Friday, June 29, 2012

Camp of the Saints

A very interesting article from www.Amazon.com about unchecked immigration. This follows this post referencing a book about the Supreme Court  by Mark Levin.   This follows this post about Marco Rubio's DREAM Act. This follows this post about the Black Caucus hurting Black Americans with their immigration stand. This follows this post about how to Report Illegal Immigrants! For more that you can do to get involved click HERE and you can read another very interesting book HERE!

Camp of the Saints

An interesting book  is called Camp of the Saints which you can get from Amazon by clicking here or your library here. The book says to "suppose a million starving people from the Ganges actually took Western rhetoric of compassion, explotiation, etc., to heart, and comandeered, en masse, shipping, with the intention of moving to the shores of France? (Raspail, of course, is French.) Would anyone stop them?"


The Prophet as Leper
By Lloyd A. Conway

 This book is so politically incorrect that I admire Amazon.com for actually carrying it. Written in the early 1970s, this book looks beyond the cold war to a North-South confrontation in which European civilization is unilaterally morally disarmed. The thesis is simple: suppose a million starving people from the Ganges actually took Western rhetoric of compassion, explotiation, etc., to heart, and comandeered, en masse, shipping, with the intention of moving to the shores of France? (Raspail, of course, is French.) Would anyone stop them? The imagery employed is interesting. The title comes from Revelation, Chapter 20, and refers to the forces of evil laying seige to the camp of the saints, here meant to be the nations of the West. "The thousand years are over..." is chanted from Third World lips, harking to the millenial reign of Christ, as well as to the millenial domination of Europe over the globe. Raspail has the Vatican, World Council of Churches, and other organs of what he saw as Western liberal compassion try to feed the Armada, as it sails around the Cape. The bodies of their would-be benefactors are cast into the sea. The characters who oppose, with violence, the Armada are named with names like Constantine Drasages and Luke Notaras, namesakes of the last Byzantine Emperor and Admiral. They are portrayed as villans in the media; one of the more thoughtful leftists, fashionably in support of opening up France's shores, but cynical enough to see the potential results, reflects on the parallels between Byzantium's fate and that of the West. The author's point is that any who dare to say that 'white' civilization has a right to exist are branded racists and cast out of the pale of polite society. The narrative is set up as a flashback. The Armada is about to disgorge its human cargo in Provence as we begin. An old man, M. Calgues, awaits them, Mozart playing in the background, after setting what he expects to be his last supper among the living. From there, we go back to the beginning, in India, as a Western cleric preaches quasi-liberation theology to the masses. Along the way, as the news spreads over the world, we digress, looking at Manhattenites holing up in skyscrapers as the spectre of race riots beckon, and at Russian troops on the Manchurian border contemplating the human waves gathering to wash over them. The central question of the book is this: will the West (including Russia - more properly, the North), when (not if) confronted with de facto occupation of national territories by Third World people, coming to live, but not to assimilate, use violence to save itself? Is there left in Euro-American civilization a will to live that is strong enough to pull a trigger? The stark question is answered in one of two possible ways by the concluding chapter. This astringent book, whether you agree with Raspail's views or not, demands thoughtful attention to the questions posed. How will we deal with population/immagration issues? Is our culture and way of life worth fighting for? -Lloyd A. Conway

Obama Administration Rejects Virginia's 287(g) Application

A very interesting post from www.NumbersUSA.com about the rejection of Virginia's 287(g) plan. This follows this post about purging illegals from voter roles.   This follows this post about Marco Rubio's DREAM Act. This follows this post about the Black Caucus hurting Black Americans with their immigration stand. This follows this post about how to Report Illegal Immigrants! For more that you can do to get involved click HERE and you can read this very interesting book HERE!

Obama Administration Rejects Virginia's 287(g) Application


 - posted on NumbersUSA





The Obama Administration has rejected the application submitted by the Virginia State Police to join the Department of Homeland Security's 287(g) program. The program allows local law enforcement agents to be trained by federal immigration enforcement officials in order to help enforce federal laws at the state and local level. Earlier this week, the administration suspended all 287(g) agreements that DHS had with agencies in Arizona.



"I'm incredibly disappointed with the Obama administration," Gov. Bob McDonnell said.



Gov. McDonnell campaigned in 2009 on the issue of registering the state police with the 287(g) program.



In 2010, Gov. McDonnell submitted an application to DHS to allow 28 state troopers to become part of the program. After nearly a year without a response, Gov. McDonnell contacted DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano, stating, "we have patiently waited nine months for formal approval and the time to act is now. Virginia meets all the qualifications and has proven to be an excellent partner state and I ask you to approve our application without further delay."



For more information, see the Washington Examiner and the Washington Post.



Divorce-Proof Your Marriage

An interesting article from http://www.ucg.org/ about preventing divorce. This follows this post about UFO sightings.  For a free magazine subscription or to get this book for free click HERE! or call 1-888-886-8632.

Divorce-Proof Your Marriage


Because so many marriages—particularly in modern Western countries—end in failure, couples trying to live godly lives and make their relationships last will look for ways to protect and preserve their marriages.



God tells us that He "hates divorce" (Malachi 2:16For the LORD, the God of Israel, saith that he hateth putting away: for one covereth violence with his garment, saith the LORD of hosts: therefore take heed to your spirit, that ye deal not treacherously.



See All...), and He gives us specific instructions that can produce peace and happiness. Regardless of whether one has followed God's instructions when it comes to dating, these principles will help any marriage.



Although the best course of action is to always follow all of God's instructions, God also allows and encourages everyone to turn from past sins and to begin obeying Him (Acts 2:38Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.



See All...; 3:19). So even if you have made mistakes in dating or in your marriage, you can change if you commit your life to God and ask for His help in reforming your life. (If you'd like to know more about the purpose of human life and how to commit your life to God, request our free booklets What Is Your Destiny? and The Road to Eternal Life .)



Although solid, secure relationships are built more quickly when both husband and wife accept and practice God's laws, God expects each of us to respond to Him regardless of the circumstances of our marriage (James 4:17Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.



See All...). Even when only one spouse commits his or her life to God and His standards, God can bless both partners (1 Corinthians 7:13-14 [13] And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.

[14] For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.





See All...). A positive, loving example of obedience to God by a husband or wife may influence the other to want to please God (1 Peter 3:1-4 [1] Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;

[2] While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear.

[3] Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel;

[4] But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.





See All...). One person can make a difference.



Now let's consider some biblical principles that make marriages more enjoyable—and, therefore, longer lasting.



A lifelong commitment



Early in the book of Genesis, God tells us that it is appropriate for a man to "leave his father and his mother" and "cleave unto his wife" (Genesis 2:24Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.



See All..., King James Version). The Hebrew word translated "cleave" is dabaq , meaning "to cling, cleave, keep close."



"Used in modern Hebrew in the sense of 'to stick to, adhere to,' dabaq yields the noun form for 'glue' and also the more abstract ideas of 'loyalty, devotion'" ( Vine's Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words , 1985, "To Cleave, Cling").



When a husband and wife obey the biblical command to cleave to each other, they will literally join together. Having sexual relations, becoming "one flesh," is part of the commitment to each other in marriage. Commitment also includes fidelity, trust and the character to act properly when under pressure or temptation. Yet too often people engage in sex without commitment—a contradiction of this foundational principle for successful marriages.



When two people exchange wedding vows, they make a lifelong commitment. Biblically speaking, this is a covenant (Malachi 2:14Yet ye say, Wherefore? Because the LORD hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast dealt treacherously: yet is she thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant.



See All...)—a solemn promise to God and one's spouse to be faithful.



This commitment should not be taken lightly or maintained only when we feel like it. We need to understand that our feelings can mislead us. God does not advocate only occasional bursts of loyalty and obedience to Him whenever it is convenient for us. Similarly, people who desire good marriages do not look for people who will stay committed to them only most of the time.



Remaining faithful to one's commitment is a character issue. Good relationships stand on long-term, trustworthy commitments—even under trying circumstances. When two people commit to follow God and His instructions within their marriage, they take the first steps toward a happy, lasting relationship.



What is love?



To love and be loved is one of the most exhilarating experiences any of us can enjoy. Writers and poets, ancient and modern, speak of the power and emotion of romantic love. Yet the Bible reveals that love, in its broadest sense, is a choice. Love is something we choose to do.



God tells husbands to love their wives (Ephesians 5:25Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;



See All..., 28; Colossians 3:19Husbands, love your wives, and be not bitter against them.



See All...)—and not just if they feel like it. Lacking a foundational understanding, many couples have tragically assumed they have no control over their feelings. Concluding that love just magically appears or disappears, too many have suffered and even dissolved relationships over difficulties that could have been resolved.



In a beautiful explanation of the love God expects of us, the apostle Paul describes the nature and qualities of genuine love: "Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails" (1 Corinthians 13:4-8 [4] Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up,

[5] Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil;

[6] Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth;

[7] Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.

[8] Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.





See All..., NIV).



Love is much more than a vague emotion or physical attraction, something we "fall" into or out of. Falling is an accident, something we have little control over. Genuine love as described in the Bible is very different.



Practicing real love requires conscious choice and determination. Genuine love resolves to show kindness and patience in the face of suffering. It does not return evil for evil (Romans 12:17Recompense to no man evil for evil. Provide things honest in the sight of all men.



See All...; 1 Thessalonians 5:15See that none render evil for evil unto any man; but ever follow that which is good, both among yourselves, and to all men.



See All...). People who exemplify this kind of love follow the example of God Himself, who "is kind to the unthankful and evil" (Luke 6:35But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil.



See All...).



Leadership based on love



Full, complete love is the love God expects husbands to show their wives. It is the foundation of godly leadership. Without it husbands cannot properly fulfill the leadership God expects from them within marriage (Ephesians 5:23For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.



See All...). When a husband demonstrates godly love, his whole family benefits. His wife and children feel secure. When they know they are honored and loved, it is much easier for them to respect him as the leader of the family.



A husband must understand that even though God has given him responsibility within the family, his position of leadership is to be used only for the good of the family. It should never be used for selfish reasons. This kind of leadership flows from the understanding that first and foremost the husband, too, is under authority—God's authority (1 Corinthians 11:3But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.



See All...).



Because husbands historically have not lived up to God's expectations for them, some have concluded that a husband's leadership position within the family is oppressive and outdated. The real problem, however, is with husbands who neglect or reject the character traits of godliness—not with God's model for families. If we accept God's instructions, we must accept all of His teaching on marriage.



God places on a husband's shoulders immense responsibility for leading his wife and children in gentleness and love. God gives him no mandate to use his position harshly or selfishly, nor the right to neglect his family's well-being. Humility, the opposite of pride and arrogance, is essential in godly leadership.



In his poignant letter to Titus, Paul explained that God's structure for families is a fundamental biblical teaching: "But as for you, speak the things which are proper for sound doctrine: that the older men be sober, reverent, temperate, sound in faith, in love, in patience; the older women likewise, that they be reverent in behavior . . . that they admonish the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, to be discreet, chaste, homemakers, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be blasphemed" (Titus 2:1-5 [1] But speak thou the things which become sound doctrine:

[2] That the aged men be sober, grave, temperate, sound in faith, in charity, in patience.

[3] The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things;

[4] That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children,

[5] To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.





See All...).



God set husbands in a leadership role in the family, but He expects men and women alike to practice biblical love and respect (Ephesians 5:21Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.



See All...).



Respect: Key to a successful marriage



Besides detailing for husbands how they should love their wives (Ephesians 5:25-33 [25] Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;

[26] That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,

[27] That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.

[28] So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.

[29] For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:

[30] For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.

[31] For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.

[32] This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.

[33] Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.





See All...), Paul gives specific instructions to wives: "Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body. Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything" (verses 22-24).



This passage teaches us that a wife's willing acknowledgment of her husband's leadership role is a vital ingredient in godly marriages. This doesn't mean the husband must make every decision.



Many couples successfully divide household responsibilities, working together according to their respective strengths and interests. In a loving marriage, both partners should discuss major decisions and priorities. Then, according to the biblical model, if the husband chooses to make the final judgment, all family members should honor it unless it forces them to disobey God (see Acts 5:29Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.



See All...).



Of course, there are often times when a husband should wisely defer to the preferences of his wife and children. Just because he has the right to make family decisions does not mean it is always best that he does. Many decisions are a matter of preference, and preference is an individual matter. A loving husband and father should be sensitive to the desires and preferences of every family member as long as they don't violate godly standards.



No husband can successfully be the head of his household unless his wife cooperatively respects the leadership position God has given him. Without her conscious decision to obey God's instruction, she will usurp his leadership role in the family and invite strife. Paul urges wives to respect their husbands (Ephesians 5:33Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.



See All...). Attitude —of husbands and wives—is the key to making the biblical model of marriage a joyful, fulfilling experience.



Like love, respect also implies making a choice. We can choose to respect people for their positive qualities or despise them for the traits we dislike. The best time for critical evaluation is before marriage. Afterwards husbands and wives need to focus on mutual respect. Deal kindly with imperfections and abundantly praise good qualities. Benjamin Franklin wisely and humorously put it this way: "Keep your eyes wide open before marriage and half shut afterwards."



Conflict and communication







Researchers have found that the way two people communicate mirrors the state of their relationship. Positive, encouraging communication indicates a good relationship, and excessive criticism indicates a poor relationship. Depending on the circumstances, the two little words "I'm sorry" can be as effective as "I love you"—and perhaps more so.



Some marriage counselors claim couples should learn to fight fairly and not worry about the number of arguments. "Get it off your chest and get it all out in the open," they advise.



Although candor can be healthy, fighting and arguing over every disagreement has proven to not be so wise. A study of 691 couples indicated that the more partners argue, regardless of their style of quarreling, the more likely they will eventually divorce (Richard Morin, "What's Fair in Love and Fights?" Washington Post Weekly , June 7, 1993, p. 37). Conflicts lower respect and can build resentment. An argument can turn into the catalyst for a divorce.



How much conflict can a relationship stand? One researcher's method of measurement, which claims 90 percent accuracy in predicting which marriages will last and which will fail, is based on the percentage of positive comments versus negative comments between spouses.



Among newlyweds, researchers found that spouses who ended up staying together made five or fewer critical comments out of each 100 comments about each other. Newlyweds who later divorced had made 10 or more critical comments out of each 100 (Joanni Schrof, "A Lens on Matrimony," U.S. News and World Report , Feb. 21, 1994, pp. 66-69).



Since all men and women, even in happily married couples, sometimes have differences of opinion, learning how to peacefully resolve differences is an important part of maintaining respect. Here are a few principles couples should follow:



Speak up. Take turns expressing your beliefs and concerns in a kind way, without raising your voices (Proverbs 15:1A soft answer turneth away wrath: but grievous words stir up anger.



See All...). Refusing to talk about difficulties does not resolve problems. Learn to express your opinions in a nonjudgmental way. Your spouse is not always a very good mind reader. Let him or her know what you think, feel and like. Use "I" statements —such as "I feel like you don't appreciate me when you do that"—rather than accusative "You always . . ." or "You never . . ." statements.



Listen carefully. When your spouse is speaking, concentrate on what he or she is saying. Many husbands and wives don't listen respectfully to each other, butting into the conversation before the other is finished or planning their response without really paying attention to what is being said.



To help our spouses realize that we have truly heard them, some counselors recommend that we verbally acknowledge what he or she said before we move on to another thought. This assures your partner that he or she was heard, fostering trust and respect.



Respect differences in your husband or wife. Since God created human beings with a broad range of personalities, we need to appreciate those different perspectives. Even the steps we take to fulfill God's instructions can vary from person to person. We see this principle in Peter's instruction to husbands to dwell with their wives "with understanding" (1 Peter 3:7Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.



See All...).



Seek a win-win solution. Whenever possible, look for solutions to problems that are acceptable to both parties (Philippians 2:4). If possible, have two winners rather than a winner and loser. We must at times be willing to yield as long as a choice or action isn't in conflict with God's instruction (Matthew 5:9Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.



See All...; 1 Corinthians 6:7Now therefore there is utterly a fault among you, because ye go to law one with another. Why do ye not rather take wrong? why do ye not rather suffer yourselves to be defrauded?



See All...).



Paul beautifully explained this principle: "Let each of you look out not only for his own interests, but also for the interests of others. Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus" (Philippians 2:4-5).



Forgive. Everyone makes mistakes. Forgive so that God and your spouse will be inclined to forgive you (Matthew 6:15But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.



See All...; Luke 6:37Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven:



See All...). Put your best foot forward. Action often follows thought. Approach your marriage partner in a spirit of love and forgiveness and ask God to restore you to a right attitude (see Psalm 51:10Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me.



See All...). Instead of letting your negative emotions rule you, determine to treat your husband or wife with respect. Often your emotions will change to match your actions.



Seek help. If you have applied everything you know to do and are still struggling, look for competent professional help. Both you and your spouse may be making mistakes. Healthy, mature people are not afraid to seek help when they need it (Proverbs 4:7Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding.



See All...; 11:14).



The importance of romance

Before two people get married, they generally spend much time together. They may go to great lengths to plan special occasions. As they court one another, the two sense the romance that is enveloping them. Romance is an intoxicating feeling that is so delightful but difficult to explain.



Proverbs 30:18-19 [18] There be three things which are too wonderful for me, yea, four which I know not:

[19] The way of an eagle in the air; the way of a serpent upon a rock; the way of a ship in the midst of the sea; and the way of a man with a maid.





See All... says of romance: "There are three things that are too amazing for me, four that I do not understand: the way of an eagle in the sky, the way of a snake on a rock, the way of a ship on the high seas, and the way of a man with a maiden" (NIV).



The flush of romance is so powerful that it often acts as a force driving couples to marriage. Once a couple is married, however, it seems that romance fades. Husbands and wives spend less and less time thinking about what they can do to please each other.



It is common for a husband or wife to become selfish-thinking only about his or her needs and how the other isn't meeting expectations. When a "what's-in-it-for-me?" attitude becomes predominant, relationships flounder. Husbands find themselves wondering why women are so hard to understand, and wives want to know why their husbands don't pay more attention to them. Such marriages are in need of renewed romance.



In Proverbs 5:18-19 [18] Let thy fountain be blessed: and rejoice with the wife of thy youth.

[19] Let her be as the loving hind and pleasant roe; let her breasts satisfy thee at all times; and be thou ravished always with her love.





See All... we find this directive: "Let your fountain [marital relationship] be blessed, and rejoice in the wife of your youth, a lovely deer, a graceful doe. May her breasts satisfy you at all times; may you be intoxicated always by her love" (New Revised Standard Version). To be intoxicated or "enraptured" (New King James Version) by a marriage partner's love is something God wants us to enjoy throughout our marriages.



When romance begins to fade, some couples find it hard to retain the close feelings they previously had for each other. But rekindling romance is not that difficult when we understand what to do and commit ourselves to the task. In fact, men and women respond easily to romantic overtures from their spouses when a knowledgeable mate goes about trying to restore romance to a relationship. So what are the keys to keeping romance alive in a marriage?



One of the first keys is to give ourselves to our mate. In a world in which it is so easy to be selfish, consumed with our personal expectations, we must do the opposite.



We must first give in order to receive. When we apply the principles of love and respect as found in Ephesians 5:33Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.



See All..., our husband or wife will be strongly influenced to love and respect us in return. Illustrating this principle to husbands, Paul wrote: "So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself" (Ephesians 5:28So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.



See All...).



When a husband treats his wife and family in a loving and kind way, putting their needs and wishes ahead of his own, a wife is strongly influenced to respond with affection and physical intimacy.



Similarly, when a wife respects her husband, freely extends love and intimacy, and praises him for the good things he does, he practically becomes putty in her hands. He becomes much more receptive to what this beautiful creature, his wife who makes him so very happy, has to say. Selfishness, on the other hand, does just the opposite. It strains the marital relationship.



Husbands and wives who preserve romance by giving themselves to each other find that their mates aren't difficult to influence at all. To them, marriage is the wonderful, delightful, energizing relationship God intended.



The value of teamwork

God intends couples to work, live and grow in harmony. Instead of waging a war of the sexes, which modern philosophies often fuel, God teaches husbands and wives to work together as a team. "Husbands, likewise, dwell with them with understanding, giving honor to the wife, as to the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life, that your prayers may not be hindered" (1 Peter 3:7Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.



See All...).



Working together, husbands and wives can accomplish much more than they can working independently. Aquila and Priscilla, a first-century Christian couple, set a wonderful example as a husband-and-wife team dedicated to God and serving His people. Together they worked as tentmakers with the apostle Paul in Corinth (Acts 18:2-3 [2] And found a certain Jew named Aquila, born in Pontus, lately come from Italy, with his wife Priscilla; (because that Claudius had commanded all Jews to depart from Rome:) and came unto them.

[3] And because he was of the same craft, he abode with them, and wrought: for by their occupation they were tentmakers.





See All...), traveled with him to Syria (verse 18), helped the gifted speaker and teacher Apollos understand "the way of God more accurately" when he was new to Christianity (verses 24-26) and provided a meeting place for a local congregation of the Church in their home (1 Corinthians 16:19The churches of Asia salute you. Aquila and Priscilla salute you much in the Lord, with the church that is in their house.



See All...).



Priscilla and Aquila were loved and respected. Notice Paul's commendation of them: "Greet Priscilla and Aquila, my fellow workers in Christ Jesus, who risked their own necks for my life, to whom not only I give thanks, but also all the churches of the Gentiles" (Romans 16:3-4 [3] Greet Priscilla and Aquila my helpers in Christ Jesus:

[4] Who have for my life laid down their own necks: unto whom not only I give thanks, but also all the churches of the Gentiles.





See All...). This couple undoubtedly saw a bigger purpose for their lives than arguing over inconsequential matters. They were living examples of "heirs together of the grace of life" (1 Peter 3:7Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.



See All...).



When husbands and wives lovingly submit to the roles God has established in marriage, they learn how to submit to God. Intimate, loving relationships between husbands and wives teach us much about the relationship of Christ to the Church (Ephesians 5:32This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.



See All...). Applying God's principles for marriage not only produces happy relationships in this life, but doing so helps us understand God's spiritual plan for humanity.



I’m Not Down on John Roberts

A very interesting post from http://www.redstate.com/ about the John Roberts ruling on Obamacare. This follows this post about the EPA's mining rules. This follows this article about the recent news about ending the ban on offshore drilling which would encourage American energy independence This is a key issue to prevent money from going to hostile countries such as Iran and Venezuela. For more that you can do to get involved click HERE and you can read the very interesting book that is shown HERE!

I’m Not Down on John Roberts




Posted by Erick Erickson (Diary)





 Having gone through the opinion, I am not going to beat up on John Roberts. I am disappointed, but I want to make a few points.



First, I get the strong sense from a few anecdotal stories about Roberts over the past few months and the way he has written this opinion that he very, very much was concerned about keeping the Supreme Court above the partisan fray and damaging the reputation of the Court long term. It seems to me the left was smart to make a full frontal assault on the Court as it persuaded Roberts.



Second, in writing his case, Roberts forces everyone to deal with the issue as a political, not a legal issue. In the past twenty years, Republicans have punted a number of issues to the Supreme Court asking the Court to save us from ourselves. They can’t do that with Roberts. They tried with McCain-Feingold, which was originally upheld. This case is a timely reminder to the GOP that five votes are not a sure thing.



Third, while Roberts has expanded the taxation power, which I don’t really think is a massive expansion from what it was, Roberts has curtailed the commerce clause as an avenue for Congressional overreach. In so doing, he has affirmed the Democrats are massive taxers. In fact, I would argue that this may prevent future mandates in that no one is going to go around campaigning on new massive tax increases. On the upside, I guess we can tax the hell out of abortion now. Likewise, in a 7 to 2 decision, the Court shows a strong majority still recognize the concept of federalism and the restrains of Congress in forcing states to adhere to the whims of the federal government.



Fourth, in forcing us to deal with this politically, the Democrats are going to have a hard time running to November claiming the American people need to vote for them to preserve Obamacare. It remains deeply, deeply unpopular with the American people. If they want to make a vote for them a vote for keeping a massive tax increase, let them try.



Fifth, the decision totally removes a growing left-wing talking point that suddenly they must vote for Obama because of judges. The Supreme Court as a November issue is gone.



Finally, while I am not down on John Roberts like many of you are today, i will be very down on Congressional Republicans if they do not now try to shut down the individual mandate. Force the Democrats on the record about the mandate. Defund Obamacare. This now, by necessity, is a political fight and the GOP sure as hell should fight.



60% of Americans agree with them on the issue. And guess what? The Democrats have been saying for a while that individual pieces of Obamacare are quite popular. With John Roberts’ opinion, the repeal fight takes place on GOP turf, not Democrat turf. The all or nothing repeal has always been better ground for the GOP and now John Roberts has forced everyone onto that ground. Oh, and as I mentioned earlier, because John Roberts concluded it was a tax, the Democrats cannot filibuster its repeal because of the same reconciliation procedure the Democrats used to pass it.



It seems very, very clear to me in reviewing John Roberts’ decision that he is playing a much longer game than us and can afford to with a life tenure. And he probably just handed Mitt Romney the White House.



*A friend points out one other thing — go back to 2009. Olympia Snowe was the deciding vote to get Obamacare out of the Senate Committee. Had she voted no, we’d not be here now. Snowe gave it bipartisan cover coming out of committee, but she actually wasn’t the deciding vote.



Share with your state lawmakers: Judge rules Florida illegal alien voter purge is legal

A very interesting post from http://www.alipac.us/ about purging illegals from voter roles. This follows this post about an attempt to use 1070 to improve immigration enforcement.  This follows this post about Marco Rubio's DREAM Act. This follows this post about the Black Caucus hurting Black Americans with their immigration stand. This follows this post about how to Report Illegal Immigrants! For more that you can do to get involved click HERE and you can read this very interesting book HERE!

Share with your state lawmakers: Judge rules Florida illegal alien voter purge is legal

By WILLIAM BERGSTROM


POLITICO



A federal judge on Wednesday rejected a Justice Department request to block Florida’s voter purge.



U.S. District Judge Robert Hinkle ruled that that the state’s effort to remove potentially ineligible voters from its rolls is legal despite the looming Aug. 14 election, The Associated Press reports.



The Justice Department sued the state earlier this month over Gov. Rick Scott’s effort to identify and remove non-citizens from the rolls, arguing that the effort comes too close to the election and uses too imperfect a database to guarantee voters’ rights.



In a statement on his website, Scott said, “The court made a common-sense decision consistent with what I’ve been saying all along: that irreparable harm will result if non-citizens are allowed to vote.”



A Justice Department said in a statement to POLITICO, “We will review the written decision when it’s issued, and we decline further comment at this time.”



The state has asked local election officials to investigate the citizenship status of some 2,600 voters, but has yet to distribute a list of 182,000 voters — and won’t do so, according to a Scott spokesperson, unless the state can check the names against a Department of Homeland Security database. The state is suing for access to the database.



One Old Vet



Judge: Florida voter purge is legal - William Bergstrom - POLITICO.com


Thursday, June 28, 2012

SUPREME COURT: WHAT WOULD REAGAN DO?

A very interesting article from http://www.anncoulter.com/ referencing this book by Mark Levin. This follows this post  about a book by Pat Buchanan.  This follows this post about Marco Rubio's DREAM Act. This follows this post about the Black Caucus hurting Black Americans with their immigration stand. This follows this post about how to Report Illegal Immigrants! For more that you can do to get involved click HERE and you can read another very interesting book HERE!


WHAT WOULD REAGAN DO?


September 21, 2005









Perhaps President Bush has inadvertently nominated a true conservative to the court with this Roberts fellow. I remain skeptical based on the following facts:



(1) Anita Hill has not stepped forward to accuse Roberts of sexual harassment.



(2) The Democrats did not accuse Roberts of having a secret life as a racist.



(3) We have no idea what kind of videos he rents.



Also, I'm still steamed that Bush has now dashed my dreams of an all-black Supreme Court composed of eight more Clarence Thomases. Incidentally, eight more Clarence Thomases is the only form of human cloning I would ever support.



As liberal Hendrik Hertzberg wrote in The New Yorker, Roberts was a scared choice. After Hurricane Katrina, Bush was even more scared. So when he had to pick a chief justice, he renominated the Rorschach blot.



For Christians, it's "What Would Jesus Do?" For Republicans, it's "What Would Reagan Do?" Bush doesn't have to be Reagan; he just has to consult his WWRD bracelet. If Bush had followed the WWRD guidelines, he would have nominated Antonin Scalia for the chief justiceship.





As proof, I refer you to the evidence. When Reagan had an opening for chief justice, he nominated Associate Justice William Rehnquist. While liberals were preoccupied staging die-ins against Rehnquist and accusing him of chasing black people away from the polls with a stick � something they did not accuse Roberts of � Reagan slipped Scalia onto the court.



That's what Reaganesque presidents with a five-vote margin in the Senate typically do. Apart from toppling the Soviet Empire, Scalia remains Reagan's greatest triumph.



Scalia deserved the chief justiceship. He's the best man for the job. He has suffered lo these many years with Justices Souter, Kennedy and O'Connor. He believes in a sedentary judiciary. He's for judicial passivism. Scalia also would have been the first cigar-smoking, hot-blooded Italian chief justice, which I note the diversity crowd never mentions.



But most important, if Bush had nominated Scalia, liberals would have responded with their usual understated screams of genocide, and Bush could have nominated absolutely anyone to fill Justice O'Connor's seat. He also could have cut taxes, invaded Syria, and bombed North Korea and Cuba just for laughs. He could even have done something totally nuts, like enforce the immigration laws.



Even if Roberts turns out to be another Rehnquist (too much to hope for another Scalia!), we don't know that, Bush doesn't know that, and Bush has blown a golden opportunity to make Chuck Schumer the public face of the Democratic Party. A few weeks of Schumer as their spokesman, and normal Democrats would be clamoring for Howard Dean to get back on the stick. Teddy Kennedy would start showing up at hearings actually holding a double scotch.



Inasmuch as Bush must still choose a replacement for O'Connor, it's important to remember the "Sandra Day O'Connor bylaw" to the WWRD guidelines: Never appoint anyone like Sandra Day O'Connor to any court at any level.



Reagan had made a campaign promise to appoint a woman to the Supreme Court. He didn't say anything about appointing a ninny. But back in 1981, it was slim pickings for experienced female judges. O'Connor was a terrible mistake and will forever mar Reagan's record, but at least he did it only once.



Bush has already fulfilled all his campaign promises to liberals � and then some! He said he'd be a "compassionate conservative," which liberals interpreted to mean that he would bend to their will, enact massive spending programs, and be nice to liberals. When Bush won the election, that sealed the deal. It meant the Democrats won.



Consequently, Bush has enacted massive new spending programs, obstinately refused to deal with illegal immigration, opposed all conservative Republicans in their primary races, and invited Teddy Kennedy over for movie night. He's even sent his own father to socialize with aging porn star Bill Clinton.



(Sidebar on the aging porn star: Idiot Republicans fraternizing with the Clintons has not harmed the decadent buffoon's reputation abroad. A Chinese condom manufacturer recently named one of its condoms the "Clinton," a fitting tribute to the man who had Monica Lewinsky perform oral sex on him in the Oval Office on Easter Sunday. Their advertising slogans are: "Always wear a 'Clinton' when you're getting a 'Lewinsky'!"; "I still believe in a place called the G-spot"; "Extra-thin skinned!"; "For when you really, really want to feel her pain." Note to Bush: This isn't Walter Mondale. How about sending Pops on the road with Joey Buttafuoco?)



According to my WWRD wristwatch, it's time for Bush to invade Grenada, bomb Libya, fire the air traffic controllers, and joke about launching a first strike against the Soviet Union. In lieu of that, how about nominating a conservative to O'Connor's seat on the court? It would be a bold gesture.



Fax & Ask Your State Legislators to Follow Supreme Court Immigration Decisions‏

A very interesting post from http://www.vdare.com/ about an attempt to use 1070 to improve immigration enforcement. This follows this post about attempts to stave off amnesty.  This follows this post about Marco Rubio's DREAM Act. This follows this post about the Black Caucus hurting Black Americans with their immigration stand. This follows this post about how to Report Illegal Immigrants! For more that you can do to get involved click HERE and you can read this very interesting book HERE!

Ask Your State Legislators to Follow Supreme Court Immigration Decisions





You can find this fax by proceeding to

http://www.numbersusa.com/faxes?ID=14076





Monday, the Supreme Court upheld Arizona's right to determine the immigration status of individuals that police officers in that state come in contact with. This follows a 2011 ruling confirming Arizona's right to oblige all businesses to use the E-Verify employment verification system. When one combines these two rulings, it gives states a good path to follow on immigration enforcement.







Please send a fax to your state legislators and urge them to pass legislation that the Supreme Court has upheld -- legislation mandating use of the E-Verify system and legislation requiring law enforcement officers to determine the immigration status of individuals when there is cause to do so -- so that your state's illegal immigration problem is reduced.







Below is Roy's blog on this topic:







Supreme Court gives states a green light to follow Arizona's lead on immigration







In all the analysis of whether Arizona or Pres. Obama came out on top in the Supreme Court’s ruling on S.B. 1070 today, the key question is: how well did unemployed Americans fare?







And the answer is: Very well.







Combined with another Court ruling on an Arizona law last year, states now have all the legal room they need to pursue attrition-through-enforcement measures that cause illegal aliens to depart from a state, opening up jobs for unemployed Americans and legal immigrants.







Although headlines have focused on the court knocking down three of four provisions before it, it should be noted that S.B. 1070 began with 14 sections. After all the challenges at several court levels, 11 of those sections are still standing – and the court today ruled against only half of the twelfth. The one that was cleared today by the Court was the right of police to question people about their immigration status. This may be the most important provision in causing illegal aliens to leave Arizona, judging by the frenzy of concerned reaction by the pro-amnesty forces and the Obama administration.







We have always regarded S.B. 1070 as supplementary to the far more important, earlier Arizona bill that requires every employer to use E-Verify to keep illegal aliens and tourists from taking jobs. The Obama administration also opposed this effort, but the Court last year entirely upheld the right of states to protect its workers in that way.







Combining the two rulings, Arizona now has the Supreme Court-approved model to show all other states that they don’t have to sit idly by while an estimated 7 million illegal aliens take U.S. jobs in construction, manufacturing, service, transportation and even some in the professions. These are the occupations where most of the 20 million Americans who are unemployed or forced into part-time work are also seeking a job.







Since 1986, the prevailing theory about illegal immigration in Washington has been one of inevitability – that nothing can be done to cause illegal aliens to leave once they get into the country. Hence, Congress passed seven amnesties between 1986 and 2000.







Now, Arizona – and presumably a number of other states – can be full-effort laboratories to prove inevitability a false theory.







We are heartened that even in writing the majority opinion that blocked three parts of Arizona’s law, Justice Kennedy recognized that decisions by three straight presidents to significantly ignore federal immigration law have put states in a bind.







"The pervasiveness of federal regulation does not diminish the importance of immigration policy to the States," he wrote. "Arizona bears many of the consequences of unlawful immigration. . . . Statistics alone do not capture the full extent of Arizona’s concerns. Accounts in the record suggest there is an ‘epidemic of crime, safety risks, serious property damage, and environmental problems’ associated with the influx of illegal migration across private land near the Mexican border."







In his dissent, Justice Scalia was much more specific, citing the Obama administration’s announcement just two weeks ago that it would refuse to enforce the law against illegal aliens who would benefit from the DREAM Act amnesty that Congress has rejected three times.







"After this case was argued and while it was under consideration," Scalia wrote, "the Secretary of Homeland Security announced a program exempting from immigration enforcement some 1.4 million illegal immigrants under the age of 30.







"The president said at a news conference that the new program is 'the right thing to do' in light of Congress’s failure to pass the Administration’s proposed revision of the Immigration Act. Perhaps it is, though Arizona may not think so. But to say, as the Court (majority) does, that Arizona contradicts federal by enforcing application of the Immigration Act that the President declines to enforce boggles the mind."







As if to underscore Scalia’s assessment of the current administration as a nullifier of congressionally-passed laws, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano only hours after the ruling, announced that she would suspend yet another enforcement required under federal immigration laws. Because the Court ruling will result in a lot more illegal aliens being brought to the attention of the feds, she said, her department will suspend the 287(g) program in Arizona, and pledged that nothing in the ruling will interfere with the administrative amnesty announced last week.







Fortunately, all states now have a bright green light from the Court to follow Arizona’s lead in enforcing the laws in the way that Congress intended, even if the president insists on violating those laws.







ROY BECK is the CEO & Founder of NumbersUSA





What About UFOs?

An interesting article from http://www.ucg.org/ about UFO sightings. This follows this post about preventing drug use in children.  For a free magazine subscription or to get this book for free click HERE! or call 1-888-886-8632.







article by Noel Hornor





Are UFOs real?



Some people believe earth has already been visited by extraterrestrial beings. They point to sightings of unidentified flying objects (UFOs) as supposed proof. "Recent polls show that approximately 57 percent of the public believes that UFOs are 'something real' as opposed to 'just people's imagination' ..." (Ben Zuckerman and Michael H. Hart, Extraterrestrials: Where Are They?, Cambridge University Press, New York, 1995, p. 20).



One major American newsweekly reported that "48 percent of Americans believe UFOs are real and 29 percent think we've made contact with aliens" ( Newsweek, July 8, 1996).



UFO sighters frequently report seeing objects "typically described as a metallic flying disc, sometimes with protuberances or portholes, executing elaborate manoeuvres and occasionally accompanied by an eerie glow of bright lights. The descriptions have all the hallmarks of high tech aviation" (Paul Davies, Are We Alone?, Basic Books, New York, 1995, p. 132).



In spite of such accounts, "very few scientists regard such reports as evidence for the existence of extraterrestrial beings" (ibid., p. 135).



Even author and astronomer Frank Drake, who is firmly convicted of the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence, discounts UFOs as being a manifestation of such. "No tangible evidence exists to suggest that we have ever been visited by an alien spacecraft. As strongly as I believe that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe, I maintain that UFOs are not extraterrestrial visitors. They are the products of intelligent life on this planet" (Frank Drake and Dava Sobel, Is Anyone Out There?, Delacorte Press, New York, 1992, p. 126).



Supposed proof demonstrating that UFOs have visited earth is disputed and debated. The evidence consists primarily of the eyewitness accounts of those claiming to have seen them. Some believe that these accounts should be accepted just as much as scientific findings reported by astronomers, noting that some of the discoveries of astronomy are not supported by in-hand physical evidence, either. For example, astronomers cannot see planets orbiting other stars simply because the light from those stars is too bright. Instead, they deduce the planets' existence from variations in the stars' motion caused by the gravitational force of the planets.



Still, there is a difference between the evidence offered to back claims of astronomers and those of UFO proponents. "... Although astronomy is based upon observation rather than physical artifacts, at least it involves easily repeatable physical observations, something that UFO studies cannot provide" (Charles F. Emmons, At the Threshold, Wild Flower Press, Mill Spring, North Carolina, 1997, p. 142). Indeed, some supposed evidence of UFO activity has been revealed as simple hoaxes.



Whether the evidence for UFOs is credible or not, there certainly is a high frequency of reported sightings. Popular television programs like The X-Files and movies like Independence Day and Contact are apt to encourage the trend. Yet for all the excitement no alien-dead or alive-has been produced. No demonstrably authentic artifacts of alien cultures are known to exist.



The skepticism of the scientific community toward UFOs does not sit well with UFO believers. Says one such believer, "People like Carl Sagan [and] Stephen Hawking ... are mouthpieces for the old way of thinking" ( Newsweek, July 8, 1996, p. 50). Yet, as the late Carl Sagan, Cornell University astronomer, put it, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" (ibid.).



Physicist Paul Davies sees the interest in aliens as part of a religious quest. "... The belief in super-advanced aliens ... can provide some measure of comfort and inspiration for people whose lives may otherwise appear to be boring and futile" ( Are We Alone?, p. 136).



If we are searching for alien cultures to find religious inspiration, we will be disappointed. When we look to any source other than the living God for spiritual guidance, we commit the same error which the prophet Jeremiah described in his time: "For My people have committed two evils: They have forsaken Me, the fountain of living waters, and hewn themselves cisterns-broken cisterns that can hold no water" (Jeremiah 2:13For my people have committed two evils; they have forsaken me the fountain of living waters, and hewed them out cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water.



See All...). GN

.

Obama decreasing U.S./Israel security cooperation

A very interesting post from www.jihadwatch.org  about Barack Obama abandoning our ally Israel. This follows this post about a death sentence order against ex-Muslims.  This follows this article about American energy independence and preventing money from going to hostile countries such as Iran and Venezuela. For more that you can do to get involved click HERE and read this very interesting book HERE!

Obama decreasing U.S./Israel security cooperation


Shameful, but not surprising: Obama has had close associations with antisemitic foes of Israel and allies of the jihad throughout his political career, as Pamela Geller and I document in our book The Post-American Presidency.



"The Incredible Shrinking U.S.-Israel Security Cooperation," by Shoshana Bryen for Algemeiner, June 27 (thanks to David):



President Barack Obama and Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan walking along the Colonnade at the White House. Photo: wiki commons.

In light of increased sensitivity to intelligence leaks, it seemed innocuous – or even admirable – when the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) asked the Senate to remove a few words from the US-Israel Enhanced Security Cooperation Act: the “sense of the Senate” part of the bill included the sentence, “Expand already close intelligence cooperation, including satellite intelligence, with the Government of Israel;” ODNI wanted the words “including satellite intelligence” to go.



An ODNI spokesman said it was “simply a matter of clarifying the intelligence aspects of the bill and being sensitive to the level of specificity of the language…nothing nefarious here, just more clear language.”



Yeah, right.



This is just the latest example of the Obama Administration making clear that it does not want to be seen as Israel’s partner in regional affairs – several of them predicated on Turkish desires. Despite Israel’s status as a Major Non-NATO ally, a NATO “partner” country, and a member of NATO’s Mediterranean Dialogue, Turkey is increasingly insistent that Israel be isolated and cut out. This surrender to Turkey — which Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has for years been aggressively making ever more fundamentalist — coincides nicely with the Administration’s increasingly open courtship of Turkey’s Islamist-leaning and virulently anti-Israel Prime Minister and what appears to be the desire of the Administration to enhance security relations in the Arab-Muslim world as it dials back visible cooperation with Israel.



This is no small matter. Israel’s security is threatened — above all by the refusal of the Arab States to accept that it is a legitimate, permanent part of the region in which it lives. For the U.S. or Turkey — formerly a partner in regional security – to distance themselves from Israeli security is to raise hopes among enemies that they will ultimately be able to threaten Israel without fear of a U.S. or NATO-allied response.

Posted by Robert