Pres. Clinton offered a "new millennium" prayer in a service at the Washington National Cathedral (1/10 C. News): [W]e are all your children. Our Constitution tells us you created us all equal. Jesus told us to love our neighbors as ourselves. The Koran says we must do unto all men as you wished to have done to you, and reject for others what you would reject for yourself. The Talmud instructs us, should anyone turn aside the right of the stranger, it is as though he were to turn aside the right of the most high God.[T]he most important fact of life is our kinship as brothers and our oneness as children of God."

THE WHITE HOUSE - February 3, 2000 REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT AT NATIONAL CONGRESSIONAL PRAYER BREAKFAST Washington Hilton Hotel Washington. D.C. 9:05 A.M. EST THE PRESIDENT: Excerpts: " ..For us Christians, Jesus said, the two most important commandments of all were to love the Lord with all our heart, and to love our neighbors as ourselves. The Torah says that anyone who turns aside a stranger acts as if he turns aside the most high God. The Koran contains its own powerful version of the Golden Rule, telling us never to do unto others what we would not like done to ourselves... as time and space contract, the wisdom of the human heart must expand. We must be able to love our neighbors and accept our essential oneness. Now, globalization is forcing us to that conclusion. So is science... distinguished scientist and expert in human genome research informed us that we are all genetically, 99.9 percent, the same.. the most important fact of life on this Earth is our common humanity. Our faith is the conviction of things unseen. But more and more, our faith is confirmed by what we know and see... we accept it, God, even though we don't like it every day, we are one with our brothers and sisters.. But many of us live on the cutting edge of a new economy while over a billion people live on the bare edge of survival... In my lifetime, our nation has never had the chance we now have to build the future of our dreams for our children, to be good neighbors to the rest of the world, to live out the admonition of all our faiths. To do it, we will have to first conquer our own demons and embrace our common humanity with humility and gratitude... "This we know. All things are connected. We did not weave the web of life, we are merely a strand in it. And whatever we do to the web, we do to ourselves." May God bless you all.

Newswatch Magazine, September 1999 (excerpt) - The United States Federal Government has effectively destroyed States' Rights. President Bill Clinton is in the process of running the country by " Executive Orders " and "Presidential Decision Directives." The Executive Branch, according to the original Constitutional Compact that the individual nation-states entered into, was forbidden to CREATE laws. Its function was to ENFORCE the laws passed by Congress. Since President Clinton took office he has written 36 Executive Orders, 30 of them in 1999.

Because of the defeat of the eleven Southern states in the Civil War and misuse of the military in the South, the Posse Comitatus Act was passed in 1878. This Act states that a sheriff of a county can call every able bodied male 15 years of age or older to help con-trol uprisings. The military could NOT be used against the private sector. The ONLY way the military could be used against civilians was by Presidential authority - still it would be in violation of the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878.

Admission now has been made that the FBI did use pyrotechnic devices that could have started the fire in WACO. It was noted that military personnel was used in WACO in violation of thePosse Comitatus Act. This means that President Clinton had to give the OKAY to MILITARILY ASSAULT civilians. This order was handed down through the proper chain of command to the Justice Department. Attorney General Janet Reno then gave the command to use these flammable devices.

Clinton recently has had meetings about the future and how he could become elected for a third term, when the law forbids that. One person in that room, very disturbed by this, heard President Clinton say it could be done by a "third World War." This report was written in September of 1999 and we do not have proof that this was really said. The President in an interview today still believes that he is innocent of what he was accused of.

Janet Reno's interview on 60 Minutes June 26, 1994, was interesting to say the least. She said:

" A cultist is one who has a strong BELIEF in the Bible and the Second Coming of Christ; who fre-quently attends Bible studies; who has a high level of financial giving to a Christian cause; who home-schools for their children; who has accumulated survival foods and has a strong belief in the Second Amendment (right to bear arms); and who distrusts BIG government." (Excerpts from Newswatch Magazine Newsletter, September 1999)

SPECIAL TO THE TIMES, 1.25.2000 (John G. West Jr). Two weeks ago, a group of religious leaders called for a "moratorium on religious rhetoric" from presidential candidates, attacking candidates who shared their personal faith on the campaign trail.A few days earlier, the FCC issued a ruling discouraging noncommercial educational TV stations from offering "programming primarily devoted to religious exhortation, proselytizing, or statements of personally held religious views and beliefs."

Southern Baptists, meanwhile, have spent much of the past few months fending off criticism for their efforts to convert Jews and Hindus to Christianity. It's ironic that in a culture where almost every kind of expression - from pornography to taxpayer - subsidized art mocking religion - is treated as sacrosanct, attempts to share one's religious faith are now being declared strictly verboten. Some of the concerns that have been raised about religious "proselytizing" are understandable. Although I'm a Christian, I've never cared for the hard-sell approach to spreading the gospel. And as a political scientist who studies religion in politics, I doubt the wisdom of making one's faith central to a political campaign. Politics should focus on securing civil justice, not saving souls.

Nevertheless, I find the current hostility to religious evangelism profoundly disturbing. This includes attacks on the missionary activities of the much-maligned Southern Baptists. According to The Seattle Times ("Baptists' high chutzpah," editorial, Sept. 11), which condemned Baptist efforts to convert Jews, "The Baptists should learn to respect the values and privacy of others." A group of religious leaders in Chicago has gone further, recently urging Southern Baptists to cancel plans to send missionaries into their city this coming summer because seeking to convert others "could contribute to a climate conducive to hate crimes."

Missionary activity a hate crime? Apparently yes, according to the new, politically correct view of religious liberty being offered up by guardians of a completely secular public arena. According to their view, people are free to believe in their own religion, but they shouldn't try to persuade anybody else of its truth, especially if the other person already has religious beliefs. One wonders how far the proponents of this view are willing to take their reasoning. Do they also think that people shouldn't share their political beliefs with those from a different political party? After all, someone might be offended.

Most Americans would recognize the patent absurdity of such a proposal. Why then are some people willing to countenance the stifling of free discussion and debate in religious matters? One reason seems to be a fear that religious speech can be abused. But every kind of speech can be abused, and we place very few limits on free speech in other cases. The fact that newspapers sometimes print libelous information does not mean that they ought to be subjected to government censorship. The fact that political arguments can be passionate and even nasty does not mean that we should prohibit people from advocating their political views.

A free society requires a free marketplace of ideas, and that marketplace should include the right to exchange our religious beliefs with each other just as much as it does the right to exchange our opinions about politics, music and sports. .. Part of being human means grappling with the hard questions about the ultimate purpose of life - the sorts of questions religion challenges us to confront. Those who think a person's religious beliefs should not be the subject of robust debate and persuasion are in effect saying that these questions do not matter.

Some of the greatest minds of Western civilization would have begged to differ. Figures such as Dante, Rembrandt, Bach, Newton, and Dostoyevsky explicitly proclaimed their religious faith in their works. One could even say they "proselytized" for their particular religious views. Yet, civilization was enriched, not destroyed by their advocacy of religious ideas.

What would those who propose cleansing religion from our conversations have us discuss instead? Pokemon and Beanie Babies? Banishing religion from our debates merely invites the further trivialization of American life. Efforts to share one's religious beliefs ought to be conducted with respect and charity. But let's drop the double-standard that implies that religious speech is somehow entitled to less robust protection than other kinds of speech.

THE NEWS & ADVANCE, While the White House and the FBI have yet to respond to his claims, the Rev. Jerry Falwell says a “secret” Department of Justice database profiling pro-life leaders was built under orders of the Clinton administration to store information for potential smear campaigns. Falwell, a harsh critic of President Clinton, said on Tuesday he believes a database called “VAAPCON” contains a file on himself and up to 900 religious and pro-life leaders, but is unsure what information the files might contain.
He is also uncertain if personal files kept by the White House or the FBI have ever been used against those he says are in the database. Falwell’s beliefs about “VAAPCON” are based on information leaked to Judicial Watch, a conservative, “legal watchdog” group helping Falwell with his lawsuit against the White House and the FBI. No explanation has been given for the “VAAPCON” acronym.Falwell said several officials with the Department of Justice, which oversees the FBI, told Judicial Watch about the database last year.
Larry Klayman, who founded Judicial Watch, said Department of Justice officials have confirmed the existence of the database, but nothing is known about its contents. In an interview Tuesday, Falwell said he believes the Clinton administration constructed “VAAPCON” in part to prepare for the 2000 presidential campaign... Falwell, who filed his suit Thursday in U.S. District Court in Lynchburg, is suing the White House and the FBI for two reasons.
One, he claims the mere existence of the database would be a violation of the Privacy Act of 1974, which states the government cannot keep a file on a person without a lawful reason.
Two, he said the White House and the FBI are bound by the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to release his file.
Falwell requested his files in August 1999, but the White House said FOIA did not apply to the type of records Falwell was requesting, “if such records exist.” The FBI said a search of its automated records dating to 1958 found no information relevant to Falwell’s request.
“All I want,” Falwell said, “as a private citizen, is to see my file.” Contacted Tuesday, officials in the press offices of the White House, Department of Justice and the FBI did not comment on the lawsuit. A FBI spokeswoman said the bureau does not comment on pending litigation, and spokespersons for the White House and Department of Justice said they had not yet received copies of the lawsuit.
Klayman, who will help Jerry Falwell Jr. represent the senior Falwell, said the lawsuit will determine “whether any information in the database was misused,” and could lead to criminal charges. Klayman frequently criticizes the president and has drawn Clinton’s ire with investigations into and lawsuits against the president’s administration. He agrees with Falwell’s thoughts about the purpose of “VAAPCON,” but can offer no proof. “The White House is trying to inhibit the free speech of religious leaders,” he said. “This is an attack on people of faith.”

NewsMax.com: January 14, 2000 - In its zeal to infuse anti-drug messages into the consciousness of televiewers, the Clinton
administration has sneaked into their subconscious. There's more plot to the plot than television program fans realized. It's not in the credits, but credit the White House with a major role.With eager cooperation of commercial TV, the White House drug czar's office came up with a scheme that puts millions of dollars of found money into the networks' pockets and at the
same time subliminally slides the administration's message into the minds of the viewing masses.

Viewers haven't even been aware of it, but as many as 100 of their favorite programs - from "ER" to "Home Improvement" to "Beverly Hills 90210" - have been programmed right out of the White House. Story lines and plots have been "suggested" by
the White House. Scripts have been submitted by networks for review in advance to the drug czar.

And, what at first may sound innocent enough, the nets have shown their work to the White House after the doctored programs were aired. The rationale is: "We knew what you wanted us to have the program get across, and here's the proof." Why the need to show proof? The answer: to be paid. The details are in the deal the White House has cut with the five largest networks - ABC, CBS, Fox, NBC and Warner Brothers - according to Salon.com, which broke the story:

• In 1997, in response to President Clinton's campaign to deploy taxpayer dollars to fight drug use, Congress approved spending $1 billion for anti-drug advertising over five years.
• Under that law, networks that got paid by the government to run those commercials had, in effect, to charge only half-rate.
• Uncle Sam paid the full rate for the spots, but the nets then had to give away a dollar-for-dollar match of free air time for public-service anti-drug ads by non-profit groups that were also working hand-in-glove with the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy.
• Networks were not thrilled to see millions of dollars of potential ad revenues evaporating into the free time they were giving away.
• The president's drug czar, Barry McCaffrey, devised one of those win-win ways out. He would give the nets "credits" from having to give away free spots in return for anti-drug messages their producers would weave into program plots.
• If the program plot wasn't sufficiently "on message," the White House would withhold the credits.
• The nets got that message. To win those credits - thus freeing up precious air time it then sold to commercial sponsors at the full rate - the nets made sure their programs got the desired White House message across in their plot lines.Among those whose episodes were suggested and/or approved by the White House were "Cosby," The Drew Carey Show," "The Practice," "General Hospital," "7th Heaven," "Chicago Hope," "Beverly Hills 90210," "Providence," "Touched by an Angel," "Home Improvement," "ER," "Promised Land," "Boy Meets World," "Trinity," "The Smart Guy," "Sabrina the Teenage Witch" and "Wayans Bros."

The money the nets made on this plot-tinkering is not chump change. The New York Post said the White House "valued the programming messages it had approved at $22 million." The nets can't see why this isn't all well and good - after all, a socially worthwhile message is getting across (drug users are losers in the virtual life of the doctored TV dramas) and the nets are
getting richer. What's wrong with that? If anyone has trouble with taxpayers' money going into the sit-com business, it hasn't made the news. But those who worry about bureaucrats in Washington engaging in mass-comm mind-bending are speaking out.

"This is the most craven thing I've heard of yet," one of the media watchdogs, Andrew Schwartzman of the Media Access Project, told the Post. He termed it "turning over content control to the federal government" and denounced it as an outrageous
abandonment of the First Amendment." "It's one thing to appropriate money to buy ads, another thing to spend the money to influence the public subliminally," he was quoted by the Washington Post. "And it's monstrously selfish and irresponsible
on the part of the broadcasters."

• Robert Weiner, a spokesman for the drug control office in the White House, thought it a great idea for the government to ghost-write a prime-time program "which is a very positive statement and has the proper message on drugs and is accurate."

"There's nothing wrong with that. They've given us positive programs. If you've got a good 'ER,' that's certainly as important as an ad." It all raises the question of where the government can, and should go, in influencing attitudes and actions of people toward a desired goal - with or without their knowledge it's being done.

Source: (http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=2000/1/14/54620) - ScanInReview email newsletter

Editor's Note:

For disdain of bad language, nudity, fortune tellers who use the Tarot cards or psychic senses, and much more,

I have a tendency to stick with programs such as Fox News but find they are dangerous to one's "subliminal mind"

too. The one in mind is "The ... Factor." The "... Factor's" main personality tries to make one believe that he is a

Christian (Irish Catholic, who grew up in a Catholic School) but it doesn't take much to realize that he is ecumenical.

He keeps saying that he tells nothing but the "truth," and then admits to his co-pilot another Irish Catholic who came

up in a Jesuit Catholic highschool, that all one has to do is to have faith in some god and be a good citizen. He spells

out to people he interviews what he wants in citizens. He obviously believes he can change social behavior by daring statements, when all he does is antagonize people. Sometimes it makes me wonder if they would not prefer it, if we

rose up in protest of all the immoralities. All that accomplished was to bring down the big stick as it did in the State of Washington recently. We are well into the fourth Reich only this time it is world wide, same techniques.

 

 

ANDY GRIFFETH AND BARNEY FIFE TO JOIN THE RANKS?

A new three volume Andy Griffeth Bible stdy series to be released by Word Publishing in May will use classic short stories from the original television series illustrating biblical truths... Episodes are projected in life size measure on wall of the church's fellowship hall while as many as 200 viewers study lessons about honesty, pride, prejudice, integrity and character... Fann, who worte the study series, has been contacted by dozens of church leaders from around the nation.. For more information visit Fann's Web site on Internet: http://www.barneyfife.com. (Charisma Magazine, February 2000)

 

 

 

 

 

CHARITIES SEE SHARP RISE IN GIVING

WASHINGTON-(AP) NOVEMBER 1, 1999 - Donors gave 16% more in contributions to the nations most popular charities than in 1997, a survey of the top 400 charities shows. Top 5 - 1. Salvation Army $1 billion 234 million; 2. YMCA $629 million, Fidelity Investment Charitable Gift Fund (??) $572 million, 4. American Cancer Society $556 million and the American Red Cross (Masonic Order of Red Cross) $543 million..

 

 

MIDNIGHT CALL, January 2000 - "For the first time, Germanist leader Schroeder has given a direct date for possible membership of five east European nations to the European Union: 2002. Therefore, negotiations will be opened for Balkan naitons and finally Turkey. After several conflicts between Germany/ France, Berlin and Paris will become again the engine of Europe.

"As to the Balkan nations, Schroeder insisted that no lasting peace can be established unless it is based on the economic well-being and therefore European assistance is but in its own itnerest. Turkey, the Chancellor said, must never become casualty to fundamentalism. When Turkey complies with human rights, then the acceptance of an Islam majority nation is not an issue.: - Neuss Grevanbroicher Zeitung, September 23, 1999 -

Comment from Midnight Call: "His emphasis on the Balkan nations and Turkey clearly reveal the actual intention of re-establishing the ancient borders of the Roman Empire."

HELSINKI, FINLAND - DECEMBER 11, 1999 - "European Union threw open its doors Friday to six new nations, expanding the list of active applicants for its vast zone of prosperity to encompass nearly all of Eastern and Central Europe.

"The invitations went to Bulgaria, Romania, Slovakia, Latvia and Lithania, plus Malta. The EU's 15 members also made Turkey a candidate for its rich free-trade club, but more tentatively. Turkey, which would be the EU's second most populous member after Germany, would not begin discussions until after it makes progress in instituting democratic practices and protecting human rights. (The Tampa Tribune, 12.11.99)

Fears are being allayed in Austria, that a new alliance which will give a far right party its first taste of power in Europe, will not bring with it a radical foreign policy. The Conservative People's Party, led by Wolfgang Schuessel, has held talks with Joerg Haider's far right Freedom Party.

Haider is best known abroad for his controversial remarks that seemed to play down the crimes of the Nazis. Speaking at a press conference he backed the idea of the planned coalition. "These talks have started with a positive spirit," he said. "Both sides have the serious intention of working conscientiously to form a stable government for Austria, on the basis that the president gives it his consent."

Speaking after the talks, Schuessel was at pains to reassure domestic and international opinion that any alliance would contain clear words committing the country to European integration. Schuessel told reporters, "An absolute condition is that we have a
government based on a broad majority and parliament which says yes to Europe. The European Union is our new homeland."

The move was forced after Chancellor Viktor Klima announced talks aimed at continuing the 13-year grand coalition with the Conservatives had collapsed. (Euronews.net, 1.26.2000)

The Inter's red-light district is so often in the news it would be easy to conclude that the majority of Web sites deal in adult entertainment. Far from it. A study conducted at the NEC Research Institute in Princeton N.J. found that just 1.5% of the 800 million pages on the Web contain pornography. The same study found that the Web is becoming increasingly commercial 83% of sites carry commercial content. [Being a participator on the Web, this 1.5% red-light district is super active].

 

back