Sunday, December 28, 2008

More Hospitals on the Brink; WaMu Stinks

As previously detailed in an earlier blog, nearly 1000 hospitals closed across our nation from 1991 to 2007. In 2008, 300-400 more are on the brink of bankruptcy, - they'll either be bought out or closed down completely. We do not have a healthcare crisis in this country, but an ongoing healthcare catastrophe.
Indigent care write-offs, insurance, Medicare/Medicaid payments shrinking and/or delayed, recession and other "ills" are wiping out hospitals like a plague of locusts.
A major medical center closing has a domino effect on surrounding smaller hospitals. They cannot absorb the sudden avalanche of added patients, many with no or inadequate insurance, to their already short-staffed, ill-equipped facilities. Within 2-3 years, they too are facing bankruptcy. Major & minor cities, urban, suburban & rural areas are now without trauma & surgery centers for hundreds of miles. One may have to traverse across the state or out of state for emergency trauma/burn treatment.
Then, the exhorbitant cost of medical care, not covered by insurance, can & does wipe out a family's finances and ultimately forces them into insolvency. It's a chain reaction repeated thousands of times each year across America.

Add all this to our nation's crushing burdens of other industries' failures, a credit & financial debacle of unfathomable proportion, a political & governmental astronomic incompetency, a crime & social deterioration explosion, and a spiritual depravity akin to the days of Noah; if this is not a recipe for national collapse, I don't know what is...


___________NEWS_____________

Hospitals ill from more bad debt, credit troubles

Gainesville, FL – Gainesville's first community hospital has been on life support since the Shands Healthcare system in northern Florida bought it a dozen years ago.

Now, because of the recession, the plug is being pulled on 80-year-old, money-losing Shands AGH. Next fall, its eight-hospital not-for-profit parent company will shut the 220-bed hospital and shift staff and patients to a newer, bigger teaching hospital nearby as part of an effort to save $65 million over three years across the system.

Like many U.S. hospitals, Shands is being squeezed by tight credit, higher borrowing costs, investment losses and a jump in patients — many recently unemployed or otherwise underinsured — not paying their bills.

All that has begun to trigger more hospital closings — from impoverished Newark, N.J., to wealthy Beverly Hills, Calif. — as well as layoffs, other cost-cutting and scrapping or delaying building projects.

More closings and mergers are on the way, industry consultants predict.

"They'll get swallowed up by somebody else, if they need to exist, and if they don't, they'll just close," said Tuck Crocker, vice president of the health care practice at management consultant BearingPoint.

Most endangered are rural hospitals and urban ones in areas with excess hospital beds and a lot of poor, uninsured patients.

Hospitals, which employ 5 million people, are reporting that donations and investment returns are down, patient visits are flat and profitable diagnostic procedures and elective surgeries are declining as people with inadequate insurance delay care. But those patients are turning up later at ERs, seriously ill, making it tough for hospitals to lay off nurses and doctors.

All those problems are aggravating long-standing stresses: stingy reimbursements from commercial insurers, even-lower payments that generally don't cover costs for Medicare and Medicaid patients, and high labor and technology costs.

Hospital executives and consultants say the growing number of people with high-deductible health plans is boosting unpaid patient bills. Many worry health reform efforts by the Obama administration could bring cuts in Medicare reimbursements, and many cash-strapped states already have begun cutting payments for poor people covered by Medicaid.

In the past few months, patients and insurers have been paying hospital bills more slowly. As a result, some think hospitals will start demanding up-front payments for elective procedures.

In November, Moody's Investors Service changed its 12- to 18-month outlook from "stable" to "negative" for nonprofit and for-profit hospitals, citing "prospects of a protracted recession," bad debt and the credit crunch.

"Looking forward, the cost of borrowing will likely be higher — and may be nonexistent for lower-rated hospitals," Moody's noted, a problem because hospitals borrow for everything from expansions and equipment to payroll and supplies.

Since October, there's been "a dramatic slowdown" in plans for new wings and building upgrades, with many delayed indefinitely, said Paul Keckley of the Deloitte Center for Health Solutions.

"It probably means we won't have as many new things in the hospital," he predicted.

Tim Goldfarb, CEO of Gainesville-based Shands Healthcare, said his system, Florida's second-largest provider of charity care, this year has seen bad debt jump 20 percent from patients with no insurance.

"We write them off," Goldfarb said. "It's a burden that we cannot carry any longer."

Florida started cutting Medicaid reimbursements two years ago, when its economy started to slow, Goldfarb said. He fears another huge cut next year.

Shands already has paid off variable-rate bonds to avoid higher interest rates, deferred roughly $25 million in equipment purchases, shifted management meetings to church halls and adopted employee suggestions to save millions more.

Goldfarb believes closing Shands AGH will save nearly $100 million over seven years, mainly by avoiding costly renovations, but some administrative jobs will go.

Around the country, while some hospitals still are doing well, closings and bankruptcies seem to be picking up.

In New Jersey, where 47 percent of hospitals posted losses in 2007, five of the 79 acute-care hospitals closed this year, and a sixth may close soon. In Hawaii, nearly every hospital is in trouble, with two filing for bankruptcy and one nearly closing recently.

All over, hospitals are cutting costs by outsourcing services like housekeeping and security and trimming staff through layoffs, hiring freezes and attrition. Most are trying not to touch patient care jobs — nurses, pharmacists, therapists and X-ray technicians — as those already have staff shortages.

"The last thing we can do is skinny down our staffing right where we need it the most," said Mike Killian, marketing vice president for the three Beaumont Hospitals in suburban Detroit.

There, auto industry job losses and other factors now equal fewer patients with commercial insurance. The system expects a $22 million loss, its first in at least 40 years, Killian said.

So Beaumont this fall announced a $60 million restructuring program that includes 4-10 percent pay cuts for doctors and managers, reducing overtime for some employees and eliminating 500 jobs, 200 already vacant, mostly outside of patient care. Rich Umbdenstock, chief executive of the American Hospital Association, said some of the hardest-hit hospitals began reducing staffing and services as early as last spring and more will follow. He expects some to eliminate services — money-losers such as behavioral health treatment, or those with high operating costs such as burn units — rather than weaken their entire operation.

An association survey of more than 700 hospitals found two-thirds have seen elective procedures and overall admissions fall since July, and half have seen moderate or significant jumps in nonpaying patients.

An industry database on more than 550 hospitals found their third-quarter investment results amounted to a combined loss of $832 million, down from a $396 million gain a year earlier. During the quarter, those hospitals paid 15 percent more in borrowing costs and swung to a 1.6 percent average loss, from an average 6.1 percent profit margin a year ago.

"They're having serious problems getting the capital they need for needed renovations and upgrading their facilities," said Mike Rock, a lobbyist at AHA, which is seeking increased federal reimbursements from Medicaid and Medicare.

At Exempla Healthcare, with three hospitals in Denver and its suburbs, Chief Executive Jeff Selberg said there's usually a 5-7 percent annual profit margin, but this year investment losses wiped that out. He's scaled back a $200 million plan to upgrade facilities, information technology and clinical equipment and may halt construction of a new maternity unit and operating rooms at one hospital.

Selberg has seen a slight increase in bad debt and expects more problems.

"We feel like the wave is coming, but it hasn't hit yet, and we don't know how big this wave is going to be," he said.

_______________________


By Saying Yes, WaMu Built Empire on Shaky Loans

“We hope to do to this industry what Wal-Mart did to theirs, Starbucks did to theirs, Costco did to theirs and Lowe’s-Home Depot did to their industry. And I think if we’ve done our job, five years from now you’re not going to call us a bank.” — Kerry K. Killinger, chief executive of Washington Mutual, 2003

SAN DIEGO — As a supervisor at a Washington Mutual mortgage processing center, John D. Parsons was accustomed to seeing baby sitters claiming salaries worthy of college presidents, and schoolteachers with incomes rivaling stockbrokers’. He rarely questioned them. A real estate frenzy was under way and WaMu, as his bank was known, was all about saying yes.

Yet even by WaMu’s relaxed standards, one mortgage four years ago raised eyebrows. The borrower was claiming a six-figure income and an unusual profession: mariachi singer.

Mr. Parsons could not verify the singer’s income, so he had him photographed in front of his home dressed in his mariachi outfit. The photo went into a WaMu file. Approved.

“I’d lie if I said every piece of documentation was properly signed and dated,” said Mr. Parsons, speaking through wire-reinforced glass at a California prison near here, where he is serving 16 months for theft after his fourth arrest — all involving drugs.

While Mr. Parsons, whose incarceration is not related to his work for WaMu, oversaw a team screening mortgage applications, he was snorting methamphetamine daily, he said.

“In our world, it was tolerated,” said Sherri Zaback, who worked for Mr. Parsons and recalls seeing drug paraphernalia on his desk. “Everybody said, ‘He gets the job done.’ ”

At WaMu, getting the job done meant lending money to nearly anyone who asked for it — the force behind the bank’s meteoric rise and its precipitous collapse this year in the biggest bank failure in American history.

On a financial landscape littered with wreckage, WaMu, a Seattle-based bank that opened branches at a clip worthy of a fast-food chain, stands out as a singularly brazen case of lax lending. By the first half of this year, the value of its bad loans had reached $11.5 billion, nearly tripling from $4.2 billion a year earlier.

Interviews with two dozen former employees, mortgage brokers, real estate agents and appraisers reveal the relentless pressure to churn out loans that produced such results. While that sample may not fully represent a bank with tens of thousands of people, it does reflect the views of employees in WaMu mortgage operations in California, Florida, Illinois and Texas.

Their accounts are consistent with those of 89 other former employees who are confidential witnesses in a class action filed against WaMu in federal court in Seattle by former shareholders.

According to these accounts, pressure to keep lending emanated from the top, where executives profited from the swift expansion — not least, Kerry K. Killinger, who was WaMu’s chief executive from 1990 until he was forced out in September.

Between 2001 and 2007, Mr. Killinger received compensation of $88 million, according to the Corporate Library, a research firm. He declined to respond to a list of questions, and his spokesman said he was unavailable for an interview.

During Mr. Killinger’s tenure, WaMu pressed sales agents to pump out loans while disregarding borrowers’ incomes and assets, according to former employees. The bank set up what insiders described as a system of dubious legality that enabled real estate agents to collect fees of more than $10,000 for bringing in borrowers, sometimes making the agents more beholden to WaMu than they were to their clients.

WaMu gave mortgage brokers handsome commissions for selling the riskiest loans, which carried higher fees, bolstering profits and ultimately the compensation of the bank’s executives. WaMu pressured appraisers to provide inflated property values that made loans appear less risky, enabling Wall Street to bundle them more easily for sale to investors.

“It was the Wild West,” said Steven M. Knobel, a founder of an appraisal company, Mitchell, Maxwell & Jackson, that did business with WaMu until 2007. “If you were alive, they would give you a loan. Actually, I think if you were dead, they would still give you a loan.”

JPMorgan Chase, which bought WaMu for $1.9 billion in September and received $25 billion a few weeks later as part of the taxpayer bailout of the financial services industry, declined to make former WaMu executives available for interviews.

JPMorgan also declined to comment on WaMu’s operations before it bought the company. “It is a different era for our customers and for the company,” a spokesman said.

For those who placed their faith and money in WaMu, the bank’s implosion came as a shock.

“I never had a clue about the amount of off-the-cliff activity that was going on at Washington Mutual, and I was in constant contact with the company,” said Vincent Au, president of Avalon Partners, an investment firm. “There were people at WaMu that orchestrated nothing more than a sham or charade. These people broke every fundamental rule of running a company.”

‘Like a Sweatshop’

Some WaMu employees who worked for the bank during the boom now have regrets.

“It was a disgrace,” said Dana Zweibel, a former financial representative at a WaMu branch in Tampa, Fla. “We were giving loans to people that never should have had loans.”

If Ms. Zweibel doubted whether customers could pay, supervisors directed her to keep selling, she said.

“We were told from up above that that’s not our concern,” she said. “Our concern is just to write the loan.”

The ultimate supervisor at WaMu was Mr. Killinger, who joined the company in 1983 and became chief executive in 1990. He inherited a bank that was founded in 1889 and had survived the Depression and the savings and loan scandal of the 1980s.

An investment analyst by training, he was attuned to Wall Street’s hunger for growth. Between late 1996 and early 2002, he transformed WaMu into the nation’s sixth-largest bank through a series of acquisitions.

A crucial deal came in 1999, with the purchase of Long Beach Financial, a California lender specializing in subprime mortgages, loans extended to borrowers with troubled credit.

WaMu underscored its eagerness to lend with an advertising campaign introduced during the 2003 Academy Awards: “The Power of Yes.” No mere advertising pitch, this was also the mantra inside the bank, underwriters said.

“WaMu came out with that slogan, and that was what we had to live by,” Ms. Zaback said. “We joked about it a lot.” A file would get marked problematic and then somehow get approved. “We’d say: ‘O.K.! The power of yes.’ ”

Revenue at WaMu’s home-lending unit swelled from $707 million in 2002 to almost $2 billion the following year, when the “The Power of Yes” campaign started.

Between 2000 and 2003, WaMu’s retail branches grew 70 percent, reaching 2,200 across 38 states, as the bank used an image of cheeky irreverence to attract new customers. In offbeat television ads, casually dressed WaMu employees ridiculed staid bankers in suits.

Branches were pushed to increase lending. “It was just disgusting,” said Ms. Zweibel, the Tampa representative. “They wanted you to spend time, while you’re running teller transactions and opening checking accounts, selling people loans.”

Employees in Tampa who fell short were ordered to drive to a WaMu office in Sarasota, an hour away. There, they sat in a phone bank with 20 other people, calling customers to push home equity loans.

“The regional manager would be over your shoulder, listening to every word,” Ms. Zweibel recalled. “They treated us like we were in a sweatshop.”

On the other end of the country, at WaMu’s San Diego processing office, Ms. Zaback’s job was to take loan applications from branches in Southern California and make sure they passed muster. Most of the loans she said she handled merely required borrowers to provide an address and Social Security number, and to state their income and assets.

She ran applications through WaMu’s computer system for approval. If she needed more information, she had to consult with a loan officer — which she described as an unpleasant experience. “They would be furious,” Ms. Zaback said. “They would put it on you, that they weren’t going to get paid if you stood in the way.”

On one loan application in 2005, a borrower identified himself as a gardener and listed his monthly income at $12,000, Ms. Zaback recalled. She could not verify his business license, so she took the file to her boss, Mr. Parsons.

He used the mariachi singer as inspiration: a photo of the borrower’s truck emblazoned with the name of his landscaping business went into the file. Approved.

Mr. Parsons, who worked for WaMu in San Diego from about 2002 through 2005, said his supervisors constantly praised his performance. “My numbers were through the roof,” he said.

On another occasion, Ms. Zaback asked a loan officer for verification of an applicant’s assets. The officer sent a letter from a bank showing a balance of about $150,000 in the borrower’s account, she recalled. But when Ms. Zaback called the bank to confirm, she was told the balance was only $5,000.

The loan officer yelled at her, Ms. Zaback recalled. “She said, ‘We don’t call the bank to verify.’ ” Ms. Zaback said she told Mr. Parsons that she no longer wanted to work with that loan officer, but he replied: “Too bad.”

Shortly thereafter, Mr. Parsons disappeared from the office. Ms. Zaback later learned of his arrest for burglary and drug possession.

The sheer workload at WaMu ensured that loan reviews were limited. Ms. Zaback’s office had 108 people, and several hundred new files a day. She was required to process at least 10 files daily.

“I’d typically spend a maximum of 35 minutes per file,” she said. “It was just disheartening. Just spit it out and get it done. That’s what they wanted us to do. Garbage in, and garbage out.”

Referral Fees for Loans

WaMu’s boiler room culture flourished in Southern California, where housing prices rose so rapidly during the bubble that creative financing was needed to attract buyers.

To that end, WaMu embraced so-called option ARMs, adjustable rate mortgages that enticed borrowers with a selection of low initial rates and allowed them to decide how much to pay each month. But people who opted for minimum payments were underpaying the interest due and adding to their principal, eventually causing loan payments to balloon.

Customers were often left with the impression that low payments would continue long term, according to former WaMu sales agents.

For WaMu, variable-rate loans — option ARMs, in particular — were especially attractive because they carried higher fees than other loans, and allowed WaMu to book profits on interest payments that borrowers deferred. Because WaMu was selling many of its loans to investors, it did not worry about defaults: by the time loans went bad, they were often in other hands.

WaMu’s adjustable-rate mortgages expanded from about one-fourth of new home loans in 2003 to 70 percent by 2006. In 2005 and 2006 — when WaMu pushed option ARMs most aggressively — Mr. Killinger received pay of $19 million and $24 million respectively.

The ARM Loan Niche

WaMu’s retail mortgage office in Downey, Calif., specialized in selling option ARMs to Latino customers who spoke little English and depended on advice from real estate brokers, according to a former sales agent who requested anonymity because he was still in the mortgage business.

According to that agent, WaMu turned real estate agents into a pipeline for loan applications by enabling them to collect “referral fees” for clients who became WaMu borrowers.

Buyers were typically oblivious to agents’ fees, the agent said, and agents rarely explained the loan terms.

“Their Realtor was their trusted friend,” the agent said. “The Realtors would sell them on a minimum payment, and that was an outright lie.”

According to the agent, the strategy was the brainchild of Thomas Ramirez, who oversaw a sales team of about 20 agents at the Downey branch during the first half of this decade, and now works for Wells Fargo.

Mr. Ramirez confirmed that he and his team enabled real estate agents to collect commissions, but he maintained that the fees were fully disclosed.

“I don’t think the bank would have let us do the program if it was bad,” Mr. Ramirez said.

Mr. Ramirez’s team sold nearly $1 billion worth of loans in 2004, he said. His performance made him a perennial member of WaMu’s President’s Club, which brought big bonuses and recognition at an awards ceremony typically hosted by Mr. Killinger in tropical venues like Hawaii.

Mr. Ramirez’s success prompted WaMu to populate a neighboring building in Downey with loan processors, underwriters and appraisers who worked for him. The fees proved so enticing that real estate agents arrived in Downey from all over Southern California, bearing six and seven loan applications at a time, the former agent said.

WaMu banned referral fees in 2006, fearing they could be construed as illegal payments from the bank to agents. But the bank allowed Mr. Ramirez’s team to continue using the referral fees, the agent said.

Forced Out With Millions

By 2005, the word was out that WaMu would accept applications with a mere statement of the borrower’s income and assets — often with no documentation required — so long as credit scores were adequate, according to Ms. Zaback and other underwriters.

“We had a flier that said, ‘A thin file is a good file,’ ” recalled Michele Culbertson, a wholesale sales agent with WaMu.

Martine Lado, an agent in the Irvine, Calif., office, said she coached brokers to leave parts of applications blank to avoid prompting verification if the borrower’s job or income was sketchy.

“We were looking for people who understood how to do loans at WaMu,” Ms. Lado said.

Top producers became heroes. Craig Clark, called the “king of the option ARM” by colleagues, closed loans totaling about $1 billion in 2005, according to four of his former coworkers, a tally he amassed in part by challenging anyone who doubted him.

“He was a bulldozer when it came to getting his stuff done,” said Lisa Alvarez, who worked in the Irvine office from 2003 to 2006.

Christine Crocker, who managed WaMu’s wholesale underwriting division in Irvine, recalled one mortgage to an elderly couple from a broker on Mr. Clark’s team.

With a fixed income of about $3,200 a month, the couple needed a fixed-rate loan. But their broker earned a commission of three percentage points by arranging an option ARM for them, and did so by listing their income as $7,000 a month. Soon, their payment jumped from roughly $1,000 a month to about $3,000, causing them to fall behind.

Mr. Clark, who now works for JPMorgan, referred calls to a company spokesman, who provided no further details.

In 2006, WaMu slowed option ARM lending. But earlier, ill-considered loans had already begun hurting its results. In 2007, it recorded a $67 million loss and shut down its subprime lending unit.

By the time shareholders joined WaMu for its annual meeting in Seattle last April, WaMu had posted a first-quarter loss of $1.14 billion and increased its loan loss reserve to $3.5 billion. Its stock had lost more than half its value in the previous two months. Anger was in the air.

Some shareholders were irate that Mr. Killinger and other executives were excluding mortgage losses from the computation of their bonuses. Others were enraged that WaMu turned down an $8-a-share takeover bid from JPMorgan.

“Calm down and have a little faith,” Mr. Killinger told the crowd. “We will get through this.”

WaMu asked shareholders to approve a $7 billion investment by Texas Pacific Group, a private equity firm, and other unnamed investors. David Bonderman, a founder of Texas Pacific and a former WaMu director, declined to comment.

Hostile shareholders argued that the deal would dilute their holdings, but Mr. Killinger forced it through, saying WaMu desperately needed new capital.

Weeks later, with WaMu in tatters, directors stripped Mr. Killinger of his board chairmanship. And the bank began including mortgage losses when calculating executive bonuses.

In September, Mr. Killinger was forced to retire. Later that month, with WaMu buckling under roughly $180 billion in mortgage-related loans, regulators seized the bank and sold it to JPMorgan for $1.9 billion, a fraction of the $40 billion valuation the stock market gave WaMu at its peak.

Billions that investors had plowed into WaMu were wiped out, as were prospects for many of the bank’s 50,000 employees. But Mr. Killinger still had his millions, rankling laid-off workers and shareholders alike.

“Kerry has made over $100 million over his tenure based on the aggressiveness that sunk the company,” said Mr. Au, the money manager. “How does he justify taking that money?”

In June, Mr. Au sent an e-mail message to the company asking executives to return some of their pay. He says he has not heard back.

Saturday, December 27, 2008

Confession of an Atheist: Africa Needs God, US Bonds; No Longer Safe

If an English atheist can reason that the Gospel of Christ makes all the difference in the lives of Africans on the "Dark Continent", how much more should we as believers realize Christ makes all the world of difference to the lost in America?

Bonds & treasuries have nearly always been considered the milquetoast safe-haven of investment; low-risk, low-yield. The place reserved for retirees and faint of heart. Harshly enough, the dam of false hope which held up Wall Street, the finance & credit markets, and the rest of our nation, has developed too many cracks & ruptures even to keep these from leaking.
As our nation's government infrastructure, federal & state, begins to unravel financially, we will observe the collapse of bonds & treasuries as an investment & retirement nest-egg as well. We are already seeing this across certain cities & states, and with the recent interest rate set by the Federal Reserve. It is becoming a ludicrous proposition to place any faith in our government system on any level; bonds, treasuries, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid.
America, the nation which once boldly proclaimed, "In God We Trust", does no more. Ergo, America's faith has no foundation anymore, and we see & feel the effects now. How can our future hold anything but despair as long as we turn our back & deny the Living God?

____________NEWS_______________
From
December 27, 2008

As an atheist, I truly believe Africa needs God

Missionaries, not aid money, are the solution to Africa's biggest problem - the crushing passivity of the people's mindset

Before Christmas I returned, after 45 years, to the country that as a boy I knew as Nyasaland. Today it's Malawi, and The Times Christmas Appeal includes a small British charity working there. Pump Aid helps rural communities to install a simple pump, letting people keep their village wells sealed and clean. I went to see this work.

It inspired me, renewing my flagging faith in development charities. But travelling in Malawi refreshed another belief, too: one I've been trying to banish all my life, but an observation I've been unable to avoid since my African childhood. It confounds my ideological beliefs, stubbornly refuses to fit my world view, and has embarrassed my growing belief that there is no God.

Now a confirmed atheist, I've become convinced of the enormous contribution that Christian evangelism makes in Africa: sharply distinct from the work of secular NGOs, government projects and international aid efforts. These alone will not do. Education and training alone will not do. In Africa Christianity changes people's hearts. It brings a spiritual transformation. The rebirth is real. The change is good.

I used to avoid this truth by applauding - as you can - the practical work of mission churches in Africa. It's a pity, I would say, that salvation is part of the package, but Christians black and white, working in Africa, do heal the sick, do teach people to read and write; and only the severest kind of secularist could see a mission hospital or school and say the world would be better without it. I would allow that if faith was needed to motivate missionaries to help, then, fine: but what counted was the help, not the faith.

But this doesn't fit the facts. Faith does more than support the missionary; it is also transferred to his flock. This is the effect that matters so immensely, and which I cannot help observing.

First, then, the observation. We had friends who were missionaries, and as a child I stayed often with them; I also stayed, alone with my little brother, in a traditional rural African village. In the city we had working for us Africans who had converted and were strong believers. The Christians were always different. Far from having cowed or confined its converts, their faith appeared to have liberated and relaxed them. There was a liveliness, a curiosity, an engagement with the world - a directness in their dealings with others - that seemed to be missing in traditional African life. They stood tall.

At 24, travelling by land across the continent reinforced this impression. From Algiers to Niger, Nigeria, Cameroon and the Central African Republic, then right through the Congo to Rwanda, Tanzania and Kenya, four student friends and I drove our old Land Rover to Nairobi.

We slept under the stars, so it was important as we reached the more populated and lawless parts of the sub-Sahara that every day we find somewhere safe by nightfall. Often near a mission.

Whenever we entered a territory worked by missionaries, we had to acknowledge that something changed in the faces of the people we passed and spoke to: something in their eyes, the way they approached you direct, man-to-man, without looking down or away. They had not become more deferential towards strangers - in some ways less so - but more open.

This time in Malawi it was the same. I met no missionaries. You do not encounter missionaries in the lobbies of expensive hotels discussing development strategy documents, as you do with the big NGOs. But instead I noticed that a handful of the most impressive African members of the Pump Aid team (largely from Zimbabwe) were, privately, strong Christians. “Privately” because the charity is entirely secular and I never heard any of its team so much as mention religion while working in the villages. But I picked up the Christian references in our conversations. One, I saw, was studying a devotional textbook in the car. One, on Sunday, went off to church at dawn for a two-hour service.

It would suit me to believe that their honesty, diligence and optimism in their work was unconnected with personal faith. Their work was secular, but surely affected by what they were. What they were was, in turn, influenced by a conception of man's place in the Universe that Christianity had taught.

There's long been a fashion among Western academic sociologists for placing tribal value systems within a ring fence, beyond critiques founded in our own culture: “theirs” and therefore best for “them”; authentic and of intrinsically equal worth to ours.

I don't follow this. I observe that tribal belief is no more peaceable than ours; and that it suppresses individuality. People think collectively; first in terms of the community, extended family and tribe. This rural-traditional mindset feeds into the “big man” and gangster politics of the African city: the exaggerated respect for a swaggering leader, and the (literal) inability to understand the whole idea of loyal opposition.

Anxiety - fear of evil spirits, of ancestors, of nature and the wild, of a tribal hierarchy, of quite everyday things - strikes deep into the whole structure of rural African thought. Every man has his place and, call it fear or respect, a great weight grinds down the individual spirit, stunting curiosity. People won't take the initiative, won't take things into their own hands or on their own shoulders.

How can I, as someone with a foot in both camps, explain? When the philosophical tourist moves from one world view to another he finds - at the very moment of passing into the new - that he loses the language to describe the landscape to the old. But let me try an example: the answer given by Sir Edmund Hillary to the question: Why climb the mountain? “Because it's there,” he said.

To the rural African mind, this is an explanation of why one would not climb the mountain. It's... well, there. Just there. Why interfere? Nothing to be done about it, or with it. Hillary's further explanation - that nobody else had climbed it - would stand as a second reason for passivity.

Christianity, post-Reformation and post-Luther, with its teaching of a direct, personal, two-way link between the individual and God, unmediated by the collective, and unsubordinate to any other human being, smashes straight through the philosphical/spiritual framework I've just described. It offers something to hold on to to those anxious to cast off a crushing tribal groupthink. That is why and how it liberates.

Those who want Africa to walk tall amid 21st-century global competition must not kid themselves that providing the material means or even the knowhow that accompanies what we call development will make the change. A whole belief system must first be supplanted.

And I'm afraid it has to be supplanted by another. Removing Christian evangelism from the African equation may leave the continent at the mercy of a malign fusion of Nike, the witch doctor, the mobile phone and the machete.

_____________________________

Older Investors Should Examine the Risks in Bonds

For people in or near retirement, bonds were supposed to provide a sense of security.

But for some investors, they did precisely the opposite. Bonds of all stripes have taken sizable hits this year. The losses have not been as agonizing as the 40 percent decline in the stock market, of course, but any loss is particularly painful for people who count on these investments as a safety net.

“There haven’t been any safe places to hide, with the exception of Treasuries,” said Miriam Sjoblom, a mutual fund analyst at Morningstar. “That has been a surprise to some investors.”

Several diversified bond funds have held their own — largely because they contained a healthy helping of Treasuries — which underscores the importance of diversification.

But for some older Americans, even that relative safety is not enough to allay their concerns. Lehman Brothers and Washington Mutual were top-rated bonds — until they were not. Even some money-market funds have run into trouble.

“Fixed income should be ultrasafe,” said Steve Podnos, a financial planner in Merritt Island, Fla. “The return of principal is more important than the return on principal.”

That is a popular mantra, especially now. Ultrasafe comes at a cost, however, and there are not many bulletproof investments that yield more than 2 or 3 percent, experts said. For the risk-averse, that might be plenty when you just do not know what might lurk around the corner.

And because conditions may worsen before they improve, older investors should check that their bond investments are indeed what they thought they were — and that they fit their tolerance for risk. “We are in a 2 to 3 percent world, and if they want to earn more than that they need to proceed cautiously,” said Gary Cloud, a bond manager at Financial Counselors in Kansas City, Mo.

Several advisers and bond experts recommended that investors maintain higher cash reserves than they might in more normal times. Keeping two to three of years of living expenses in extremely safe investments, like a certificate of deposit or a money market account at a large financial institution, can provide some breathing room. That way, investors will not be forced to sell investments at an inopportune time.

Investors also need to remember that bond funds and individual bonds work a bit differently. With an individual bond, investors are guaranteed to receive their original investment back after it matures, as long as the company does not implode. With bond funds, there is no such guarantee because the value of the bonds inside will fluctuate with market conditions. That means the value of the investment will vary, too.

Of course, a sizable pile of money is needed to build a portfolio of individual bonds as opposed to simply purchasing a bond fund. Opinions vary widely — from $50,000 to $500,000 — on the amount needed to be properly diversified, though several experts agree it can be done with about $100,000 to $200,000. It is probably best to sit down with an adviser, preferably a fee-only adviser or one that charges by the hour, to go through the pros, cons and costs of each.

Some advisers have strong feelings about both instruments. Some refuse to use bond funds because they say they do not know what they own, though that problem can be addressed by using index funds, whose investments remain relatively static. Other advisers say they cannot attain the level of diversification with individual issues. Whatever you decide, knowing what you own and understanding the risks involved are what really matters. And if a bond investment promises high returns, a little mental bell should go off as a warning signal.

“We see a lot of retirees come in and they have a lot of their fixed-income investments in aggressive funds,” said Richard Rosso, a financial planner with Charles Schwab in Houston. “They have gotten seduced by the yield of the fund and didn’t look at how that yield was being derived.”

Instead, investors should anchor their portfolios with a fund, or combination of funds, that hold wide swaths of high-quality government-backed, corporate and mortgage-backed bonds — with short- to intermediate-term maturities, experts said. (Shorter-term securities are less sensitive to changes in interest rates; when rates rise, bond prices fall). Low expenses are extremely important because bond funds do not yield much to begin with. The Vanguard Total Bond Market Index fund fits that bill. It is up nearly 5 percent this year and charges a rock-bottom 0.07 percent of assets. Two actively managed options, Harbor Bond, managed by Bill Gross of Pimco, and FPA New Income — up 2.2 percent and 4.03 percent, respectively — are considered strong choices where capital preservation is a top priority, Ms. Sjoblom of Morningstar said. But, of course, they are more expensive.

Beyond a fund like the Vanguard Total Bond Market, advisers also recommend adding a dose of international bonds as well as Treasury inflation-protected securities, or TIPS, whose interest payments and underlying principal keep pace with inflation. Deflation fears are trumping inflation fears, at least for the moment, which has caused the price of TIPS to drop. But the government has printed a lot of new money and is expected to keep doing so, experts said.

“There is a possibility that inflation will heat up in the future, so why not add money as a hedge for future inflation?” said Mr. Rosso, especially now, when TIPS are attractively priced. He recommends limiting allocation of these to no more than 10 percent of bonds in a portfolio. They can be purchased directly (but keep those in a tax-deferred account) or in a fund or exchange-traded fund.

Meanwhile, high-quality municipal bonds — or funds — may be appropriate for certain investors. Because municipal bonds are generally tax-free, they tend to pay less in interest than their taxable counterparts, and normally make sense only for people in the highest tax brackets. But many top-rated municipal bonds are now yielding more than taxable bonds, which makes them attractive to a broader population, experts said. Despite budgetary troubles in places like New York and California, and the economic headwinds all municipalities face, advisers said sticking with the highest-quality short- and intermediate-term general obligation munis — or those backed by a municipality’s taxing power — are a reasonably safe bet.

“You can make the argument that anyone will do better owning that,” Mr. Podnos said. Long-term municipal bond funds have lost 10.5 percent for the year as of Wednesday, and shorter-term funds are up 0.5 percent, according to Morningstar. Short- and intermediate-term funds are not subject to as much volatility, he said, and will produce a combined tax-free yield of 3 to 4 percent, the equivalent of a 5 to 6 percent taxable yield.

For investors with even less tolerance for risk, advisers recommend the following:

C.D.’S Certificates of deposit, which pay a fixed interest rate but lock up money for three months to five years, are guaranteed by the government for up to $250,000 for each depositor at each bank. Guarantees are scheduled to drop to $100,000 for each depositor at the end of next year. Callable C.D.’s may offer even higher yields, but remember that you are being paid more to take on extra risk: the bank can return your money before the C.D. matures, so you may have to reinvest at a potentially lower rate, Mr. Rosso said. And keep in mind that C.D.’s will penalize you, sometimes substantially, if you withdraw before maturity.

F.D.I.C. BONDS These government-backed bonds come with variable or fixed rates. They tend to pay more than Treasuries, with several batches of three-year bonds paying slightly more than 3 percent, though newer bonds have been paying slightly less. They have largely been issued by large financial institutions — like JPMorgan and Wells Fargo, participating in the government program that was created in October to help bolster the credit markets. The debt will be sold through next June and must mature in less than three years. Before you consider these, check whether there are comparable deals in C.D.’s.

GINNIE MAE Not to be confused with Fannie or Freddie, Ginnie is owned by the government and issues securities that are backed by federally guaranteed or insured mortgages. Translation: these are safe. Several advisers recommend Ginnie Mae funds — or the actual securities — as a higher-yielding alternative (about 2 percent) to money-market funds. But there is a big caveat: If interest rates move higher, the value of these securities will drop, Mr. Podnos said.

PRE-REFUNDED MUNIS Pre-refunded municipal bonds, along with escrowed-to-maturity municipals, are solid options because the payments the bond issuer must make to investors over the life of the bond are held in an escrow fund, usually comprising United States government securities. The yields tend to pay about two percentage points above Treasuries with a comparable maturity, said William Larkin, a fixed-income manager at Cabot Money Management. Just be sure the collateral is Treasuries. “It’s the safest of the safe,” added Marilyn Cohen, president of Envision Capital Management.

Friday, December 26, 2008

Lowe's Accused Of Firing Woman Over Xmas Pin

This IS a shadow of things to come, no matter how you choose to deem it. Ms. Sutton's circumstances are not the issue, but the message the pin exudes is. As believers in Christ, we should boycott Lowe's until they reverse their policy. Yet, this incident isn't isolated, but spreading across our land. It's always been about Christ (Yeshua ha'Mashiach), day in, day out, and ever will be. The time will come when uttering Yeshua's name will be a criminal offense in America. Where will you stand?

"For whoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this generation, sinful and adulterous, the Son of man will also be ashamed of him, when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels." Mk 8:38

_________NEWS____________

Lowe's Accused Of Firing Woman Over Xmas Pin


wcbstv.com
Dec 24, 2008
Cocke County, Tenn. (CBS) ―
Kristie Sutton, a former Lowe's Home Improvement store employee in Cocke County, Tennessee near Knoxville says the problem started all because of a pin she wore to work.

The pin says "It's called Christmas, for Christ's sake".

When Sutton admired the pin being worn by a customer, the stranger gave it to her. Neither knew its message would mean trouble for the cashier.

When a customer complained, the employee was asked to remove the pin due to store policy that no employee should wear a pin supporting a religion.

Sutton says when she returned from lunch that day, she was fired.

Sutton admits she was already looking for another job and had planned to put in a two weeks' notice after Christmas. But she says she's upset about missing her holiday pay.

Lowe's released a statement reading "Personnel matters are confidential, so we're unable to share any information; however, Lowe's follows all federal, state and local laws governing employment including laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of religion."

Lowe's also says its employees may wish customers Merry Christmas, if they like.

(© MMVIII, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved.)

US Economics: Our Greed Come Home to Roost

The starkly sad reality of all this is we've been carrying on this horrendous philosophy for over 40 years, first with Japan, and now with China. Foreign trade & borrowing in & of itself is not bad economics, but using it to fuel our greed & gluttony without restraint surely is. No nation can survive with endless spending built on borrowing & credit. The Piper(s) must be paid.
Yes, while many say we're nowhere near as bad as The Great Depression, it depends on who you ask. More than a few fixed income, homeless & bankrupt families would tell you differently. I know, some are relatives of mine...
The second stark reality is we're nowhere near the bottom yet. We may be limping along for short spells, but the path remains downhill. As long as we continue in our sin and spiritual depravity, the course WILL NOT change, but worsen.
I steadfastly contend that America will not stand as we know her. Our realignment with Europe is a harsh & likely probability within the next 30 years. It is no great leap to understand that we are no longer a democratic republic, but a socialist oligarchy. Pray, pray without ceasing...


____________NEWS_______________
The Reckoning

Dollar Shift: Chinese Pockets Filled as Americans’ Emptied

By MARK LANDLER, Published: December 25, 2008, NYTimes

Gilles Sabrie for The New York Times: American trade and budget deficits have grown worse and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson Jr., with President Hu Jintao of China, has not been able to allay the problem.

“Usually it’s the rich country lending to the poor. This time, it’s the poor country lending to the rich.” — Niall Ferguson

Left, Pool photo by Elizabeth Dalziel; Right, Gilles Sabrie for The New York Times Federal Reserve Board Chairman Ben S. Bernanke, left, and Yu Yongding, right, a leading Chinese economic adviser, said that the American trade and budget deficits were growing more serious.

WASHINGTON — In March 2005, a low-key Princeton economist who had become a Federal Reserve governor coined a novel theory to explain the growing tendency of Americans to borrow from foreigners, particularly the Chinese, to finance their heavy spending.

The problem, he said, was not that Americans spend too much, but that foreigners save too much. The Chinese have piled up so much excess savings that they lend money to the United States at low rates, underwriting American consumption.

This colossal credit cycle could not last forever, he said. But in a global economy, the transfer of Chinese money to America was a market phenomenon that would take years, even a decade, to work itself out. For now, he said, “we probably have little choice except to be patient.”

Today, the dependence of the United States on Chinese money looks less benign. And the economist who proposed the theory, Ben S. Bernanke, is dealing with the consequences, having been promoted to chairman of the Fed in 2006, as these cross-border money flows were reaching stratospheric levels.

In the past decade, China has invested upward of $1 trillion, mostly earnings from manufacturing exports, into American government bonds and government-backed mortgage debt. That has lowered interest rates and helped fuel a historic consumption binge and housing bubble in the United States.

China, some economists say, lulled American consumers, and their leaders, into complacency about their spendthrift ways.

“This was a blinking red light,” said Kenneth S. Rogoff, a professor of economics at Harvard and a former chief economist at the International Monetary Fund. “We should have reacted to it.”

In hindsight, many economists say, the United States should have recognized that borrowing from abroad for consumption and deficit spending at home was not a formula for economic success. Even as that weakness is becoming more widely recognized, however, the United States is likely to be more addicted than ever to foreign creditors to finance record government spending to revive the broken economy.

To be sure, there were few ready remedies. Some critics argue that the United States could have pushed Beijing harder to abandon its policy of keeping the value of its currency weak — a policy that made its exports less expensive and helped turn it into the world’s leading manufacturing power. If China had allowed its currency to float according to market demand in the past decade, its export growth probably would have moderated. And it would not have acquired the same vast hoard of dollars to invest abroad.

Others say the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department should have seen the Chinese lending for what it was: a giant stimulus to the American economy, not unlike interest rate cuts by the Fed. These critics say the Fed under Alan Greenspan contributed to the creation of the housing bubble by leaving interest rates too low for too long, even as Chinese investment further stoked an easy-money economy. The Fed should have cut interest rates less in the middle of this decade, they say, and started raising them sooner, to help reduce speculation in real estate.

Today, with the wreckage around him, Mr. Bernanke said he regretted that more was not done to regulate financial institutions and mortgage providers, which might have prevented the flood of investment, including that from China, from being so badly used. But the Fed’s role in regulation is limited to banks. And stricter regulation by itself would not have been enough, he insisted.

“Achieving a better balance of international capital flows early on could have significantly reduced the risks to the financial system,” Mr. Bernanke said in an interview in his office overlooking the Washington Mall.

“However,” he continued, “this could only have been done through international cooperation, not by the United States alone. The problem was recognized, but sufficient international cooperation was not forthcoming.”

The inaction was because of a range of factors, political and economic. By the yardsticks that appeared to matter most — prosperity and growth — the relationship between China and the United States also seemed to be paying off for both countries. Neither had a strong incentive to break an addiction: China to strong export growth and financial stability; the United States to cheap imports and low-cost foreign loans.

In Washington, China was treated as a threat by some people, but mostly because it lured away manufacturing jobs. Others argued that China’s heavy lending to this country was risky because Chinese leaders could decide to withdraw money at a moment’s notice, creating a panicky run on the dollar.

Mr. Bernanke viewed such international investment flows through a different lens. He argued that Chinese invested savings abroad because consumers in China did not have enough confidence to spend. Changing that situation would take years, and did not amount to a pressing problem for the Americans.

“The global savings glut story did us a collective disservice,” said Edwin M. Truman, a former Fed and Treasury official. “It created the idea that the world was doing it to us and we couldn’t do anything about it.”

But Mr. Bernanke’s theory fit the prevailing hands-off, pro-market ideology of recent years. Mr. Greenspan and the Bush administration treated the record American trade deficit and heavy foreign borrowing as an abstract threat, not an urgent problem.

Mr. Bernanke, after he took charge of the Fed, warned that the imbalances between the countries were growing more serious. By then, however, it was too late to do much about them. And the White House still regarded imbalances as an arcane subject best left to economists.

By itself, money from China is not a bad thing. As American officials like to note, it speaks to the attractiveness of the United States as a destination for foreign investment. In the 19th century, the United States built its railroads with capital borrowed from the British.

In the past decade, China arguably enabled an American boom. Low-cost Chinese goods helped keep a lid on inflation, while the flood of Chinese investment helped the government finance mortgages and a public debt of close to $11 trillion.

But Americans did not use the lower-cost money afforded by Chinese investment to build a 21st-century equivalent of the railroads. Instead, the government engaged in a costly war in Iraq, and consumers used loose credit to buy sport utility vehicles and larger homes. Banks and investors, eagerly seeking higher interest rates in this easy-money environment, created risky new securities like collateralized debt obligations.

“Nobody wanted to get off this drug,” said Senator Lindsey Graham, the South Carolina Republican who pushed legislation to punish China by imposing stiff tariffs. “Their drug was an endless line of customers for made-in-China products. Our drug was the Chinese products and cash.”

Mr. Graham said he understood the addiction: he was speaking by phone from a Wal-Mart store in Anderson, S.C., where he was Christmas shopping in aisles lined with items from China.

A New Economic Dance

The United States has been here before. In the 1980s, it ran heavy trade deficits with Japan, which recycled some of its trading profits into American government bonds.

At that time, the deficits were viewed as a grave threat to America’s economic might. Action took the form of a 1985 agreement known as the Plaza Accord. The world’s major economies intervened in currency markets to drive down the value of the dollar and drive up the Japanese yen.

The arrangement did slow the growth of the trade deficit for a time. But economists blamed the sharp revaluation of the Japanese yen for halting Japan’s rapid growth. The lesson of the Plaza Accord was not lost on China, which at that time was just emerging as an export power.

China tied itself even more tightly to the United States than did Japan. In 1995, it devalued its currency and set a firm exchange rate of roughly 8.3 to the dollar, a level that remained fixed for a decade.

During the Asian financial crisis of 1997-98, China clung firmly to its currency policy, earning praise from the Clinton administration for helping check the spiral of devaluation sweeping Asia. Its low wages attracted hundreds of billions of dollars in foreign investment.

By the early part of this decade, the United States was importing huge amounts of Chinese-made goods — toys, shoes, flat-screen televisions and auto parts — while selling much less to China in return.

“For consumers, this was a net benefit because of the availability of cheaper goods,” said Laurence H. Meyer, a former Fed governor. “There’s no question that China put downward pressure on inflation rates.”

But in classical economics, that trade gap could not have persisted for long without bankrupting the American economy. Except that China recycled its trade profits right back into the United States.

It did so to protect its own interests. China kept its banks under tight state control and its currency on a short leash to ensure financial stability. It required companies and individuals to save in the state-run banking system most foreign currency — primarily dollars — that they earned from foreign trade and investment.

As foreign trade surged, this hoard of dollars became enormous. In 2000, the reserves were less than $200 billion; today they are about $2 trillion.

Chinese leaders chose to park the bulk of that in safe securities backed by the American government, including Treasury bonds and the debt of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which had implicit government backing.

This not only allowed the United States to continue to finance its trade deficit, but, by creating greater demand for United States securities, it also helped push interest rates below where they would otherwise have been. For years, China’s government was eager to buy American debt at yields many in the private sector felt were too low.

This financial and trade embrace between the United States and China grew so tight that Niall Ferguson, a financial historian, has dubbed the two countries Chimerica.

‘Tiptoeing’ Around a Partner

Being attached at the hip was not entirely comfortable for either side, though for widely differing reasons.

In the United States, more people worried about cheap Chinese goods than cheap Chinese loans. By 2003, China’s trade surplus with the United States was ballooning, and lawmakers in Congress were restive. Senator Graham and Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, introduced a bill threatening to impose a 27 percent duty on Chinese goods.

“We had a moment where we caught everyone’s attention: the White House and China,” Mr. Graham recalled.

At the People’s Bank of China, the central bank, a consensus was also emerging in late 2004: China should break its tight link to the dollar, which would make its exports more expensive. Yu Yongding, a leading economic adviser, pressed the case. The American trade and budget deficits were not sustainable, he warned. China was wrong to keep its currency artificially depressed and depend too much on selling cheap goods.

Proponents of revaluation in China argued that the country’s currency policies denied the fruits of prosperity to Chinese consumers. Beijing was investing their savings in low-yielding American government securities. And with a weak currency, they said, Chinese could not afford many imported goods.

The central bank’s English-speaking governor, Zhou Xiaochuan, was among those who favored a sizable revaluation.

But when Beijing acted to amend its currency policy in 2005, under heavy pressure from Congress and the White House, it moved cautiously. The renminbi was allowed to climb only 2 percent. The Communist Party opted for only incremental adjustments to its economic model after a decade of fast growth. Little changed: China’s exports kept soaring and investment poured into steel mills and garment factories.

But American officials eased the pressure. They decided to put more emphasis on urging Chinese consumers to spend more of their savings, which they hoped would eventually bring the two economies into better balance. On a tour of China, John W. Snow, the Treasury secretary at the time, even urged the Chinese to start using credit cards.

China kicked off its own campaign to encourage domestic consumption, which it hoped would provide a new source. But Chinese save with the same zeal that, until recently, Americans spent. Shorn of the social safety net of the old Communist state, they squirrel away money to pay for hospital visits, housing or retirement. This accounts for the savings glut identified by Mr. Bernanke.

Privately, Chinese officials confided to visiting Americans that the effort was not achieving much.

“It is sometimes hard to change successful models,” said Robert B. Zoellick, who negotiated with the Chinese as a deputy secretary of state. “It is prototypically American to say, ‘This worked well, but now you’ve got to change it.’ ”

In Washington, some critics say too little was done. A former Treasury official, Timothy D. Adams, tried to get the I.M.F. to act as a watchdog for currency manipulation by China, which would have subjected Beijing to more global pressure.

Yet when Mr. Snow was succeeded as Treasury secretary by Henry M. Paulson Jr. in 2006, the I.M.F. was sidelined, according to several officials, and Mr. Paulson took command of China policy.

He was not shy about his credentials. As an investment banker with Goldman Sachs, Mr. Paulson made 70 trips to China. In his office hangs a watercolor depicting the hometown of Zhu Rongji, a forceful former prime minister.

“I pushed very hard on currency because I believed it was important for China to get to a market-determined currency,” Mr. Paulson said in an interview. But he conceded he did not get what he wanted.

In late 2006, Mr. Paulson invited Mr. Bernanke to accompany him to Beijing. Mr. Bernanke used the occasion to deliver a blunt speech to the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, in which he advised the Chinese to reorient their economy and revalue their currency.

At the last minute, however, Mr. Bernanke deleted a reference to the exchange rate being an “effective subsidy” for Chinese exports, out of fear that it could be used as a pretext for a trade lawsuit against China.

Critics detected a pattern. They noted that in its twice-yearly reports to Congress about trading partners, the Treasury Department had never branded China a currency manipulator.

“We’re tiptoeing around, desperately trying not to irritate or offend the Chinese,” said Thea M. Lee, public policy director of the A.F.L.-C.I.O. “But to get concrete results, you have to be confrontational.”

An Embrace That Won’t Let Go

For China, too, this crisis has been a time of reckoning. Americans are buying fewer Chinese DVD players and microwave ovens. Trade is collapsing, and thousands of workers are losing their jobs. Chinese leaders are terrified of social unrest.

Having allowed the renminbi to rise a little after 2005, the Chinese government is now under intense pressure domestically to reverse course and depreciate it. China’s fortunes remain tethered to those of the United States. And the reverse is equally true.

In a glassed-in room in a nondescript office building in Washington, the Treasury conducts nearly daily auctions of billions of dollars’ worth of government bonds. An old Army helmet sits on a shelf: as a lark, Treasury officials have been known to strap it on while they monitor incoming bids.

For the past five years, China has been one of the most prolific bidders. It holds $652 billion in Treasury debt, up from $459 billion a year ago. Add in its Fannie Mae bonds and other holdings, and analysts figure China owns $1 of every $10 of America’s public debt.

The Treasury is conducting more auctions than ever to finance its $700 billion bailout of the banks. Still more will be needed to pay for the incoming Obama administration’s stimulus package. The United States, economists say, will depend on the Chinese to keep buying that debt, perpetuating the American habit.

Even so, Mr. Paulson said he viewed the debate over global imbalances as hopelessly academic. He expressed doubt that Mr. Bernanke or anyone else could have solved the problem as it was germinating.

“One lesson that I have clearly learned,” said Mr. Paulson, sitting beneath his Chinese watercolor. “You don’t get dramatic change, or reform, or action unless there is a crisis.”

David Barboza contributed reporting from Shanghai, and Keith Bradsher from Hong Kong.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Economists, survivors say Depression can’t compare

By Don Mecoy, Published: December 25, 2008, News-Oklahoma

In the Great Depression, many Americans lined up for food and soup. In the current economic crisis, many Americans line up to shop for bargains.

Although political and economic leaders have told us the current recession is America’s greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression, the two events are not comparable. And the differences are particularly acute at Christmas time.


In this 1932 file photo, long line of jobless and homeless men wait outside to get free dinner at New York's municipal lodging house during the Great Depression. (AP File Photo)

Lloyd Mitchell, 90, of Oklahoma City said he felt fortunate to get some fruit in his stocking when he was growing up as the son of a tenant farmer in far southwest Oklahoma. Mitchell’s father grew cotton on hardscrabble land in an era of drought and record low prices.

"If you got an apple, orange and maybe a banana, you really liked that,” Mitchell said. "You didn’t eat them all at one time.”

Larkin Warner, economics professor emeritus of Oklahoma State University, said the current situation bears little resemblance to the devastation of the Great Depression.

"At this stage, to compare where we are today with the Great Depression seems to me to be kind of scare tactics,” Warner said. "For one thing, our standard of living is vastly higher than it was in those days. As a society, we’re vastly wealthier than we were in 1932.”

Consumer-driven economy

One reflection of that societal wealth is the fact that about 70 percent of the current U.S. economy is being driven by consumer spending.

While consumer spending has been contracting in recent months, the average holiday shopper plans to spend about $120 on themselves this Christmas, according to a recent survey by the National Retail Federation.

That simply wasn’t the case during the depths of the Depression.

"Everybody got one present,” said Bob Eve, a 77-year-old Nowata retiree. "A basketball would be a good example — we had a goal out on the garage where you shoot baskets — or a baseball glove. It was not bad.”

Shoppers this year on Black Friday, the frenzied day of consumerism taking place after Thanksgiving, spent an average of $372.57, the National Retail Federation reported.

More than half of respondents to a recent poll said they feel an obligation to shop to help boost the economy, and one in five said they are dipping into savings to pay for holiday gifts, according to a survey of 1,762 adults.

Warm memories

Despite the hardships, Mitchell said he has fond memories of Christmas in his youth.

"Mother would cook what she could cook on the old cookstove,” Mitchell said.

"It was Christmas and despite the very few things we had, we did enjoy it and had fun. We looked forward to it with great anticipation.”

Oklahomans struggling to provide for their families had few outside resources, such as food banks, to turn to, Mitchell said.

"A fellow raising his family was pretty much on his own,” he said.

"Money was so scarce; it was just so hard to get a hold of. I think unemployment ran around 25 percent.”

Eve also has tender memories of growing up in a tough economy.

On Saturdays, Eve’s father would give him a quarter, which would pay for a movie, some popcorn, a comic book and a 10-cent savings stamp.

"We ate good and wore good clothes and walked a mile to school through mud and snow,” Eve said. "Things weren’t that tough for us.”

Larkin, who has studied the Great Depression, said it’s important to remember that most Oklahomans lived in rural areas and many had no electricity or running water.

The current recession, as dramatic as it appears to be, is no Great Depression, Larkin said.

"I’m really quite uncomfortable with those kinds of comparisons. What it does is conjures up an image of the Joad family in their jalopy heading for California,” he said, referring to John Steinbeck’s Depression-theme novel, "The Grapes of Wrath.”

We ate good and wore good clothes and walked a mile to school through mud and snow. Things weren’t that tough for us.”

Bob Eve
A 77-year-old Nowata retiree


Thursday, December 25, 2008

Christmas Shocker: Yeshua not born on Dec. 25th!!!

I know this rocks every believer who has held onto the tradition of a Dec. 25th Christmas. Simply put, the Bible facts do NOT bear out any evidence of timing the Winter solstice with the birth of our Savior. In fact, the Biblical evidence shows an entirely different time, although no specific day, month, & year are given. I pray you'll approach this subject with an open heart & mind to knowing the truth.

__________________________


The following is copied from Roy Reinhold's (The Bible Codes) document, "The Exact Date of Yeshua's Birth". It has been edited for content. I've intentionally left out the code matrices due to the controversy over the Bible Codes, but in no way does it detract from the evidence showing Yeshua Ha' Mashiach was NOT born on December 25th. Even the most earnest Bible student, with a little working knowledge of Jewish history, calendar & feast days, would question the entire December 25th scenario, since it doesn't fit with either one. Even if one couldn't surmise another date, one would be convinced Yeshua's birth and the secularly traditional "Christmas" dates are NOT one and the same. Although Roy's work is not the first such offering against a Dec. 25th birth of Christ over the centuries since, it provides a greater footing in today's understanding WHY Dec. 25th CANNOT be "Christmas".
If you seriously want to further investigate the evidence, visit Roy's website and the authors mentioned below.
In any event or date, may the peace of the Prince of Peace be upon you...TC
___________________________

Exact Date Of Yeshua's Birth
part 1
by Roy A. Reinhold February 1, 2001

A few days before January 1, 2001, I decided to see if the Bible code could identify the exact day of Yeshua's birth (Jesus), since a ton of books and articles have been written forwarding different views and theories. The traditional day celebrated in the church is December 25, 1 BC, although that day wasn't designated until about 360 AD. All the ante-nicene church fathers did not specify in their writings, the exact day that Yeshua (Jesus) was born.

The following multi-part article complements the 2-part article on this website called, The Pagan Aspects of Christmas. In that article, there is evidence from the calculated possible birth date of John the baptist (Yochanan the Immerser), that he was born around Passover in the spring of the year. Since John the baptist was 6 months older than Yeshua (Jesus), that would place the birth of Yeshua in the fall of the year around Yom Kippur (the Day of Atonement), plus or minus 3 weeks. Using the Bible code, the test was to see if Yeshua was born in the fall of the year around the time of the fall feasts of Israel, or whether He was born on December 25.

This multi-part article will present multiple Bible code matrices and other scholarship to show that with a fair degree of certainty, we can specify the exact day the angel Gabriel visited Miriam (Mary) and announced that she would bear a child conceived by the Ruach HaKodesh (Holy Spirit), the exact day Mary conceived the child, the exact day of the birth of Yeshua, and the exact day Mary and Joseph took the child to the Temple on the 8th day to dedicate the firstborn with the necessary sacrifice and perform the Brit Milah (circumcision). The matrices shown are all different views of the same overall matrix. In other words, the overall matrix has everything in it related to the conception and birth of Yeshua.


In beginning the process, I was predisposed to believe that the Bible code would show Yeshua's birth on a feast day. The fall feast days of Israel are as follows.

Rosh Hashanah (Yom Teruah, or Feast of Trumpets), occurs on 1 Tishri in the jewish calendar.
Yom Kippur (Day of Atonement), occurs on 10 Tishri in the jewish calendar.
Succot (Feast of Tabernacles), starts on 15 Tishri and runs for 7 days, where the 15th and 21st are annual Sabbath days.

Why was I predisposed to believe it would fall on a feast day of Israel? In the gospel of Luke, it states the following:

Luke 2:1-7
Now it came about in those days that a decree went out from Caesar Augustus, that a census be taken of all the inhabited earth. This was the first census taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria. And all were proceeding to register for the census, everyone to his own city. And Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the city of Nazareth, to Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem (actually, Beit Lechem), because he was of the house and family of David; in order to register along with Mary, who was engaged to him, and who was with child. And it came about that while they were there, the days were completed for her to give birth. And she gave birth to her first-born son; and she wrapped Him in cloths, and laid Him in a manger (feeding trough), because there was no room for them in the inn.

What I wanted you to see are 3 clues necessary to sort out this process of looking for exact date of Yeshua's birth. One, they left Nazareth and went to Bethlehem to register for the census, because both Mary and Joseph were descended from king David along different family lines. The birth took place in Bethlehem. Secondly, the days were completed for her to give birth, which tells us that the child was born at the correct gestation time. The Encyclopedia Brittanica shows that the average human gestation period for a female child is 266-267 days, and 270-271 days for a male child. That will come into play in pre-calculating the expected day of conception when Mary became pregnant. Thirdly, it states that there was no room at the inn (motel for you modern folks).

I would have guessed that the day of birth of Yeshua was on one of the feast days, because there was no room at the inn. Bethlehem is only 3-5 miles south of Jerusalem, and during the fall feast days, jewish people from all over the world would arrive ahead of time and overflow into the surrounding towns. According to the scriptures, all Israel was only required to appear before the Lord at the Temple 3 times a year (Passover, Shavuot or Pentecost, and the Feast of Tabernacles). However, because they didn't have airplanes, trains, and cars then, jewish people from other countries would arrive early and be there for Rosh Hashanah through Succot (a 3 week period). Therefore, it would have been difficult to find a room at the inn anytime during the fall feast days.

Specifically, John 1:14 led me to believe that the birth of Yeshua was probably on the 15th of Tishri, the first day of the Feast of Tabernacles; where it says, "And the Word became flesh and tabernacled among us." I believed that I would most likely find 15 Tishri going into this process, but that IS NOT the day of birth of Yeshua.

I should mention that if we were only looking for one date (the actual birth date of Yeshua), it would be very difficult to try and prove one date in a matrix, even with day-month-year. However, since we know from the scriptures that we have 3 dates that all have to be shown and are related in a tight way, it is more conclusive. We know there is a date for the day Yeshua was born. From that date, we must see a date of conception exactly 270-271 days prior to the birth date. Finally, the scriptures say that the Brit Milah (dedication and circumcision) took place on the 8th day following the birth. Since we have at least 3 specific dates that are inter-related, if all show up, then we have much more certainty that we have found the exact dates for all of them.

Part 2 will show the birth date of Yeshua matrix and discussion. Part 3 will show the day the angel announced to Mary that she would conceive the child, and the day she conceived the child. Part 4 will show the Brit Milah (dedication of the first-born and circumcision at the Temple). Finally, part 5 will show other sholarship by Dr. Ernest Martin on his calculations of the birth date of Yeshua based on the signs in the sky. All agree and paint a composite picture where we can state with a fair degree of certainty that we now know that Yeshua (Jesus) was born in the fall of the year, in September, in 3 BC. And we can state the exact day for each event.

Part 2

Our matrix shows is that Yeshua (Jesus) was born on Rosh Hashanah (head of the year), which is also called Yom Teruah (day of blowing) and in English the Feast of Trumpets. It's also Rosh Khodesh which means the head of the month. Rosh Hashanah occurs on the 1st of Tishri every year in the jewish calendar, and is in the fall of the year. The matrix shows that the birth occurred in the jewish year 3759, which is the fall of 3 BC. In 3 BC, the 1st of Tishri occurred on September 11, 3 BC. With the matrix showing Rosh Hashanah, Yom Teruah, Rosh Khodesh, and "on 1 Tishri", it is clearly showing 1 Tishri as the exact day of Yeshua's birth.

The matrix shows that Joseph (Yosef) and Mary (Miriam or Miryam) were in Bethlehem (Beit Lechem) and stayed in a succah, a stable. Yeshua the Messiah came from heaven, to the earth, and His name is Wonderful, and Counselor, and the Son of Man. The manger or feeding trough is mentioned where Mary laid the baby after the birth. The Ruach Hakodesh (Holy Spirit) was present and the shepherds came to pay homage. It mentions the angels who announced the birth to the shepherds, and the star in the sky announcing His birth.

All the details from the gospels are present and there is probably much more in this matrix than I have shown, since it didn't take me too long to develop it as is. Have we proven that Yeshua was born exactly on September 11, 3 BC? No, because if the matrix doesn't have the conception 270-271 days prior to September 11, 3 BC, then it didn't meet the criteria showing all the aspects surrounding Yeshua's conception and birth. If we count up the days from January 1 to September 11 in 3 BC (a non leap year, because 4 AD is a leap year which would make 1 BC a leap year), then we get 254 days. That means 18 days backwards in December of 4 BC, should be the exact date of the conception (December has 31 days). Our target should then be December 13, 4 BC for the date of the conception based on a 271 day average human gestation period for male babies. I should mention that the Hebrew word for pregnancy is "herayon" (hey resh yud vav nun). Since Hebrew letters also have numerical values it would be as follows:

hey=5, resh=200, yud=10, vav=6, nun=50; or total=5+200+10+6+50=271

OK, let's move onto the next section showing the date of the announcement to Mary by the angel and the subsequent conception by the Holy Spirit (Ruach HaKodesh). I think you'll be happy to know that it agrees with out calculation above.


Angelic Announcement to Mary
& Yeshua's Conception
,
part 3

by Roy A. Reinhold February 1, 2001

We've gotten to the point where we are looking for corroborations for the 1 Tishri, 3759 birth date for Yeshua (September 11, 3 BC). It seems that the Angel Gabriel visited Mary on Kislev 22 in 3758 (December 11, 4 BC), and announced to her that she would conceive and bear a child by the power of the Ruach Hakodesh (Holy Spirit). However, the conception didn't take place until Evening 1 of Hanukkah, which begins on the 25th of Kislev every year. Hanukkah is the Festival of Lights and commemorates the Maccabees victory over Antiochus Epiphanes and the Syrians. They liberated Jerusalem and the Temple Mount and lighted the menorah in the holy place of the Temple, with just enough oil for one day and it burned for 8 days. Hanukkah commemorates that miraculous cleansing of the Temple and the 8 days the menorah was lighted supernaturally.


Brit Milah at the Temple
on the 8th Day, part 4

by Roy A. Reinhold February 1, 2001

The events at the Temple on the 8th day following the birth of Yeshua in a succah (stable) in Bethlehem, are an important aspect to show with a high degree of certainty that the Bible code shows the correct dating for all mentioned events. We have shown that the angel visited Mary and announced that she would conceive and bear a child by the power of the Holy Spirit. This event occurred on 22 Kislev 3758 (December 10/11, 4 BC). I show the 10th and 11th, because the day ran from evening to evening rather than from midnight to midnight as we reckon time with the Gregorian calendar.

Next, Mary was a virgin, and conceived by the power of the Ruach HaKodesh (Holy Spirit). The conception took place at the very beginning of Kislev 25, the first day of Hanukkah, the festival of lights. In the matrix this is shown by multiple occurrences of erev 1 or evening 1. That conception took place on December 13, 4 BC in the evening, which is exactly what we pre-calculated based on the 270-271 average human gestation for a male child.

We know that there was no extra month of Adar II in the jewish year 3758, because 1 Tishri started the next year and it occurred on September 11 in 3 BC. If there had been an extra month, then 1 Tishri would have been in early October for 3 BC. This is important for showing that the conception took place on the first evening of Hanukkah. The same sequence was repeated in the jewish calendar a couple of years ago. In 1999, Rosh Hashanah occurred on September 11, 1999 (1 Tishri 5760). Any jewish calendar you look at will show that going back 270-271 days takes you to December 13, 1998, which was evening 1 of Hanukkah on Kislev 25. You don't need to look at ancient events, but just compare the jewish calendar in 1998 and 1999 and the dates were exactly the same in the civil calendar as in 4 BC and 3 BC.

Is there a Bible scripture that would lead us to believe that we have the date correct for the conception? Perhaps there is an allusion to a prophecy in Haggai 2:18-19

Do consider from this day onward, from the twenty-fourth day of the ninth month (24 Kislev), from the day when the temple of the Lord was founded, consider: Is the seed yet in the barn? Even including the vine, the fig tree, the pomegranate, and the olive tree, it has not borne fruit. Yet from this day on I will bless you.

Sometimes we wonder why the scriptures were so specific in citing day and month for an event. The prophet spoke, "Is the seed yet in the barn?" Perhaps this is an allusion to a future event when the true vine, the root of the olive tree, the heavenly fig tree, would be conceived as a human being. The seed in the barn can be an allusion to pregnancy. As the 24th of Kislev was ending and the 25th of Kislev beginning, Mary conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit. The seed was in the barn, and a blessing for the world was here from that day onwards.


Let's summarize all that we have:

1. Announcement to Mary--took place on 22 Kislev 3758, which was December 10/11, 4 BC.

2. Mary Conceived the Child by the Holy Spirit--took place on the end of 24 Kislev, beginning of 25 Kislev in the evening, in the year 3758, which was December 13, 4 BC. This was the beginning of Hanukkah.

3. Birth of Yeshua in Bethlehem--took place on 1 Tishri in 3759 (Rosh Hashanah), which was September 11, 3 BC.

4. Brit Milah at the Temple--took place on 8 Tishri in 3759, which was September 18, 3 BC.

Is there additional scholarship to support the above scenario? A friend wrote to me as I was working on the above Bible code matrixes and suggested the work by Dr. Ernest L. Martin. I ordered his book, and in the last section of this multi-part article will relate what Dr. Martin shows in his book related to signs in the sky and the real date of death of king Herod. Needless to say, Dr. Martin's work agrees 100% with the scenario above.


Other Scholarship Proving the Exact
Date of Birth of Yeshua
(Jesus)

part 5
by Roy A. Reinhold February 1, 2001

Dr. Ernest L. Martin wrote a book called, The Star of Bethlehem: The Star that Astonished the World, and I became aware of this book as I was working on the Yeshua birth matrixes. His scholarship has withstood peer review and at least one aspect of the book is now in the latest edition of The Handbook of Biblical Chronology. We'll cover that shortly, but first his website is http://www.askelm.com and you can order his book directly by calling 1-503-292-4352. His e-mail address is: askoffice@askelm.com

Dr. Ernest L. Martin shows in his book, that the signs in the sky shown in Revelation 12:1-3, occurred on only one day in 3 BC, and they occurred exactly on September 11, 3 BC between 6:15 pm and 7:49 pm. What are these celestial signs?

Revelation 12:1-3 And a great sign appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of 12 stars; and she was with child, and she cried out, being in labor and in pain to give birth. And another sign appeared in heaven; and behold, a great red dragon having seven heds and 10 horns, and on his heads were seven diadems.

Because the earth is rotating, there is apparent motion of the sun and moon, while the stars stay somewhat fixed in relation to the earth. The sun was mid-body along the ecliptic in Virgo the Virgin on September 11, 3 BC, and the moon was under her feet exactly from 6:15 to 7:49 pm on September 11, 3 BC. According to Dr. Martin, this great sign in the sky only occured on that one day in 3 BC.

While Dr. Martin's date for the birth of Yeshua (Jesus) agrees exactly with what is in the Bible code, can we infer that the birth of Yeshua took place exactly between 6:15 to 7:49 pm on September 11, 3 BC? I believe that we can accept the time of birth as being 7 pm plus or minus an hour based on the exact sign in the sky.

What about the death of Herod as it relates to all this? After all, many scholars have said that king Herod died in 4 BC or 5 BC? Dr. Ernest L. Martin in his book, laboriously goes through each possibility for the death of king Herod and with a number of other scholars, proves that Herod died a couple of weeks after the total lunar eclipse of January 10, 1 BC. He pinpoints the date of death of Herod to about January 29, 1 BC plus or minus a couple of days.

Flavius Josephus wrote many details surrounding the death and burial of king Herod in his Jewish Antiquities. He writes that king Herod died shortly after a lunar eclipse. The lunar eclipses for that period of time in Israel were:

7 BC -- no lunar eclipse
6 BC -- no lunar eclipse
5 BC -- total lunar eclipse on March 23, time between eclipse and Passover was 29 days
5 BC -- total lunar eclipse on September 15, time between eclipse and Passover was 7 months
4 BC -- partial lunar eclipse on March 13, time between eclipse and Passover was 29 days
3 BC -- no lunar eclipse
2 BC -- no lunar eclipse
1 BC -- total lunar eclipse on January 10, time between eclipse and Passover was 12.5 weeks.

Dr. Martin and a number of other scholars have shown that given the details by Josephus and other historians of that time, that king Herod had to have died almost 3 weeks after the lunar eclipse. Then there were preparations for a royal burial and a 30-day period for the procession and burial. After that was over, the new king, Archelaus took care of many royal duties before Passover. Given all this, the two springtime lunar eclipses in 5 and 4 BC could not possibly be the lunar eclipse preceding king Herod's death. You'll have to read Dr. Martin's book to get all the details and other supporting information.

The point is that scholarship by Dr. Martin and others proves that what the Bible code shows in relation to the birth of Yeshua (Jesus) is both reasonable and expected.

Click here for a short Flash movie that Dr. Martin had developed to show what the Star of Bethlehem actually looked like in the skies in 3BC and 2 BC. You'll need either the Flash player from Macromedia which you can download here for Flash Player 6 for all types of computers and browsers, or you can play the Flash movie in RealPlayer. This is really worth seeing visually!!

What does this all mean? It means that Christmas is entirely pagan and is the continuation of the religious practices of ancient Babylon. Yeshua (Jesus) was born on September 11, 3 BC and was earlier conceived on December 13, 4 BC. There is nothing about Yeshua related to Christmas except man-made customs. Saturnalia was the celebration of the winter solstice from ancient Babylon and Semiramis gave birth to Tammuz on December 25. The Roman and Greek world worshipped the sun in a religion called Mithraism, and December 25 was the Nativity of the Sun (Sol the sun god). Tammuz was supposedly the rebirth of Nimrod who is also known as Baal. The yule log is from ancient Babylon symbolizing the stump for Nimrod or Baal. The green tree decorated with silver and gold and nailed down so that it would not totter was celebrated by ancient Israel as they apostasized (Jeremiah 10:3-4), and there are a number of references in the Old Testament to a green tree as an idol. It is the same Christmas tree customs which people use today for Christmas. The round sparkly balls represent the sun. The popes in about 350 AD deliberately renamed the birth of Sol the sun-god on December 25 as a christian custom. That is recorded in the Roman writings of that time. All of these Christmas customs were done by the pagans before the day was renamed as a Christian holiday. Isn't it interesting that there were ancient presentations of the woman and child thousands of years before Yeshua was born? These madonna and child representations were Semiramis and Tammuz from ancient Babylon.

A good book is Babylon Mystery Religion, by Ralph Woodrow, available at many christian bookstores.

So many christians wonder when reading the Revelation, what Mystery Babylon could be in our modern time. It is partly the modern church, which has a mixture of the true teachings from the Bible, plus the most sacred christian days being the old pagan Baal customs. All of these old pagan customs are part of the celebration of the rebirth of the sun on December 25. None of this is from God our Father. The Puritans in America forbade the celebration of Christmas because they knew and taught what has been presented here, that Christmas has nothing to do with Christ or the conception or birth of Yeshua. Actually the end-times Mystery Babylon is a religious Babylon, an economic Babylon, and a political Babylon. The religious Babylon is only part of Mystery Babylon.

I know, the first excuse usually given is, well we can do good on that day. Yes, you can do good on any day of the year. Why is it that you have to give gifts and put up a green tree in your house on December 25? Is it because everyone else does it? Secondly, pastors will say that they preach the gospel on that day and some get saved. Yes, that does occur, but isn't it the preaching of the Word of God and not the trappings of the pagan holiday that saves people. That too can occur any day of the year.

The fact is that believers need to repent that they perpetuated these pagan days and called them meaningful. You can make fun of ancient Israel when they adopted the customs of the pagans and were later expelled from the land for their faithlessness, but aren't we doing the same things? Please reconsider celebrating pagan holidays and calling them christian. - Roy Reinhold
________________________________________

Another take on Christmas origins:

HANUKKAH In Relation To Christmas

by Robert H. Kreger

One thing that is disgraceful and very sad, is the ignorance of Biblical knowledge on the part of born-again believers. This ignorance is nothing new. Ever since the Garden of Eden the majority of believers have ignored the learning and understanding of the Word of God. And because of it, the majority of believers in every generation of human history have suffered, been unhappy, and have missed out on many great blessings from God. Hosea 4:6; "My people (believers) are destroyed from a lack of knowledge." This refers to spiritual information. Knowledge from the Word of God. Then in Hosea 4:14 it says, ".......a people without understanding will come to ruin!"

You may ask, "What does all this have to do with a message concerning Hanukkah?" The answer is this. Over the years, since I have been a teacher of the Word of God, I have heard some ridiculous and idiotic ideas about Christmas, and the celebration of it on the part of Christians. The only reason why many Christians are against Christmas trees, and Christmas lights, and the exchanging of Christmas gifts, is because they are ignorant of truth. They lack Biblical and historical knowledge. And because of their lack of knowledge they are critical of things that they ought not to be critical of.

I can't emphasize enough, the importance of knowing what the Bible teaches. And I'm not talking about a surface knowledge, like so many Christians have. I am talking about an in-depth knowledge that only comes from a life that has self-discipline which causes you to come to Bible class every time it is available. The self-discipline that causes you to listen to Bible lessons on audio cassettes when there are no Bible classes at the church. The self-discipline of learning and growing in the knowledge of the Word every day. That is the only way any Christian can grow spiritually, and the only way any Christian can please God, and the only way any Christian can have true happiness in life and can truly understand God's plan and God's purpose in all things.

Christians who are critical about everything do not have the "peace that passes all understanding." (Philippians 4:7). They do not have the "flexibility and patience" that Paul talks about in Romans chapter fourteen. With all that in mind, let's proceed with the lesson about Hanukkah in relation to Christmas.

Over the years I have heard much criticism and condemnation from fundamentalist Christians concerning the celebration of Christmas. They would say such things as: "December 25th was chosen to celebrate the birth of Jesus because of a compromise with pagan religions who also had a special holiday on December 25th." Some say, "December 25th was chosen to celebrate the birth of Jesus because there were many Jewish Christians in the first century, and the Jews celebrated Hanukkah at the same time." Some say; "The Christmas tree and Santa Claus are of the devil." Here are the facts: In the 4th and 5th century AD Christ's Mass was instituted by the Roman Catholic Church. This is where we get the name "Christmas." In the 8th century an evergreen tree began to be used as a Christmas tree by Christians. The evergreen tree was used to represent the tree of life because it is always green.

Every year in the Hebrew month of KISLEV (December), on the 25th day of that month, Jewish people over the world celebrate Hanukkah. Hanukkah is a popular and festive holiday commemorating the struggle of the Jewish people against Syria for national survival and religious freedom. It is viewed as secondary in importance because it was not one of the seven Biblical holidays which God gave to Israel through Moses (Leviticus chapter 23). Hanukkah is far more than the study of an ancient people's courageous struggle for national and religious freedom. It is far more than the simple custom of burning a nine-branched candelabra in the window each year. Hanukkah is intimately related to the ultimate manifestation of the glory of God in Jesus Christ, and the date chosen for the observance of Christmas was given the same date because the Jewish Christians recognized that Jesus Christ was the light of the world who provided spiritual freedom to all who would believe in Him.

BACKGROUND

In 323 BC Alexander the Great died. Not only had he conquered most of the known world in twelve years, but he spread Greek culture, religion, and language everywhere he went. This Greek philosophy of life was known as Hellenism.

With the death of Alexander, his kingdom was divided among four of his generals. These four kingdoms are known in history as the Hellenistic Monarchies.

One of these four generals controlled a large area north of Israel known as Syria, and established the Seleucid Dynasty. A second general ruled over the Egyptian empire to the south of Israel and established the Ptolemy Dynasty.

For about one hundred years the little province of Israel was under the dominion of Egypt, but eventually, through power struggles and political changes she fell under the control of Syria. A state of war existed between Syria and Egypt that would last for decades. Trapped in the middle, the little Jewish nation existed in a state of uncertainty. At times she did not know to which empire she belonged, and, therefore, she did not know to whom she was to render allegiance and pay taxes.

As a result of these geographical and political problems, two Jewish political parties arose. One party, more conservative, favored Egyptian rule over them because Egypt was less Hellenistic and gave them religious freedom. The other party, more liberal, favored Syrian rule with its Hellenistic culture. This liberal party of the Jews did not realize that Hellenistic culture would have a negative impact on religious life and the worship of God. Many of these Hellenistic Jews even changed their Hebrew names to Greek names, instituted the Greek athletic games and even began to dress according to Greek fashion.

Into this atmosphere there arose a Syrian leader by the name of Antiochus Epiphanes. He would rule Syria from 175 BC to 164 BC.

In 168 BC Antiochus had a successful military campain against Egypt and took control of Palestine. He then proceeded to move down toward Egypt to place it under his control. This would expand his empire greatly.

But history records that on his way to Egypt he met a courier from the Roman Senate. The courier told him that Rome opposed Syria's conquest of Egypt, and that he must cancel his attack against Egypt or face war with Rome. Antiochus became very frustrated and very upset because he was on the verge of a victory that would greatly expand his empire, but he didn't want a war with Rome. Therefore, he turned his army around and headed for home. On the way home, Antiochus stopped in Jerusalem. He had a pig killed on the Brazen Altar in the Temple, and then Antiochus committed the ultimate offense, he had his soldiers carry a statue of Zeus Olympius, the chief Syrian god, into the Holy of Holies in the Jewish Temple. He then demanded that the people bow down and worship his god. Many Jews would not give allegiance to a heathen god, and history records that as many as 80,000 Jews were slain.

Jesus warned the Jews that this type of event will be repeated just before He returns. He said in Matthew 24:15; "When you, therefore, shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (the time of the end is close)." History will repeat itself. About three and half years before the second coming of Jesus Christ, the antichrist will place a statue of himself in the rebuilt Jewish Temple and demand to be worshiped. This is still future.

Antiochus did not plan on the Jews resisting him. But in the little village of Modin, about fifteen miles northwest of Jerusalem, a priest by the name of Mattathias and his five sons rebelled. Under the leadership of his oldest son, Judah, a guerrilla-style war was launched against Antiochus Epiphanes and the Syrian army. Its purpose was to force the Syrians out of Palestine, resist Hellenism, and restore the worship of the true God. After three years of war, the Jews drove the Syrian army out of Palestine. For the victorious Jews, the first order of business was the Temple at Jerusalem. Both the altar and the Holy of holies had been desecrated. A pig had been slain on the altar, and the image of a heathen god had been placed in the Temple. This desecration had occurred on the 25th day of the Hebrew month of KISLEV (December). And exactly three years later, to the day, the altar and Temple were cleansed.

It was this defeat of a pagan army, the cleansing of the altar and Temple and the rededication of that Temple to the true God which gave rise to the Jewish holiday of Hanukkah. The Hebrew word Hanukkah literally means, "dedication."

There are at least two major sources outside of the Bible that gives us information concerning Hanukkah, its origin and significance. These sources are the books of first and second Maccabees, and the book "Antiquities of the Jews" by Flavious Josephus. Hanukkah occurred in 165 BC, and first and second Macabees were written in the second century BC shortly after the events occurred. Today the major event surrounding the observance of Hanakkah is the lighting of the candles on the nine-branched Hanukkah candelabra; however, neither first nor second Maccabees makes any mention of Hanukkah lights. The entire emphasis in these books revolves around the Maccabean's victory, the cleansing and rededication of the Temple.

The first person who spoke of lights as an integral part of Hanukkah was Josephus, and he wrote nearly two hundred years after the events had occurred. Josephus refers to Hanukkah as the "Feast of Lights," one candle (the servant candle SHAMMAS) with four candles on each side of it.

From our historical information we know that Hanukkah lights became an important part of the festival sometime shortly after the life of Christ, and continued after the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD. Therefore, the question is, "Why were the lights added?"

First of all we should note that Hanukkah is specifically mentioned in John 10:22; "And it was at Jerusalem the feast of the dedication and it was winter." Jesus placed enough value on Hanukkah to be in attendance on its observance at the Temple shortly before His death.

Jesus said concerning Himself, in John 8:12; ".....I am the light of the world; he who follows me will not walk in darkness, but he will have the light of life." Then He said in John 9:5 that "as long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world." And in John 11:9 He said, "......are there not twelve hours in a day? If any man walk in the day, he does not stumble, because he sees the light of this world." And again in John 12:35; "Then Jesus said to them, for a little while the light is with you. Walk while you have the light, lest darkness come upon you." Each of these references to Jesus as the light of the world in John chapters 8, 9, 11, and 12 surround chapter 10 where the "feast of dedication" (Hanukkah) is being observed. In each of these references when Jesus refers to Himself as the light of the world, He is in the Temple.

Following the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ, Hebrew Christians identified light with Christ and the Temple at Hanukkah. The servant candle (SHAMMAS) that stood higher than the other candles for the purpose of lighting them refers to Christ. John 1:9 says, "That He was the true light, who lights everyone who comes into the world." Therefore, the lights of Hanukkah were not ancient luminaries pointing to Christ; they were added after His death to point back to the One who alone is the light of the world.

The next question is, "Why did the early Christians set December 25th as the day to commemorate the birth of the Son of God?" December 25th is not the actual date for the birth of Jesus Christ. Shepherds in Israel would not have been out in the fields tending their flocks at night in December. Therefore, why did they choose this date? December 25th was the date that Antiochus Epiphanes chose to desecrate the Temple and establish the worship of his god, Zeus Olympius, because it was already an existing heathen holiday. It is also the date that the Jews cleansed and rededicated the Temple three years later. Light had defeated darkness; the true God had defeated the heathen god, Zeus Olympius.

The purpose of Israel's Temple was that deity should dwell within and that Israel would know the glory of God was present with them. And the purpose of the body of Jesus Christ was that deity should dwell within and that through it divine glory was manifested. John 1:18, "No one has ever seen God, except the uniquely born Son, who is at the Father's side (the place of intimacy), he has made him known." In other words, the glory of the invisible God could be seen in the visible Son. Hebrews 1:3 describes the Lord Jesus this way; "The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word......" In other words, Jesus was an outshining of God's glory and an exact representation of His nature. The glory of God shone out of the Temple and the glory of God shone out of the flesh of Jesus Christ.

So close was the relationship between the Temple on Mount Moriah, in which God dwelt, and the body of Jesus, in which deity dwelt, that when He was pressed for a sign to authenticate His life and teaching to the Jewish leadership, Jesus said in John 2:19, ".....destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." And this commentary is added in John 2:21, "But He spoke of the temple of His body."

The Temple had housed the glory of God, and the body of Christ housed the glory of God. That is why, in a description of the new Jerusalem, the apostle John wrote in Revelation 21:22, "And I saw no temple in it; for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it."

Now when the church, long after the actual record of the date of the birth of Christ had been lost, chose the date to commemorate the time when deity dwelt within a human body, they decided to use the Temple, where deity had also dwelt. The 25th of KISLEV (December) which was an already established date commemorating the cleansing and rededication of the Temple as a dwelling place of God.

The church did not choose December 25th because it was an ancient heathen holiday, but because of the Jewish feast of Hanukkah that occurred on that date, and the added emphasis that Jesus gave to it. This date eloquently testified to the fact that at the birth of Jesus, deity was dwelling in a human body (temple) and shining out to give light in the midst of darkness. The great Hebrew-Christian scholar, Alfred Edersheim, whose writings on this period of time are still classic, said, "The date of the feast of Dedication (Hanukkah), the 25th of KISLEV, seems to have been adopted by the ancient church as that of the birth of our blessed Lord, Christmas, the dedication of the true temple which was the body of Jesus Christ." In the simplest terms, the early church chose December 25th to remind the world that God came down to dwell in human flesh, and from out of that flesh He gave light and life to all those who would put their trust in Him.

The exact date for Christmas is not relevant. What is relevant is that you believe that Jesus Christ came into the world, born of a virgin, lived a perfect life, died on the cross bearing all the sins of the world, rose from the dead three days later, and ascended back to heaven from where He came. (You believe God, YHWH, and the record He has given of His Son, Yeshua the Messiah.)

Christmas is a time that is set aside to remember when God became man and dwelt among us. I dare say that many would forget if we didn't have this holiday. Again we see God making it easy for the human race to believe and be saved. No one will have any excuse when they stand before God in judgment.

Copyright 1999 by Robert H. Kreger. All rights reserved. Anyone is allowed to reproduce this material and distribute it, but it may not be sold under any circumstances whatsoever without the author's written consent.