a merger or a split-up or an issue of rights was the automatic signal for a leap in the prices of the stocks affected -- until it became altogether too tempting to the managers of many a concern to arrange a split-up or a merger or an issue rights not without a canny eye to their own speculative fortunes."
Obviously, I don't need to point out how similar that is to the practices we are seeing today.
Giant footprints of the funds
Today, too, there are pool operators, in the form of leveraged-buyout (LBO) and hedge funds, both of which borrow money to invest. And, just like their predecessors, who ignored macroeconomic and corporate deterioration, they are partying as never before. In reading the following passage from Allen's 1931 book, you have to remind yourself that it's a portrait not of 2007 but 1929:
"One could indulge in all manner of dubious financial practices with an unruffled conscience so long as prices rose. The Big Bull Market covered a multitude of sins. It was a golden day for the promoter, and his name was legion."

 

EU birthday to mark 'new phase'

European Union leaders are due to meet in Berlin to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the bloc, which was founded by the 1957 Treaty of Rome.

The summit in Berlin will endorse a statement that will emphasise the EU's achievements and the challenges ahead.
Chancellor Angela Merkel will use the event to relaunch the debate on the EU's stalled constitution, rejected by French and Dutch voters in 2005.
Correspondents say it will paper over deep divisions among the 27 EU members.
"We, the citizens of Europe, have united for the better," the draft Berlin declaration says, hailing some of the EU's achievements over the past 50 years, including open borders, the common market and the euro, and an end to Europe's Cold War divisions.

Berlin says there is no explicit mention of the most divisive issues; future enlargement to admit Turkey and the Balkan nations, and the EU constitution.
Just weeks before the French presidential elections, and faced with stiff opposition from the Czech Republic, Poland and Britain, Chancellor Merkel has chosen the vaguest of terms, our correspondent says.

"We are united in our aim of placing the EU on a renewed common basis before the European Parliament elections in 2009," the statement says.

But a poll by a British Euro-sceptic think tank, Open Europe, suggests that three quarters of Europeans would like a referendum on any new treaty giving more power to the EU.

'Great achievements'

According to the poll, carried out in all 27 EU countries, 41% of respondents said the union should have fewer powers and that more decisions should be taken at a national or local level.

While the "Berlin Declaration" will cite the euro as one of the great achievements of the EU, a majority of citizens in the eurozone want to go back to their old national currencies.
There was majority support for keeping the euro in only six of the 13 euro member countries, according to the poll results.

Respondents' top priorities were to establish clear fixed limits on the powers of the EU, and to reduce the EU's trade barriers against developing countries.
According to another poll, conducted in several European countries and the United States, most people believe the EU will still be around in 50 years from now, but expanded to Turkey and even Russia.

However, less than one third of those polled think trans-Atlantic relations will be much better in 2057.

Setback for Church conservatives

Conservative Anglican archbishops have suffered a rebuff in their efforts to expel the US Episcopal Church over its liberal stance on homosexuality.

A report drawn up for church leaders meeting in Tanzania concludes that the US Church has largely met demands for it to conform with orthodox teaching.

The crisis began when the US Church decided to ordain an openly-gay bishop.

BBC Religious Affairs correspondent Robert Pigott says the report's conclusions will be hotly disputed.

The US Church had agreed rather half-heartedly to meet the demands, he says, fuelling the determination of conservative churches to expel them.

He adds that it is somewhat surprising that the specially-commissioned report has judged the response to be generally in accord with Anglican orthodoxy.

The demands included:

Despite the report finding in the Episcopal Church's favour, there is scope for further division at the Tanzania meeting, our correspondent says.

Conservative archbishops were due to put forward their plan for a parallel church in the US, under its own bishop, to cater for traditionalists who have broken away from the Episcopal Church.

Such an organisation could attract disgruntled traditionalists from other sections of the Anglican Church outside the US, and could eventually rival the main Church, our correspondent says.

WELCOME TO WORLD WAR III
The Week That Was In World War III

From Investor's News Daily

Global War On Terrorism: The epicenter may be Israel, but this isn't Israel's war. Islamist violence and menace are going full blast around the world, showing radical Islam's sustained aim at civilization itself.

Many Islamofascist activities get lost in the welter of 24/7 news. But when viewed together in one place, the threats, intercepted attacks, real attacks, diplomatic maneuvers or inaction all confirm radical Islam's unity of intent.

Here, in no particular order and excluding the war in Lebanon, is a sampling from the densely packed events of last week:

Somalia: The transitional government sought troops from Ethiopia to deter Islamist militia encircling the provisional capital, Baidoa. Ethiopia sent hundreds of armored carriers 100 miles into Somalia. In Mogadishu, Islamists in a machine-gun-mounted pickup "arrested" 20 men watching an allegedly pornographic video.

Iran: A U.S. official told Congress that Iranians may have paid for and observed North Korea's seven long-range and medium-range missile test launches directed at the U.S. on July 4 and 5.

U.S.: The Homeland Security Department is investigating a pipe bomb found in Lake Pontchartrain, La. Officials fear it could be part of a practice run for a future attack that could shut down all commerce on a critical U.S. waterway.

Meanwhile, two students in Georgia with terror contacts in Canada were indicted for allegedly plotting jihad after preparing for it through paramilitary training in north Georgia.

Separately, customs officials said religious visas were being abused by radical clerics from Syria, Algeria, Pakistan and Egypt.

In addition, experts said an analysis of the suicide plot that was revealed on July 7 to blow up the PATH trains of lower Manhattan and flood the financial district had a good chance of success.

Romania: Prosecutors prepared a case against Florian Lesch, 29, a convert to militant Islam, who was arrested after trying to detonate two gas cylinders in Timisoara to punish Romania for its good relations with the U.S. Police tied him to the Muslim Brothers.

Afghanistan: Taliban fighters ambushed Canadian troops near Kandahar after the Taliban announced a new campaign of violence against allied troops and anyone cooperating with them. Taliban also set a high school on fire in Paktika province, gutting it.

Syria: Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad met with Hezbollah leaders in Damascus, prompting fears of more coordinated terrorist attacks.

United Kingdom: Two more Islamist organizations — Al-Ghurabaa and the Saved Sect — were banned as terrorist. They split off from the group founded by terror cleric Omar Bakri Mohammed, now in Lebanon. Meanwhile, militants on paltalk.com called for the destruction of Israel and all Jews worldwide.

India: Three men affiliated with terrorist group Lashkar-e-Tayyaba were apprehended in a string of bombings on Bombay's transit system July 11 that killed 208 and injured 800. India's army reported new al-Qaida terror camps on the Pakistani border specializing in unconventional training, such as the use of female recruits.

Thailand: Six people were killed by Islamist militants in drive-by motorcycle shootings around Pattani. Victims included an assistant village chief. Police reported growing numbers of terror suspects with ties so strong to Indonesian terror group Barisan Revolusi Nasional, they suspect BRN and Thailand's own RKK terrorists may now be the same organization.

Venezuela: President Hugo Chavez, an Iran ally, moved to build diplomatic support for his bid for a United Nations Security Council seat, claiming he won pledges of votes from the Arab League and some African states. Chavez condemned Israel's self-defense efforts and explicitly vowed to thwart the U.S. if he won the U.N. seat.

Bosnia: Three men accused of plotting a terror attack on Sarajevo or another European capital went to trial. Meanwhile, local experts said they feared Bosnia would become a new Iranian front as a diversion if the war goes badly for Iran in Lebanon. They cited longstanding Hezbollah ties to Bosnia dating from the wars around the breakup of Yugoslavia a decade ago.

Canada: The Canadian Council on American Islamic Relations urged Muslims not to apologize for the activities of terrorists or cooperate with security in terrorist investigations.

Kashmir: Six Lashkar-e-Tayyaba terrorists were killed in two gunbattles with security forces that came looking for them and were ambushed. In a third village, a 26-year-old woman's throat was slit by terrorists who accused her of collaborating with police.

Indonesia: A total of 217 jihadis — 72 Indonesians, 57 Filipinos, 36 Malaysians, 45 Thais, three Bengals, three Bruneians and one Singaporean — embarked to fight Israel in south Lebanon, according to an Islamic Youth Movement leader. Meanwhile, 90 militants from Aceh province's Islamist separatist movement also declared their intent to fight in south Lebanon.

Argentina: Known Hezbollah operatives in Iran remained at large for their 1994 terrorist attack on a Jewish center in Buenos Aires. Jewish groups protested its 12th anniversary, pointing out that it was Hezbollah's first on foreign soil and "a forerunner of all other attacks," one Jewish leader said.

Sweden: A top-secret trial of three terror suspects continued in Malmo. British intelligence reportedly supplied the tip-off.

Russia: Chechen terrorists put new threats of attacks on their Web site. Two other Web sites published hagiographic videos extolling the life of Shamil Basayev, the terrorist mastermind of the Beslan massacre, who was killed July 10 by Russian troops

Armageddon looms large

Posted: July 7, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com
The "War to End All Wars" concluded with the 1919 signing of the Treaty of Versailles. One of its provisions was the establishment of an international "League of Nations" that was created to provide international oversight to ensure the First World War really would be the war to end all wars.
The League was set up by the victorious Allied powers under the terms of a document known as "The Covenant." It outlined the League's mission: "To promote international cooperation and to achieve international peace and security."
The League was the brainchild of U.S. President Woodrow Wilson, who won the 1919 Nobel Peace Prize for his work in setting it up. But the U.S. was never a member. The Senate refused to ratify membership, correctly concluding that membership would subordinate U.S. sovereignty to the League.
In 1931, Imperial Japan invaded Manchuria, set up a puppet republic called Manchukuo, and, when the League of Nations objected, Tokyo resigned from the League. The League of Nations blustered and fumed and sent many letters of protest, which Japan ignored until the League tired of sending them.
Four years later, Benito Mussolini, noting the League's ineffective response to Japanese aggression, invaded Ethiopia. The League condemned Italy, sent many letters of protest and threatened sanctions. In 1936, Mussolini's forces occupied Addis Ababa and Ethiopia became part of Italy.
Hitler watched this response carefully and took notes. This encouraged Hitler to further test the League's resolve in 1938. He threatened to invade Czechoslovakia unless Britain and France agreed to German occupation of the Sudetenland. Had the West and the League of Nations truly stood strong against this outrageous demand, Hitler probably would not have gone on to start World War II.
Emboldened by his success at facing down the entire free world, Hitler demanded that he be given Czechoslovakia in exchange for a promise to British Foreign Minister Chamberlain that there would be not further demands and there would be peace. Chamberlain, representing the "toothless" League of Nations, gave Hitler Czechoslovakia without even consulting the Czechs.
This capitulation by the League virtually assured Hitler's next move. When Hitler's storm troopers marched across the Rhine to claim the Ruhr as German territory, the League did not even bother to protest. This set the stage for the second "war to end all wars" between the Allied Forces and the Axis Powers of Japan, Italy and Germany. Hitler's audacity and boldness had so succeeded that it quieted every voice of reason left in Germany.
Sept. 1, 1939, Nazi Germany invaded Poland and World War II had begun. The enormous tragedy of it all is that it could probably have been prevented if the League of Nations had boldly stood against Hitler and backed him down at the beginning.
World War II concluded with the replacement of the League of Nations with the United Nations, whose purpose was to prevent, through international cooperation, another war to end all wars.
The historical parallels between the 1930s and the 1990s are unmistakable. Throughout the 1990s, what President George W. Bush aptly dubbed the "Axis of Evil" took turns testing U.N. resolve and noting the reaction of the global community.
First, Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait and survived the U.N.-led war to push his troops back across the Iraqi border. His Axis counterparts watched as he defied the U.N.'s repeated resolutions with impunity. (When Saddam's Iraq finally fell 12 years later, it was at the hands of the United States-led coalition over the vociferous objections of the United Nations Saddam had so blatantly defied.)
After observing the U.N.'s response to Iraqi aggression, Kim Jong-Il pushed the envelope still further with the first North Korean nuclear standoff in 1994. That resulted in the international community bribing Pyongyang not to develop nuclear weapons. President Clinton gave him all sorts of "goodies" to get him to back off his nuke program.
Like any good extortionist, Kim Jong-Il took the bribe but ignored the terms. He got away with it for eight years while the U.N. blustered and threatened him with letters of diplomatic protest. He learned that he could get all kinds of rewards for rattling missiles and then getting the U.N. nations to bribe him to stop.
Meanwhile, an even more dangerous aggressor was taking note. Iran's mad mullahs carefully observed the U.N.'s response. Iran, the third member of the Axis of Evil, began testing the U.N. in 1998 when its own nuclear program was uncovered. It has managed to hold the international community at bay by creating the diplomatic equivalent to a Mexican standoff, thanks to its ideological links with Islamofacism and the threat of escalating the war. Now, Iran is only a few months, if that, from nuclear capability.
Now we have the North Korean missile launch tests, coming in open defiance of the United Nations. And to add insult and to intensify the provocation, the launch was timed to coincide with both our Fourth of July and the launch of the space shuttle Discovery.
The North Korean launch was deemed a failure by the U.S. because it exploded some 40 seconds after launch at an undetermined altitude.
But it is worth nothing that a 1998 Iranian missile test – based on the same North Korean missile design – also failed, detonating some 40 seconds after launch after reaching an altitude of 180 miles. It is also worth noting that a nuclear weapon detonated 180 miles above the United States would generate an EMP pulse that experts say would instantly plunge half the country into the technological 1890s.
As I write this column, North Korea is preparing several more missiles for "test" launch.
The United Nations is in a dither. Diplomatic letters of protest are flying like confetti. Military and intelligence analysts warn darkly of all the important lessons learned by Pyongyang, even though the test itself was considered a failure.
Maybe it wasn't Pyongyang that the July 4th missile tests were intended to educate. If the Axis of Evil analogy holds true to its historical template, the lessons were really intended for the mad mullahs in Tehran.
It's now their turn to move.
History teaches us that only the aggressors learn from history. The appeasers never learn from it. But the stakes today are far more dangerous than ever before. Now Armageddon looms large before us.

Doomsday Clock

Time changes

The clock was started at seven minutes to midnight during the Cold War in 1947, and has subsequently been advanced or rewound at intervals, depending on the state of the world and the prospects for nuclear war. Its setting is relatively arbitrary, set by the Board of Directors at the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists in response to global affairs. The setting of the clock has not always been fast enough to cope with the speed of global events, either; one of the closest periods to nuclear war, the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, reached its head and resolution in a number of weeks, and the clock either could not be changed or was not changed to reflect any of this at the time. Nevertheless, the changing of the clock usually does provoke attention.
The clock's hands have been moved 18 times in response to international events since its initial start at seven minutes to midnight in 1947:

Cover of a 2002 Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists with the famous Doomsday Clock set at seven minutes to midnight. The clock can be seen in the "o" of Atomic in the title.
add to world tension. Clock changed to four minutes to midnight (three minutes closer).

The official announcement of the most recent change to five minutes to midnight took place on January 17, 2007 at 14:30 hours GMT.

 Muslims Attack Christians in Henno, Ethiopia
 

Contact Jeff King, President, International Christian Concern, 301-989-1708, icc@persecution.org
WASHINGTON, Oct. 19 /Christian Newswire/ -- The Washington-DC based human rights group, International Christian Concern (ICC), www.persecution.org, has just been informed that on July 20, 7 Muslim leaders (clerics) brutally attacked 50 or more Christians in Henno , Ethiopia . This latest attack is just one example of the increasing violence against Christians in Ethiopia . In fact, Islamic leaders are urging Muslims in the area to kill full-time Christian evangelists. The situation has reached such intensity that Christian leaders are in fear and moving in pairs to ward off attacks. Local Muslim authorities failed to take action against the Muslim attackers.

Henno is located in the district of Kokosa of the Oromia region, 404 kilometers South of Addis Ababa.

In 2005, two prominent Muslims in Henno converted to Christianity: “H,” a well known Muslim leader, and “M,” the son of a well-respected Muslim tribal leader. The two conversions angered Muslim leaders in the surrounding region. On July 20, 2006, “M” hosted a worship service for the other Christians in Henno and invited a choir from the Sidama region.

The worship service gained the attention of the whole village, including Muslim leaders who responded violently by instigating a riot, using gangs in the area. The gangs were carrying local weapons such as knives, stones, and metal rods.

The Muslim leaders demanded the expulsion of the choir from the area. The new believer and former Muslim leader, “H,” refused to stop the service despite their pressure. Consequently, the crowd began to beat “H” and other Christians in the house with their weapons.

“H” was beaten badly, receiving five deep wounds to his head. Because he was beaten with an iron rod, he was also missing teeth. He suffered deep lacerations to his legs, where several ligaments protruded from the skin. “H’s” daughter-in-law was pregnant at the time but lost her baby because she was also severely beaten.

In total, twelve people were seriously injured; five others were found to have lacerations on their body and received medical treatment in Shashamene Kuyera Hospital . “H” also received care and has recovered from the attack.

The Christians reported the riot to the district government administrative office, which took no legal action. Instead, the officers warned Christians not to worship in a region that is predominately Muslim. It is important to note that all officers who heard the case were in fact Muslim. The case was then taken to a higher police authority. The police responded by arresting 26 gang members.

However, they were released quickly because tribal elders appealed to the government.

An Encouraging Note In the following weeks, many Muslims denounced the actions taken against the Christians. To express their disgust, Muslims refused to go to Mosques. In fact, forty-seven key leaders became Christians and renounced Islam stating, “If Islam means killing innocent brothers and sisters – we do not want to follow it!”

Please pray for the Christians in Henno , Ethiopia who are in need of your support in the midst of persecution from Muslim leaders who want to annihilate them. ICC encourages all concerned parties to contact the Ethiopian embassy in the United States , to respectfully express concern that the freedom of Christians in Ethiopia is not being sufficiently protected. You can contact them at the addresses and phone numbers listed below:
Embassy of Ethiopia

WELCOME TO WORLD WAR III
The Week That Was In World War III

From Investor's News Daily

Global War On Terrorism: The epicenter may be Israel, but this isn't Israel's war. Islamist violence and menace are going full blast around the world, showing radical Islam's sustained aim at civilization itself.

Many Islamofascist activities get lost in the welter of 24/7 news. But when viewed together in one place, the threats, intercepted attacks, real attacks, diplomatic maneuvers or inaction all confirm radical Islam's unity of intent.

Here, in no particular order and excluding the war in Lebanon, is a sampling from the densely packed events of last week:

Somalia: The transitional government sought troops from Ethiopia to deter Islamist militia encircling the provisional capital, Baidoa. Ethiopia sent hundreds of armored carriers 100 miles into Somalia. In Mogadishu, Islamists in a machine-gun-mounted pickup "arrested" 20 men watching an allegedly pornographic video.

Iran: A U.S. official told Congress that Iranians may have paid for and observed North Korea's seven long-range and medium-range missile test launches directed at the U.S. on July 4 and 5.

U.S.: The Homeland Security Department is investigating a pipe bomb found in Lake Pontchartrain, La. Officials fear it could be part of a practice run for a future attack that could shut down all commerce on a critical U.S. waterway.

Meanwhile, two students in Georgia with terror contacts in Canada were indicted for allegedly plotting jihad after preparing for it through paramilitary training in north Georgia.

Separately, customs officials said religious visas were being abused by radical clerics from Syria, Algeria, Pakistan and Egypt.

In addition, experts said an analysis of the suicide plot that was revealed on July 7 to blow up the PATH trains of lower Manhattan and flood the financial district had a good chance of success.

Romania: Prosecutors prepared a case against Florian Lesch, 29, a convert to militant Islam, who was arrested after trying to detonate two gas cylinders in Timisoara to punish Romania for its good relations with the U.S. Police tied him to the Muslim Brothers.

Afghanistan: Taliban fighters ambushed Canadian troops near Kandahar after the Taliban announced a new campaign of violence against allied troops and anyone cooperating with them. Taliban also set a high school on fire in Paktika province, gutting it.

Syria: Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad met with Hezbollah leaders in Damascus, prompting fears of more coordinated terrorist attacks.

United Kingdom: Two more Islamist organizations — Al-Ghurabaa and the Saved Sect — were banned as terrorist. They split off from the group founded by terror cleric Omar Bakri Mohammed, now in Lebanon. Meanwhile, militants on paltalk.com called for the destruction of Israel and all Jews worldwide.

India: Three men affiliated with terrorist group Lashkar-e-Tayyaba were apprehended in a string of bombings on Bombay's transit system July 11 that killed 208 and injured 800. India's army reported new al-Qaida terror camps on the Pakistani border specializing in unconventional training, such as the use of female recruits.

Thailand: Six people were killed by Islamist militants in drive-by motorcycle shootings around Pattani. Victims included an assistant village chief. Police reported growing numbers of terror suspects with ties so strong to Indonesian terror group Barisan Revolusi Nasional, they suspect BRN and Thailand's own RKK terrorists may now be the same organization.

Venezuela: President Hugo Chavez, an Iran ally, moved to build diplomatic support for his bid for a United Nations Security Council seat, claiming he won pledges of votes from the Arab League and some African states. Chavez condemned Israel's self-defense efforts and explicitly vowed to thwart the U.S. if he won the U.N. seat.

Bosnia: Three men accused of plotting a terror attack on Sarajevo or another European capital went to trial. Meanwhile, local experts said they feared Bosnia would become a new Iranian front as a diversion if the war goes badly for Iran in Lebanon. They cited longstanding Hezbollah ties to Bosnia dating from the wars around the breakup of Yugoslavia a decade ago.

Canada: The Canadian Council on American Islamic Relations urged Muslims not to apologize for the activities of terrorists or cooperate with security in terrorist investigations.

Kashmir: Six Lashkar-e-Tayyaba terrorists were killed in two gunbattles with security forces that came looking for them and were ambushed. In a third village, a 26-year-old woman's throat was slit by terrorists who accused her of collaborating with police.

Indonesia: A total of 217 jihadis — 72 Indonesians, 57 Filipinos, 36 Malaysians, 45 Thais, three Bengals, three Bruneians and one Singaporean — embarked to fight Israel in south Lebanon, according to an Islamic Youth Movement leader. Meanwhile, 90 militants from Aceh province's Islamist separatist movement also declared their intent to fight in south Lebanon.

Argentina: Known Hezbollah operatives in Iran remained at large for their 1994 terrorist attack on a Jewish center in Buenos Aires. Jewish groups protested its 12th anniversary, pointing out that it was Hezbollah's first on foreign soil and "a forerunner of all other attacks," one Jewish leader said.

Sweden: A top-secret trial of three terror suspects continued in Malmo. British intelligence reportedly supplied the tip-off.

Russia: Chechen terrorists put new threats of attacks on their Web site. Two other Web sites published hagiographic videos extolling the life of Shamil Basayev, the terrorist mastermind of the Beslan massacre, who was killed July 10 by Russian troops

Armageddon looms large

Posted: July 7, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com
The "War to End All Wars" concluded with the 1919 signing of the Treaty of Versailles. One of its provisions was the establishment of an international "League of Nations" that was created to provide international oversight to ensure the First World War really would be the war to end all wars.
The League was set up by the victorious Allied powers under the terms of a document known as "The Covenant." It outlined the League's mission: "To promote international cooperation and to achieve international peace and security."
The League was the brainchild of U.S. President Woodrow Wilson, who won the 1919 Nobel Peace Prize for his work in setting it up. But the U.S. was never a member. The Senate refused to ratify membership, correctly concluding that membership would subordinate U.S. sovereignty to the League.
In 1931, Imperial Japan invaded Manchuria, set up a puppet republic called Manchukuo, and, when the League of Nations objected, Tokyo resigned from the League. The League of Nations blustered and fumed and sent many letters of protest, which Japan ignored until the League tired of sending them.
Four years later, Benito Mussolini, noting the League's ineffective response to Japanese aggression, invaded Ethiopia. The League condemned Italy, sent many letters of protest and threatened sanctions. In 1936, Mussolini's forces occupied Addis Ababa and Ethiopia became part of Italy.
Hitler watched this response carefully and took notes. This encouraged Hitler to further test the League's resolve in 1938. He threatened to invade Czechoslovakia unless Britain and France agreed to German occupation of the Sudetenland. Had the West and the League of Nations truly stood strong against this outrageous demand, Hitler probably would not have gone on to start World War II.
Emboldened by his success at facing down the entire free world, Hitler demanded that he be given Czechoslovakia in exchange for a promise to British Foreign Minister Chamberlain that there would be not further demands and there would be peace. Chamberlain, representing the "toothless" League of Nations, gave Hitler Czechoslovakia without even consulting the Czechs.
This capitulation by the League virtually assured Hitler's next move. When Hitler's storm troopers marched across the Rhine to claim the Ruhr as German territory, the League did not even bother to protest. This set the stage for the second "war to end all wars" between the Allied Forces and the Axis Powers of Japan, Italy and Germany. Hitler's audacity and boldness had so succeeded that it quieted every voice of reason left in Germany.
Sept. 1, 1939, Nazi Germany invaded Poland and World War II had begun. The enormous tragedy of it all is that it could probably have been prevented if the League of Nations had boldly stood against Hitler and backed him down at the beginning.
World War II concluded with the replacement of the League of Nations with the United Nations, whose purpose was to prevent, through international cooperation, another war to end all wars.
The historical parallels between the 1930s and the 1990s are unmistakable. Throughout the 1990s, what President George W. Bush aptly dubbed the "Axis of Evil" took turns testing U.N. resolve and noting the reaction of the global community.
First, Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait and survived the U.N.-led war to push his troops back across the Iraqi border. His Axis counterparts watched as he defied the U.N.'s repeated resolutions with impunity. (When Saddam's Iraq finally fell 12 years later, it was at the hands of the United States-led coalition over the vociferous objections of the United Nations Saddam had so blatantly defied.)
After observing the U.N.'s response to Iraqi aggression, Kim Jong-Il pushed the envelope still further with the first North Korean nuclear standoff in 1994. That resulted in the international community bribing Pyongyang not to develop nuclear weapons. President Clinton gave him all sorts of "goodies" to get him to back off his nuke program.
Like any good extortionist, Kim Jong-Il took the bribe but ignored the terms. He got away with it for eight years while the U.N. blustered and threatened him with letters of diplomatic protest. He learned that he could get all kinds of rewards for rattling missiles and then getting the U.N. nations to bribe him to stop.
Meanwhile, an even more dangerous aggressor was taking note. Iran's mad mullahs carefully observed the U.N.'s response. Iran, the third member of the Axis of Evil, began testing the U.N. in 1998 when its own nuclear program was uncovered. It has managed to hold the international community at bay by creating the diplomatic equivalent to a Mexican standoff, thanks to its ideological links with Islamofacism and the threat of escalating the war. Now, Iran is only a few months, if that, from nuclear capability.
Now we have the North Korean missile launch tests, coming in open defiance of the United Nations. And to add insult and to intensify the provocation, the launch was timed to coincide with both our Fourth of July and the launch of the space shuttle Discovery.
The North Korean launch was deemed a failure by the U.S. because it exploded some 40 seconds after launch at an undetermined altitude.
But it is worth nothing that a 1998 Iranian missile test – based on the same North Korean missile design – also failed, detonating some 40 seconds after launch after reaching an altitude of 180 miles. It is also worth noting that a nuclear weapon detonated 180 miles above the United States would generate an EMP pulse that experts say would instantly plunge half the country into the technological 1890s.
As I write this column, North Korea is preparing several more missiles for "test" launch.
The United Nations is in a dither. Diplomatic letters of protest are flying like confetti. Military and intelligence analysts warn darkly of all the important lessons learned by Pyongyang, even though the test itself was considered a failure.
Maybe it wasn't Pyongyang that the July 4th missile tests were intended to educate. If the Axis of Evil analogy holds true to its historical template, the lessons were really intended for the mad mullahs in Tehran.
It's now their turn to move.
History teaches us that only the aggressors learn from history. The appeasers never learn from it. But the stakes today are far more dangerous than ever before. Now Armageddon looms large before us.

Children to be given electronic identity cards

The Telegraph Group Limited

Brussels: Electronic identity cards for all children under 12 are to be introduced in Belgium. They will bear a code designed to allow parents of missing children to be traced instantly.

The announcement came as Belgian police continued to search for two young girls who vanished from the street outside a bar in the middle of the night a fortnight ago.

Though the ID cards would be useless in protecting children from an abductor or adult determined to do them harm, they are intended to offer a secure way of making sure a lost child can be reunited with family.

Belgians have been greatly sensitive to issues of missing children since the case a decade ago of Marc Dutroux, a paedophile rapist and killer who kidnapped six children, killing four of them, before being caught.

The new children's cards will carry a special code number and instructions on how to call a central missing child hotline.

Why do Christians and Jews not demand the examination of the oldest relic on earth, namely, the Ark of the Covenant in Axum, Ethiopia, as was done for the Shroud of Turin? Please shed some light on this, if you can.

 

One can find a considerable amount of material on the Internet. However, none of it gives a definite answer to your query. On the contrary, there is much speculation regarding the final resting place of the ark and whether it still exists.
For those interested in learning more about the Ark of the Covenant, I'd like to give a brief history. As described in various Old Testament texts, commissioned by God, it was made of acacia wood with gold plating, about 45 inches wide and 27 inches high and long.
The upper surface or mercy seat of God had a rim of gold with two cherubim facing each other with their gold wings covering the box. It was "the glory of Israel" (Lamentations 2:1)

Jewish faith

It was built to house the stone tablets of the Ten Commandments which were signs of God's covenant (Deuteronomy 31:26).
The ark was the sign of God's presence and saving power. As the embodiment of God, it was the cornerstone of the evolving Jewish faith.
The ark was carried before the people in their journeys (Numbers 4:5-6 and 10:33-36). In Joshua, we read that it opened a path through the Jordan for the people to pass through (3:15-16) and was carried around Jericho when the walls came down (6:4, 6, 8).
Taken into a battle to assure victory, it was captured by the Philistines (1 Samuel 4:3-11) who later returned it because it brought them bad luck (1 Samuel 5:7-8).
In a grand procession, David had the ark brought to Jerusalem. Solomon built the first Temple and placed the ark there (1 Kings 8:6-9).
Based on historical documentation, a well-known archaeologist believes he has identified the original location of the ark in the Holy of Holies under the Muslim Dome of the Rock.
When the Babylonians later destroyed and plundered the Temple, the ark disappeared with no trace.
Various theories have been proposed about the present location of the ark, if it still exists.

Where is it?

One posits that it was hidden in a secret room under the Dome of the Rock.
However, no one is allowed to investigate this possibility because of political consequences. Another suggests that it is hidden in a cave near the Dead Sea.
No evidence of the ark has been found there.
A popular theory, as suggested by your question, is that it was secreted out of the Temple to Axum, Ethiopia.
The story goes that when the Queen of Sheba, who according to their tradition, was an Ethiopian queen, visited Solomon in Jerusalem, she returned home carrying within her Solomon's son.
Twenty years later, Melenik went to see his father but because of jealousy in the court, he was sent back to his mother, accompanied by the first-born sons of the elders.
One of them took the ark and when Melenik found out, he felt that it must have been God's will and so the ark settled in Axum, Ethiopia.
The ark is kept in Saint Mary of Zion Church built by Emperor Haile Sellassie.
The original church, constructed in the fourth century when the Axumites converted to Christianity, was destroyed by Muslims in 1535.
However, the ark had been taken to a secure hiding place and remained there until the new church was built in 1965.
Briton Graham Hancock, claims he visited Axum and spoke to the old monk who guards the ark and who testified to seeing it.
However, Hancock was not allowed to see it.
Is this story legend or history? No one really knows. Since no one can see it, obviously no scientific methods can be used to examine it.
What is intriguing is that, until the time of Solomon (970-930 BC), the ark is mentioned in the Bible more than 200 times but it is not mentioned again. How can it be possible that such a valuable treasure for the ancient Israelites can just disappear without lamentation and mourning, without searching and re-building?
But that should not surprise us, for Jeremiah says, "When you multiply and become fruitful in the land, you will no longer say 'The Ark of the Covenant of the Lord!'
"You will no longer think of it or remember it or miss it or make another.
"At that time, you will call Jerusalem the Lord's throne.
"There, all nations shall be gathered together to honour the name of the Lord" (Jeremiah 3:16-17).
Therefore, the elementary cult of the ark by nomadic tribes was meant to be replaced by a more spiritual and universal presence of God in Jerusalem.

Christian meaning?

Does the ark have meaning for Christians?
The Book of Revelation tells us "God's temple in heaven opened and there could be seen the Ark of God's Covenant.
"A great sign appeared in the sky, a woman clothed with the sun. . . . She was with child. . . . She gave birth to a son - a boy destined to shepherd all nations" (Revelation 11:19; 12:1, 2, 5).
God's covenant with the Israelites, symbolized by the ark, has been fulfilled in the coming of Christ.

 

Indonesia's deadly earthquake

Wednesday, 31 May 2006,

Indonesia has upped the death toll from the earthquake which hit the island of Java on Saturday to more than 5,800.

Large quantities of aid started flowing into affected areas, and the UN spoke of "enormous progress" being made.

But many survivors spent a fourth night without shelter or supplies, as congested roads hampered access to more remote areas.

The 6.3 magnitude quake near the city of Yogyakarta left thousands injured and as many as 200,000 without homes.
Donations from around the world have continued to arrive as the relief operation, involving at least 22 countries, gathered pace.

The aid supplies, brought in by a succession of planes landing at Yogyakarta's airport, were unloaded into warehouses before being trucked south.

The UN has set up a co-ordination centre close to the airport to bring order to the flow of goods.
More international medical teams have flown in to help treat the injured, including personnel from the US, Japan and a 40-strong team and five tonnes of medical supplies from China.

A Singaporean field hospital has been treating patients, and fears of a health crisis appear to be receding, aid workers say.

The UN's top humanitarian co-ordinator, Jan Egeland, said the aid effort had made "enormous progress".

"The most critical need is medical assistance and after that it's water and sanitation, and third is emergency shelter," he told the Associated Press.

Distribution problems

But many areas are still waiting for aid deliveries.
On roads around Yogyakarta, people were begging motorists for money.

"Our village has many victims, houses are all destroyed and we have not received aid from the government," a teenage boy, Jumadi, told Reuters news agency. "What else can we do?" he said.

The UN co-ordinator in Bantul, hardest hit by the earthquake, told the BBC the problem was not a shortage of aid but a problem of "distribution networks".

"The problem is how to bring these goods to those who really need it," he said.

One man, Trimoseh, whose house in Prenggan village near Bantul was destroyed, said he had very little food or water.

"Until now we haven't had any aid," he told Reuters. "But we are not angry, we are just hungry. We will wait for food."

The Asian Development Bank has promised $60m (£32m) in aid and loans to help the affected region.

 

The deadliest war in the world
Congo's simmering conflict has killed 4 million

Some wars go on killing long after they end.

In Congo, a nation of 63 million people in the heart of Africa, a peace deal signed more than three years ago was supposed to halt a war that drew in belligerents from at least eight different countries, producing a record of human devastation unmatched in recent history.

The International Rescue Committee (IRC) estimates that 3.9 million people have died from war-related causes since the conflict in Congo began in 1998, making it the world's most lethal conflict since World War II.

By conventional measures, that conflict is over. Congo is no longer the playground of foreign armies; the country's first real election in 40 years is scheduled to take place this summer, and international troops have arrived to keep peace.

Meanwhile, mining firms have returned, and cell phone companies -- particularly welcome in a country that has just a few thousand fixed lines serving more than 60 million people -- are doing a booming business.

But the suffering of Congo's people continues. Fighting persists in the east, where rebel holdouts loot, rape and murder. The Congolese army, which was meant to be both symbol and protector in the reunited country, has cut its own murderous swath, carrying out executions and razing villages.

Even more deadly are the byproducts of war, the scars left by years of brutality that disfigure Congo's society and infrastructure. The country is plagued by bad sanitation, disease, malnutrition, corruption and dislocation. Routine and treatable illnesses have become weapons of mass destruction.

In many respects, Congo remains as broken, volatile and dangerous as ever, which is to say, among the very worst places on Earth. And yet Congo rarely makes daily news headlines, and its troubles are often low on international donors' lists of places to help.

There are various explanations for the neglect. Perhaps the global reservoir of wealth and good will only runs so deep. Perhaps the attention and outrage being spent to stop another African tragedy, the genocide in Darfur, has left the world too exhausted to take on Congo's.

But a choice like that comes with a cost.

Congo represents the promise of Africa as much as its misery. Its fertile fields and tropical forests cover an area bigger than California, Colorado, Montana, New Mexico, Oregon and Texas combined.

Its soils are packed with diamonds, gold, copper, tantalum (known locally as coltan and used in electronic devices such as cell phones and laptop computers) and uranium. The waters of its mighty river could one day power the continent. And yet because Congo is so rich in resources, its problems, when left to fester, tend to suck in its neighbors in a vortex of exploitation and chaos.

And so fixing Congo is essential to fixing Africa.

Says Anneke Van Woudenberg, a senior researcher for Human Rights Watch: "If you want peace in Africa, then you need to deal with the biggest country right at its heart."

The task is enormous. Over the past year, Time reporters who visited the worst hit areas in the east of the country found much of it in ruins. Roads and railway lines have washed away or simply disappeared into the jungle. Hospitals and health clinics have been destroyed.

Electricity, for those lucky enough to receive it, is patchy. Refugees fleeing fighting between government troops and rebels talk of beheadings, rapes, massacres and villages being torched.
The gripping stories from Congo, coming eight years after the start of fighting, sound eerily familiar to the reports of atrocities committed in Darfur. In that sense they are powerful admonishments to those who believe the West's responsibilities in Darfur may have been lifted with the signing of a peace agreement in early May: Congo's warring parties, too, say they are abiding by a peace deal, monitored by U.N. troops.

 

How to ration vaccine in a flu pandemic

Give younger, healthier people priority, experts urge
Thursday, May 11, 2006; Posted: 5:01 p.m. EDT (21:01 GMT

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Who should get the first flu vaccine during a worldwide outbreak -- the 60-year-old grandmother with a weak heart and lungs or the healthy 4-year-old with decades ahead of her?

Government guidelines put the ill grandmother at the head of that line, for now.

Younger, healthier people should be moved ahead, argue bioethicists at the National Institutes of Health, raising new issues to consider as federal officials review the nation's pandemic guidelines.

"Death seems more tragic when a child or young adult dies than an elderly person -- not because the lives of older people are less valuable, but because the younger person has not had the opportunity to live and develop through all stages of life," Drs. Ezekiel Emanuel and Alan Wertheimer wrote for Friday's edition of the journal Science.

It's a different way of weighing the agonizing decision of how to ration scarce vaccine if a super-strain of influenza sparks a worldwide epidemic. If that flu arises, it will take manufacturers months to brew inoculations for everyone.

First doses will go to workers in vaccine factories and to people caring for the ill, a Bush administration decision widely shared by health specialists, including the two bioethicists.
The question is whom to inoculate next.

Federal health advisers have recommended that people up to age 64 who have at least two high-risk health conditions -- such as asthma, heart disease, emphysema -- be first in that line.

Next would come pregnant women and people who come in contact with people who have poor immune systems, such as HIV or chemotherapy patients. They're followed by key government leaders and healthy people over age 65.

At the end of the list, after funeral directors, come healthy people ages 2 to 64.

The list is part of the government's evolving pandemic plan. It is under discussion and not final.
It rests on a long-used public health principle, that the people most vulnerable to dying from a disease should be vaccinated first. In an average winter, flu mostly kills the elderly. No one knows whether that will hold true during a pandemic; in 1918, history's worst pandemic, young adults were the chief victims.

To the average person, protect-the-young is an equally powerful principle, argues Emanuel, who also treats cancer and notes that the 65-year-old who succumbs is often mourned with the "but he had a good life" comfort that's missing when a child dies.

But youngest-first is too simple, Emanuel concluded. So he also considered how much has been invested in a young person's future, plus a "public order" principle that gives priorities to providers of necessities such as food and fuel.

Combining those ideas, he wants healthy 13-to-40-year-olds to get scarce flu inoculations right after the vaccine makers and health workers -- especially those who are police officers, utility workers or in other professions important to societal order. They would be followed by younger children and the middle-aged, with the sick elderly last in line.

"We need principles people share (such as) this protective instinct for young people to allow them to lead a full life," said Emanuel, whose paper doesn't reflect NIH policy but his own opinion.

Other alternatives already are being debated, such as whether preschoolers and schoolchildren should be among the first vaccinated during a pandemic because they are the main spreaders of influenza.

And the government advisers who recommended the current guidelines first strongly considered putting police officers and truck drivers at the head of the line. Then, "not only can the truck driver keep delivering goods, he or she will be protected and cannot give it to others," said Dr. William Schaffner, a Vanderbilt University flu specialist who was part of those debates.
"There is no single right answer," said Schaffner, who praised the new article's call for wide public discussion about the hard choices that would have to be made.

The government wants public input, said Dr. Bruce Gellin, who heads the federal vaccine policy office.

"There should be vigorous public discussion about this," Gellin said. "It's important that people know what's in the plan and begin to think what it may mean for them."

 

Vatican preparing statement on condoms and AIDS

ROME (Reuters) -

The Vatican will soon publish a statement on the use of condoms to prevent the spread of AIDS, an issue highlighted by a call from a leading cardinal to ease its ban on them, a Catholic Church official said. Cardinal Javier Lozano Barragan, the head of the Vatican's Pontifical Council for Health Pastoral Care, declined to reveal the contents of the document in an interview published in Sunday's la Repubblica newspaper, but said had asked his department to study the issue.

The former archbishop of Milan, Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini, who was standard bearer for a moderate minority in the conclave that elected the Pope last year, called for a reform in an interview published in Italy on Friday.

The Vatican opposes condoms as a form of contraception, but several cardinals have said in recent years that using them is a lesser evil if the alternative is infection with AIDS.

"This is a very difficult and delicate subject that requires prudence," said Mexican-born Barraga "My department is studying this closely with scientists and theologians expressly assigned to draft a document that will be issued soon," he said.

The Catholic Church, which runs many hospitals and institutions to help AIDS victims, opposes the use of condoms and teaches that fidelity within heterosexual marriage, chastity and abstinence are the best way to stop the spread of AIDS.

It says promoting condoms to fight the spread of AIDS fosters immoral and hedonistic lifestyles and behavior that will only contribute to its spread.

In his interview with the weekly L'Espresso, Martini backed up his call for a change in condom policy by referring to cases where one partner in a marriage is infected with AIDS.

"This person has an obligation to protect the other partner and the other partner also has to protect themselves," he said. The Church disapproves of sexual intercourse outside marriage.
Barragan commented favorably on Martini's suggestion that the Church allow women who cannot get pregnant to use surplus frozen embryos from fertility clinics that usually dispose of them after a couple has undergone fertility treatment

 

Pope excommunicates China bishops

Thursday, May 4, 2006; Posted: 9:06 a.m. EDT (13:06 GMT)

BEIJING, China (AP) -- The Vatican has excommunicated two bishops ordained by China's state-approved Catholic church, as well as the two bishops who presided over the ceremony without Vatican consent.

In a statement, Vatican spokesman Joaquin Navarro-Valls said on Thursday the Roman Catholic Church's canon law states that in such a case excommunication is automatic.
Earlier the Vatican strongly criticized the ordination of the bishops, saying they represented a "grave violation of religious freedom" and hindered dialogue between the Vatican and Beijing.

A statement Thursday from the Vatican spokesman said Pope Benedict XVI was deeply saddened at the news of the ordinations, which took place without Vatican approval. It called on Chinese authorities to prevent any such moves in the future -- noting they lead to excommunication.

"The Holy Father learned of the news with great sadness," Vatican spokesman Joaquin Navarro-Valls said in the statement. "It is a great wound to the unity of the Church."

On Wednesday, the Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association ordained Liu Xinhong as bishop at the city of Wuhu's St. Joseph's Church in the eastern province of Anhui.

It was the second ordination in three days without the consent of the Vatican, which traditionally appoints its own bishops. On Sunday, China's official church ordained Ma Yinglin as a bishop in the southwestern province of Yunnan.

The Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association has said the new appointments were meant to fill shortages and were not intended to offend the Vatican.

The Vatican statement said officials had received information indicating that "bishops and priests have been subjected -- by institutions not related to the church -- to strong pressures and threats, in order for them to take part in the ordinations that, because they were not approved by the Vatican, are illegitimate and go against their conscience."

"We are therefore faced with a grave violation of religious freedom," Navarro-Valls said, adding the Vatican "had thought and hoped that such despicable events belonged to the past."
The ordinations come as China and the Holy See try to re-establish ties that ended after communists took control of China in 1949.

Formal ties would give some security to Vatican loyalists in China, who are frequently harassed and fined and sometimes sent to labor camps. Most Chinese Catholics are only allowed to worship in government-controlled churches, but millions are loyal to the Vatican.

But the Vatican said any dialogue was at risk now.

"The Holy See has in various occasions reiterated its willingness to have an honest and constructive dialogue with the competent Chinese authorities to find solutions that would satisfy the legitimate requirements of both sides," Navarro-Valls said.

"Initiatives such as those mentioned above not only don't favor this dialogue, but instead create new obstacles against it," he added.

Anglicans in US face new gay row

The Anglican Church is bracing itself for more confrontation over homosexual

clergy as California's Episcopal Church meets to choose a new bishop.

Three of the seven candidates in Saturday's election are gay.
The Archbishop of Canterbury has expressed unease over the nominations, which correspondents say could push the Anglican Church closer to a split.

The election of openly gay priest Gene Robinson as Bishop of New Hampshire three years ago caused great division.
A majority vote for the Reverend Bonnie Perry, from Chicago, would make her the first lesbian bishop in the church.
The other gay candidates are Canon Michael Barlowe, who works in the Diocese of California, and the Very Rev Robert Taylor of Seattle.

The other candidates are Right Rev Mark Handley Andrus of Alabama, the Rev Jane Gould of Massachusetts, the Rev Donald Schell of San Francisco and the Rev Canon Eugene Taylor Sutton, canon pastor of Washington National Cathedral.

Martin Reynolds, from the Gay and Lesbian Christian Movement, said the decision could have a significant impact, yet the nominees had been chosen after extensive searching - and he believed their sexual orientation should not matter.
"The actual front-runner is a woman who's a lesbian - she's living with her partner - and it looks like she's the front runner because she's trebled the congregation size in her church in a very short period of time," he told the BBC.

"She's got people there from all parts of the community - the very young, very elderly - she seems to be the front-runner because she's a very effective evangelist."

Seven-hundred priests and lay people will gather at Grace Cathedral in San Francisco for the election, which is being watched not only by the Archbishop of Canterbury Dr Rowan Williams, but by Anglicans worldwide.

The issue of gay clergy is splintering the Anglican Church.
A number of Anglican provinces have already broken with the American church, which they believe is pursuing a liberal, unbiblical agenda.

The Californian election has to be ratified at the US Church's general convention next month.
Some bishops have already suggested they would block the consecration of a second homosexual bishop in order to preserve the fragile unity of the Church, the BBC's Jane Little in Washington says.