Why Christmas Is So Important to God

Why Christmas Is So Important to God

PhotoDisc

Many Christians are indignantly insisting that people stop de-Christifying the celebration of Christmas in the name of political correctness. Are they even aware of this holiday’s decidedly non-Christian origins?

The traditions surrounding Christmas stir warm feelings in the hearts of many—young and old alike—all over the Earth. Families come together. Shoppers go into a frenzy. Children await the day they’ll receive their presents. There is no other time quite like it.

The attachment people feel to these days isn’t surprising. After all, these traditions have been going on for hundreds of generations. Consider the following description in the Bible: “[F]or one cutteth a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the axe. They deck it with silver and with gold; they fasten it with nails and with hammers, that it move not” (Jeremiah 10:3-4). That description, clearly describing a Christmas tree, was recorded in the book of Jeremiah hundreds of years before the birth of Christ.

But consider the opening of verse 3: “For the customs of the people are vain.” Vain? This couldn’t be talking about Christmas, could it?

What does God think of Christmas? Rest assured, He is very interested in this holiday and its yearly celebration.

Most people simply follow the customs of their family, region or nation without knowing where those customs originated or why they are kept. Most never ask about the origins of Christmas, why people exchange presents on this day, or even whether this holiday really represents the birth of Jesus Christ, after whom it is named.

Does the Almighty God command its observance? If not, does He forbid that we partake in it?

Let us obtain the true facts about Christmas.

The date of December 25 is widely associated with the birth of Jesus Christ. But is this really the correct date of His birth?

When Jesus Christ was born, “there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night” (Luke 2:8). December is in the midst of a cold, rainy season in Judaea. The shepherds always brought their flocks in from the fields and mountains to be corralled by mid-October at the latest, for their protection. Song of Solomon 2:11 and Ezra 10:9 and 13 show that winter was a rainy season, thus confirming that the shepherds would not have been in open fields on December 25.

Why then would Christ’s birth be celebrated on this day? The Encyclopedia Britannica states, “The reason why Christmas came to be celebrated on December 25 remains uncertain, but most probably the reason is that early Christians wished the date to coincide with the pagan Roman festival marking the ‘birthday of the unconquered sun.’”

In addition, the Catholic Encyclopedia makes many startling admissions. Here are just a few:

“Christmas was not among the earliest festivals of the church ….” That’s right—Christmas was not instituted by Jesus Christ, nor was it observed by any of the apostles personally instructed by Christ.

In fact, we are told that “The word for Christmas in late Old English is Cristes Maesse, the Mass of Christ, first found in 1038.” That is 1,000 years after the death of Christ.

“The first evidence of the feast is from Egypt” (not Jerusalem). About a.d. 200 Egyptian theologians began celebrating the birth of Christ on the 25th of Pachon, which corresponds to May 20 on our calendar.

The truth is, the early Christians did not observe birthdays—not even Christ’s birth. The Christian theologian Origen (a.d. 185-232) asserts, “[I]n the Scriptures sinners alone, not saints, celebrate their birthday.”

As you can see, secular and Catholic history shows that, originally, Christmas was definitely not about celebrating the birth of Jesus Christ. In order to find the true origins of Christmas and the traditions surrounding it, we must look back even further to another historical source: the one true source of living knowledge—the Holy Bible.

Jesus Christ was not born on December 25. But this date is not without origin. It can be traced back to Genesis and a man named Nimrod.

Nimrod, grandson of Ham and son of Cush, was the founder of a great false religious system that has always opposed the truths of God. Genesis 10:8 says that Nimrod “began to be a mighty one [or tyrant] in the earth.” He set out to conquer and exploit other people by forming the first “kingdom” on Earth at Babylon in Shinar (verse 10). Nimrod also built the infamous tower of Babel (Genesis 11:1-9).

Nimrod rebelled before God in everything he did, but especially in the establishment of a great false religion. Nimrod not only wanted to lead his people, he wanted to be worshiped by them. It is said that he married his own mother, Semiramis. She became known as the “queen of heaven” and Nimrod as the “divine son of heaven.” He claimed to be the “savior” of all mankind and came to be worshiped as their messiah—their great deliverer. The problem was, he was attempting to save man from God, not from their sins! Nimrod was an outspoken rebel against all that God stood for, and, the Jewish historian Josephus reported, he taught the multitudes that it was “cowardice to submit to God.”

While Nimrod was alive he put himself in the place of God, and when he died Semiramis saw to it that he was still worshiped as a divine hero and given the name Baal, which means master, or lord. That is the name of the false god found throughout much of the Old Testament.

Shortly after Nimrod’s untimely death, Semiramis gave birth to an illegitimate child, which she claimed was begotten by a “spirit” as a rebirth of Nimrod. This “mother and child” soon became the chief objects of worship throughout the world. There are many versions of this story, one for each nation and tongue as they were scattered from Babel by God, but whether they worshiped the mother and child under the Egyptian names of Isis and Horus, or the Roman names of Venus and Jupiter, or under the eventual Christian names of the “Virgin Mary” and the “Christ child,” it was the same old Babylonian religion. Even in China, Japan and Tibet, the counterpart of the Madonna and child were worshiped long before the birth of Christ. Every Christmas season you will hear many hymns such as “Silent Night” having this age-old mother-and-child theme, though there is no biblical admonition to worship Mary, Jesus’s mother.

Semiramis also claimed that a full-grown evergreen tree sprang up overnight from a dead stump, symbolizing the new life of Nimrod. She claimed that Nimrod would visit the evergreen tree and leave gifts on each anniversary of his birth, which happens to be on December 25. This is the true origin of the Christmas tree, and the history behind the gifts people place there to this day. This is why the Prophet Jeremiah knew of the “Christmas tree” so long before Jesus Christ was ever born.

Again we witness the remnants of a custom established centuries before the birth of Christ, yet promoted into Christianity with no scriptural instruction to do so.

During the time of the Roman Empire, for hundreds of years prior to “Christianity” coming into the mainstream of Western culture, pagan festivals were celebrated. “In the Roman world the Saturnalia (December 17-23) was a time of merrymaking and exchange of gifts. December 25 was also regarded as the birth date of the Iranian mystery god Mithra, the Sun of Righteousness. On the Roman New Year (January 1), houses were decorated with greenery and lights, and gifts were given to children and the poor. To these observances were added the German and Celtic Yule rites when the Teutonic tribes penetrated into Gaul, Britain and central Europe. Food and good fellowship, the Yule log and Yule cakes, greenery and fir trees, and gifts and greetings all commemorated different aspects of this festive season” (Encyclopedia Britannica).

Is it coincidence that these customs are so closely associated with Christmas to this day?

We need to understand that every one of the pagan customs that now pollutes mainstream Christianity began out of deliberate rebellion against the Creator God, the same Being who came to this Earth to educate us with the truth and save us out of our deception and our sin.

Christmas is a pagan festival. That is absolute fact. Research any Christmas custom and you can quickly discover the pagan origin. Some people take offense when these things are pointed out, but God commands His faithful Church to proclaim such things (Isaiah 58:1).

Yet those Christians who know these pagan origins are quick to respond, “But we do not worship any pagan sun-god today! We are simply honoring the birth of Jesus Christ.”

How does God answer such reasoning? Aside from the fact that God does not command Christmas, aside from the fact that Christ wasn’t born on December 25 and that its customs are steeped in paganism, does it matter if we keep Christmas for the “right” reasons? “Take heed that you be not ensnared to follow them [the pagans and their customs] and that you do not inquire about their gods, saying, ‘How did these nations serve their gods?—that I also may do likewise.’ You shall not do so to the Lord your God; for every abominable thing which the Lord hates they have done for their gods” (Deuteronomy 12:30-31, Revised Standard Version).

Popular opinion should not prevent individuals who know the truth from turning away from a festival season steeped in paganism. Jesus said that, in order to be His disciples, there would be times when we would need to forsake the desires of our family and friends and follow Him (Luke 14:26-27).

God does give us a command to memorialize Jesus Christ: He commands us to observe the day of Christ’s death (1 Corinthians 11:24-27)—not His birth. God also commands that we keep other holy days, a listing of which can be found in Leviticus 23. If you want more information, we suggest reading online or requesting a free copy of our booklet Pagan Holidays—or God’s Holy Days—Which?



Bishops Want God in EU Anniversary Declaration

Bishops Want God in EU Anniversary Declaration

Index Open

March 2007 marks the 50th anniversary of the Treaty of Rome, considered the birth of the European Union. To celebrate their Union’s birthday, European leaders plan to do what they love best: draft a statement and debate about how the text should read.

They should have plenty to debate. European bishops want the document to contain explicit references to God and Christianity. That proposal is likely to generate some argument, recalling the once-heated discussion about an even more significant document: the European Constitution, in which some tried and failed to include a reference to God.

The birthday document—called the Berlin Declaration—is to be signed during the six-month German presidency of the Union. This declaration, according to the Commission of the Bishops Conferences of the European Community, should reflect how the “Christian faith is the living source for [Europeans’] support of our common values and ambitions” and should be “inclusive enough not only to list the values and ambitions of the European Union but to reflect the religious and humanistic motivation of EU citizenship.”

The Catholic leaders correctly stated that “for many of [the EU’s] founders, the Christian imprint on the European project has been an indisputable fact.”

Not only was Europe’s version of Christianity fundamental to the founding of the EU, these religious principles will eventually play an equally important role in Europe’s achievement as a federalist superstate. Whether or not faith finds its way into official documents, watch for the Vatican to play an increasingly significant role in Europe’s political development—as it has done historically in the form of the Holy Roman Empire. In this unstable world, watch for Europeans to welcome Catholicism’s rally cries and unite under their “Christian” heritage.

For more on this heritage, see our booklet Germany and the Holy Roman Empire and our article “The Truth About Religion in Europe.”

Brussels Fails to Control State Spending

Brussels Fails to Control State Spending

Index Open

The Brussels bureaucracy of the European Union is looking increasingly ineffective and bloated. The need for a sleeker alternative is growing more stark.

In the latest example, reports this week showed Brussels unable to prevent EU member states from subsidizing the private sector. The European Commission has been trying to limit such payments, arguing that they distort competition by supporting one company or industry against others. Nevertheless, this week the Commission reported that €64 billion (us$84 billion) was spent in 2005 on “helping troubled companies and supporting industries and initiatives”—only $1 billion down from 2004, despite repeated commitments for cutbacks. Germany is at the top of the list of offenders, having given €20 billion in state aid—double the next-highest-spending country, France.

This reemphasizes—like the failure of the EU constitution—how powerless Brussels is becoming in some areas. The Financial Timespoints out that the Commission failed to remove special protections for the publicly owned German bank Landesbanken, and also failed to prevent the French bailout of the Alstom engineering group. Germany in particular does an excellent job of winning its encounters with the bloated machine in Brussels. If Germany should happen to meet EU limits for its public deficit this year, it will be the first time in four years.

The shortcomings of the Brussels government presents Germany with an opportunity: With the German government on the verge of assuming its six-month turn at the EU presidency, it has an ideal opportunity to undermine the Brussels bureaucracy.

Having seen that Brussels cannot expeditiously carry out its plans, the current German strategy, articulated by Germany’s ambassador to the EU, Wilhelm Schönfelder, is to simply avoid Brussels altogether in its discussions regarding the EU constitution—probably a model that will be followed anywhere German efficiency can be effectively applied: “We will keep it out of the Brussels machinery,” because otherwise “you will never come up with a solution,” Schönfelder stated.

After establishing a more efficient process for the EU during its six-month presidency, Germany will, as Chancellor Angela Merkel stated, “set a roadmap” for those nations that follow. The Brussels government may well find that, at the end of June 2007, much of the groundwork for a transition of power from Brussels to Berlin is done, a shift that has already begun.

The Chamberlain Style of Diplomacy

The Chamberlain Style of Diplomacy

Jupiter Images

History teaches that when diplomacy is not underpinned by the threat of military force it is fruitless—and even deadly.

As he stepped from the plane onto the tarmac of Heston airport, the prime minister could barely contain his excitement. Clasped tightly between his fingers was the fruit of a long process of hard-fought diplomacy. Jubilance filled the air. The sense of relief was palpable. As he prepared to read the note to an eager public, Neville Chamberlain considered the significance history would award to this day. Sept. 30, 1938, was to be a glorious testament to the power of diplomacy.

It was on this day that Britain’s Prime Minister Chamberlain, waving the non-aggression agreement signed by Adolf Hitler, declared those infamous words: “Peace for our time.” During the conference in Munich, the power of rhetoric had prevailed; the clenched fist of war had been staid.

Or so it seemed.

It is critical we consider the history of pre-World War ii diplomacy in the context of current events, and how American and British leaders are handling these issues. Compare world conditions leading up to World War ii with world conditions now. This world is knocking on the door of World War iii. Iran and radical terrorists are waging a political and military campaign designed to push the world into war. We are reliving 1938.

As evil leaders create a vortex that will suck the world into war, American and British leaders seek to solve the problem in the same manner Neville Chamberlain tried—that is, through diplomacy comprised solely of words and devoid of action.

Consider Iraq. Many of our leaders and so-called experts now believe that the solution to the crisis in Iraq lies in diplomacy, not military force. Pacifist thinking bleeds from the mainstream media as well as the highest levels of government, particularly the anti-war Democrats. Appeasement is becoming the policy of the day. Such thinking permeates the recently released report from the Iraq Study Group (isg) led by esteemed politician James Baker.

For years now, Tehran and Damascus have shown, through their words as well as their actions, that they are working against America and its interests in the Middle East. Much like Hitler had designs on Europe, Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has designs on the entire Middle East, particularly oil-rich, Shia-dominated Iraq. So how does the isg propose the American government counter Tehran’s intentions? Through diplomacy alone.

While the isg report admits that dealing with Tehran and Damascus will be controversial and gritty, nevertheless it says, “It is our view that in diplomacy a nation can and should engage its adversaries and enemies to try to resolve conflicts and differences consistent with its own interests. Accordingly, the Support Group should actively engage Iran and Syria in its diplomatic dialogue, without preconditions” (emphasis mine throughout). This report talks extensively about conducting a new “diplomatic offensive” with Iran, Syria and every other party with an interest in Bagdad, but it says very little about underpinning these diplomatic efforts with threat of specific actions.

Okay, so let’s embrace Ahmadinejad and Assad in conversation—but what is the United States to do when the talks inevitably fall apart, and these pathological liars renege on their side of the bargain? The isg report does not lay out detailed, definite and strong physical repercussions. So what’s to stop Iran, Syria, and even Iraq from not breaking their end of any bargain?

On that day in 1938, it seemed Chamberlain had achieved the unachievable. He had secured peace on the Continent by gaining the promises of the testy German chancellor—and all through rhetoric. Peace had been realized without a single shot being fired. Adding to the sweetness of the day for Chamberlain was the knowledge that he had proven Winston Churchill—his “war-mongering” arch-nemesis—wrong. For years Chamberlain had been tormented by Churchill’s warnings about the mounting force and motivation of Germany and the need for Britain to build its military. Surely Chamberlain’s accomplishments at the Munich conference would prove to Churchill that military force was unnecessary for securing peace. Or so Chamberlain thought.

Less than a year after that crowning moment in the life of Neville Chamberlain, the world experienced a crowning moment of its own. On Sept. 1, 1939, Hitler flouted the non-aggression pact, fired up the engines of his military, and ignited World War ii by rumbling eastward into Poland. Two days later, when France and Britain declared war on Germany, Chamberlain diplomacy was pronounced officially dead. The only solution was action.

The lesson is, diplomacy not underpinned by threat of action is fruitless, even dangerous. Rather than gain peace, Chamberlain diplomacy serves only to strengthen the enemy and precipitate conflict. After signing the non-aggression pact in Munich in 1938, Hitler returned to Germany and stoked the already hot fires of German industry in order to churn out more planes, more tanks and more rifles. Chamberlain’s diplomacy armed Hitler with more time.

It wasn’t until the day France and Britain declared war on Germany that Hitler was actually made to pay for his actions. By this time, it was too late to prevent World War ii.

Consider the outcome of events had Chamberlain underpinned his diplomacy with action—had Hitler been made to suffer a physical penalty for his actions during the 1930s. How powerful could Hitler’s military have grown if Britain stepped in and punished Germany for its war-mongering in the 1930s? Churchill labeled World War ii “the Unnecessary War,” simply because it could have been prevented with firm action at virtually any time during the early 1930s.

Consider an analogy. I’m fairly good about not exceeding the speed limit when I’m driving. Why? Not because a police officer could pull me over and give me a verbal lashing. The reason I try not to speed is that the police officer will likely write me a ticket, which could in turn drive up the cost of my insurance. I try not to speed more out of fear for the physical penalty for speeding than the possibility of a tongue-lashing. It’s the threat of punishment that gives weight and importance to the policeman’s correction.

Diplomacy comprised solely of words and conversation is little more than idle chit-chat. This was the Chamberlain form of diplomacy. This is the form of diplomacy touted by many Western leaders and the mainstream media today.

Speaking to an audience in New Hampshire recently, Democratic senator and possible presidential candidate Joseph Biden condemned further military involvement in Iraq and said the solution to Iraq’s problems lies in political dialogue. The Middle East is seething with problems for America right now. Israel is facing a three-front war from Syria in the Golan Heights, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and Hamas in the Gaza Strip. Syria and Iran are pushing for the downfall of the moderate, U.S.-friendly government of Lebanon. Iraq is on the verge of disintegrating. Like Germany in the 1930s, every sign says war is about to surge across the Middle East.

But like Chamberlain, many American and British leaders believe the solutions lie in conversation and negotiation. Yank the troops out, and let’s sit down at the negotiating table with Iran and Syria, the reasoning goes.

The result is that we are moving into an era when the enemies of Western civilization simply do not fear consequences for their actions. Hence, Hezbollah launches war against Israel; Hamas does everything but; North Korea freely tests long-range missiles and nuclear weapons; Iran spurns international pressure to refrain from doing the same; Iraqi and Afghan insurgents brazenly attack Western forces.

Time has proven that these evil forces cannot be talked into giving up their destructive agendas. But the general policy in international bodies—and in American politics, with a couple of brief exceptions—is still to forego action for the sake of talk, indefinitely. In October, Dr. George Friedman from Stratfor Systems discussed American diplomacy in the event of the Democrats gaining more influence in the government, which they did. “Diplomacy without a realistic threat of significant action,” he said, “in the event that diplomacy fails, is just empty chatter.” That statement summarizes American foreign policy today. When it comes to problems such as Iran’s involvement in Iraq, the policy of the American government is little more than empty chatter—conversations are not underpinned by action. Thus, the diplomacy carries very little weight.

Theodore Roosevelt was the first U.S. president to see that America had the potential to be a world power. And Mr. Roosevelt knew that effective diplomacy—words underpinned, if necessary, by action—was key to becoming a great nation. Speaking at the Naval War College in Newport on June 2, 1897, Mr. Roosevelt said, “Diplomacy is utterly useless when there is no force behind it. The diplomat is the servant, not the master, of the soldier. There are higher things in this life than the soft and easy enjoyment of material comfort. It is through strife, or the readiness for strife, that a nation must win greatness.” Mr. Roosevelt made that comment at the dawn of American greatness. And the truth of his statement has never been more evident than in our danger-fraught world: In today’s world, survival is won “through strife, or the readiness for strife.”

Stop and consider the end result of Chamberlain’s form of diplomacy. When the British pm stepped onto the tarmac that September day in 1938, the last thing that had been secured for Europe was peace. The only thing awarded to the Continent that day was time: The people had 11 more months of peace—while Hitler had 11 more months of preparation—followed by what was an even bloodier and more lethal war.

Today, if America’s politicians and media experts continue to tout the Chamberlain form of diplomacy, the end result will be the same. Words without action may buy time, but they will not stop the inevitable: the eruption of World War iii.

EU Oil and Energy Production Plummets

EU Oil and Energy Production Plummets

Index Open

Last year was disastrous for energy production within the EU, especially Britain. Massive energy production declines in Britain are aggravating the EU’s external energy dependence. Consequently, Europe is becoming increasingly dependent on foreign energy suppliers.

The European Union was forced to import a record amount of energy last year, as output in every major production category including oil, natural gas, coal and nuclear power fell. Although overall EU energy demand remained flat, total energy production from all sources cascaded 4.2 percent compared to 2004.

The largest energy sector drop was in crude oil production: This fell by 9 percent, primarily due to Britain’s aging North Sea oil fields, which experts say are beginning to run dry.

Natural gas production slipped by 5.8 percent, also largely because of production declines from Britain’s North Sea, as well as declines in Dutch fields, which fell 7.7 percent and 5.9 percent respectively.

Coal output within the EU dropped by 5.7 percent, again in large part due to significant declines in Britain, the EU’s third-largest coal-mining nation. However, Poland and Germany, the EU’s first- and second-largest producers, also experienced coal output reductions.

Surprisingly, even with the upsurge in nuclear power generation interest that has swept the globe in recent years, nuclear power production still declined by 1.3 percent across the EU. Germany, the EU’s second-largest atomic power generator, cut output by 3 percent, overwhelming the slight increase in French output.

The EU now imports 56 percent of its energy needs—an amount that is increasing. In 1995 this figure was only 44 percent. If trends continue, by 2020, the EU will need to import two thirds of its energy demand according to the European Commission report “European Union Energy Outlook to 2020.”

Germany, Italy and France already import 90, 91 and 95 percent of their daily oil needs respectively, and the vast majority of their natural gas needs. These nations typify the foreign energy dependence which almost all EU nations experience.

As European dependence on foreign energy increases, Europe will become increasingly vulnerable to energy shocks. Watch for the push for greater European energy security to continue to be led by Germany, Italy and France as they seek to gain control of foreign energy supplies.

Global competition for energy is about to heat up.

Just How Big Was America’s Real Deficit?

Just How Big Was America’s Real Deficit?

Dreamstime

Official figures say the U.S. had a $248 billion budget deficit in 2006. In truth, the number is over 10 times worse.

Everyone knows America is in debt—but few realize how much. The debt is so deep, the government will never pay it off. It continues to spend more than it collects every year, far more than it even reports.

The government officially reports that in the fiscal year ending Sept. 30, 2006, for example, it was in the red by $248 billion. A closer look at the real books reveals the deficit was actually an unimaginable $4.6 trillion. That’s right, just for this past fiscal year.

Econometrician John Williams, who publishes the website Shadow Government Statistics, asserts that the $4.6 trillion figure “is fully validated in the Financial Report of the United States, a little-known report Congress has mandated that the Treasury Department publishes each year, reporting the federal budget on a gaap [generally accepted accounting principles] accounting basis, not on a cash accrual basis.”

America’s liabilities are so large that according to Williams, “Even if the federal government raised individual and corporate income taxes to 100 percent, simply confiscating every penny every business and person in the U.S. made, we would still have a federal deficit.”

So how can the government get away with reporting a “mere” $248 billion deficit?

“The trick,” says Williams, “is that the Treasury essentially steals [incoming] Social Security taxes, without accounting for any offsetting Social Security liability.” Official numbers are based upon “cash accounting” and do not factor in known future costs such as Social Security or Medicare. Under this accounting procedure, the government counts incoming Social Security not as people’s savings, which it actually is, but as general revenue, disregarding the fact that the government has promised to pay it back to retirees in the future.

Cash accounting obviously makes the government’s financial situation appear much healthier than it really is. However, just because the government and most media outlets stick to the $248 billion figure doesn’t mean America’s actual debts are not accumulating.

In fact, sneaky government budget reporting has allowed the nation to accrue debts that would have caused a massive uproar had the truth been widely reported. On a gaap accounting basis—which includes government promises such as Social Security, Medicare, pensions and all other non-reported liabilities—the total U.S. government debt is now $53.1 trillion, says Williams.

“With less than one tenth of the actual deficit being reported each year, a cumulative negative net worth … has built up in stealth,” he says, “to where the total obligations of the U.S. government are now more than four times our annual gross domestic product.”

Yet, if America’s finances are in such dire straights, why isn’t more fuss being made about it? Why haven’t media personalities and financial experts trumpeted the fact that America is headed toward bankruptcy?

“There are lots of people who know that the federal deficit is in the trillions,” according to Williams. “The problem is that few dare sound the alarm. The magnitude of the budget deficit problem is just too enormous and neither political party has the courage to address the problem.”

“It’s not the type of news Reuters, Bloomberg and the Wall Street Journal like to broadcast to investors and the American public,” he said. “Besides, the financial press won’t take the time and effort to analyze the figures and comb through the footnotes.”

Perhaps a more sinister explanation is that the government does not intend to fully repay all its liabilities.

At least one of the government’s own accountants thinks this is the case. To explain why his office did not include Social Security and Medicare in the government’s official budget, then acting director of the president’s Office of Management Budget said it was because they do not “represent a legal obligation because Congress has the authority to increase or reduce social insurance benefits at any time,” reported USA Today on August 4.

Gimmick book-keeping and poor deficit reporting aside, America’s true debt is rapidly increasing. Eventually, America will find that there are no more easy lenders and that its debts will have to be paid. When that day comes—and signs like a sliding dollar indicate that it is nearing—inflation will soar, interest rates will jump and the economy will take a severe hit.