ROOSEVELT BRADLEY Donates to Democrats (Miami-Dade Mayoral Candidate)

Miami-Dade Mayoral Candidate Roosevelt Bradley Loves Liberals According to the Federal Election Commission, Roosevelt Bradley donated to Democrat candidates:
	DATE AMOUNT TRANSACTION # To: Democrat Barack Obama/Obama for America 05/21/2008 $1,000.00 28931963646 05/22/2008 $1,000.00 28931963646 To: Democrat Kendrick B. Meek 03/27/2009 $404.00 11020091348 05/05/2004 $500.00 24961792254

RELATED Info for the May 24th election in Miami-Dade county: - The other Mayoral Candidates: Biography, donors, record, votes… - Analysis of the 6 Proposed Amendments

MIAMI CANDIDATE ROOSEVELT BRADLEY: A Lobbyist with Ethical Problems (Miami-Dade Mayoral Election – May 24, 2011)

Who is Miami Mayoral Candidate Roosevelt Bradley? Bradley wants to be the next mayor of Miami-Dade County, but he is the poster child for what is wrong in the county. He was the Miami-Dade Transit director fired in 2007 for nepotism, irregular hiring practices, overtime costs, and mismanagement.1 Bradley has denied these charges, but there was more. Bradley became a lobbyist and participated in unethical and questionable activities with then-Commissioner Dorrin Rolle. ● Bradley is a Lobbyist Although liberals love to demonize lobbyists, they don’t have a problem in being one. Roosevelt Bradley is a registered lobbyist according to Miami-Dade’s public records:2 BRADLEY, ROOSEVELT 7942 NW 164 TERRACE MIAMI LAKES FL 33016 NATIONAL HEALTH TRANSPORT, INC. SINAPSIS TRADING U.S.A., LLC)

Unethical activities between Bradley and former Miami-Dade Commissioner Dorrin Rolle3:
	In 2008 Mr. Rolle partnered with lobbyist Mark Coats and former county transit director Roosevelt Bradley to form a consulting firm. Both Messrs. Coats and Bradley also are consultants for Sinapsis Trading USA, a Coral Gables company seeking to win the hotly contested bag-wrapping contract at Miami International Airport [MIA]. Mr. Rolle chairs the county’s airport and seaport committee, which oversees MIA and therefore the bag-wrapping contract. In April and June 2009 he ran committee meetings where the luggage-wrap contract was on the agenda. The county’s ethics laws forbid commissioners from participating in or voting on matters that involve a fellow “officer, director or partner.” State law says elected officials shouldn’t vote on measures that “would inure to the special private gain or loss of a relative or business associate.” The rules couldn’t be clearer. Yet Mr. Rolle consulted neither the county attorney nor the county’s ethics commission before presiding over those meetings. If he had, both would have likely told him that he had a glaring conflict of interest. Mr. Rolle’s partners — who didn’t check with the county attorney or ethics commission, either — claim that nothing ever came of the business they incorporated. That makes no difference: A legal partnership is just that, whether it succeeds or not.
More Shenanigans from Roosevelt Bradley4
	Bradley was forced out as Miami-Dade Transit director in 2007 amid frustrations over the agency’s operations. Among the criticisms were patronage and irregular hiring practices, and a Miami Herald investigation found that Bradley once hired Rolle’s daughter. Bradley subsequently became a consultant last year for Crown Global Services, which is Sinapsis’ minority bidder. Coats has been a registered lobbyist for Sinapsis since September 2008. The multimillion-dollar luggage wrapping deal…has long attracted intense lobbying.

SOURCES:
1	Termination of Miami-Dade Transit Director Roosevelt Bradley, March 22, 2007, (http://www.scribd.com/doc/51912597/Roosevelt-Bradley-Termination)
2	Lobbying in Miami-Dade County, 2010 Third Quarter Report, 07/01/2010 through 9/30/2010, pg. 3(http://www.miamidade.gov/COB/library/Lobbyist_Registration/2010_Reports/2010_Lobbyist3rdQuarter.pdf)
3	Rolle Has Clear Conflict in Baggage-Wrap Deal, Posted 04/03/2010 Original article: http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/04/03/1561129/local-perspectives.html (Cached/Archived)
4	Miami-Dade Commissioner Dorrin Rolle faces ethics questions, Posted 03/31/2010, http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/03/30/1555944_p2/miami-dade-commissioner-dorrin.html, (Cached/Archived)

RELATED Info for the May 24th election in Miami-Dade county: - The other Mayoral Candidates: Biography, donors, record, votes… - Analysis of the 6 Proposed Amendments

Leftists to Ban Ice Makers Because of Hoax Global Warming

GOVERNMENT NEXT TARGET: ICE MAKERS Via Washington Times:
	Ice makers are the latest target in the left’s ongoing war against the conveniences of modern life. Earlier this month, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) issued a report that may condemn this essential household item to the contraband list that already includes functional light bulbs, toilets, washing machines and showerheads. Those [using] ice cubes are guilty of increasing their refrigerator’s energy consumption by about 12 to 20 percent. That’s unacceptable to global-warming alarmists at the Department of Energy (DOE) who are hard at work finalizing regulatory standards for the fridge. The proposed changes will increase prices by an estimated $2 billion per year, but DOE justifies this added expense by claiming consumers would save $37 in electricity costs over the lifetime of a typical side-by-side. …Liberals, however, have no interest in letting the public decide what types of products suit their particular needs…Distributing a product that fails to meet with [Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency Kathleen] Hogan’s approval carries a typical fine of $7,300 per item. That adds up quickly. Last year, DOE accused a company of producing a showerhead that worked a little bit too well. For this “crime,” DOE demanded payment of $1.9 million and destruction of this highly effective product. That’s the left’s idea of “choice.” (…)

MIAMI CANDIDATE FARID A. KHAVARI: BIO, DONORS, PROPOSAL (Miami-Dade Mayoral Election – May 24, 2011)

Updated by FactReal on May 8, 2011
SHORT BIOGRAPHY A quick view of this candidate’s experience, campaign finance, proposals, etc.
	● Actual name: Farid Akhtarekhavari (Born in Iran) ● Graduated in Economics in Germany. ● Endorsed by Socialist presidential candidate. (Scroll down for details) ● Has a Pro-Castro Policy. (Scroll down for details) ● Environmentalist. ● Entrepreneur in solar energy and “alternative” medical spa. ● Received only $9,600 as income from Arfa International, Inc. according to his public financial papers.

● Endorsed by Socialist Brian Moore, the 2008 Socialist Party presidential candidate: Marxist Brian Moore (right) with Farid Khavari (left) and his wife, Janilla Khavari (center) after the endorsement ceremony (10/3/2010)

NEW: Video: Socialist Endorsing Khavari

● Ran unsuccessfuly as a Democrat and later as ‘No Party Affiliation’ for Florida governor in 2010: Source: Gubernatorial campaign documents: Look at his first PDF document dated 06/19/09 titled ‘Candidate Appt of Campaign Treasurer‘ – here is a snapshot of that document’s heading:
● Khavari’s banner as Democrat candidate for Governor (Event in Miami, July 2009.)

PROPOSAL ● Proposes a government-run bank EVEN THOUGH it was government intervention that created the 2008 economic crisis. (Report| Videos) Can you imagine this: The Miami-Dade commissioners or local politicians running a bank with OUR money! Khavari proposes a bank run by government as a silver bullet to fix all our problems! Through this bank, Khavari says he will lower interest rates, reduce property taxes, create jobs, etc. But we already learned that these apparent benevolent policies promoted by big-government politicians is what led to the 2008 economic meltdown: To supposedly make homes more affordable for lower- and middle-income Americans, government created the government-sponsored enterprises of Fannie-Mae and Freddie Mac and implemented the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) signed into law by Jimmy Carter and then expanded by Bill Clinton forcing banks to give loans to borrowers with poor credit ratings. Financial firms bought huge packages of loans from Fannie & Freddie because they were guaranteed by government and this “absolved lenders, mortgage bundlers and investors of any concern over the obvious risk. As Bloomberg reported: “It is a classic case of socializing the risk while privatizing the profit.”" When this artificial bubble exploded and thousands of subprime borrowers could no longer pay their mortgages, foreclosures increased dramatically which led to the mortgage meltdown and the financial crisis. These leftist “do-good” policies continue to keep the economy down. Democrats recently passed the financial “reform” law (which Obama was happy to sign) to supposedly protect the customers. But the reality is that free-checking accounts are disappearing as a consequence of this law: “The so-called financial “reform” bill that passed Congress — the Dodd-Frank Act — is wiping out many free checking accounts, since many banks can’t afford its red tape unless they either charge a monthly fee, or require a minimum balance of well over $1,000.” Khavari proposes more government when voters want less government. No wonder he only received 0.1% of the vote in last year’s gubernatorial race.

● Proposes environmental economics BUT even his peers call it “exaggerated and unsupported claims” and “conclusions based on assertion” where he dismisses other factors or the consequences of his proposals. Economic Geography, a professional peer-reviewed journal, analyzed Khavari’s book Environomics: The Economics of Environmentally Safe Prosperity where Khavari argues that present forms of economic growth degrade the environment and where he seeks to promote “environmentally friendly” economic growth. After reviewing Khavari’s book, his peers found major flaws: 1 | 2 “There are no footnotes, and hardly any real numbers are used. Conclusions are based on assertion…offered without any proof of its vialibity or much…” “One of the more extreme proposals in the book is that interest rates be eliminated completely…However, it would also reduce the income of those dependent on savings, lead to a flight of investment capital to other countries, drive down the value of the dollar and raise the prices of imported goods, accelerating inflation. The possibility that paying zero interest might somehow reduce the funds available for investment is dismissed…would savers lend their savings to U.S. borrowers at zero interest, or keep them in the United States if borrowers in other countries paid interest?…The issue of inflation is also discounted, since the wonders of environomics “recession, unemployment, and inflation would cease.” This is unsupported by any serious evidence or argument, and perfectly illustrates the disappointing nature of the book. …[E]xaggerated and unsupported claims made throughout the book. I would certainly not recommend it to others (except as an example of how not to make a convincing argument).” NEW: ● Has a Pro-Castro Policy

CAMPAIGN FINANCE Donations to his 2011 campaign for Miami-Dade County Mayor: ● Via Miami-Dade Election Department’s Voter Focus Donations to his 2010 campaign for Florida governor: ● Via Florida’s Div. of Elections

RELATED Info for the May 24th election in Miami-Dade county: - The other Mayoral Candidates: Biography, donors, record, votes… - Analysis of the 6 Proposed Amendments

EASTER SUNDAY: Jesus’ Resurrection Proved by Logic

Easter Sunday – Commemorating the Resurrection of Jesus Christ (Domingo de Resurrección) “He is not here: for he is risen, as he said!” JESUS ROSE FROM THE DEAD1 “The chief priests and Pharisees made the Sepulcher secure with guards, sealing the stone. When the Sabbath was passed, the Holy Women brought sweet spices that they might anoint Jesus. But Jesus rose early the first day of the week, and there was a great earthquake, and an angel descended from heaven, and rolled back the stone. The guards were struck with terror, and became as dead men. On arriving at the Sepulcher the Holy Women found the grave empty; Mary Magdalen ran to tell the Apostles Peter and John, while the other women were told by an angel that the Lord had risen from the dead. Peter and John hasten to the Sepulcher, and find everything as Magdalen has reported. Magdalen too returns, and, while weeping at the Sepulcher, is approached by the risen Savior Who appears to her and speaks with her. On the same day Jesus appeared to the other Holy Women, to Peter, to the two disciples on their way to Emmaus, and to all the Apostles excepting Thomas. A week later He appeared to all the Apostles, Thomas included; later still He appeared in Galilee near the Lake of Genesareth to seven disciples, on a mountain in Galilee to a multitude of disciples, to James, and finally to His disciples on Mount Olivet whence He ascended into heaven. But these apparitions do not exhaust the record of the Gospels, according to which Jesus showed Himself alive after His Passion by many proofs, for forty days appearing to the disciples and speaking of the kingdom of God.” IMPORTANCE OF THE RESURRECTION2 • The Resurrection is the fundamental argument for our Christian belief – it is the center of Christianity. • It shows the justice of God who exalted Christ to a life of glory, as Christ had humbled Himself unto death (Philippians 2:8-9). • The Resurrection completed the mystery of our salvation and redemption; by His death Christ freed us from sin, and by His Resurrection He restored to us the most important privileges lost by sin (Romans 4:25). • By His Resurrection we acknowledge Christ as the immortal God, the efficient and exemplary cause of our own resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:21; Philippians 3:20-21), and as the model and the support of our new life of grace (Romans 6:4-6 and 9-11). “Everyone who believes in him will receive forgiveness of sins through his name.” (Acts 10:43) Readings for today: Jn 20:1-9, Mt 28:1-10, Lk 24:13-35, Acts 10:34, 37-43 PROVING JESUS’ RESURRECTION USING LOGIC3 Ancient non-Christians proved Jesus’ Resurrection, but that doesn’t stop the attacks on Christianity. The veracity of the witnesses to Jesus’ Resurrection is also a target as a way to undermine Christianity. Dr. Gene Scott, Ph.D – Stanford University used logic and reason to prove that witnesses of the Resurrection told the truth. Here is a summary of the Resurrection as he preached it:

For purposes of today and any meaningful discussion of the Resurrection, you’ve got to at least assume: Fact 1. Jesus lived. Fact 2. He was crucified at the instigation of certain Jewish religious leaders in Jerusalem. Fact 3. He was considered dead. Fact 4. He was buried in a known tomb protected by guards and a rock. Fact 5. It was preached: empty tomb; raised from the dead; and ascending into heaven. Fact 6. Jewish leaders wanted to disprove the Resurrection. Fact 7. The Disciples were persecuted for preaching His Resurrection. Fact 8. The tomb was empty. All this leads to the fact, common sense says, if the Jewish leaders who instigated the crucifixion (Fact 2), having the extra interest because their reputation and livelihood were at stake (Fact 6); and if He was buried in a known tomb (Fact 4), they would have gone immediately to that tomb and discovered the body. Therefore, it is axiomatic that the tomb was empty. The tomb became meaningless because it was empty! THEORIES TRYING TO INDICT THE DISCIPLES AS LIARS VS. ANALYSIS Because the Disciples’ preachments are so sincere in their nature, all kinds of theories have been broached to explain their belief, but the theories won’t fly if you assume the eight facts previously stated. Theory 1. The Disciples stole the body. Analysis: The Theory goes that they stole the body, then they obviously lied (Theory 7). Theory 2. The Jewish leaders stole the body. Analysis: These facts preclude that: they were more concerned than anyone to disprove the preachment (Fact 6), so why would they make the tomb empty? And if they had, they would have said, “Wait a minute; we took His body from the tomb.” They couldn’t even think of that story; they told the one about the Disciples (Theory 1), but even if that were tenable, the Disciples didn’t preach just an empty tomb and simply the Resurrection. They preached a seen and living Jesus with whom they partook food; they preached the Ascension with equal vigor. So even if the Jewish leaders’ taking the body would explain the empty tomb, the Disciples are still telling the add-ons of the encounters with the Resurrected body and the Ascension, so they have expanded and “made up” a lot of the story – in other words, they still lied. Theory 3. The Roman leaders stole the body. Analysis: With the controversies in Jerusalem, with the contacts the Jewish leaders had with the Romans, enabling them to get the crucifixion done, don’t you think they would have exposed that fact, that officials of the Roman government took the body? But even if that explains the empty tomb, it does not alleviate the Disciples’ responsibility for preaching a Resurrected body that they had encounters with, and the Ascension, so they’re still lying. Theory 4. The women went to the wrong tomb. Analysis: It was a known accessible tomb (Fact 4). The Jewish leaders interest (Fact 6) would have taken them to the known tomb, and all they had to do to explain the wrong tomb theory was go to the tomb where the body is – and they would have done it. Theory 5. It was all hallucinations. Analysis: The empty tomb (Fact 8) blasts that. If it had been just hallucinations, there would have been a body in the tomb. You have to couple it with spiriting the body away. So, they’re still lying. Theory 6. Resuscitation theory. He wasn’t dead, and in the coolness of the tomb He revived and came out wrapped in the grave clothes and, thank God, the guards were asleep, and He pushed that rock out of the way – and here comes Frankenstein! Analysis: That Frankenstein coming out of the tomb doesn’t quite measure up to the good Jesus that was preached. It might explain the empty tomb, but it doesn’t explain the kind of Jesus that they had preached, doesn’t explain the Ascension – they still made the rest of it up. Theory 7. The Disciples lied. They made the whole thing up. They’d bet on the wrong horse and they just couldn’t live with it so they made up this whole story and it took them seven weeks to figure it out, and then they told it. Theory 8. The Disciples told the truth. They are telling exactly what they experienced and what they saw. Now, just as you got the “startling alternate” when you consider the only Jesus in history, that He’s either a madman, a nut, a faker, or He’s what He said He was, and that requires a definition of divinity, you have a “startling alternate” here. TWO OPTIONS REMAIN 1) Either the Disciples lied (Theory 7), or 2) They reported the truth (Theory 8). REASONS THE DISCIPLES TOLD THE TRUTH The entire Christian faith revolves around this question: were these Disciples, who were the witnesses honest men telling what they saw, or conspirators who concocted a lie to save face? There are four reasons proving they told the truth: Reason 1. Cataclysmic change for the better on the part of the witnesses. Peter changed: He was weak. He fled in fear and he denied his Lord. After the Resurrection, he is the man that preaches to a mocking mob, he fulfills his destiny to become the Rock, he dies with courage requesting that he be turned upside down because he is not worthy to die in the position of his Master. John changed: He was self-centered to the extreme. After they began to tell this Resurrection story, every scholar agrees John was a changed man. Instead of a “Son of Thunder,” he’s almost wimpish in his never-failing expression of love. He is known as the “Apostle of Love” – a total cataclysmic change. Thomas changed: He was a doubter…”I won’t believe ’til I touch Him, put my hands in the marks of death.” After the Resurrection, Thomas pierces the Himalayas to die a martyr near Madras, India, to be the herald of faith in the most challenging philosophic area of the world at that time, and never again does he waver an instant in faith – a total change from a consistent doubter to an unwavering “faither.” Now, you can say, a crisis will change people, but a lie will seldom change people for the better; they’ll get worse. These men are cataclysmically changed for the better; telling a lie would not do that. Reason 2. Indirect evidences of truth and internal consistencies. Mark referred to Jesus as “Son of Man”: If Mark was trying to perpetrate a fraud, why would he have Jesus refer to Himself with a phrase that suggests humanity when his purpose is to try to represent Jesus as the Son of God? If he’s a liar, he’d just have Jesus refer to Himself as the Son of God. But ironically, as God’s little hidden evidences of honesty, in Mark’s Gospel, written to Gentiles, designed to prove that Jesus was the Son of God, he had Jesus refer to Himself as the Son of Man more than any other Gospel. Jesus did refer to Himself as the “Son of Man” because Jesus was preaching to a Hebrew audience that read the Book of Enoch and read the Book of Daniel where the Son of Man was viewed as Messiah coming in clouds of glory to set up His kingdom. So it’s quite proper for Jesus to refer to Himself as the Son of Man in a messiah mentality, but if you are writing to Gentiles who don’t know anything about the Old Testament, and trying to perpetrate a lie that Jesus is the Son of God, unless you’re just basically honest and telling the truth, you wouldn’t have Jesus say “Son of Man” as often. Why not change what He said to serve your purpose? Inherent honesty. Women as witnesses: In the New Testament world, women were thought incapable of being a credible witness. The Disciples knew that, so why would they present women as the first witnesses of the Resurrection? If they were telling a lie, they would know that their world would discount women witnesses. Liars would have avoided recording women witnesses. Reason 3. Price paid. All of them, save John, died a martyr’s death: Bartholomew flayed to death with a whip in Armenia; Thomas pierced with a Brahmin sword; Peter crucified upside down, St. Andrew crucified on St. Andrew’s cross (from which it gets its name); Luke hanged by idolatrous priests, Mark dragged to death in the streets of Alexandria. These men paid beyond human belief for their “lie.” Reason 4. They died alone. As Thomas Aquinas said, it is psychologically inconceivable that these men, separated, each one paying the supreme price for their story and each one dying alone, that some one of the group wouldn’t break away from his fellows and say, “Hey, it wasn’t true!” To die alone. And not one shred of evidence surviving 2,000 years of hard-looking critics, you will never find one record where any one of these men ever wavered unto their terrible death in telling this story. Conclusion: There’s no way these men were lying. IT’S TRUE – JESUS RESURRECTED!

Sources 1- The Glory of Jesus (http://oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Jesus_Christ) 2- Importance of the Resurrection (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12789a.htm) 3- The Resurrection (http://www.resurrectionism.com/drgenescott.html) 4- He is Risen, Indeed! (http://www.coralridge.org/partnercentral/ministrynewsdetail.aspx?id=322) 5- Explaining away Jesus’ Resurrection (http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1991/9108dd.asp) 6- Amazing evidence for the resurrection of Christ (http://www.coralridge.org/medialibrary/default.aspx?mediaID=TTT110420)

HOLY SATURDAY: Awaiting Jesus’ Resurrection

SATURDAY OF HOLY WEEK (Sabbatum Sanctum, Sábado Santo)
Remembering Christ in the tomb and waiting in silence for His Resurrection
Holy Saturday “is the third and final day of the Easter Triduum.” It is the day for meditating on His suffering and death while awaiting the celebration of His resurrection. Mystery of Holy Saturday: “Utter silence, filled with anticipation for the new day…” On Holy Saturday, “while all was still, Jesus decisively transformed the world of darkness forever with the light of the Resurrection. Let us contemplate this mystery in this utter silence, filled with anticipation, as we await the One who does not disappoint.” - Readings for today - What comes next (Mt 28:1-10)

GOOD FRIDAY: The Passion of Jesus – His Trial and Death

FRIDAY OF HOLY WEEK (Viernes Santo in Spanish) Source THE PASSION OF JESUS: THE TRIAL Jesus was tried first before an ecclesiastical and then before a civil tribunal. Before ecclesiastical court: The ecclesiastical trial includes Christ’s appearance before Annas, before Caiphas, and again before Caiphas, who appears to have acted in each case as head of the Sanhedrin. The Jewish court found Jesus guilty of blasphemy, and condemned Him to death, though its proceedings were illegal from more than one point of view. During the trial took place Peter’s triple denial of Jesus; Jesus is insulted and mocked, especially between the second and third session; and after His final condemnation Judas despaired and met his tragic death. Before the civil court: The civil trial, too, comprised three sessions, the first before Pilate, the second before Herod, the third again before Pilate. Jesus is not charged with blasphemy before the court of Pilate, but with stirring up the people, forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, and claiming to be Christ the king. Pilate ignores the first two charges; the third he finds harmless when he sees that Jesus does not claim royalty in the Roman sense of the word. But in order not to incur the odium of the Jewish leaders, the Roman governor sends his prisoner to Herod. As Jesus did not humour the curiosity of Herod, He was mocked and set at naught by the Tetrarch of Galilee and his court, and sent back to Pilate. The Roman procurator declares the prisoner innocent for the second time, but, instead of setting Him free, gives the people the alternative to choose either Jesus or Barabbas for their paschal freedman. Pilate pronounced Jesus innocent for the third time with the more solemn ceremony of washing his hands; he had recourse to a third scheme of ridding himself of the burden of pronouncing an unjust sentence against his prisoner. He had the prisoner scourged, thus annihilating, as far as human means could do so, any hope that Jesus could ever attain to the royal dignity. But even this device miscarried, and Pilate allowed his political ambition to prevail over his sense of evident justice; he condemned Jesus to be crucified. THE PASSION OF JESUS: HIS DEATH Jesus carried His Cross to the place of execution. Simon of Cyrene is forced to assist Him in bearing the heavy burden. On the way Jesus addresses his last words to the weeping women who sympathized with His suffering. He is nailed to the Cross, his garments are divided, and an inscription is placed over His head. While His enemies mock Him, He pronounces the well-known “Seven Words”. Of the two robbers crucified with Jesus, one was converted, and the other died impenitent. The sun was darkened, and Jesus surrendered His soul into the hands of His Father. The veil of the Temple was rent into two, the earth quaked, the rocks were riven, and many bodies of the saints that had slept arose and appeared to many. The Roman centurion testified that Jesus was indeed the Son of God. The Heart of Jesus was pierced so as to make sure of His death. The Sacred Body was taken from the Cross by Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus, and was buried in the new sepulchre of Joseph, and the Sabbath drew near.

WAY OF THE CROSS 2011 (Via Crucis: Italian | Español) Source FIRST STATION Jesus is condemned to death   SECOND STATION Jesus takes up his cross   THIRD STATION Jesus falls the first time   FOURTH STATION Jesus meets his Mother   FIFTH STATION Simon of Cyrene helps Jesus carry his cross   SIXTH STATION Veronica wipes the face of Jesus   SEVENTH STATION Jesus falls the second time   EIGHTH STATION Jesus meets the women of Jerusalem, who weep for him   NINTH STATION Jesus falls the third time   TENTH STATION Jesus is stripped of his garments   ELEVENTH STATION Jesus is nailed to the cross   TWELFTH STATION Jesus dies on the cross   THIRTEENTH STATION Jesus is taken down from the cross and given to his Mother   FOURTEENTH STATION Jesus is placed in the tomb
MORE - Readings for today - TBN: Passion of Christ on TV: Mel Gibson’s “The Passion Of The Christ” follows the last twelve hours of Jesus’s life from his emotional turmoil in the Garden of Gethsemane until his final moments of the crucifixion. - Vatican’s Holy Week 2011 (Semana Santa) - Vatican’s calendar

HOLY THURSDAY: Jesus’ Last Supper

Commemorating the Passion, Death and Resurrection of Jesus Holy Week (or Semana Santa in Spanish) is the period between Palm Sunday and the great festival of the Resurrection on Easter Sunday. After Palm Sunday, the next important day of Holy Week is Holy Thursday when the commemoration of the Passion, Death and Resurrection of Jesus starts. The Last Supper by Pascal-Adolphe-Jean Dagnan-Bouveret The Last Supper (1800s)

THE FIRST PASSOVER Meaning: “Tonight begins the most important liturgy of the year, the Paschal Triduum, which in truth lasts for three days: Holy Thursday, Good Friday and finally the Easter Vigil on the evening of Holy Saturday. We depart in silence tonight, return and leave in sorrowful silence tomorrow and gather in silence once more – though with great expectation – as the sun departs on Saturday. The Passover of our Lord is here. So our first reading tonight recalls God’s commands to Moses before the Israelites observed their first Passover, the one done literally on the verge of flight from their slavery in Egypt… So, following God’s command, the Chosen People shared a perfectly unblemished lamb… And, taking the blood of the lamb, they painted their doorposts with it. The “angel of death” would see this sacrifice and “pass over” them; as for the Egyptians, who would lack this sign, they would see once and for all (since nine previous plagues had failed to convince them) that their gods were powerless before “I AM.”  (…) [W]e come again to the table tonight to celebrate our liberation from slavery, for the re-presentation of the greatest Passover of all. Jesus, the innocent, unblemished Lamb of God, our Passover, is sacrificed for us to take away the sin of the world.” “
	Reading 1: Ex 12:1-8, 11-14 The LORD said to Moses and Aaron in the land of Egypt, “This month shall stand at the head of your calendar; you shall reckon it the first month of the year. Tell the whole community of Israel: On the tenth of this month every one of your families must procure for itself a lamb, one apiece for each household. If a family is too small for a whole lamb, it shall join the nearest household in procuring one and shall share in the lamb in proportion to the number of persons who partake of it. The lamb must be a year-old male and without blemish. You may take it from either the sheep or the goats. You shall keep it until the fourteenth day of this month, and then, with the whole assembly of Israel present, it shall be slaughtered during the evening twilight. They shall take some of its blood and apply it to the two doorposts and the lintel of every house in which they partake of the lamb. That same night they shall eat its roasted flesh with unleavened bread and bitter herbs. “This is how you are to eat it: with your loins girt, sandals on your feet and your staff in hand, you shall eat like those who are in flight. It is the Passover of the LORD. For on this same night I will go through Egypt, striking down every firstborn of the land, both man and beast, and executing judgment on all the gods of Egypt—I, the LORD! But the blood will mark the houses where you are. Seeing the blood, I will pass over you; thus, when I strike the land of Egypt, no destructive blow will come upon you. “This day shall be a memorial feast for you, which all your generations shall celebrate with pilgrimage to the LORD, as a perpetual institution.”
CELEBRATING THE EUCHARIST Meaning:  “[T]he words Paul prescribes for his mission Church at Corinth are one of the earliest records we have of how the first Christians celebrated the Eucharist. (…)  The four New Testament renderings of the Words of Institution differ slightly from each other, but not in any essentials. All four use the same Greek words to make crystal-clear that the consecrated bread and wine ARE Jesus’ body and blood. Just as the Old Covenant was ratified by the blood of animal sacrifices, so the New Covenant is ratified with Jesus’ once-for-all Sacrifice on Calvary. Christ does not “die again” on the altar. The priest “re-presents” that very same single sacrifice every time we celebrate Mass.”
	Reading 2: 1 Cor 11:23-26 Brothers and Sisters, I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over, took bread, and, after he had given thanks, broke it and said, “This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes.
HUMILITY Meaning: “The Eucharist was not the only sacrament founded on that first Holy Thursday. The Church also traces Christ’s founding of the priesthood to this evening, through His command to celebrate the Eucharist “in remembrance of Me.” (…)  Jesus corrects him [Peter]: Let Me serve you. You cannot be My disciple otherwise. Why? Because you must be all about emptying yourself and serving others – all the time – as you spread My Good News to all nations. And this call goes out to all Christians, not merely priests, bishops and Peter’s successor as pope, “the servant of the servants of God.” Sin, in every expression, is self-centeredness at the expense of others. We must think and speak and act with the same humility, the same emptying of self, that Christ modeled throughout His earthly ministry and all the way to the cross. We cannot do this on our own, but Christ Himself makes it possible through His Word and sacraments and most especially as we humbly receive His body, blood, soul and divinity. He not only humbled Himself to wash our feet; in the eating and drinking, the Bridegroom literally enters each of us and makes us one in His Mystical Body, the Church, His Bride. So we celebrate tonight – knowing the sorrow, but also the joy, still to come.”
	Gospel: Jn 13:1-15 Before the feast of Passover, Jesus knew that his hour had come to pass from this world to the Father. He loved his own in the world and he loved them to the end. The devil had already induced Judas, son of Simon the Iscariot, to hand him over. So, during supper, fully aware that the Father had put everything into his power and that he had come from God and was returning to God, he rose from supper and took off his outer garments. He took a towel and tied it around his waist. Then he poured water into a basin and began to wash the disciples’ feet and dry them with the towel around his waist. He came to Simon Peter, who said to him, “Master, are you going to wash my feet?” Jesus answered and said to him, “What I am doing, you do not understand now, but you will understand later.” Peter said to him, “You will never wash my feet.” Jesus answered him, “Unless I wash you, you will have no inheritance with me.” Simon Peter said to him, “Master, then not only my feet, but my hands and head as well.” Jesus said to him, “Whoever has bathed has no need except to have his feet washed,  for he is clean all over; so you are clean, but not all.” For he knew who would betray him; for this reason, he said, “Not all of you are clean.” So when he had washed their feet and put his garments back on and reclined at table again, he said to them, “Do you realize what I have done for you? You call me ‘teacher’ and ‘master,’ and rightly so, for indeed I am. If I, therefore, the master and teacher, have washed your feet, you ought to wash one another’s feet. I have given you a model to follow, so that as I have done for you, you should also do.”

MORE - The betrayal - The Passion of Jesus Christ - Easter - Mass of the Lord’s Supper - Holy Thursday - Lent and Easter 2011 Calendar