Jump to content
Washington DC Message Boards

Vatican Wants One World Bank Controlled By United Nations


Recommended Posts

Do you think the world is at the right mental state for this? It seems to NWO apocalyptic.








At 11.30 am this morning, in the 'John Paul II Hall of the Vatican press office, is presented with the Note of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace: "To reform the international financial system from the perspective of a public authority with jurisdiction universal ".


Speakers at the press conference: the Em. Kodwo Peter Cardinal Appiah Turkson, Chairman of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, Archbishop Mario Toso, secretary of the Pontifical Council, Prof. Leonardo Becchetti, Professor of Political Economy, University of Rome "Tor Vergata".


On 3 and 4 November next, in Cannes, France, will be the sixth meeting of Heads of Government of the G-20, which will meet to discuss major issues concerning the economy and world finance.


The Holy Father and the Holy See follow these issues with great attention and constantly exhorting and encouraging not only "the action together," but an action based on a "clear vision of all the economic, social, cultural and spiritual "(Preface).


In this spirit of discernment, the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, through a note, and shares offer a contribution that can be helpful for the deliberations of the G-20, called for a reform of international financial and monetary system in perspective a public authority to global competence.


In the encyclical Pacem in Terris, 1963, Pope John XXIII, had somehow predicted the current globalization in the sense of gradual unification of the world. And in this regard, he felt the need to harmonize policies to progressively larger power needs of the human community (cf. Pacem in Terris, 70).


As a result of this understanding, John XXIII called for the formation "world public authority" (ibid., 71-74), which was able - without harming the legitimate sovereignty - always to give priority to political and legal dialogue of reason over violence , given in terms of conflict or social injustice, both in terms of war waged.


It is known that the Church, when it intervenes to speak on the social question, it moves on the floor of his expertise in ethics and religion. Therefore, if it addresses the current crisis in the monetary and financial system does not intend to go into purely technical issues, while not ignoring them.


In particular, in the reflections of the Pontifical Council is offering a reinterpretation of the serious economic and financial crisis in which we are still immersed, indicating, among other causes, not just ethical, but more specifically ideological ones.


This is neo-liberal ideologies, which neoutilitariste and technocratic, while flattening the common good of economic, financial and technical exaggerated, jeopardizing the future of democratic institutions themselves. 3


It should be noted that the considerations presented by the Pontifical Council does not demonize all the money and capital markets, but consider them a "public good": 6 fundamental good then, but not good or ultimate end. For this, they must be functional and ministerial to the realization of the universal common good of the human family, thanks to guidance offered by the various subjects of social policy and civil society, both nationally and internationally.


the G20 does not respond fully to the logic of what should be the United Nations. The countries that make up the G20 can not be considered representative of all peoples. Although expanded, the G20, as is well known is not the UN, is always limited and that an informal forum, among other things, shows the loss of efficiency is more expanded. At the present state of things, the G20 lacks legitimacy and a political mandate from the international community. To this we must add that, not changing the situation threatens to delegitimize or to replace the de facto international institutions - such as the International Monetary Fund, World Bank - which, although in need of deep reforms, are able to represent in an institutional manner all countries and not their small number.


What, therefore, should be done as soon as possible, the second also say the same G20 leaders, in the Final Declaration of Pittsburgh in 2009, is that you have to have a political thought more appropriate and, finally, put his hand to the reform of ' "global architecture" can not be postponed to meet the needs of the common good of the 21 st century. And that, following "creative and realistic ways that tend to enhance the positive aspects of existing institutions and fora," 11 best, so take that structure and mode of a typical universal jurisdiction, according to the principles of solidarity and subsidiarity, as well as representation.


It is therefore necessary to reflect changes on existing systems and on the possibility of achieving one or more institutions that perform "functions of a sort of" global central bank, "to regulate the flow and the system of monetary exchange, like the national central banks rediscovering the underlying logic - the logic of peace, coordination and common prosperity - which led to the Bretton Woods Agreements...




The good thing about crisis is that they are both moments of great opportunity. The global financial crisis is an opportunity to reform the architecture of the global financial system, strengthen the European Union in terms of harmonization of fiscal policies is progressing more quickly towards the goal of political unity, increase discipline policies national tax.


The Vatican document focuses on two key issues:


i) build a framework of rules of global governance that if you make a frame for the action of global institutions;


ii) reform the international financial system with a series of specific proposals.


On the first point, the global governance is urgently needed to overcome the asymmetry of the globalization of markets and global institutions and rules that remain predominantly national.


Globalization makes us increasingly interdependent and makes it virtually impossible to ignore the problems of other countries once far: stabunt simul simul cadent.


Only a few examples, there are six fundamental elements of interdependence between economic and financial systems: i) the U.S. debt crisis is a problem that concerns not only that country but savers around the world who invest in it and among the first large countries like China which has invested in Treasury securities a substantial portion of their reserves, ii) the debt crisis and the likely reduction of Greek nominal value of government securities in the country (between 20 and 60 percent) will result in serious losses survey of French and German banks that had invested more in that financial asset; iii) the presence of a huge mass of poor and underprivileged in the world, willing to work at wages much lower than those of our employees equal qualifications, protected and unionized, represents a formidable threat to the maintenance of the welfare levels of high-income countries, iv) exit the euro would have serious consequences not only for developing countries but also for Germany itself, which for years has enjoyed the advantage to export their goods to market without the cost of the eurozone countries the appreciation of its exchange rate, and v) the coordination of central banks is now increasingly important in a globally integrated world and developing countries have complained several times recently expansive monetary policy that the American and European central banks (quantitative easing) exported inflation in their countries, vi) for some time in the meetings of the G-20 is trying to coordinate the policies of the countries in deficit and surplus of those trying to encourage the latter to adopt more expansionary policies to boost demand in the world...



And 'return key finance the real economy. To do this you must:


i) reduce the leverage of banks too big to fail (30 to 1 leverage and mismatch between current liabilities and long academic activities are among the main causes of spread of the subprime mortgage crisis in the world).


ii) to adopt the so-called Volckerrule that prevent banks from doing proprietary trading with customer deposits.


iii) more strictly regulate the derivatives market as insurance instruments that arise. In the real insurance policies you buy if you are in possession of the underlying financial markets and to ensure this happens in no more than 5 percent of cases. There exists here an EU proposal to achieve this goal with respect to credit default swaps on the bonds.


A fourth proposal concerns the establishment of a tax on financial transactions for the reasons explained in the paragraph that follows.


It 'should ask why the position of economists and civil society (a majority in favor of the EU) against the tax on financial transactions has changed dramatically in recent years. Last year, 130 Italian economists have signed an appeal on his behalf that have been gathered together in the same appeal in 1000 of 53 countries the economists delivered to the finance ministers of the countries of G20in Summit held in Washington on 14 and 15 April 2011 (figures are among the signatories of the first order such as Dani Rodrik, Tony Atkinson, Joseph Stiglitz and Jeffrey Sachs) (http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/apr/13/robin-hood-tax-economists-letter).


There are two reasons for this change of opinion: the events of the global financial crisis and more evidence on that has helped to overcome some prejudices. With the global financial crisis on public finances of some major Western countries have been severely weakened to save the banks and subsequently became the new target of speculative attacks. A part of the financial world has so privatized profits, socialized losses and then used the public funds used for their rescue against them saviors. And 'therefore understandable that the majority of public opinion is of the opinion that those who work in the financial markets should help pay the costs of this crisis, for now sheltered on the most vulnerable. From this point of view the FTT responds to an elementary requirement of justice is indeed urgent and seen the most recent events to maintain social cohesion in the Community.


The second reason for the increased fee was established by the passing of an injury. Until recently it was considered that it was not applicable if the global pain of capital flight from the country who decided to put it into force. This bias is unfounded because there are today, as documented in a research project of the International Monetary Fund, with 23 countries that unilaterally apply the fee (no more than a contract note) without there having been no capital flight (T. Matheson , Taxing Financial Transactions. Issues and Evidence, IMF WorkingPaper No 11/54, March 2011, 8). The country with the highest fee that applies is the UK StampTax the Duty of a single type of asset (tax of 5 per thousand holders of shares listed on the London Stock Exchange). The fee allows you to raise about 5 billion pounds a year. This evidence because of the introduction of the tax proposal Barroso at EU speaks of "harmonization" at European level of taxes on financial transactions and not of their introduction. London has its own tax generated an interesting example of avoidance: the fee for not paying some of the workers left the stock market to build new OTC derivatives (contracts for differences) consisting of bets on changes in share price. Interesting to note, therefore, that the tax has separated into two different markets really interested to invest in equity securities of companies and operators who play variations on short prices. This type of avoidance is already implicitly considered in the proposed Barroso extending the taxation of derivatives (and thus also to contracts for differences). They can also be countered by banning the contract for differences as it does on a secondary market like the United States.


The scientific level, there are numerous works that measure the elasticity of the volume of transactions similar to the introduction of taxes rather than highlighting factors such content and do not support the hypothesis of capital flight. Another reason for which the flight can not happen is that the very high frequency operations to benefit from an advantage of proximity to the physical location of the bag from which the information via the internet (New York Times (2009): Stock Traders FindSpeedPays, in Milliseconds). Move away from the main markets operations would involve the loss of this advantage.


Another objection is unfounded is the impact of the tax cost of capital. To set the rate proposed by Barroso calculations based on models of the capitalization of expected future asset values ​​show that this cost is almost zero (see again Matheson 2011). The other objection that the tax decrease the liquidity of markets is also questionable. How much cash do we need? Dean Baker in his commentary on the subject says that the tax would bring us back to transaction costs and liquidity than ten years ago, that a most flourishing period of what we are experiencing The truth is that there is no firm evidence on the effects of tax on cash but only a series of different models that are opposite results depending on the type of microstructure of financial markets and the assumed model of competition between intermediaries.


Summing up the four main objections to the institution of the fee (if it can not be imposed on a global level, there would be no revenue for capital flight, tax increases significantly the cost of capital, the tax reduces market liquidity) are false or unsubstantiated or anecdotal evidence (the first two) or for lack of evidence (the latter two).


For the above transaction tax (although not of course the panacea for all ills) may represent an important step in that rebalancing of the relationship between financial institutions and other reforms that can help to prevent new financial crises advocated by law-Dodd Frank Vickers or the Board in the United Kingdom (Volckerrule, deleveraging of intermediaries too big to fail, penalizing capital requirements for riskier than ordinary credit) and the restoration of confidence on the part of civil society in the institutions Financial we urgently need.

Edited by Luke_Wilbur
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does the Holy See not understand central banks core principle is usury?


It is therefore necessary to reflect changes on existing systems and on the possibility of achieving one or more institutions that perform "functions of a sort of" global central bank, "to regulate the flow and the system of monetary exchange, like the national central banks rediscovering the underlying logic - the logic of peace, coordination and common prosperity - which led to the Bretton Woods Agreements...




What is forbidden by the seventh commandment?


Above all, the seventh commandment forbids theft, which is the taking or using of another’s property against the reasonable will of the owner. This can be done also by paying unjust wages; by speculation on the value of goods in order to gain an advantage to the detriment of others; or by the forgery of checks or invoices. Also forbidden is tax evasion or business fraud; willfully damaging private or public property ; usury ; corruption; the private abuse of common goods; work deliberately done poorly; and waste.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

It´s this Amero planning. It sounds like the implosion of the dollar will happen at the end 2012 and that OWS is more likely a LOBBY for Wall Street and the Feds. OWS with their proxy protest......how predictable ! If you could take their masks right off you would see that they are NWO sheeple.


Let´s note that Politically conservative Catholics, meanwhile, noted that the document did not carry the full force of church teaching. And some dismissed the report.

Writing in the National Review, Samuel Gregg of the Acton Institute, which promotes free-market economic policies, said of the document: ''It reflects rather conventional contemporary economic thinking. Unfortunately, given the uselessness of much present-day economics, that's not likely to make it especially helpful.''

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Tommy D

To be honest, the first article in this topic is some pretty dry and difficult reading, and I scored very well on the Law School Admissions Test reading comprehension portion.

I'm sure I'm being short-sighted on this subject but my two cents are:


Wall Street is still very, very broken.

They have annihilated the 7th commandment and anything/everything it stands for which sadly is not at all shocking for the purported "conservative Christians" (save for Lloyd Blankfein, CEO of Goldman Sachs) we find ourselves surrounded by on a daily basis.


The banks who received hundreds of billions in bailout money, and were responsible for millions of families losing their homes, are the same. There are some token rules/laws being passed for consumer protection (spearheaded by Elizabeth Warren) but it's like trying to plug a 20 foot hole in the Hoover Dam with a piece of chewing gum: not gonna happen. Banks are STILL too big and have too much money.


Fact: Big US banks are still broken and consumers should be surprised by nothing.


I'm sure I'd be more coherent in this writing but my sense of hopeless outrage cannot silence my histrionic rantings.


America: be afraid; be very, very afraid. :angry:



Washington, DC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Bible Traditions

We are wtnessing Bible prophecy unfolding yet again. Not only has the pope Benedict XVI called for a regathering of world's religions, it has called for a world central bank to control all aspects of banking.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Soldier of God

Novus Ordo is the Mass that most Catholics today are familiar with. On July 7, 2007, Pope Benedict XVI's , restoring the Traditional Latin Mass as one of two approved forms of the Mass.













My dear Brother Bishops,


With great trust and hope, I am consigning to you as Pastors the text of a new Apostolic Letter "Motu Proprio data" on the use of the Roman liturgy prior to the reform of 1970. The document is the fruit of much reflection, numerous consultations and prayer.


News reports and judgments made without sufficient information have created no little confusion. There have been very divergent reactions ranging from joyful acceptance to harsh opposition, about a plan whose contents were in reality unknown.


This document was most directly opposed on account of two fears, which I would like to address somewhat more closely in this letter.


In the first place, there is the fear that the document detracts from the authority of the Second Vatican Council, one of whose essential decisions – the liturgical reform – is being called into question.


This fear is unfounded. In this regard, it must first be said that the Missal published by Paul VI and then republished in two subsequent editions by John Paul II, obviously is and continues to be the normal Form – the Forma ordinaria – of the Eucharistic Liturgy. The last version of the Missale Romanum prior to the Council, which was published with the authority of Pope John XXIII in 1962 and used during the Council, will now be able to be used as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgical celebration. It is not appropriate to speak of these two versions of the Roman Missal as if they were "two Rites". Rather, it is a matter of a twofold use of one and the same rite.


As for the use of the 1962 Missal as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgy of the Mass, I would like to draw attention to the fact that this Missal was never juridically abrogated and, consequently, in principle, was always permitted. At the time of the introduction of the new Missal, it did not seem necessary to issue specific norms for the possible use of the earlier Missal. Probably it was thought that it would be a matter of a few individual cases which would be resolved, case by case, on the local level. Afterwards, however, it soon became apparent that a good number of people remained strongly attached to this usage of the Roman Rite, which had been familiar to them from childhood. This was especially the case in countries where the liturgical movement had provided many people with a notable liturgical formation and a deep, personal familiarity with the earlier Form of the liturgical celebration. We all know that, in the movement led by Archbishop Lefebvre, fidelity to the old Missal became an external mark of identity; the reasons for the break which arose over this, however, were at a deeper level. Many people who clearly accepted the binding character of the Second Vatican Council, and were faithful to the Pope and the Bishops, nonetheless also desired to recover the form of the sacred liturgy that was dear to them. This occurred above all because in many places celebrations were not faithful to the prescriptions of the new Missal, but the latter actually was understood as authorizing or even requiring creativity, which frequently led to deformations of the liturgy which were hard to bear. I am speaking from experience, since I too lived through that period with all its hopes and its confusion. And I have seen how arbitrary deformations of the liturgy caused deep pain to individuals totally rooted in the faith of the Church.


Pope John Paul II thus felt obliged to provide, in his Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei (2 July 1988), guidelines for the use of the 1962 Missal; that document, however, did not contain detailed prescriptions but appealed in a general way to the generous response of Bishops towards the "legitimate aspirations" of those members of the faithful who requested this usage of the Roman Rite. At the time, the Pope primarily wanted to assist the Society of Saint Pius X to recover full unity with the Successor of Peter, and sought to heal a wound experienced ever more painfully. Unfortunately this reconciliation has not yet come about. Nonetheless, a number of communities have gratefully made use of the possibilities provided by the Motu Proprio. On the other hand, difficulties remain concerning the use of the 1962 Missal outside of these groups, because of the lack of precise juridical norms, particularly because Bishops, in such cases, frequently feared that the authority of the Council would be called into question. Immediately after the Second Vatican Council it was presumed that requests for the use of the 1962 Missal would be limited to the older generation which had grown up with it, but in the meantime it has clearly been demonstrated that young persons too have discovered this liturgical form, felt its attraction and found in it a form of encounter with the Mystery of the Most Holy Eucharist, particularly suited to them. Thus the need has arisen for a clearer juridical regulation which had not been foreseen at the time of the 1988 Motu Proprio. The present Norms are also meant to free Bishops from constantly having to evaluate anew how they are to respond to various situations.


In the second place, the fear was expressed in discussions about the awaited Motu Proprio, that the possibility of a wider use of the 1962 Missal would lead to disarray or even divisions within parish communities. This fear also strikes me as quite unfounded. The use of the old Missal presupposes a certain degree of liturgical formation and some knowledge of the Latin language; neither of these is found very often. Already from these concrete presuppositions, it is clearly seen that the new Missal will certainly remain the ordinary Form of the Roman Rite, not only on account of the juridical norms, but also because of the actual situation of the communities of the faithful.


It is true that there have been exaggerations and at times social aspects unduly linked to the attitude of the faithful attached to the ancient Latin liturgical tradition. Your charity and pastoral prudence will be an incentive and guide for improving these. For that matter, the two Forms of the usage of the Roman Rite can be mutually enriching: new Saints and some of the new Prefaces can and should be inserted in the old Missal. The "Ecclesia Dei" Commission, in contact with various bodies devoted to the usus antiquior, will study the practical possibilities in this regard. The celebration of the Mass according to the Missal of Paul VI will be able to demonstrate, more powerfully than has been the case hitherto, the sacrality which attracts many people to the former usage. The most sure guarantee that the Missal of Paul VI can unite parish communities and be loved by them consists in its being celebrated with great reverence in harmony with the liturgical directives. This will bring out the spiritual richness and the theological depth of this Missal.


I now come to the positive reason which motivated my decision to issue this Motu Proprio updating that of 1988. It is a matter of coming to an interior reconciliation in the heart of the Church. Looking back over the past, to the divisions which in the course of the centuries have rent the Body of Christ, one continually has the impression that, at critical moments when divisions were coming about, not enough was done by the Church's leaders to maintain or regain reconciliation and unity. One has the impression that omissions on the part of the Church have had their share of blame for the fact that these divisions were able to harden. This glance at the past imposes an obligation on us today: to make every effort to enable for all those who truly desire unity to remain in that unity or to attain it anew. I think of a sentence in the Second Letter to the Corinthians, where Paul writes: "Our mouth is open to you, Corinthians; our heart is wide. You are not restricted by us, but you are restricted in your own affections. In return … widen your hearts also!" (2 Cor 6:11-13). Paul was certainly speaking in another context, but his exhortation can and must touch us too, precisely on this subject. Let us generously open our hearts and make room for everything that the faith itself allows.


There is no contradiction between the two editions of the Roman Missal. In the history of the liturgy there is growth and progress, but no rupture. What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful. It behooves all of us to preserve the riches which have developed in the Church's faith and prayer, and to give them their proper place. Needless to say, in order to experience full communion, the priests of the communities adhering to the former usage cannot, as a matter of principle, exclude celebrating according to the new books. The total exclusion of the new rite would not in fact be consistent with the recognition of its value and holiness.


In conclusion, dear Brothers, I very much wish to stress that these new norms do not in any way lessen your own authority and responsibility, either for the liturgy or for the pastoral care of your faithful. Each Bishop, in fact, is the moderator of the liturgy in his own Diocese (cf. Sacrosanctum Concilium, 22: "Sacrae Liturgiae moderatio ab Ecclesiae auctoritate unice pendet quae quidem est apud Apostolicam Sedem et, ad normam iuris, apud Episcopum").


Nothing is taken away, then, from the authority of the Bishop, whose role remains that of being watchful that all is done in peace and serenity. Should some problem arise which the parish priest cannot resolve, the local Ordinary will always be able to intervene, in full harmony, however, with all that has been laid down by the new norms of the Motu Proprio.


Furthermore, I invite you, dear Brothers, to send to the Holy See an account of your experiences, three years after this Motu Proprio has taken effect. If truly serious difficulties come to light, ways to remedy them can be sought.


Dear Brothers, with gratitude and trust, I entrust to your hearts as Pastors these pages and the norms of the Motu Proprio. Let us always be mindful of the words of the Apostle Paul addressed to the presbyters of Ephesus: "Take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the Church of God which he obtained with the blood of his own Son" (Acts 20:28).


I entrust these norms to the powerful intercession of Mary, Mother of the Church, and I cordially impart my Apostolic Blessing to you, dear Brothers, to the parish priests of your dioceses, and to all the priests, your co-workers, as well as to all your faithful.


Given at Saint Peter's, 7 July 2007



Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Soldier of God

The Jew has become the sign of rebirth for his brothers who do not believe in Christ.






Second Edition of the Catechism of the Catholic Church - The Mysteries of Christ's Life


439 Many Jews and even certain Gentiles who shared their hope recognized in Jesus the fundamental attributes of the messianic "Son of David", promised by God to Israel.38 Jesus accepted his rightful title of Messiah, though with some reserve because it was understood by some of his contemporaries in too human a sense, as essentially political.39


528 The Epiphany is the manifestation of Jesus as Messiah of Israel, Son of God and Savior of the world. The great feast of Epiphany celebrates the adoration of Jesus by the wise men (magi) from the East, together with his baptism in the Jordan and the wedding feast at Cana in Galilee.212 In the magi, representatives of the neighboring pagan religions, the Gospel sees the first-fruits of the nations, who welcome the good news of salvation through the Incarnation. The magi's coming to Jerusalem in order to pay homage to the king of the Jews shows that they seek in Israel, in the messianic light of the star of David, the one who will be king of the nations.213 Their coming means that pagans can discover Jesus and worship him as Son of God and Savior of the world only by turning towards the Jews and receiving from them the messianic promise as contained in the Old Testament.214 The Epiphany shows that "the full number of the nations" now takes its "place in the family of the patriarchs", and acquires Israelitica dignitas215 (is made "worthy of the heritage of Israel").


529 The presentation of Jesus in the temple shows him to be the firstborn Son who belongs to the Lord.216 With Simeon and Anna, all Israel awaits its encounter with the Savior-the name given to this event in the Byzantine tradition. Jesus is recognized as the long-expected Messiah, the "light to the nations" and the "glory of Israel", but also "a sign that is spoken against". The sword of sorrow predicted for Mary announces Christ's perfect and unique oblation on the cross that will impart the salvation God had "prepared in the presence of all peoples".


547 Jesus accompanies his words with many "mighty works and wonders and signs", which manifest that the kingdom is present in him and attest that he was the promised Messiah.268


Matthew, 1:1 - 2:5



1:1 The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.


2 Abraham begot Isaac: Isaac begot Jacob: Jacob begot Judah and his brothers:


3 Judah begot Pharez and Zerah of Tamar: Pharez begot Hezron: Hezron begot Ram:


4 Ram begot Amminadab: Amminadab begot Nashon: Nashon begot Salmon:


5 Salmon begot Boaz of Rahab: Boaz begot Obed of Ruth: Obed begot Jesse:


6 Jesse begot David the king. David begot Solomon of the wife of Uriah:


7 Solomon begot Rehoboam: Rehoboam begot Abijah: Abijah begot Asa:


8 Asa begot Jehosaphat: Jehosaphat begot Jehoram: Jehoram begot Uzziah:


9 Uzziah begot Jotham: Jotham begot Ahaz: Ahaz begot Hezekiah:


10 Hezekiah begot Manasseh: Manasseh begot Amon: Amon begot Josiah:


11 Josiah begot Jeconiah and his brothers about the time of the removal to Babylon.


12 But after the removal to Babylon, Jeconiah begot Shealtiel: Shealtiel begot Zerubbabel:


13 Zerubbabel begot Abihud: Abihud begot Eliakim: Eliakim begot Azor:


14 Azor begot Zadoc: Zadoc begot Achim: Achim begot Eliud:


15 Eliud begot Eleazar: Eleazar begot Matthan: Matthan begot Jacob:


16 Jacob begot Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus who is called Christ.


17 So all the generations from Abraham till David, are fourteen generations; and from David till the removal to Babylon, are fourteen generations; and from the removal to Babylon till Christ, are fourteen generations.


18 But the birth of Jesus Christ was thus: After his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit.


19 And Joseph her husband, being just and not willing to make her an example, intended to put her away privately.


20 But while he thought of these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying: Joseph, son of David, fear not to take to thee Mary thy wife; for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.


21 And she shall bear a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus; for he shall save his people from their sins.


22 And all this was done, that it might be fulfilled that was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying:


23 Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and shall bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel, which is, when translated, God with us.


24 And Joseph arose from his sleep, and did as the angel of the Lord had commanded him, and took to him his wife; and knew her not till she had brought forth a son; and he called his name Jesus.


2:1 But after Jesus had been born in Bethlehem of Judea, in the days of Herod the king, behold, Magi from the east came to Jerusalem,


2 saying: Where is he that has been born king of the Jews? For we saw his star at its rising, and have come to worship him.


3 And hearing it, king Herod was alarmed, and all Jerusalem with him.


4 And he assembled all the chief priests and scribes of the people, and inquired of them where the Christ should be born.


5 And they said to him: In Bethlehem of Judea; for thus it is written by the prophet:


Numbers 24:17-19;


15 And he took up his parable and said,


Balaam the son of Beor says, the man who sees truly says, 16 hearing the oracles of God, receiving knowledge from the Most High, and having seen a vision of God in sleep; his eyes were opened. 17 I will point to him, but not now; I bless him, but he draws not near: a star shall rise out of Jacob, a man shall spring out of Israel; and shall crush the princes of Moab, and shall spoil all the sons of Seth. 18 And Edom shall be an inheritance, and Esau his enemy shall be an inheritance of Israel, and Israel wrought valiantly. 19 And one shall arise out of Jacob, and destroy out of the city him that escapes. 20 And having seen Amalec, he took up his parable and said, Amalec is the first of the nations; yet his seed shall perish. 21 And having seen the Kenite, he took up his parable and said, thy dwelling-place is strong; yet though thou shouldest put thy nest in a rock, 22 and though Beor should have a skillfully contrived hiding-place, the Assyrians shall carry thee away captive. 23 And he looked upon Og, and took up his parable and said, Oh, oh, who shall live, when God shall do these things? 24 And one shall come forth from the hands of the Citians, and shall afflict Assur, and shall afflict the Hebrews, and they shall perish together. 25 And Balaam rose up and departed and returned to his place, and Balac went to his own home.


Revelation, 22:16



16 I, Jesus, have sent my angel to testify these things to you for the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, the bright morning star.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...



Ben Bernanke on the Economy and Financial LiteracyNov 10, 2011Federal ReserveFederal Reserve Chair Ben Bernanke held a town hall meeting with military families at Fort Bliss, Texas. Topics included the state of the U.S. economy, fiscal sustainability, the European debt crisis, and financial literacy.


00:22:1523 sec. Unidentified Soldier




Go to the video.00:22:1523 sec.


Soldier: Hi Dr. Bernanke, I have two questions. The first is with the recent release of Vatican's financial manifesto and the recent calls within the United Nations for a debt jubilee. What is the Federal Reserve's position on that? And secondly, with the possible breakup of the EU, how is that going to impact the United States if the EU slims down to a smaller member nation block?


My problem with the Fed Chair response is that he did not answer the question. The only thing I got was a lesson on how our government is responsible to pay any debts our States default on to the Central Bank. The European Union does not have the same system in place. The EU Central Bank is not a government, so it is not responsible to pay that defaulting member country's debt. Bernanke failed to answer the Vatican "One World Bank" question. The Chairman of the Federal Reserve should be able to clearly state an answer. I just hope we do not have another Jekyll Island story where our leaders meet in secret and create one Central Bank of the World.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A friend I admire and respect replied...


So, your fear is that our leaders get together and conspire to create a single world bank? Seriously? I don't think our leaders could agree on a framework to discuss what to have for lunch. There are many things about which we should worry: banks continue to be too big to fail and Washington is both powerless and unwilling to fix this; Banks are fully unwilling to refinance loans even for the most deserving and qualified consumers; Gridlock in DC will continue to hold back our economy. Lots of fears. A one-world bank is not one of them, and if our leaders could get together, either in secret or in the light of day, to even discuss something this big it would be a shock.


I responded...


this was in the light of day. Did you read the Vatican's statement?





This process must also involve the emerging and developing countries in defining the stages of a gradual adaptation of the existing instruments.In fact, one can see an emerging requirement for a body that will carry out the functions of a kind of “central world bank” that regulates the flow and system of monetary exchanges similar to the national central banks.


If you have time watch the CSPAN video and see how coherent his response to other questions. But, when it came to the soldier's question on the Federal Reserve's response to One World Bank, like a true politician, Bernanke responded without answering the question. He could have stated, "The Federal Reserve's position is not to adapt to One World Central Banking system.


One world bank is a fear. As we can see it was difficult to even get a small snapshot of what the Federal Reserve was doing during the financial meltdown. And what was revealed was not good at all. Now imagine the difficulty of having a UN mandated bank. The oversite would be nil. In reality banks would have complete control of the world.


My friend replied...


Luke, I don't doubt that some want a one-world bank. I just suggest that nobody of consequence in our government agrees. Moreover, our government is so divided this sort of initiative could never get close to passing. There is no doubt that our economy is highly connected to the EU economy, and vice versa. There is also no doubt that contagion impacts us and our institutions. But no US politician could possibly support moving away from the dollar as our currency, or globalizing our central financial institutions. Neither party supports this, and our divided government would never pass this. No matter what the Vatican says, or wants.


I responded...


I must remind you that the Federal Reserve was created in secret. How can you or and I know the position of our legislators. Did you watch 60 minutes this Sunday.



(CBS News) Washington, D.C. is a town that runs on inside information - but should our elected officials be able to use that information to pad their own pockets? As Steve Kroft reports, members of Congress and their aides have regular access to powerful political intelligence, and many have made well-timed stock market trades in the very industries they regulate. For now, the practice is perfectly legal, but some say it's time for the law to change.




I just telephoned the Federal Reserve Board of Governors and asked for clarification of their position.


Their number is 202.452-3204 I stated at this time of unease it would be good PR to state they are and plan to be only the Central Bank for the United States. And not for the rest of the world.


You are a journalist. Use your power and ask.


If they contact me I will tell you. If you get a response, then please do me the same courtesy : )


A second good friend responded...



I'm more concerned the Federal Reserve is "cozying" up to the military, that is not a good sign.................


And the First responded...


Luke, I'm just saying our government cant agree on anything, so there is no chance they will all agree on something of this magnitude, or something this politically unpopular. Also, I haven't been a journalist for a long time. Yes, I saw 60 Minutes, and it was highly offensive.







Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to Wikipedia, Federal Reserve Board of Governors, the Federal Reserve is independent within government in that "its monetary policy decisions do not have to be approved by the President or anyone else in the executive or legislative branches of government.

Edited by Luke_Wilbur
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The way the Federal Reserve behaves in disclosing information that is of the interest of the WE THE PEOPLE, if nothing is done with them it can be assumed that there could be a overthrowing coming to the United States of America. In the a Financial Dictatorship in the form of bribing and extorting our executive, legislative, and judicial branches and public servants.


I challenge every global citizen to telephone the Federal Reserve Board of the United States and 011+1+202+452+3204


Ask the following queston:



Does the Federal Reserve plan to be the only the Central Bank for the United States. And not the Central Bank for the rest of the world?


If the Federal Reserve Board for the United States answers,


I challenge every American to post what response they get everywhere. It means every place where people can connect to it using all forms of media.


And please share what you found out here on DCMessageBoards.com,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, John tell me more about the financial overthrow of Greece, Italy.


It appears France may be next....


I can't stop thinking about my family's Spanish, Scottish, Slovakian, and Irish homelands.


And May the Lord Forbid it coming to the United States of America.


We as a PEOPLE need to know actually where the wealth comes from.


What is the secret formula? (Coke reviewed their secret recipe).


Special thanks to the Discovery, History, PBS for putting the pieces together.


And CBS 60 Minutes should be given extra applause for revealing the cronyism going in the halls of the United States Capitol Building.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Luke, it wasn't so much of a "financial overthrow" of Greece and Italy or a coup de etat. It was more like dominoes falling slowly over the past few years. Greece has continually been keeping it's debt at over 110 percent of GDP which, in addition to several other factors, caused them to be in deep financial trouble which most believe will lead to Greece's defaulting on it's debt. There are many different views on what this would mean. The contrarians contend it's not Greece endangering the Euro, it's vice-versa.

Since I'm not an economist I'll have to do a lot more research on this to give you a really cogent answer.

Stay tuned ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

We all are human.


We must trust in the mighty power of God’s mercy. We are all sinners, but His grace transforms us and makes us new. - Pope Benedict XVI, February 10 2013




The Vatican bank, whose reputation took a blow over an investigation into money laundering, has fired Chairman Ettore Gotti Tedeschi after a tenure stained by a financial scandal.


In a vote of no-confidence, the board of directors unanimously agreed to remove Tedeschi, a Banco Santander SA (SAN) banker who took the job in 2009, from his post for failing “to carry out various duties of primary importance,” according to a statement yesterday by Vatican spokesman Federico Lombardi.


Tedeschi said he was “torn” between wanting to explain the truth and not upsetting Pope Benedict XVI, according to an interview with Italian news agency Ansa today. “My love for the Pope prevails even over defending my reputation, which has been cowardly questioned,” he was cited as saying.


The bank, which is formally called the Institute for the Works of Religion, said it’s now hunting for a replacement who can “restore” relations with the financial community. Set up in 1942 by Pope Pius XII to manage the Vatican’s finances, the bank, known by its Italian initials as the IOR, reports directly to the pope.


Matthew 6


6:24 “No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Create New...