The Silent Extermination of Iraq’s ‘Christian Dogs’

[Excerpts]

Last week an Iraqi Muslim scholar issued a fatwa that, among other barbarities, asserts that “it is permissible to spill the blood of Iraqi Christians.” Inciting as the fatwa is, it is also redundant. While last October’s Baghdad church attack which killed some sixty Christians is widely known—actually receiving some MSM [Mainstream Media] coverage—the fact is, Christian life in Iraq has been a living hell ever since U.S. forces ousted the late Saddam Hussein in 2003.

Among other atrocities, beheading and crucifying Christians are not irregular occurrences; messages saying “you Christian dogs, leave or die,” are typical. Islamists see the church as an “obscene nest of pagans” and threaten to “exterminate Iraqi Christians.”

The grand irony, of course, is that Christian persecution has increased exponentially under U.S. occupation. As one top Vatican official put it, Christians, “paradoxically, were more protected under the dictatorship” of Saddam Hussein.

What does one make of this—that under Saddam, who was notorious for human rights abuses, Christians were better off than they are under a democratic government sponsored by humanitarian, some would say “Christian,” America?

Like a Baghdad caliph, Saddam appears to have made use of the better educated Christians, who posed no risk to his rule, such as his close confidant Tariq Aziz. Moreover, by keeping a tight lid on the Islamists of his nation—who hated him as a secular apostate no less than the Christians—the latter benefited indirectly.

Conversely, by empowering “the people,” the U.S. has unwittingly undone Iraq’s Christian minority. Naively projecting Western values on Muslims, U.S. leadership continues to think that “people-power” will naturally culminate into a liberal, egalitarian society—despite all the evidence otherwise. The fact is, in the Arab/Muslim world, “majority rule” traditionally means domination by the largest tribe or sect; increasingly, it means Islamist domination.

Either which way, the minorities—notably the indigenous Christians—are the first to suffer once the genie of “people-power” is uncorked. Indeed, evidence indicates that the U.S. backed “democratic” government of Iraq enables and incites the persecution of its Christians. (All of this raises the pivotal question: do heavy-handed tyrants—Saddam, Mubarak, Qaddafi, et al—create brutal societies, or do naturally brutal societies create the need for heavy-handed tyrants to keep order).

Full article:
http://frontpagemag.com/2011/04/21/the-silent-extermination-of-iraq%E2%80%99s-%E2%80%98christian-dogs%E2%80%99-2/

The Coming Battle

The Coming Battle
By M.W. Walbert

First published in 1899, republished for the first time in 100 years!

The Coming Battle documents from congressional records, newspaper reports and writings by the founding fathers and others, a chronology of events long forgotten that shaped our fledgling nation from 1776 to 1899. Read about the manipulation of our money and its supply, the intentional creation of recessions, depressions and panics.

The manipulation of the stock markets. The demonetization of silver. A breathtaking history told in the words of a contemporary witness to these events.The complete early history of the creation of the Federal Reserve.

This masterpiece reveals how the banking money power and corporate interests, partnering with government, set up a framework to exploit American workers.Lost for 100 years!


http://www.mega.nu:8080/ampp/comingbattle/cbtabcon.htm

http://www.newswithviewsstore.com/mm5/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=NWVS&Product_Code=B1&Category_Code=BOOKS

A Government Based on Blatant Lies

Sadly, our government now has such a consistent track record of blatant lies that very few American trust anything that drips from the lips of government officials today.

• Our military action in Libya is not a ‘no-fly zone” operation, it is an unconstitutional war intended to topple the Libyan government.

• The economic stimulus spending is not designed to return America to free-market prosperity, but rather to destroy any chance of future free-market prosperity.

• The mortgage crisis was not created by bad lenders; it was created by bad federal government lending requirements, which still persist today.

• Our debt crisis was not caused by greedy rich capitalists who do not pay their fair share in taxes; it was caused by more than seventy years of gross irresponsible government mismanagement that far exceeds the crimes of Bernie Madoff.

• President Obama issued a second false birth certificate after swearing for two-and a half years that the first forged COLB was his birth certificate, an outright lie, twice.

• Natural Born Citizen does not mean “born in Hawaii.” It means born the natural blood offspring of legal U.S. citizen father, and Obama does not pass the test. But nobody in the press will ask the right question – was his daddy ever a legal U.S. citizen?

• Democrats did not free the slaves, they fought against it. Republicans freed the slaves.

• Patriotic Americans are not terrorists; the people who fear American patriots are terrorists.

• Our government does not work to free people; it works to enslave people.

• The people don’t answer to the government; the government answers to the people.

• Our immigration system is not broken; it’s simply not enforced. A direct violation of constitutional law and U.S. sovereignty and security, and yet another lie.

We may or may not have recently killed Osama Bin Laden. The people trust nothing that their government tells them today and that’s because their government has a track record of lying to the people all day, every day, on every issue.

Patriotic Americans have been sending a clear message to Washington DC elites for a few years now, stop the lies and stop destroying our country. But Washington DC still isn’t listening, even after the 2010 landslide shift in legislative power.

Full article:
WHEN THE PEOPLE LOSE ALL FAITH IN THEIR GOVERNMENT
By J.B. Williams
May 11, 2011
NewsWithViews.com
http://www.newswithviews.com/JBWilliams/williams148.htm

America Is Broke and Borrowing Like Crazy

Foreign aid takes money from poor people of a rich country and gives it to rich people of a poor country. It never reaches the poor of a poor country!

AMERICA IS BROKE AND BORROWING LIKE CRAZY

By Frosty Wooldridge
May 5, 2011
NewsWithViews.com

Back in 1965, the United States of America enjoyed the status of being the largest lender nation in the world. Today, America suffers the enigma of being the largest debtor nation on the planet.

The U.S. government borrows in excess of $2 billion a day to float its false economy where manufacturing has been shipped off to China and every other country in the world.

Today, our $800 billion a year military budget wastes untold amounts of money that does nothing to keep Americans safe or secure. In a definitive statement, retired Army combat veteran Colonel Andrew J. Bacevich wrote a book: Washington Rules: America’s Path to Permanent War.

In it, Bacevich said, “America uses its military power for global power projection and global interventionism and has since the Truman administration. The US spends $800 billion annually, as much or greater outlays of treasure than is spent by all the rest of the world combined for military spending.”

The military industrial complex rules our U.S. Congress like Indiana Jones whipping a mouse into submission. At this time, 572,000 military personnel reside on 761 bases in 39 countries around the world according to Bacevich. Costs: into the trillions of wasted dollars over the years.

And while every state in the Union runs in red ink, the Pentagon burns through $12 billion every 30 days in three wars that have absolutely nothing to do with our defense, safety or security. The same could be said for the 35,000 troops stationed in Korea for 50 years: no use, no need and no purpose under the sun.

The U.S. Government bleeds the American people to an ugly financial death. It has run up a $14.4 trillion debt that will ultimately collapse the entire monetary system within the United States.

Full article:
http://www.newswithviews.com/Wooldridge/frosty660.htm

Circus Clowns And Sideshow Freaks

Brandon Smith
Infowars.com
May 3, 2011

(excerpt)

“If You Didn’t Vote, You Have No Right To Complain…”

Perhaps the most effective scam of all time is the construction of the false left/right paradigm. Anyone who does not understand this fundamental fallacy of our political system will never be able to understand the bigger picture of how our government works or why or “elected” officials do the things they do. If you cannot accept the fact that both major parties are essentially the same, supporting the same primary legislation and differing only in rhetoric, then you will probably attribute the constant failings of our leadership to “greed” or “stupidity”. This is simply not the case.

When Obama went back on his election year promises to end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and pull troops out (there are still thousands of troops and private contractors in Iraq too, for those that bought the second pullout lie), for instance, or when he decided to support the Patriot Acts after criticizing them, this was not because he has a bad memory, or even because he wanted to win your vote. He made promises and then nixed them because that’s HIS JOB; to perpetuate the false idea that the Democratic Party is anti-war, and different from the Republican Party.

When Bush Jr. ran on a platform of limited government and conservatism, then tripled the size of the Federal Government, it was not because he is an idiot man-child. It is because it was his job to pretend as if he cared about traditional conservative values, while instituting socialist globalist programs under our noses.

When a hypocrite and a bottom feeder like Donald Trump, a confessed liberal on taxes, health care, and trade, a man who stooped to using eminent domain in an effort to steal an elderly woman’s home so he could pour a limousine parking lot on top of it, is suddenly presented as the new hope of the Republican Party and limited government, I think its time to pack up our preconceptions about there being any such thing as a two party system.

In the end, most political leaders are more like circus clowns, meant to amuse us. They bumble about the center ring spraying seltzer water at each other and cracking each other’s skulls with rubber mallets, but who really cares which clown wins this slapstick contest? They may make us feel as though we have a choice, and thus a voice, in our government, but at bottom, it is the ringmaster that decides the course of the show. The clowns are a sidenote. Not voting for either of them seems to be only the option left, or, voting with one’s conscience for a candidate that’s not an establishment favorite...

Full article:
http://www.infowars.com/circus-clowns-and-sideshow-freaks/

The Cybersecurity and Internet Freedom Act (CIFA)

THE CYBERSECURITY AND INTERNET FREEDOM ACT

By Attorney Jonathan Emord
Author of "The Rise of Tyranny" and
"Global Censorship of Health Information"
May 2, 2011
NewsWithViews.com

An Enemy of Liberty

In February of this year Senators Joe Lieberman, Susan Collins, and Tom Carper introduced the Cybsersecurity and Internet Freedom Act (CIFA). CIFA permits the federal government to limit internet traffic when the President declares a national cyber emergency. The measure also calls for the Department of Homeland Security to create a list of the systems and resources that are deemed “critical infrastructure” that would be directed in unspecified ways by the government in the event of a cyber emergency. Largely free of government control, the internet has rapidly become the greatest interactive medium for free speech and press that the world has ever known. By sponsoring this bill, Lieberman, Collins and Carper seek to give the President control over that medium at his discretion during times of an actual or perceived cyber emergency. The First Amendment forbids that action. CIFA is patently unconstitutional. We should strenuously oppose the bill.

Under CIFA, if the President declares a national cyber emergency, he may limit public access to the internet for thirty day periods renewable thereafter for three consecutive thirty day periods. That 120 period, when broken by a matter of days, could be recommenced again. By controlling access, the President may alter what is said and who may speak. Thus, the bill enables the President to exercise the controls that can deny internet access to unwanted speakers based on their unwanted content.

If CIFA had an analog counterpart, it would be a statute to permit the President to limit during a perceived or actual emergency who may write for, and the number of pages that can appear in, newspapers nationwide. There is no emergency too great to justify the exercise of that unconstitutional power whereby government replaces private editorial freedom, whether that replacement lasts for a minute, an hour, a week, a month, or a year. The media is liberated from government restraint by our Constitution. So liberated, it can perform an essential function of critically examining government men and measures insulated from their retaliation by the First Amendment barrier. When operating properly, the media is an investigatory body that ferrets out government corruption, exposes abuses of power, reveals hidden agendas, and informs the electorate so that we may demand that government account for its actions and throw out of power those who disserve our interests.

CIFA is Big Brother’s best friend and those who favor it do so because they share none of the Founding Fathers’ antipathy for and fear of government, corruption and abuse of power. Undoubtedly the internet, like all media and private property in general, can be illegally converted to serve evil ends, but the proper role of government is to investigate and prosecute those who commit the unlawful conversion, not use the fact of the illegality as a justification for an even greater conversion—the transference of control over the internet to the executive branch of the government.

There is no authority given Congress or the President in the Constitution to suspend freedom of speech and press in the event of a national emergency. Whatever may be said about the need to protect national security, that need does not justify any exercise of a general power over the media. Indeed, it does not rightfully extend beyond enjoining the publication of secret facts that could give a known enemy intent on committing murder a precise roadmap to achieve that end. The intervention is thus limited to a circumstance of immediate, identifiable threat to life and extends for only so long as is absolutely necessary to permit the one threatened to get out of harm’s way.

CIFA exceeds in its grant of authoritarian power the most formidable power to arrest civil liberties that exists in the Constitution. Article I, Section 9, Clause 2 of the Constitution enables the Congress to exercise a power to suspend the writ of habeas corpus “when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.” In the theater of war or insurrection as hostilities rage in open combat, those arrested may be detained without a right to appear promptly before a judge for sentencing and a speedy trial if Congress constitutionally suspends the writ, but the suspension is only valid in the combat zone and only during combat.

There is no constitutional authority for the President to impose unilaterally a limit on access to any medium of mass communication, including the internet. CIFA is thus antithetical to the core values of the First Amendment, which depend on an unencumbered media to expose government abuse and corruption. It is not at all inconceivable to think that a President, armed with CIFA, could transform any threat of terrorism, civil unrest, or war into a justification for limiting access to the internet. Imagine what a politically embattled President might be tempted to do to limit his adversaries access to the internet. On the pretext of a real or imaginary threat to national security, the President could rely on CIFA to limit access in ways that stifled criticism of his actions, affording time to use the bully pulpit and rally public support before contrary views reach the public.

If CIFA becomes law, the mere threat of the exercise by the President of the power to declare a national cyber emergency would cast a pall of self-censorship over the internet, causing internet service providers to put limits on internet access to fend off prospects that the President might commandeer the providers’ infrastructure to limit internet traffic.

CIFA is a means for government to control internet traffic, and thereby effect changes in the content of, the internet. It is a grave and intolerable threat to liberty. It offends the very purpose of the First Amendment, which is to disarm the federal government of any power whatsoever over speech and press. At a time when so many actions by this Administration and its friends in Congress threaten the survival of even the last vestiges of constitutional government in America, we should respond resoundingly against latest threat by insisting that our elected representatives oppose the measure.

Full article:
http://www.newswithviews.com/Emord/jonathan190.htm

The Theory of Evolution (Part 1)

THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION
PART 1

By Dennis L. Cuddy, Ph.D.
May 2, 2011
NewsWithViews.com

The public has been told for many years that evolution is a scientific fact. NASA even issued a report, “Earth System Science: A Program for Global Change,” which repeatedly presents this view. For example, on page 14 is included the assertion that some 3.5 billion years ago, primitive living cells evolved the process of photosynthesis and transformed the earth’s atmosphere into one dominated by free oxygen. The problem with this type of pronouncement is that even evolutionists Harry Clemmey and Nick Badham have acknowledged in Geology (March 1982) that there was oxygen in the pre-Cambrian atmosphere, which would have made it impossible for amino acids, life’s basic elements, to bind together!

Evolution is supposed to have begun by chance, but the statistical odds against one protein molecule forming by chance would be 100160 to one against that happening. Moreover, Cambridge University’s Sir Fred Hoyle (originator of the Steady-State Theory of the Universe) has remarked: “The notion that not only biopolymers but the operation programme of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial organic soup here on earth is evidently nonsense of a high order.” Dr. Paul LeMoine, who was an editor of L’Encyclopedie Francais, has concluded that “evolution is a fairy tale for adults.”

There is simply no evidence that simple forms of life developed from dead matter, or that complex forms of life developed from simple forms. The problem that evolutionists face in this regard is one of “required immediate functionality of specialized organs” (a term I coined several decades ago). They propose that land plants simply evolved from marine plants, for example, ignoring the fact that land plants immediately need a vascular system not needed by aquatic plants. And if life evolved from the simple (e.g., a frog) to the complex (e.g., humans), why do frogs have more genetic material than humans? The scientific fact of the matter is that evolution violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which says natural processes always tend toward disorder, and the simple will never produce the more complex.

Another problem evolutionists face is that the fossil record does not provide us with transitional forms of life, which must be evidenced if life has evolved slowly supposedly over tens of millions of years (Darwinian evolution). The Smithsonian Institution has displayed a characterization of Archaeopteryx, which evolutionists have claimed is the transition from reptile to bird (but which actually has been proven to be clearly a warm-blooded bird with perfect feathers). This bothered the late Luther Sunderland, author of Darwin’s Enigma, who gave me a copy of a letter he had received from evolutionist Colin Patterson, Curator of the British Museum of Natural History (which has perhaps the greatest collection of fossils in the world), who admitted there is no scientific evidence of transitional life forms.

In Algeny, Jeremy Rifkin noted that in a November 5, 1981 speech before a group of experts on evolutionary theory at the American Museum of Natural History, Patterson revealed: “Last year I had a sudden realization. For over twenty years I had thought I was working on evolution in some way. One morning I woke up and something had happened in the night; and it struck me that I had been working on this stuff for twenty years and there was not one thing I knew about it.

That’s quite a shock, to learn that one can be so misled so long…. So for the last few weeks I’ve tried putting a simple question to various people and groups of people…. Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing, any one thing that is true?... All I got… was silence…. The absence of answers seems to suggest that… evolution does not convey any knowledge, or, if so, I haven’t yet heard it…. I think many people in this room would acknowledge that during the last few years, if you had thought about it at all, you have experienced a shift from evolution as knowledge to evolution as faith. I know that it’s true of me and I think it is true of a good many of you here…. Evolution not only conveys no knowledge but seems somehow to convey antiknowledge.”

Full article:
http://www.newswithviews.com/Cuddy/dennis206.htm

Shipped Right to Your Child's Door - At Taxpayer Expense

According to an article at Fox News, the city of Philadelphia has begun a new campaign to engage children as young as 11 in the use of condoms.

A new website set up by the city’s Health Department to promote the campaign offers, “If you live in Philadelphia and are between the ages of 11 and 19, you can now have condoms mailed directly to you for FREE. Maybe it’s difficult for you to stop by one of our sites to pick up condoms. Or maybe you’re just shy or feeling weird about picking up condoms.”

The free service does not require parental consent or even parental knowledge.

How is this legal? In a 1998 case regarding condom distribution in Philadelphia’s schools, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit determined that if “the program lacks any degree of coercion or compulsion…neither an opt out provision nor parental notification is required by the Federal Constitution.” Parents United for Better Schools, Inc. v. School District of Philadelphia Board of Education, 148 F.3d 260 (1998). Since children are not compelled to ask for free condoms, the offer by the city doesn’t constitute a violation of parental rights according to the courts.

So your child can’t take an aspirin at school without a parent’s letter and the consent of the school nurse, but he can have a condom shipped right to his door – to your door. It is worrying that anyone would be encouraging 11-year-olds to make independent decisions about sex. To do so on your tax dollars only makes matters worse.

Full Article
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/04/13/philadelphia-condom-campaign-targets-kids-young-11/

A Christian Response to Earth Day

by Doug Phillips
http://www.visionforum.com/

All men are religious because all men have an object of worship. All men have faith in something. In the end, men will either worship and serve the creature, or they will worship and serve the Creator. But they will worship something.

In the 18th century, many began to worship the mind. The religion of that day was rationalism. In the 19th century, this god morphed into scientism. But science failed to provide the answers to ultimate questions. The men of the 20th century looked for a more immediate solution to the problems of humanity — they chose to worship the State. This failed. Statism proved to be a harsh taskmaster. In the absence of any real solutions from rationalism, scientism, and statism, men fixed their attention on a new god — or rather, an ancient God that just needed a new facelift.

That god is the earth.

21st-century men are earth worshippers. They are sanitized pantheists. Of course, they don’t call themselves pantheists or earth worshippers, but religious devotion to the material world is the essence of this modern faith.

This religious devotion to the material world as god comes in many shapes and sizes, but it has become ubiquitous in our culture. The new pantheism is at the heart of the green movement. It is reflected in the priorities of Hollywood, in the agenda of politicians, and in the curriculums of the government schools. It is found in the marketing campaign of Madison Avenue, in the reality TV shows of cable television, and sadly, even in pulpits across the nation. The worship of the creation has become a defining undercurrent in our culture, even as it is reshaping many of the cultures of the modern world.

And this is one reason why this Friday, April 22, millions of people (perhaps billions) representing the countries of the United Nations will stop to celebrate the high holy day of this religion as they pay homage to the earth God. Of Earth Day, evolutionary anthropologist Margaret Meade once explained that:

EARTH DAY is the first holy day which transcends all national borders, yet preserves all geographical integrities, spans mountains and oceans and time belts, and yet brings people all over the world into one resonating accord, is devoted to the preservation of the harmony in nature and yet draws upon the triumphs of technology, the measurement of time, and instantaneous communication through space.

EARTH DAY draws on astronomical phenomena in a new way — which is also the most ancient way — by using the vernal Equinox, the time when the Sun crosses the equator making the length of night and day equal in all parts of the earth. To this point in the annual calendar, EARTH DAY attaches no local or divisive set of symbols, no statement of the truth or superiority of one way of life over another.

Should Christians care about the earth? Not only must we care about it, we have a holy duty to engage the earth. The difference between the objectives of biblical Christianity and radical environmentalism can be found in the religious assumptions of both groups.


Four Lies of the Radical Environmentalist Movement


With Earth Day comes billions of dollars worth of environmentalist propaganda driven by their religious worldview. Some of the themes you can expect to hear repeated this year include the following:

1. The Earth Is Our Mother: The very expression “Mother Earth” is popular parlance in our culture and reflects the old pagan longing to worship the physical world. Modern environmentalists, with their devotion to the idea that man is just another life-form to spring from the womb of the earth on the evolutionary journey of life, speak openly about earth being the mother of man.

2. Human Life Has No Greater Intrinsic Value Than Animal Life: The notion that man is an insignificant blip in the universe and that our planet is almost as insignificant as man is an oft-repeated concept of the modern environmentalist movement. Radical environmentalists complain about the carbon footprints of humans, and the sin of “Speciesism” — man discriminating against lower life-forms.

3. The Greatest Crisis Facing Humans is the Despoiling of the Earth: From the media campaigns of former Vice President Al Gore, to the film agenda of Avatar, radical environmentalists want you to believe that the single greatest problem facing humanity is the environmental destruction of earth.

4. Absent a Radical Shift in Private Practice and Public Policy, the Environmental Crisis Will Lead to the End of Life on Earth: Modern pantheists care deeply about the future. One thing is clear: Radical envioronmentalists have their own eschatology. They see the end of the world coming because of nuclear waste, global warming, the loss of rainforest in the Amazon, or any of a host of perceived environmental hazards.


Four Christian Assumptions About the Earth

1.The Earth is Witness to the Power and Authority of God the Creator Who Alone May Be Worshipped: The Bible teaches that the very existence of the earth is a reminder to all men of the eternal power and Godhood of Christ, so that they are without excuse (Romans 1:20). It reminds us that as long as the earth continues, the promises of God will remain faithful (Genesis 8:22; Deuteronomy 7:9). Significantly, the Bible warns us that the consequence for man rejecting the witness of creation is that he worships creation itself (Romans 1:22-25).


2.The Earth Was Made for the Glory of God and the Benefit of Man Who Was Made the Pinnacle of Creation and of Infinitely Greater Value than Animals or the Earth Itself: Man is the pinnacle of creation and has more eternal value than the earth or any of the creatures who live on it (Psalm 8:5). Man is not a carbon footprint; he is the image-bearer of God. This means that the most “insignificant” human life (insignificant only in the eyes of man) is of inestimably greater value than that of a blue whale, a snail darter, a spotted owl, a mountain, or a tree.


3.The Earth Has Been Placed under Man who Has a Moral Obligation to Subdue it and to Exercise Wise Stewardship over the Earth: Man is God’s appointed steward on earth, and his core mission is to be His agent of dominion over it. Toward this end, God has placed all things under man to be used for his benefit and to be carefully stewarded and cultivated for God’s glory. “Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet” (Psalm 8:6).


4.The Earth is Not the Problem: The reason why the earth suffers is because of man’s sin that has plunged the earth into judgment. Man brought death and judgment to earth. In fact, the whole creation is groaning and waiting redemption (Romans 8:22-23). Despite the righteous judgment of God on earth, He is merciful and promises the continuation of the seasons and the fundamental stability of the planet until the end of time (Genesis 8:22), at which there will be a new heaven and new earth (2 Peter 3:13).


Conclusion

All men are religious because all men have an object of worship. In the end, they will worship and serve the creature, or they will worship and serve the Creator. But they will worship something.

Earth Day, and the radical environmental movement that spawned this high holy day of pantheism, are at war with the Gospel because they perpetuate false worship. The Christian response to the idolatry of Earth Day might be reduced to this simple thought: Jesus Christ is the Creator, and He alone is to be worshipped. He created man as the pinnacle of creation and determined that humans would be the only part of creation to be made in the very image of God, and that man as the image-bearer of God would rule over the earth.

On a practical level, this means that Christians need to stop allowing the radical environmentalist movement to define the issue. We must cease from being the tail and become the head on the question of our duties, privileges, and responsibilities vis-a-vis creation. The Bible has a great deal to say about our use of the resources of the world and our relationship to the earth. Of all people, Christians who honor the Creator should have a passion for creation. We are losing the debate through subversion, silence, lack of vision, and because of the Christian community’s fear of the God-ordained, perpetually valid, creation precept called “The Dominion Mandate.” This mandate directs man is to rule over the earth, subduing it and taking dominion over it for his benefit and for God’s glory. Implicit to the Dominion Mandate is the duty of man to cultivate, wisely manage, and carefully steward the planet.

Finally, man’s problems will never be solved through the elevation of human reason, the power of science, or the interventions of the state. Nor will rescuing the biosphere of planet earth save man or ensure him a future on this planet. You cannot save the earth. But human beings can be saved. And the only hope of salvation is found in Jesus Christ — the Creator! It is this Creator through whom we live and breathe and who by the very power of His word holds the worlds together. He will someday establish a new heaven and a new earth and will bring all of His people into Glory.

Full article:
http://www.visionforum.com/news/blogs/doug/2011/04/9402/

Snooping: It's not a crime, it's a feature

New apps hijack the microphone in your cell phone to listen in on your life

Mike Elgan
April 16, 2011
(Computerworld)

Cellphone users say they want more privacy, and app makers are listening.

No, they're not listening to user requests. They're literally listening to the sounds in your office, kitchen, living room and bedroom.

A new class of smartphone app has emerged that uses the microphone built into your phone as a covert listening device -- a "bug," in common parlance.

But according to app makers, it's not a bug. It's a feature!

The apps use ambient sounds to figure out what you're paying attention to. It's the next best thing to reading your mind.

Your phone is listening

The issue was brought to the world's attention recently on a podcast called This Week in Tech. Host Leo Laporte and his panel shocked listeners by unmasking three popular apps that activate your phone's microphone to collect sound patterns from inside your home, meeting, office or wherever you are.

By listening in on your phone, capturing "patterns," then sending that data back to servers, marketers can determine the following:

- Your gender, and the gender of people you talk to.
- Your approximate age, and the ages of the people you talk to.
- What time you go to bed, and what time you wake up.
- What you watch on TV and listen to on the radio.
- How much of your time you spend alone, and how much with others.
- Whether you live in a big city or a small town.
- What form of transportation you use to get to work.


Full article
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/print/9215853/Snooping_It_s_not_a_crime_it_s_a_feature?taxonomyName=Privacy&taxonomyId=84

John Boehner's "Deal"

by Chris Johnson
www.americandecency.org


The "deal" struck last Friday by House Speaker Republican John Boehner and Democrats President Barack Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will fund the government for the remainder of fiscal year 2011 (through the end of September) and cut approximately $38.5 billion in spending.

It will also allow Planned Parenthood to continue to kill 910 American children every day. CNSNews.com explains the math:

"According to a fact sheet released by Planned Parenthood last month, the group did 332,278 abortions in 2009. That equals an average of 910 abortions per day—or about 38 per hour, or one every 95 seconds."

The writer of the article, Terry Jeffrey, also explains what all that breaks down to for government funding per abortion. Or to speak more clearly, this is how much of OUR money goes to killing babies so their irresponsible mothers don't have to be inconvenienced.

"Though the hundreds of millions in federal tax dollars Planned Parenthood receives annually theoretically are not supposed to be used to pay for the hundreds of thousands of abortions the group does each year, the fact remains that the approximately $326.88 million Planned Parenthood received from federal programs in 2009 equaled about $932 per abortion it performed."

Tax are due in 3 days, do you know where your money's going?

I'm going to give Boehner the benefit of the doubt and assume that he's looking at the big picture and planning on ending funding to Planned Parenthood in the 2012 budget, but this kind of genocide should not be a bargaining chip.

I met a guy during my time in D.C. who told me that he was a conservative, but he didn't think we should make such a big deal out of issues like abortion. He said he believed in life from the moment of conception, but that the child was alive "kind of like a tree is alive."

To be fair, once he started thinking about that, he kind of backed off that assertion, but it made me think. We come up with nicer words for horrible things and it allows us to become sort of numb to the issue.

I'm talking about using words such as "abortion" instead of what it really is - murder. Or saying "fetus" instead of "baby." In the movie "Hotel Rwanda," which portrays the beginning of the Rwanda genocide, the Hutu tribe refers to the Tutsis as "cockroaches" in attempt to dehumanize them. I think that's what has happened with the issue of abortion.

In that spirit, I was horrified to hear that Boehner had settled for a deal which did not defund Planned Parenthood. If those were postnatal babies, would the same deal have been struck? If Planned Parenthood were putting 910 two year-olds in gas chambers every day, would Boehner have signed off on this "deal?"

The answer is obviously no, but whether or not the umbilical cord has been cut should not define humanity, and there is no sliding scale on the value of a human life.

I'm hearing a lot of Republicans, conservatives, even pro-life websites saying Boehner did what he had to do and made the right decision. I hear people say that the Republican congress, which is pro-life almost without exception, only controls "one half of one third of the government," which is kind of like saying "the dough only makes up one third of a pizza." Without the House of Representatives, everything falls apart.

Why is the House especially important? Because all appropriations must start in the House of Representatives. In other words, if the House doesn't begin a bill to fund something, it doesn't get funded. So Republicans had the ultimate leverage.

Why would Boehner throw that away, particularly on such an important - literally life or death - issue? The only answer is politics.

A problem that is making itself painfully clear is manifested in the election cycle. Republican leadership is looking forward to the 2012 elections and making important decisions based on what will keep them and their party in office.

Don't get me wrong, I understand the importance of keeping the right people in power. But when reelection becomes more important than doing what's right for the nation - indeed, even something as basic as protecting human lives - something is out of balance.

Another argument is that if Boehner hadn't agreed to this "deal," our troops would not have been paid for a month. It could have potentially cost some of our soldiers their lives.

That resonates with me. My grandfather and my great-grandfather served in the Army, I have a
sister in the National Guard, and I dreamed of joining the military myself for a lot of my childhood. Few people have more respect and admiration for the U.S. military than I.

But we aren't losing 910 soldiers every day. And as priceless as the life of every man and woman who has chosen to put themselves between us and the enemy is, the lives of the innocent children in their mother's womb are just as priceless.

And just as our soldiers are better equipped, both in training and equipment, to defend America's citizens than we are ourselves, we are the only defense that those children have.

May our leadership in the future have the courage to protect America's children.

Soros: It’s Not Easy Being God

By Joy Tiz Wednesday, April 7, 2010

"I carried some rather potent messianic fantasies with me from childhood, which I felt I had to control otherwise they might get me into trouble." -George Soros

Obama’s boss, George Soros discovered his own narcissism at an early age. Robert Slater, in his unauthorized biography of Soros—Soros, The Life, Times & Trading Secrets of the World’s Greatest Investor:

“Yet, what is one to make of a child who believed he was God?”

Slater posits that such grandiose thoughts in childhood, if they were the “fleeting dreams of a small child” might be understandable if Soros had given any indication as an adult that he had outgrown his delusions.

“Yet, as an adult, he offered no sign, no dismissive gesture, no footnote signifying that he no longer clung to such wild convictions, but only the suggestion of how difficult it was for someone to believe himself a deity.” (Pg. 15).

In other words, Soros figured out early on that his messiah complex wasn’t going to be well received in the real world and he should try to tone it down a bit.

He’s having mixed results with that.

There are those who still cling doggedly to the fabrication that Soros is some kind of “philanthropist” despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. The compassionate philanthropist has been pushing for human euthanasia for years.

The august altruist has long believed we made much too big of a fuss about 9/11, an event which he found inspiring: “Hijacking fully fueled airliners and using them as suicide bombs was an audacious idea, and its execution could not have been more spectacular.” (George Soros, “The Bubble Of American Supremacy,” The Atlantic Monthly, 12/03)

Poor George, like his current Jackal in Chief, has carried the burden of being a god throughout his life:

“A passage in his book The Alchemy of Finance, published in 1987, distinguishes Soros from all other financiers, ever. ‘I have always harboured an exaggerated view of my self-importance,’ he wrote. ‘To put it bluntly, I fancied myself as some kind of god or an economic reformer like Keynes, or, even better, like Einstein. My sense of reality was strong enough to make me realise that these expectations were excessive, and I kept them hidden as a guilty secret. This was a source of considerable unhappiness through much of my adult life. As I made my way in the world, reality came close enough to my fantasy to allow me to admit my secret, at least to myself. Needless to say, I feel much happier as a result.’”

In 2003, Soros figured out that he could force his repugnant ideas on America more efficiently by simply changing the government than by pressing the actual issues:

“‘I’ve come to the conclusion,’ Soros told Fortune, ‘that one can do a lot more about the issues I care about by changing the government than by pushing the issues.’ In short, he has become the world’s angriest billionaire.” (Mark Gimein, “George Soros Is Mad As Hell,” Fortune, 10/27/03)

In 2006 and 2008, Soros made substantial progress toward his goal of changing the United States government:

“Though Soros and his Shadow Party failed to bring about ‘regime change’ in 2004, the vast network of interrelated Shadow Party groups would prove to be key players in the 2006 midterm elections that saw Democrats seize control of Congress. Of particular significance was Democracy Alliance, a non-tax-exempt nonprofit entity registered in the District of Columbia, which Soros had founded in 2005, and whose long-term objective was to develop a funding clearinghouse for leftist groups.”



“In 2008, Soros’ Shadow Party was again a major force in the movement that not only expanded the Democratic Party’s congressional majorities, but also delivered the presidency to Barack Obama.”

George Soros has orchestrated plenty of regime changes. Don’t be fooled by the mythology that Soros was instrumental in opposing communism in Eastern Europe. Soros places himself on whichever side is most likely to net him the greatest power.

According to Slater, Soros is fascinated by chaos. “That’s how I make my money: understanding the revolutionary process in financial markets” (Slater, pg. 47).

If it’s chaos Soros is looking for, he’s got the right cipher in the White House.

ACORN Pleads Guilty to Voter Registration Fraud in Nevada

The defunct political advocacy group ACORN has pleaded guilty to one count of an election law violation in Las Vegas, Nevada.

ACORN attorney Lisa Rasmussen told Fox News that a plea agreement was worked out with the state attorney general. The violation was for unlawfully providing compensation for registering voters based on the total number of people registered. Sentencing for the organization is set for Aug. 10, and the potential fine is a maximum of $5,000.

ACORN itself was named as a criminal defendant in the case for allegedly running an illegal voter registration scheme called "21," or "Blackjack," which paid ACORN workersarned bonuses based on the number of voters they registered in Nevada during the 2008 election.

This is the only case in the country in which ACORN itself was named as a felony defendant. The organization, a one-time community-based activist group, filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy after dozens of its workers allegedly committed voter fraud in cases that led to numerous convictions.

The deputy regional director of ACORN, Amy Busefink, was sentenced to a year of probation in January after she pleaded the equivalent of a no-contest to two misdemeanor counts of conspiracy in relation to the voter registration payment plan.

ACORN field director Christopher Edwards copped a plea with prosecutors and agreed to testify against Busefink and ACORN.

The original complaint filed in May of 2009, included 26 counts of compensation for registration of voters, a felony At the time Nevada Secretary of State Ross Miller, a Democrat, said at the time that "we would be aggressive in our pursuit and prosecution of any fraudulent activity that might threaten the integrity of the election process."

Among the fake names proseuctors said that were filed by ACORN were Dallas Cowboys Tony Romo, along with other members of the team.

ACORN has long faced criticism after dozens of its workers allegedly committed voter registration fraud during the 2008 election. The group dissolved amid falling revenues last year after conservative activists posing as a pimp and prostitute caught some of its workers offering tax advice to them.

IS CAFFEINE THE NEW MIRACLE DRUG?

By Jon Christian Ryter
March 16, 2011
NewsWithViews.com

If you want to increase the odds of not having a stroke or missing that severe nervous tension headache that increasingly plagues you because of the stress at work, or trying to figure out how to make your paycheck stretch from one payday to the next, drink coffee. Not decaf. High octane, fully caffeinated coffee.

For years the medical community has known the curative affect of caffeine, but because the social progressive do-gooders in our society today have decided that caffeine is bad for you, they have lobbied against caffeine. They also lobbied in favor of vegetable shortening against—ugh—lard; and against butter in favor of the high cholesterol, heart attack-causing margarine. And, of course, favoring vegan diets that exclude red meat when the medical evidence shows that food cooked in good old-fashioned lard is better for you than vegetable shortening. And, fresh churned butter is healthier than margarine. Or that calorie-rich cane sugar or high fructose corn syrup is far better for you than aspartame sweeteners since aspartic acid is a neuexicter (that ultimately cause problems with the human central nervous system). Why would health officials or the Food & Drug Administration [FDA] actively promote synthetic food substances over natural food substances? Two reasons. First, the social progressives live in a "Chicken Little Society" in which the sky is going to fall and if society is not prepared for the day it happens, bad things will happen. So, they allow bad things to happen as they prepare for bad things to happen. Second, and most important, they do it because it is profitable to do it. Very, very profitable. When the princes of industry create new products, they need to upset the market place to quickly gain market share and displace the current industry leader. The best way is to have the government declare the old product leader to be, if not dangerous, then at least not healthy.

For example, in 1901 a German chemist named Wilhelm Normann discovered the process of hydrogenating vegetable fats by chemically creating a solidifying agent that later became known as trans fats (which we know today as something that clogs up our arteries). Normann patented his process in 1903. Chemist Edwin Kayser acquired Normann's patent to make bar soap. Proctor & Gamble hired Kayser, who use Normann's patent to solidify vegetable oil into a solid and, in the process, created Crisco™ Shortening in 1911. Crisco™ was first sold through J.M. Smucker, the jam maker (which was owned by Proctor & Gamble). Using the financial muscle Proctor & Gamble possesses, their lobbyists convinced the growing federal bureaucracy in the 1930s and 1940s that protein-rich animal-based lard was not as healthy as vegetable-based shortening.

When the New Deal Congress enacted the Federal Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act in 1938, Franklin D. Roosevelt's bureaucracy began promoting "safe foods" when in fact they were promoting the products manufactured by political donors and campaign activists not only for Roosevelt but members of the New Deal Congress. As Proctor & Gamble's marketing department added food coloring and "butter flavoring" to Crisco™ and created margarine, the dairy industry, which still had more political clout, had legislation created which required margarine to be sold in its "shortening" state—white. Margarine was sold in a sealed plastic bag. Contained in the bag was a yellow food coloring bubble. The consumer had to break the bubble and squeeze the bag until the food coloring was evenly mixed throughout the packet, and the white, flavored shortening became yellow "vegetable butter." If you are old enough, you remember squeezing the margarine bag.

As the agri-industry lobbied Congress and the FDA, suddenly we were told that butter was not good for us. Margarine was. Not true. Both have the same amount of calories. Butter is slightly higher in saturated fats at 8 grams compared to 5 grams. But, according to a 1994 Harvard Medical Study, eating margarine increases the likelihood of heart disease in women by 53% over eating the same amount of butter. Margarine is very high in trans fatty acids, and triples the risk for coronary heart disease. The trans fats in margarine decrease HDL cholesterol (the good cholesterol) and increases LDL (bad cholesterol).

Beginning in 2005, the US Dept. of Agriculture began to warn consumers of the dangers of trans fats, and the FDA now requires food manufacturers to list trans fat content on their nutrition facts labels. Yet, the American Medical Association persisted in telling people that switching from butter to margarine can greatly reduce blood cholesterol levels when the reality is, while the overall cholesterol count may lower, what actually lowers is the good cholesterol. The bad cholesterol usually remains static, or increases, creating a larger gap between the good and bad cholesterol that increases the risk of heart attack or stroke.

This battle has raged between those who want to control our lives because the princes of industry and barons of business need to control us in order to make their job easier by assuring that the products they manufacture for our consumption will be consumed. Those who pay, play. Oh, by the way, remember this about margarine—it's one molecule away from being plastic.

Anyway, back to coffee. Whew...after that, I need cup. Ah, yes...got that coffee. My own blend of two Columbians and one French roast. Now, where were we? Oh, yes. Coffee. And, of course, the milk or cream that goes in it. (No, I drink it black, but I needed to talk about milk for a minute.) Today we are told we need to drink decaf coffee. It's better for us. We are also told we should drink 1% to 2% milk. It's better for us. Right? No. Ask yourself a question. Pasteurized whole milk is 3.25% milkfat (farm bought whole milk is generally 4.0% to 4.5% milkfat). When you buy 1% to 2% milk, what happens to the milkfat that is extracted? It becomes whipping cream or butter. In other words, it becomes the most expensive milk product "products." An increased demand for butter and heavy cream means reducing the amount of milkfat in the milk we drink. The less milk fat in the glass of milk we drink, the more that glass of milk tastes like milky water. Thus, the need to "sell" the public on the health merits of low fat milk. Otherwise there is no "win-win" for the dairy companies who end up trading a "milk dollar" for a "cream dollar" or a "butter dollar"—or both. You get to keep both dollars if your marketing people and lobbyists convince the consumers that 1% or 2% milk is better for you than whole milk.

So, once again, why is caffeine-free coffee better for us? It isn't. Caffeine is an element that goes into many of the food products and pharmaceutical products we use today. And, you have to get the caffeine from somewhere, or you have to synthesize it in the laboratory. The full octane cola soft drinks you consume contain as much caffeine as a cup of full octane coffee but probably not as much caffeine that is found in a cup of black tea. (Tea actually contains more caffeine than coffee.) Caffeine, a bitter white crystalline alkaloid, was first isolated in coffee in 1820. Caffeine is found not only in coffee beans and tea leaves, but in hola nuts, in guarana berries, yaupon holly and in yerba mate. Even if they don't drink coffee, 90% of all adults consume some form of caffeine daily.

Which was one of the reasons that Swedish researcher Susanna Larsson of the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm spent 10 years following 34,670 women, ages 49-83 with annual questionaires. In 2008, after finding evidence that women who drank more than one cup of coffee per day had a 22% to 25% less risk of suffering from a stroke, Larrson conducted a similar, short term study, on men, who drank coffee or tea, with similar results.

Larsson's findings join a growing body of research in which coffee and/or caffeine appears to contain a variety of hidden health perks from a reduced risk of prostate and/or colon cancer in men to reduced risks of heart attacks and strokes in both men and women. Coffee, one of the most popular drinks in the world is rich in antioxidants that improve heart health. In addition, studies have also shown that caffeine helps prevent cognitive decline and can boost vision health as well as prevent heart attacks and strokes.

The Swedish study parallels the findings in a 2009 study conducted in the United States. In that study, women who drank four or more cups of coffee daily were found to have a 20% less risk of stroke compared to women who drank one or less cups of coffee per day.


Full article:
http://www.newswithviews.com/Ryter/jon340.htm

Zondervan to Discontinue Original NIV and replace it with TNIV

Changes Called "Unacceptable" by Conservatives...

Having failed to successfully promote an alleged "gender inclusive" version of the Bible from 2005 to 2009, publishing giant, Zondervan, has elected to try again. This time, however, instead of publishing an edited version of the NIV in addition to the standard 1984 edition, Zondervan has elected to simply kill the original NIV and call what's coming out this month an "update." If some of the problems inherent in the original NIV weren't troubling enough, Zondervan editors and management appear bent on revising it to fit the tastes of the modern world, i.e., inclusion and feminism. As they do, they also appear to be content with alienating at least a portion of their base in the process.

In reality, the "updated" NIV appears to be little more than a rehash of the aforementioned 2005 gender neutral mishap known as Today's New International Version (TNIV). According to a March 14, 2011, article in The Christian Post, statistics compiled by Christian web techies Robert Slowley and John Dryer show that "31 percent of the TNIV is retained in the updated NIV." The Christian Post story also reported that The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, one of the leading critics of the short-lived TNIV, have released a statement saying it could not recommend the new NIV Bible because of "over 3,600 gender-related problems" that were previously described in its critique of the TNIV.

The Christian Post also articulated the ongoing tug-of-war between conservatives and liberals in saying, "In other initial reviews, some evangelicals praised the clarity of the new edition while others were still unconvinced that the gender-related problems of the TNIV were resolved." "Clarity of the new edition"? What? This make my head spin! Who are these "evangelicals" who would praise "clarity" over accuracy? Brian McLaren, Rob Bell, Marcus Borg, Jim Wallis, or the evolution defenders at Bio Logos? Has evangelicalism completely lost its collective mind? Is the only important criteria to be that phrases and words need to sound modern and are well used and popular today? This actually appears to be all about marketing and very little about the integrity of the Word of God. The head of the translation committee, Doulass Moo, defends the new version as "accurate" but admits that the committee did some research to see what words evangelical Christians - who are most likely to buy the new NIV - prefer. I wonder, will the prospective ad campaign read, "Heretics and hacks agree, the 'updated' NIV is bound to use words we can all agree on!" Sounds like an Emergent Church "conversation," where everybody gets a say and no conclusion is ever reached.

It would appear that, having watched the times change - and the standards drop - Zondervan's brass must believe that now, after sufficient conditioning, the Church is finally ready for the next phase in a gender inclusive Bible. After all, the general lack of discernment in our day surely means that the "updated" NIV will be a cash cow for Rupert Murdoch's company. In fact, the reaction to Zondervan's effective promotion of the new inclusive NIV has induced them to print 1.9 million copies of it, up 500,000 from the original projections for the first printing.

I suspect that, having tracked the downward spiral of the Church's apparent attitude towards the Bible over the last decade, far fewer will rise up and oppose the kind of bastardization that was evident with the TNIV edition in 2005. Thanks to the rise of "Seeker Friendly" and "Purpose Driven" movements, the craziness of Todd Bentley, and the popularity of happy-go-lucky, biblically bankrupt baloney that Joel Osteen and others serve up, selling a further corrupted NIV to the unsuspecting should be a snap.

Now, with the rise of the Emergent crowd, the growth of theological liberalism, and the shocking lack of discernment displayed by those buying The Message as an authentic Bible and The Shack as a "Christian" book serve to clearly illustrate the sad situation we find ourselves in today. Plus, the driving force who opposed the TNIV in 2005 - Dr. James Dobson - is now nearly retired. Who will organize the resistance? Who will lead the fight for truth?

Along with the "updated" NIV itself, Zondervan is about to release over 200 books and products utilizing the new NIV with nearly 200 more slated for release next fall. I suggest that pastors, teachers, and authors alike should carefully select just what they'll refer to as "the Word of God" and what they quote as "Scripture." Their reputation and authority will be scrutinized by some in the know if they insist on promoting specious versions of the Bible that do disservice, even damage, to the original texts. It is easy to bring into question the theological integrity of an author or speaker when they carelessly - or with great intent - set out to manipulate a version (or versions) of the Bible to imply what they desire it to say instead of being faithful to the original context. (1)

I know those who have been ardently opposed to the original NIV are surely thinking, "I told you so." Considering these developments, I believe they do have even more reason to shake their heads. As for me, I'm sticking with the time-tested King James Version and the reliable manuscripts from which it was derived. I preach from, write with, and study the KJV but, before you think I'm just pontificating as a "King James Only" advocate, if I have any question about anything I see in any text claiming to be God's Word, I immediately check it out against the original languages - King James Version included. Those who really care about truth might think of downloading a good Greek and Hebrew concordance to help you do likewise. Using one of these tools doesn't take a college degree and isn't over anyone's head. However, it will assist you immeasurably in deciphering the real meat found in the texts. These days I constantly find myself exploring new vistas in the Bible - all because of word searches conducted with the Strong's Concordance on my cell phone, or the one on my lap top, or even with the book version sitting in my office - as archaic as using an actual book might sound to some.

There will likely be some positive pieces promoting what Zondervan has done in updating the NIV. However, from what I have seen of this new version myself, I believe there will be many very scholarly reviews which will detail the failings of it, as well. Like many of you, I'll be watching and reading those more studious future analyses when they appear. However, as a lover of God's Word and one of many called to defend it unreservedly, let these few thoughts serve as a warning that, from many quarters and in many ways, the precious Word of God remains a primary object of the devil's ire. Nothing has changed from the very beginning, when the serpent questioned Eve "Hath God said?" In our world today, right has become wrong and so many sources we once thought we could trust have become, as Peter proclaims, "wells without water" (II Peter 2:17). This is surely the case with some denominations, some seminaries, and, yes, some Christian publishers. This is why I suggest that dedicated Christians investigate for themselves and then stand up in the spirit of the Bereans (Acts 17) and reject Zondervan's further clouding of God's truth through the "updated" NIV.


Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

- 2 Timothy 2:15


Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. Abstain from all appearance of evil.

- 1 Thess 5:21-22


Footnotes:

1. Rick Warren's The Purpose Driven Life illustrates a manipulative and now popular technique that I have deemed "scripture fishing." In his monumental best-seller, Warren trolls across 15 different versions of the Bible in a blatant effort to find passages and specific wording to support his theology. The widespread acceptance of this practice by parishioners and pastors alike signals an alarmingly low regard for the importance of both the content and context of the Bible. For more on this see: Examining the Purpose Driven Philosophy


More information:

http://archive.constantcontact.com/fs018/1102797716062/archive/1104842697260.html

http://www.ericbarger.com/tasstore/info.pgs/pdl.philosophy.info.htm

NEA to UN: More Graphic Sex-Ed Needed

Perhaps you thought public school sex education programs are graphic enough as it is. Not so, according to a statement by the National Education Association's (NEA) Diane Schneider to a U.N. panel last week. According to a report by C-FAM, Schneider told the audience at a panel on combating homophobia and transphobia that detailed and graphic sex acts need to be taught in the classroom and that anyone opposing homosexuality is “stuck in a binary box that religion and family create.”

In other words, schools need to rescue children from “indoctrination” by their parents and religion, and the U.N. should see that they do. Schneider also “claimed that the idea of sex education remains an oxymoron if it is abstinence-based, or if students are still able to opt out,” the article states.

ParentalRights.org disagrees with the notion that schools know better than parents what is best for their children or what their children can handle. We disagree with the idea that schools should undo all the character building and value instilling that parents do at home. And we adamantly oppose the view that the United Nations should take a role in any of it. And we know you do, too.

The NEA can sway the U.N. more easily than they can persuade the American people. They know that if they establish something at the U.N., they can find progressivist judges who will uphold it here as “Customary International Law.” And they must hope to see us ratify the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), thus obligating ourselves to uphold whatever standards in child education the U.N. might dictate.


Full article:
http://parentalrights.org/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC=%7BEC9944B8-96D9-4581-A9AE-06DD3173C964%7D

ABC network set to attack Christianity with "Good Christian B-tches" show

ABC network set to attack Christianity with "Good Christian B-tches" show

"For Heaven's sake, don't let God get in the way of a good story!" - GCB author Kim Gatlin
March 7, 2011

The ABC network is currently working on a pilot for a prime-time program called "Good Christian B-tches."

It's a Christian-bashing version of ABC's current "Desperate Housewives." The show centers on a recently divorced mother of two who moves back to the affluent neighborhood where she grew up to find herself in the whirling midst of gossip, Botox and fraud.

Disney-owned ABC has no reservations about creating hate speech against Christians, but you can be sure they would never consider a show called "Good Muslim B-tches" or "Good Jewish B-tches."

With a title like "Good Christian B-tches," you can imagine what kind of show it will be. Even if they change the title, the content will still mock people of faith.

Full article:
http://afa.net/Detail.aspx?id=2147504245

High Court Finds Christian Parents Unsuitable

High Court Finds Christian Parents Unsuitable


The United Kingdom’s High Court ruled yesterday that Christians with traditional ethical views of sexuality are not suitable to serve as foster or adoptive parents. The judge held that Christian beliefs regarding homosexuality are harmful to children and violate a child’s international human rights. Are these personal beliefs a good reason to deny children a home with a family who cares for them? And if exercising a protected religious liberty violates international child rights in this instance, who is to say what beliefs will be “unsuitable” next?

Those same rights are outlined in the United Nation’s Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), and would be binding on the United States should we ratify that treaty.

Fortunately, we expect a resolution opposing ratification of the CRC to be introduced in the U.S. Senate within the next week or so. Senator DeMint’s office is currently gathering original cosponsors on the resolution (which is equivalent to SR 519 from the last Congress). Once it is introduced and given a bill number, we will email you right away and initiate a call blitz to secure the 34 cosponsors needed to prevent with certainty the ratification of that dangerous treaty.

Still, only the Parental Rights Amendment can end the threat of ratification permanently.

Supreme Court Weighs Parental Rights Today

Today our own Supreme Court will hear arguments in a case touching on parental and child rights, Camreta v. Greene, which deals with whether or not a minor child has the right to be protected from seizure and interrogation by government officials without a warrant, emergency circumstances, or parental consent. To read more on this case, visit us here. We will be watching this case closely and keeping you apprised of any developments


More information:

High Court Finds Christian Beliefs Harmful to Children

Camreta v. Greene

Why Churches Should Euthanize Small Groups

By Brian Jones

A few years ago I brought in a nationally recognized pastor to do some consulting for our church. One of the things I remember most about my time with him was a side conversation we had about small groups.

“I haven’t really figured out the small group thing,” I confessed to him.

“Well, Brian, that’s because they don’t work. Small groups are things that trick us into believing we’re serious about making disciples. The problem is 90 percent of small groups never produce one single disciple. Ever. They help Christians make shallow friendships, for sure. They’re great at helping Christians feel a tenuous connection to their local church, and they do a bang-up job of teaching Christians how to act like other Christians in the Evangelical Christian subculture. But when it comes to creating the kind of holistic disciples Jesus envisioned, the jury’s decision came back a long time ago—small groups just aren’t working.”

“Finally,” I said, “I’ve met someone who’s got the guts to euthanize this small group sacred cow.”

I have been leading, participating in, championing, and applauding the efforts of small groups for the last 20 years of my ministry.

But now I’m done. In my opinion, they just don’t work. Let me share why.

A Flawed Starting Point

Church-initiated “small groups” begin from a flawed starting point.

For reasons that still escape me, soon after becoming a Christian at age 18, Deron Brickey, Dave Polonia, Jeff Snyder, and I started hanging out with one another.

Soon that group grew to 10 to 12 friends. We laughed together, prayed together, studied the Bible together, ate together, evangelized together, and served the poor together. Even though we had no leader, no real set meeting time, no agenda, and no plan or focus, it was through these friends that I made incredible strides toward becoming a holistic disciple of Jesus.

And it all happened by accident.

In fact, looking back on my 25 years of following Christ, here’s what I’ve noticed: Every small group I’ve ever been in that helped me grow as a disciple started by what appeared to be an accident.

I wasn’t looking for it. I wasn’t interested in joining a small group in the least. And in many respects, I didn’t even feel a need to grow spiritually.

Most of all, I wasn’t participating in some superficial churchwide small group sign-up initiative the senior pastor dreamed up to jack up small group attendance because he heard church analysts say you should always maintain a certain ratio of worship attendees to small group participants.

It just happened, naturally and spontaneously.

Those experiences couldn’t have been planned, even if I tried. And for the most part, that’s exactly how it’s been happening in the Christian community for, say, I don’t know, the last 1,960 years. That is until we westerners, particularly Americans, started messing it up.

Well-intentioned Christians, armed with the latest insights in organizational theory, let their pragmatic and utilitarian hearts delude them into thinking they could organize, measure, and control the mystical working of the Holy Spirit in community in order to consistently reproduce disciples in other contexts.

Then these people started writing books and hosting seminars. And then church leaders like you and me bought into what they were saying because we didn’t recognize that the same faulty worldview that produced a mechanized approach to Christian community fostered a ready-made market in our hearts to consume their quick-fix solutions.

So we came home, armed with our “101 Sure-Fire Discussion Starter” books and binders full of slick recruitment techniques, and started small group ministries at our churches.

We preached powerful sermons. We cast vision. We contorted Acts 2 into saying what we needed it to say. We blathered on and on about all the “one anothers” in the Bible and about how, if we met one time a week for 1.5 hours and followed a well-conceived discussion regime, we could experience Acts 2 in all of its splendor and glory.

And what happened? You know what happened. They failed. Like big-time.

And meanwhile, while our people were constrained by their obligation to the church and their sense of loyalty to us as leaders, their hearts searched for real community and an opportunity to grow as disciples.

What would happen if we euthanized all of our small groups, taught the value of discipleship and community, and then simply let the Holy Spirit do his work?

Achilles’ Heel

When I attended my very first church growth conference in 1992, a nationally known small group “expert” stood up and said, “The way we say it at our church is, ‘If you can read, you can lead.’ If a Christian can read the questions in our study guide, he can lead a small group at our church.”

That’s easy, I thought. Too easy, in fact. And ridiculous.

“If you can read, you can lead” is a great slogan for people who organize a rugby team from your church, or your knitting circle, or the Saturday morning llama-riding group. But not for someone recognized by the community of faith as a mentor of new disciples.

The Achilles’ heel of the modern-day small group movement is simple: Small groups don’t create disciples; disciples create disciples. And modern-day small groups are led, for the most part, by people who have attended the church, had a conversion experience, led a reasonably moral life, and can read the study-guide questions, but are not disciples themselves.

American churches have lowered the bar of small group leadership to an absurd level. In fact, it’s so ridiculous most churches would be better off not even having small groups than to offer them with leaders who aren’t disciples.

The common argument against small groups is flawed. The problem with small groups isn’t that they pool the group’s collective ignorance; it’s that they pool the group’s collective disobedience. And it’s not the small group leader’s fault.

It’s the fault of the people who installed the leader and convinced him he could lead their group to a place where they themselves have not gone.

Jesus in Your Group?

Would Jesus join a small group in your church?

Think about that for a moment. Forget about your goals. Forget about your motivations for offering them. Forget about all the supposed benefits of participating in one. Do you honestly think Jesus would join, lead, or start a small group within the existing structure of your small group’s ministry at your church?

Of course not. Not a chance. Not in a million years.

Why?

Because while your people are stuck in the “hairball” of your church’s ministry (to steal Gordon MacKenzie’s great line), Jesus would be out rubbing shoulders with people in your community, helping them find their way back to God, and teaching them to obey his teachings.

Jesus would actually be doing what small groups say they want/should/need to be doing, but they can’t, because they’re too busy being a “small group” inside the confines of your small group’s ministry infrastructure.

It’s like a jogging class where the instructor, instead of taking his class jogging and commenting on technique while class members actually are jogging, stuffs everyone into a classroom and lectures to them three days a week and then gives them a final exam.

Disciples are created “out there.” Small groups, if not by their definition, definitely by their practice, all occur “in here.”

With few exceptions, modern-day small groups are great at producing:

• Christians who sit in circles and talk to one another inside a building

• people who read and comment on the Bible

• people who rant about how they long to “get out there” and do something that matters

• people who awkwardly end their time by praying for “prayer requests”

• people who go home unchallenged and unchanged.

You would think there’s a Small Groups Revised Version of the New Testament somewhere. And I quote: “Then Jesus came to them and said, ‘All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore stay where you are and make Christians of the people you already know, baptizing them in the name of American consumer Christianity, and teaching them to sit in rooms with one another, read the Bible, and pray for one another. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age’” (Matthew 28:18-20, SGRV).

If the Small Groups Revised Version of Matthew 28:18-20 were the stated purpose, then most American small groups would be nailing it.

In my humble opinion, the Americanized small group is a remnant of an impotent religious institution that can’t transition effectively into a post-Christian, postmodern world.

Thank God small groups worked in some instances, and in some contexts!

But for every story of success about a small group creating an authentic disciple, my hunch is there are three times as many failures (and that just takes into account the 10 to 30 percent of church attendees who actually participate in them).

If we had time to waste, this wouldn’t be an urgent problem.

But we don’t.

Brian Jones is founding pastor of Christ’s Church of the Valley in Royersford, Pennsylvania. He’s the author of Second Guessing God and Getting Rid of the Gorilla: Confessions on the Struggle to Forgive. See www.brianjones.com.

Wishy Washy Warren

Lest we forget just how wishy washy Rick Warren is, here's a reminder


Seems Rick Warren was not against California’s Proposition 8 and homosexual marriage after all. Quoted below is the exact words Rick Warren made on “Larry King Live”. Also in the same article that I quote and link to at the bottom of this post is Joseph Farah’s appropriate view of this wishy-washy pastor.

Why is Rick Warren always in the news? If he was actually preaching the gospel of Christ he would not get on the worldly media. He is CFR member for a reason and he has a Global Peace Plan because it conforms with the CFR globalist socialistic agenda. Rick Warren is yoked together with some very powerful globalists unbelievers and their own purpose driven lives wants global governance. What Rich Warren says to the world implies religious pluralism and a form of universalism that includes aspects of religious dominionism. He is not presenting the gospel of Christ to the world.

Everything Rick Warren says is a compromise with the world instead of presenting the gospel of salvation to the world. I find this to be true ranging across the spectrum from Rick Warren’s purpose driven seeker friendly gospel lite movement to his many media opportunities that never clearly presents the gospel of Christ.

If a Christian pastor cannot stand up for clear teachings of their faith he certainly should not be standing in your church pulpit! The only reason I think Rich Warren is standing at Saddleback Church is that the church membership has been made in his image. By the way, while I am at it, here is an example of how Rick Warren grows his Church. (no longer active link for some reason)

It is amazing to me that a “Evangelical” Christian leader would actually apologize to homosexual leaders because some of them might think he took the biblical stand against homosexual perversion and marriage perversion.

Also read this article that quotes what Rick Warren actually said to his church on Proposition 8. Apparently Rick Warren was even spinning the truth to Larry King about what he actually said.

Need another opinion? Here is Dr. Norman L. Geisler’s postion on Rick Warren and the Gay Marriage issue.


I think America’s spiritual condition is reflected in the choice of leaders that Amercians put into power and that is doubly true in its churches.

America’s wishy-washy pastors

(Rick Warren on Larry King Live)

“You know, Larry, there was a story within a story that never got told,” he said. “In the first place, I am not an anti-gay or anti-gay marriage activist. I never have been, never will be. During the whole Proposition 8 thing, I never once went to a meeting, never once issued a statement, never – never once even gave an endorsement in the two years Prop 8 was going. The week before the – the vote, somebody in my church said, Pastor Rick, what – what do you think about this? And I sent a note to my own members that said, I actually believe that marriage is – really should be defined, that that definition should be – say between a man and a woman.

“And then all of a sudden out of it, they made me, you know, something that I really wasn’t,” Warren continued. “And I actually – there were a number of things that were put out. I wrote to all my gay friends – the leaders that I knew – and actually apologized to them. That never got out. There were some things said that – you know, everybody should have 10 percent grace when they say public statements. And I was asked a question that made it sound like I equated gay marriage with pedophilia or incest, which I absolutely do not believe. And I actually announced that. All of the criticism came from people that didn’t know me. Not a single criticism came from any gay leader who knows me and knows that for years, we’ve been working together on AIDS issues and all these other things.”

(Joseph Farah)

What are we to make of such mealy-mouthed, wishy-washy, namby-pamby hokum?

It’s a great illustration of America’s most prominent church leader equivocating and backtracking and saying almost nothing coherent so that he will offend no one.


Full articles:
http://www.thepropheticyears.com/wordpress/rick-warren-apogizes-to-homosexual-leaders-because-some-thought-he-was-against-homosexual-marriage.html

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=94254