Minister's Heroic Stand For Integrity Shows Unity With God

by Rev. Austin Miles

 

Every man seems to have a price. This writer is constantly amazed at how cheap one can buy a man or woman’s integrity. That is, except for Rev. John Anderson, who runs the Bay Area Rescue Mission in Richmond, a homeless shelter with 325 beds. His is a compassionate ministry which provides for the needs of the downtrodden. With case loads increasing due to the economic crisis, the mission is constantly in need of funds. Not enough, however, for Rev. Anderson to sell his integrity.

 

Richmond is known the world over as a city of constant violence, crime, and murder. It was the scene of the recent gang rape of a 15 year old girl who had gone to a high school dance. One of those who took part was a 13 year old boy.

 

Richmond’s problems can be solved, said the Guidiville Band of Pomo Indians to the board of supervisors, by building an Indian casino at Point Molate. This will give the city a new look, generate income for the city as well as providing employment in the community which will reduce crime.

 

A tidal wave of opposition slowed the procedure until the tribe met again with supervisors and gave them specific figures about how much the city—the county and the state would be given each year, in the millions, which would pay for improvements, security etc. To deal with their opponents,they also promised huge amounts of money each year if the measure passed, and this included charity organizations like Rev. Anderson’s Bay Area Rescue Mission.

 

Slight pause for this observation: Gambling consists of games of chance (they say). So [if] it is by chance, how would the casino operators be able to state the exact amount of money, in the millions, that they could pay out if the measure passed?

 

The operators know for certain that a casino like the one proposed would take in over a billion dollars a year (their profit). They know that for fact. So is it really a game of chance? Or is it rigged to only pay out so much money? Just remember that those fancy hotels and glitzy casinos were not built by you winning!

 

Rev. Anderson went to the Contra Costa Board of Supervisors, where the measure would be discussed. He brought with him some clients of his shelter whose lives have been ruined by gambling. They testified that they had lost everything to gambling and wound up on the streets. They told how easy it is to become addicted to gambling.

 

Lisa Vorderbrueggen, writing for the East County Times reported that nearly every opposition group has, or is negotiating a lucrative deal with the Guidiville Band of Pomo Indians. Then, she writes,” behind the scenes, casino proponents have urged Rev. Anderson to meet with the tribe.”

 

He told them that he would not accept money from Indian casinos, ” since gambling goes against the principles that we believe and stand for.” He went on to say, “We were not angling for money. We see the devastation that would come about as a result of a casino like the one proposed.” And it appears that he is the only organization that rejected the proposed pay off.

 

Complications began two days after Rev. Anderson took his heroic stand. The Contra Costa Health Department suddenly showed up to inspect the facility. An inspector showed up a day or two later. When Rev. Anderson asked why the inspector was there, he blurted out that his visit was routine, “not the result of a complaint." The inspector said it, not Rev. Anderson. Why of course, that visit, two days after he testified before the County Board of Supervisors, was purely coincidental.

 

Then the County Health Department demanded upgrades inside the shelter that would cost Rev. Anderson, $45,000. And this is a time when donations are down11 % and their expenses are up 18%.

 

Then, on the same day, he received a message from the Pittsburg Redevelopment Agency regarding a property he wanted to buy in order to open a shelter there for women and children. He was contacted by Janis Glover, wife of Contra Costa County Supervisor, Federal Glover. She questioned him about “the mission’s religious activities.”

 

Now hold on… don’t jump to conclusions… this too was just a coincidence. She was merely dealing with some ‘church and state issues' that suddenly came up and was simply gathering information for the city attorney. That’s what she said. Sure! Let’s be sure we have all of this in order

 

First of all, Mrs. Federal Glover, who has a political job with the Pittsburg Redevelopment Agency is married to the Supervisor of Contra Costa County, Federal Glover. Glory be!. Another coincidence!

 

A tip of the beret to Rev. John Anderson of The Bay Area Rescue Mission, who stayed true to God and himself. He is the rarest of men….a man who cannot be bought. A minister of integrity who would never offend God. He is totally devoted to the ministry God has entrused him with. His pure actions resulted in this headline in East County Times (11/22/09): “Shelter Denounces Casino Cash.” We need more ministers like John Anderson. He demonstrates the ultimate unity--unity with God.

 

To see my review of an excellent book which lays out clearly the gambling game, google, “Gambling-Don’t Bet On It.”
Or visit my website by going to: www.revaustinmiles.com

 

 

Read more >>

UPDATE: Democrats plan nearly $2 trillion debt limit hike

By ANDREW TAYLOR

Democrats plan to allow the government's debt to swell by nearly $2 trillion as part of a bill next week to pay for wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The amount pretty much equals the total of a year-end spending spree by lawmakers and is big enough to ensure that Congress doesn't have to vote again on going further into debt until after the 2010 elections.

The move has anxious moderate Democrats maneuvering to win new deficit-cutting tools as the price for their votes, igniting battles between the House and the Senate and with powerful interest groups on both the right and the left.

The record increase in the so-called debt limit - the legal cap on the amount of money the government can borrow - is likely to be in the neighborhood of $1.8 trillion to $1.9 trillion, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., said Friday.

That eye-popping figure is making Democrats woozy but is what is needed to make sure they don't have to vote again before next year's midterm elections. The government's total debt has nearly doubled in the past seven years and is expected to exceed the current ceiling of $12.1 trillion before Jan. 1.

Democratic leaders say they will try to raise the ceiling to nearly $14 trillion as part of a $626 billion bill next week to pay for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and other military programs in 2010. The bill doesn't include the additional $30 billion President Obama is expected to seek early next year to pay for his 30,000-troop buildup in Afghanistan but it might carry an added $50 billion to pay for a six-month extension of unemployment benefits and health care insurance subsidies for the long-term jobless.

The entire strategy, however, is teetering because of brinksmanship involving moderate Senate Democrats who are demanding a bipartisan deficit reduction task force with special powers to recommend spending cuts or tax increases that would be guaranteed House and Senate votes. That idea is a total no-go with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.

Playing tit for tat, moderate House "Blue Dog" Democrats announced Friday that their votes for any debt limit increase depend on winning a "pay-as-you-go" budget law aimed at ensuring that new tax cuts or new spending programs don't increase deficits.

Under a pay-as-you-go regime, if offsetting cuts or revenue hikes are not found to pay for new policies, across-the-board spending cuts would hit selected programs such as farm subsidies and Medicare.

Minority Republicans, meanwhile, are refusing to provide any support for raising the debt ceiling.

"Instead of reducing the size of government and controlling spending, Democrats are planning to raise the debt limit by $1.8 trillion, putting American taxpayers in even deeper debt to countries like China," said Rep. Todd Tiahrt, R-Kan.

Vice President Joe Biden, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., Blue Dog leaders and Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad, D-N.D., were involved in several sets of negotiations Friday in an effort to break the impasse between House and Senate Democrats.

If a deal can't be found, Democrats might have to move on to Plan B, which would be to have the Senate pass a smaller, $925 billion increase that's already available to them. That bill passed the House because of a quirky rule that automatically passes debt limit legislation - without an up-or-down vote - when Congress ratifies its annual budget blueprint. That was done last April.

Under the second scenario, the House would adjourn, leaving the Senate no choice but to pass the $925 billion increase in order to avoid a first-ever default on U.S. government obligations.

"We're going to have to face the moment of truth at some point," said Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Ind., who is one of about a dozen Senate Democrats pressing for the special deficit task force as the price for voting for an increase in the debt limit.

The debt limit conundrum comes as Congress is wrapping up its annual appropriations bills, including a $1.1 trillion omnibus measure pending in the Senate. A vote to cut off a GOP filibuster of that measure is scheduled for Saturday morning with a final vote likely on Sunday.

The omnibus appropriations bill is opposed by most Republicans. It awards domestic programs and foreign aid considerable funding boosts and also provides money for more than 5,000 home-state pet projects pushed by lawmakers.

The omnibus bill comes on top of an infusion of cash to domestic agencies in February's economic stimulus bill and a $410 billion measure in March that also bestowed budget increases well above inflation.

The measure survived a test vote Friday that demonstrated it should receive on Saturday the 60 votes needed to overcome the GOP stalling tactics. Three senior Republican members of the Appropriations Committee joined forces with all but three Democrats to keep the measure from effectively being killed.

Read more >>

Hannity Discussion with 9/11 Families - We Are Listening New York

Rev Michael Bresciani

On the evening of December 11, 2009 Sean Hannity conducted an open discussion with the families of 9/11 victims. Sean’s usual polite and casual manner was charged with an extra sense of care with an obvious deliberate use of respectful language and occasional words of sympathy.

Here was a studio filled with emotionally laden people, tears were seen time and again and the pain of 9/11 was re-born in a mini-concert of human grief. I found myself moved as I was after the attacks in September of 2001. During those days shortly after the attack I found myself crying without warning and although I felt like an emotional basket case I was never ashamed of the irrepressible emotional outbursts that held me in their unpredictable sway.

Even the laws of fair use in journalism would not allow me to quote and analyze the responses of various families that spoke, without their permission. Grief is not the kind of stuff that should be used in public forum to accentuate a point or establish a political or partisan opinion.

These were grieving Americans, some were democrats, some republican, some were liberal and others conservative but not one was happy with the decision of President Obama to allow the Attorney General to try the accused perpetrators of the 9/11 massacre in a civil court only a few blocks away from ground zero.

A thousand memories flooded my own mind of that fateful morning. I remembered in particular how one newsman said that the usual aloofness and perhaps fear that New Yorkers had as they passed each other in their hustle bustle was at least momentarily suspended. He said they would look you right in the eye and ask if you were OK. If you wanted to stop and talk they would accommodate you and if you had a need they were genuinely responsive to it.

I recalled that when coming back from a trip to the mid-west about a week after the attack I decided not to circumnavigate around the city as I usually did by using the more northern route across the Tappan Zee and passing on to the New England Thruway. That put me smack in the middle of the George Washington Bridge where the traffic came to a full stop.

The dusk created an amber glow from the lights from nearby buildings and the high rises of Manhattan loomed in the distance but without the familiar silhouette of the Twin Towers. Listening to a New York station playing old time vaudeville and Broadway show tunes and being stuck on the George Washington while gazing at the Manhattan skyline seemed like a serendipitous moment, a piece of fate or perhaps a divinely appointed moment for me to touch this great city or more accurately for it to touch me. It will always be the only traffic jam I’ve ever been happy to be in.

I thought of the first time I stepped out of Penn Station at the age of 14 and stood gazing up at tall buildings in awe and wandering around in amazement at the sheer size of each building and city block. It was a fearful experience but I was so lost in the aspect that I didn’t care if I had forgotten my prospect. I wandered as if I was lost, I was. Yet, I have never lost the memory of that first experience.

I thought of the times I would take the challenge of my friends in the small New England town where I lived to go to New York for a cup of coffee. We would throw some money together grab our coats and barrel down the Connecticut Turnpike for a cup of java in Manhattan, St, Marks Square or the Lower East Side. We thought we were more worldly and universal just because we had been to the Big Apple. We used our trips to gain bragging rights among our peers in school or on the job. Oddly they were always impressed.

For a time, although years later I lived in Greenwich Village and my experiences there ran the gamut. Some were great and others will have to stay in the shadows of that behavior a young man is so happy to have had and an old man would be happy to forget.

In the years following I became almost embittered with the City that so presumptuously called itself the Big Apple. Watching the blight and the social upheaval of each successive decade scrape the veneer off the alluring face of the city, I began to see New York more as the Rotten Apple. It wasn’t my city and it wasn’t my hometown, or was it?

That night on the George Washington Bridge I felt it was my city and I could feel its pain. I respected the City again and I perused its long history and contributions to American culture, science, religion, literature, education and its long list of notable statesmen, businessmen, artists and entertainers. On that night stuck on that two tiered monstrosity named after our first President I allowed New York to retain its nickname of the Big Apple, I allowed the city to represent every American city and every American who had been attacked by an enemy who we did not even know we had. It was a personal catharsis I thought no one would ever know of but me.

The time it took to put the events of 9/11 into perspective along with subsequent experiences like the one on the George Washington seemed sufficient to balance my memories and my emotion. But I was thrown off balance as it were, in one New York minute while listening to the impassioned remarks of the 9/11 families on the Hannity interview of December 11, 2009.

I find myself laboring to keep the politics out of the feelings that have been re-engaged within me. I am angry that the President allowed his top lawman to drag this case into middle of New York but it is much more than that. It is as if the victims and their families are being asked to submit to another lashing of insult, pain and humiliation. This is the point where I cease to see them as merely New Yorkers but now they are purely Americans.

They are our countrymen and we must not ask them to re-live the pain for lowly political reasons. The present clash of liberalism and conservatism is not worthy of the families of the 9/11 victims. We must hold them above the partisan fray and remember two simple principles that will guide humanity until the end of time.

The first principle is contained in the words of renowned journalist Edward R. Murrow who said “We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. When the loyal opposition dies, I think the soul of America dies with it.”

New Yorkers are loyal dissenters whose complaint is in a much higher class than the mere ramblings of the discontent in the political class. They have paid the price; they have suffered the loss of much more than a partisan or political setback. They have paid in flesh and blood for crimes they did not commit. Should we ask them to pay even more now? Should we ask them to pay with their very souls?

The second principle in play here is outlined and conveyed in the words of the beloved Apostle John who said “But whoso hath this world's good, and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his bowels of compassion from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him?” (1Jo 3:17)

The people of New York need for this trial to be placed in another venue. The Americans of New York need for this trial to be conducted by military tribunal instead of a civil setting where arguments about the rightness of slaughtering 3,000 innocents can be made. This is as real as a need gets. Will this President and Attorney General ignore this need? Let us all pray that they do not.

http://www.americanprophet.org has since 2005 featured the articles of Rev Michael Bresciani along with news and reviews that have earned this site the title of The Website for Insight  Millions have read his timely reports and articles in online journals and print publications across the nation and the globe.

Keywords:

New York,terrorist trial,9/11,Eric Holder,Geo Wash Bridge,Broadway,Big Apple,Apostle John,New England,Penn station,twin towers,victims,St Marks Sq,Greenwich Village,Lower East Side,Manhattan,Tappan Zee,Hannity

Read more >>