Backwards Alphabet: Jesus Christ = 666

Here’s how to do it. Using the backwards alphabet – Z=1,  Y = 2, X= 3, etc.  NOW ADD THIS PHRASE:  WHICH NUMBER REPRESENTS JESUS CHRIST.  Here’s how to add it.

Assign the right number to the right letters. Write the phrase out across a piece of paper.

Write the numbers under the letters.  Now add them across ONE DIGIT AT A TIME. Like this:

W   H   I   C  H

4    19  18  24  19  

Add 1 digit at a time for a horizontal (h) read.

4 + 1 + 9 + 1 + 8  etc

Write your answer down.

Then add vertically, the way you normally would.

Now, add the h and the v together for your result.

This system is based on the CROSS NUMBER. (h and v)

Traditional numerology would have you add only vertically.

That was a great way to keep the truth from being seen.

You will find that the Backwards alphabet yeilds enormous

insight. Not only is it used, it is KEY.

Both alphabets work in tandem.  But don’t you find it interesting

that the regular alphabet does not result in:


There is a faction – as old as Moses and Abraham, who use

numbers – symbols and alphabets to communicate with each other.


The result – using the backwards alphabet is:   201223

THIS IS REALLY  2012 – 23


23 = BUSH  H

MORMON – using the backwards alphabet –  =

29 h  74 v  103  hv

This is the same exact string for JESUS when you use the

forward alphabet.



Young Adults Are Getting Hit with Enormous Overdraft Fees


By Leslie Parrish and Ginna Green, AlterNet
Posted on November 6, 2007, Printed on November 8, 2007

Few Americans are immune to the offers of quick, cheap and easy credit that surround us these days. Indeed, when brand-new adults first arrive on their college campuses, they are often greeted by a bank or credit card company before their resident advisor.

The consumer finance industry-including banks, credit unions and credit card companies-is never short of ways to lure in the American consumer, and a recent analysis performed by my organization, the Center for Responsible Lending, illustrates precisely how banks and credit unions are socking it to young adults — to the tune of nearly $1 billion a year.

More and more consumers — particularly young adults — are finding the deck stacked against them when it comes to battling abusive overdraft fees. Banks and credit unions now routinely allow most debit card transactions to go through when their account holders have a negative balance. Instead of declining the transaction, institutions will advance the funds to cover the shortfall (often less than $20) and charge the account holder an average fee of $34 for each overdraft. Consumers are not given an adequate chance to prevent these fees, which are largely out of proportion to the loans themselves. In fact, adults in general pay about $2 for every dollar the bank advances to cover debit card overdrafts, while young adults pay $3.25 for every dollar loaned to them, due in large part to their frequent use of debit cards for low dollar transactions.

In July, we found that banks and credit unions’ abusive overdraft lending practices cost American consumers $17.5 billion in fees for abusive overdraft loans. Our latest analysis, released last month, found that nearly $1 billion of that amount came at the expense of our nation’s college students and young adults aged 18-24.

And our nation’s young people-dubbed “Generation Plastic” because of their reliance on debit and credit cards-are particularly vulnerable to new banking practices that make it easier for even the most scrupulous account holder to avoid abusive overdraft fees [you mean make it harder for scrupulous account holders to avoidd overdraft fees?]. The rapid growth in overdraft fees levied by banks and credit unions-$17.5 billion in 2006 compared to $10.3 billion in 2004 -has been fueled largely by debit card transactions (popular among Generation Plastic) and bank practices that increase the number of overdrafts (popular at many banks and credit unions).

Some of those unsavory bank practices are related to daily account reconciliation. When banks reconcile a customer’s transactions for the day, they often deduct funds in order of the largest payment to the smallest, regardless of the order the transactions were made. The industry acknowledges this is their standard practice. By manipulating the order, the bank still covers the same number of payments, even when the account balance goes into the negative. But they can count more of them as overdrafts-and collect more fees in the process-if they deduct the largest debit first.

Other practices, such as enrolling customers in overdraft “protection” programs automatically without their consent or holding deposits for extended periods but processing checks and debits immediately, can lead to unexpected overdrafts for consumers as well.

There is a solution, however, and it’s pending before the U.S. House Financial Services Committee. HR 946, the Consumer Overdraft Protection Fair Practices Act, sponsored by Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) would require banks and credit unions to disclose the interest rates of these abusive overdraft loans so that consumers can compare the cost of this credit option to others. It would also empower account holders by allowing them to the choice to opt-in to an overdraft program, rather than automatically enrolling them without their express consent. It would also prohibit banks from manipulating the order they process checks and debits in order to increase fees.

The legislation is sorely needed for the sake of consumer protection. Even our most vulnerable and inexperienced consumer group-new, young bank customers-is not being shielded from abusive practices. Instead of protecting their financial wellbeing, these overdraft loans are robbing young people of a secure and solid start in their lives.

In the meantime, all consumers, but especially younger ones, should be wary of overdraft protection programs – especially those in which they were automatically enrolled or those that are not linked to a line of credit or to a savings account. Unfortunately, overdraft “protection” programs rarely consider the consumer’s best interests and typically protect nothing more than the bank’s bottom line.

Ginna Green and Leslie Parrish work with the Center for Responsible Lending. Parrish is the co-author, with Peter Smith, of Billion Dollar Deal, the Center’s recent report on overdraft fees and how they impact young adults.

© 2007 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at:



Fought for America? Bush Still Won’t Give You Health Care?


By Eric Haas, Rockridge Nation
Posted on November 8, 2007, Printed on November 8, 2007

Last April, President Bush told members of American Legion Post 177 that “we owe the families and the soldiers the best health care possible.”

That debt is still unpaid. According to a new report by Harvard Medical School researchers, published last week in the peer-reviewed American Journal of Public Health, millions of veterans and their family members have not been getting the medical care they need.

People assume that veterans automatically get health care from Veterans Affairs (VA). They don’t. Despite their military service, the Bush Administration requires most veterans to pay additional money for insurance in order to get care. But many veterans don’t earn enough money to be able to buy health insurance. At the same time, they aren’t poor enough under Bush Administration guidelines to get VA care or to qualify for Medicaid. Abandoned, these veterans struggle alone to find health care. In the insurance marketplace, our veterans remain in harms way — their service, and our debt, forgotten.

Why haven’t we made good on our obligation? Our moral debt to our veterans, based on mutual need and shared responsibility, goes unpaid in the current health insurance system because it is based upon corporate self-interest. An insurance company’s responsibility is to maximize profit, even when that means denying care to veterans. Clearly, our national moral responsibility is not the same as an insurance company’s corporate fiduciary duty to maximize profits. (This concept is discussed further in our Rockridge Institute paper, The Logic of the Health Care Debate).

In fact, as the veterans’ predicament demonstrates, these obligations can be quite contradictory. A vet is a national hero. Soldiers risk their lives. Many will be injured. Some will die. In return, we promise to support our troops in whatever way possible — both on the battlefield and when (or if) they return as veterans. Certainly, our support includes medical care.

There is no price that can be put on the risks a soldier takes. Nor is there a way to estimate the care a veteran will need during their lifetime. Our mutual obligations are easily understood, but impossible to quantify.

But a health insurance company’s duty is to its shareholders. Its legal and contractual obligation is to maximize profits. Health insurance companies do that by quantifying likely health costs, and selling the policies for more than they will pay out in benefits. If you cannot afford their policies, then they will not sell you one. Simply put, a veteran is just another potential customer.

The national failure to meet our shared obligations to veterans — who risked life and limb on our behalf — is a disgrace. It betrays the moral vacuum at the center of our current health care system.

Let’s simplify to make this ugly circumstance as clear as we can. Imagine a town. Inside the town live health insurance executives and the politicians who serve their interests. Soldiers risk life and limb to protect the town. Later, a soldier gets sick. “Sorry, you don’t earn enough to afford our insurance policies. Try the next town,” say the insurance executives. Except, in America, there is no “next town.”

One way that we could meet our national obligation to support our troops is for the government to provide or guarantee medical care for all veterans. A version of this idea occurred through the Veterans’ Health Care Eligibility Reform Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-262). The Act opened VA care to all veterans, with copays for those veterans considered to be “non-poor” (generally those making $30,000 and higher). In January 2003, however, the Bush Administration ordered a halt to the enrollment of “non-poor” veterans. The VA facilities were “full.” To date, it’s no better. As a result, according to the Harvard Medical School study, millions of vets and their family members cannot afford health insurance and go everyday without needed medical care. That is tragic. Something must change.

The authors elegantly summarize the central role that veterans and health care play in our national community:

The disturbing scene of returning soldiers left without care is a stark reminder that America is a nation bound by mutual obligations and shared responsibility. We owe veterans care not because they can pay for it nor because they are heroes but — as their sacrifices remind us — because members of a society are obligated to serve and protect each other.

In America, we don’t have a health care system; we have an insurance marketplace. Until we understand the difference, no reform will work. To our low-income veterans, that is a daily hardship. We should make their hardship our problem too. One we solve together. Now. We owe that to our veterans.

Eric Haas is a senior fellow at the Rockridge Institute.

© 2007 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: