Thursday, January 24, 2013

Does Marriage Matter?

An interesting article from about the problems of children growing up with unmarried parents. This follows this post about the historical developments in the United States.   For a free magazine subscription or to get this book for free click HERE! or call 1-888-886-8632.

Does Marriage Matter?

article by Scott Ashley

The Good News magazine is dedicated to showing solutions to our problems. No doubt some of our greatest challenges lie in today's marriages and families. Almost everywhere you look, the family is in trouble.

The Good News magazine is dedicated to showing solutions to our problems. No doubt some of our greatest challenges lie in today's marriages and families. Almost everywhere you look, the family is in trouble.

You can tell something is seriously wrong when the U.S. president proposes spending $100 million to promote marriage and, as happened several months ago, is soundly criticized by various individuals and groups declaring that whether people marry is nobody else's business.

But does marriage matter? Is it the government's business—or anyone else's—whether people marry or whether they stay married?

Several key statistics reveal why some national leaders think it's crucial to promote marriage to successfully battle poverty. Notice these sobering numbers about the state of marriage and the family in the United States:

•About half of first marriages, and up to 60 percent of second marriages, end in divorce.

•Single women as a whole are five times more likely to be poor than those who are married.

•Children living in single-parent homes are four times as likely to live in poverty than those in two-parent families.

•Compared to those raised in two-parent families, children of single-parent households are twice as likely to drop out of school, three times as likely to have an illegitimate child and far more likely to use drugs and engage in other antisocial activities.

•One third of American children are born out of wedlock.

You'll find many more disturbing numbers elsewhere in this issue, including some from other countries showing that the family is rapidly becoming an endangered institution throughout much of the Western world.

Civilizations, like most other structures, are constructed piece by piece. Marriage is the basic building block of the family. The family is the building block of the community. The community is the building block of the city. The city is the building block of the state or province. The state or province is the building block of the nation. The nation is the building block of civilization.

If any of these building blocks are faulty, the entire structure begins to falter and, if not shored up, will eventually collapse.

Sadly, as the statistics cited above show, the cracks that started to appear in earnest a generation ago are steadily widening. Crime, poverty, drug and alcohol abuse, sexual perversion, child abuse and the like are among the bitter fruits we're reaping. No community, nation or civilization can survive if such problems continue to worsen.

Just what changed in recent decades to bring about such profound shifts in attitudes toward marriage and family? One major change has been the loss of stigma surrounding divorce and illegitimate children.

A generation has been brought up on the idea that absolute good and evil don't exist and that the only real sin is to suggest that someone else is living the wrong way and that his actions will cause harm to himself and others in the long run.

Thus the traditional family modeled in classic TV programs like Father Knows Best and Ozzie and Harriet are out and Sex and the City and Temptation Island are in. Movies, TV and music undermine marriage but push promiscuity, assaulting the very foundations of society.

But it doesn't have to be that way for you and your family. Be sure to read the articles in this issue to discover the real solutions to some of the many problems threatening today's families. GN


Tell CATO that mass immigration tramples individual liberty!

A very interesting post from about the CATO Institute. This follows this post about contacting pro-amnesty representatives.   This follows this post about how to Report Illegal Immigrants! For more about what is happening in the nation now click here and you can read a very interesting book HERE.

Tell CATO that mass immigration tramples individual liberty!

You can find this fax request by proceeding to

A new report scheduled for publication in the Human Life Review portrays NumbersUSA as an organization that supports radical measures for controlling U.S. population growth, including the use of abortion and sterilization. Not only is this assertion false, but there is no mention of abortion or sterilization anywhere on our website except to repudiate any charges against us. CATO's immigration policy analyst Alex Nowresteh is claiming credit for much of the research included in the article.

NumbersUSA's only mission is focus on immigration numbers, and our references to population growth are only in the context of annual immigration flows.

As a supporter of the CATO Institute, please send this fax telling them that you're a supporter of both CATO and NumbersUSA and that you disapprove of Mr. Nowresteh's baseless attacks on NumbersUSA.

Wednesday, January 23, 2013

"The Only Thing We Learn From History Is That We Learn Nothing From History."

An interesting article from about the historical developments in the United States. This follows this post about the abortion controversy on the 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade.  For a free magazine subscription or to get this book for free click HERE! or call 1-888-886-8632.

"The Only Thing We Learn From History Is That We Learn Nothing From History."

 With the arrival of a new year has come a wave of new laws and new political leadership, the result of November's election choices.

In the state where I live, officials and law-enforcement authorities are trying to sort out the mess created when voters approved growing, sharing and consuming marijuana for personal use. It's raised a whole tangle of legal issues, not least that it conflicts with federal law under which marijuana use remains illegal. The moral issues involved are far more serious, but a majority of voters have already dismissed those as not worthy of consideration.

Liberals in my state are also enthused about their gaining control of both houses of the state legislature—where, for the first time, avowed homosexuals now hold the top leadership positions in both the state house and state senate.

And although the state faces many serious challenges, what's at the top of their legislative agenda? To no one's surprise, legalizing civil unions is one of their highest priorities (only because same-sex marriage is banned in the state constitution, though I don't doubt we will soon see efforts to reverse that).

To top it all off, voters also approved a number of higher taxes, which will grow government even more at the expense of taxpayers and businesses.

What's happening in my state only mirrors what's taking place at the national level, where after four years of exploding government spending, skyrocketing debt, growing government handouts, high unemployment, stagnant economic growth and expansion of government intrusion into the lives of individual citizens, Americans went to the polls and decisively voted for more of the same.

As a student of history, I'm fascinated by the factors that lead to the rise and fall of great powers. I've walked among the ruins of the long-vanished empires of Egypt, Greece and Rome and studied what led to their decline and collapse.

The noted philosopher George Santayana penned one of the great truths about human history: "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

His observation echoes a somewhat more cynical version written earlier by the German philosopher Friedrich Hegel: "The only thing we learn from history is that we learn nothing from history."

We are at a turning point in human history. It's not often that we witness the point at which a nation's momentum, driven by its collective choices, carries it in a direction it might not otherwise go and which it finds itself unable to change.

Watching what is taking place in the United States today is like watching a train wreck in slow motion. The train has jumped the tracks, the engineers in the locomotive can't stop it, and the train's momentum makes the disastrous outcome unavoidable.

You need to wake up to what's really happening today. The United States is at a critical turning point—if it hasn't passed it already. America's role as world superpower was foretold long ago in the pages of the Bible—as was its downfall for turning its back on the God who blessed it so abundantly.

You need to understand what's happening and why. You need to know the answer to the question posed in this issue of The Good News— "Where Does America Go From Here? "


Obama refuses to cancel F-16s for Egypt, says arms deal serves U.S. "regional security interests"

A very interesting post from  about Barack Obama sending weapons to Egypt, ruled by the Muslim Brotherhood. This follows this post about Michele Bachmann's vindication about the Muslim Brotherhood!  This follows this article about American energy independence and preventing money from going to hostile countries such as Iran . For more about what is happening in the nation now click here and you can read a very interesting book HERE!

Obama refuses to cancel F-16s for Egypt, says arms deal serves U.S. "regional security interests"

What interests? Against whom besides Israel will Egypt use these fighter jets?

"Egypt to Receive F-16s: State Department refuses to delay delivery to Muslim Brotherhood-run Egypt," by  Adam Kredo for the Washington Free Beacon, January 22 (thanks to Tom):

The State Department has refused to cancel or delay the delivery of several American-made F-16 fighter jets to Egypt, claiming that the arms deal serves America’s “regional security interests,” according to an official State Department document obtained by the Free Beacon.

The news that the Obama administration would uphold an aid package to Egypt that included the military hardware prompted concern on Capitol Hill from lawmakers who said the deal was not prudent given the political situation in Egypt, where Muslim Brotherhood-backed President Mohammed Morsi has clashed with democratic protestors.

“Sixteen F-16s and 200 Abrams tanks are to be given to the Egyptian government before the end of the year under a foreign aid deal signed in 2010 with then-Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak,” Fox News reported Tuesday.

“President Morsi has failed to promote promised democracy in his country and neglected to continue Egypt’s legacy of maintaining peace in the region,” said Senator James Inhofe (R., Okla.). “I am alarmed and disappointed in the Obama Administration’s decision to decline my request to delay delivery of F-16s for further consideration.”

The State Department maintained in a January 8 letter to Inhofe that the arming of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood serves the U.S.’s “regional security interests.”

“Delaying or cancelling deliveries of the F-16 aircraft would undermine our efforts to address our regional security interests through a more capable Egyptian military and send a damaging and lasting signal to Egypt’s civilian and military leadership as we work toward a democratic transition in the key Middle Eastern State,” the State Department said.

“Egypt is a strategic partner with whom we have a long history of close political-military relations that have benefited U.S. interest,” said the letter, which was authored by assistant secretary for legislative affairs David Adams. “For the past 30 years the F-16 aircraft has been a key component of the relationship between the United States military and the Egyptian Armed Forces.”

“Maintaining this relationship and assisting with the professionalization and the building of the Egyptian Armed Forces’ capabilities to secure its borders is one of our key interests in the region,” Adams wrote.

“Egypt continues to play an important role in the regional peace and stability,” according to the letter. “In all of our engagements with President Morsi and his staff, they have reaffirmed Egypt’s commitment to its international agreements, including its peace treaty with Israel.”

“Egypt was instrumental in negotiating the Gaza ceasefire, and continues to work with the parties involved to implement it and secure a more lasting peace,” the letter states.

Morsi was recently criticized for calling Jews the “descendants of apes and pigs.”

Observers on Capitol Hill said that it is dangerous to arm an unstable Islamist regime.

One senior GOP aide familiar with the deal said he is ”incredulous that a country that doesn’t have peace and stability within itself is playing ‘an important role in regional peace and stability’ as this letter claims.”


Posted by Robert

Tuesday, January 22, 2013

Abortion: 55 Million Dead!


On the fortieth anniversary of Roe V. Wade, one should reflect on the 55 million people killed over these years!!

Second Thoughts on Abortion

An interesting article from about the abortion controversy on the 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade. This follows this post about international rulers.  For a free magazine subscription or to get this book for free click HERE! or call 1-888-886-8632.

Second Thoughts on Abortion

 Watching this week's Beyond Today program reminded me how serious the murder of unborn children is every day, in all parts of the world. For the United Church of God to take on this subject is a stepping stone for us. Raising the awareness of this modern plaque of society is a first, and I expect, not the last effort for us. Regardless of how many responses we receive, we have made a direct statement. That's what matters most.

If it causes just one pregnant mother to pause and consider the right to life of her unborn child then we have achieved something. That one life counts. All life is important, and if one life is saved it's worth our effort.

My wife and I spent the Thanksgiving weekend with two of our grandchildren. Romping around the house with them was a pure delight and joy. They enjoy life, simple and honest as it is for them. I am glad their mother honored and recognized them while they were in the womb. Watching their lives develop is a gift and a blessing for this phase of our life. We are thankful life was chosen. Our private world is better for that.

I saw an article last week saying abortions had decreased in number during the past decade. Economic factors may be the prime reason more than a turn in society. Let's pray it might become a trend—one person at a time. At least there are additional children born and having their chance at life. Thank God their mothers chose life.


Stop Amnesty 2013 Today Americans Against Amnesty To Your Phones‏

A very interesting post from www.Alipac.US about contacting pro-amnesty representatives. This follows this post about messaging your representive at the beginning of this CongressThis follows this post about how to Report Illegal Immigrants! For more about what is happening in the nation now click here and you can read a very interesting book HERE.

Stop Amnesty 2013 Today Americans Against Amnesty To Your Phones‏

Americans for Legal Immigration PAC

ALIPAC Activists!

This is a Red Alert. We need everyone, and we do mean every single person we can get, on the phones to Congress with us today to Stop Amnesty 2013!

The Obama administration and other amnesty supporters are trying to psych you out saying "We have the votes we need to pass Amnesty quickly" Don't buy their hype because they are going down.

We beat them in 2006. We beat their amnesty again in 2007. And when they told us they would pass amnesty in 2010, ALIPACers like you stepped up with us and beat them again!



Step 1: ALIPAC's Distinctive Targets for your to focus on

We have compiled a list of the first 40 of the 85 Republican members of the US House that just voted with pro amnesty speaker John Boehner and Barack Obama on the fiscal cliff fiasco.

We feel that this group contains the GOP sellouts that are most likely promising the White House they will defect to the Democrats on a vote for Comprehensive Immigration Reform Amnesty (CIRA).

By focusing our calls and e-mails on this group we can increase the efficiency and power of our lobbying.

Please access this list to use for your calls.

ALIPAC's List of House Republicans That May Support Obama's Amnesty for Illegal Aliens

Step 2: Hit them Fast and Solidly With your message

We want you to call these offices with an accusatory tone and put them on notice. Your goal is to flood their offices with "calls against amnesty" so the lawmaker will hear of your efforts.

We also want an answer from their staff, but the answer may be tricky. Most will likely tell you that they oppose Amnesty and we need you to clarify for us and help us code our list of targets as "opposes" or "supporters" Comprehensive Immigration Reform.

Sample message

"I'm calling because I have been told that Congressman _________ may support amnesty for illegal aliens after voting with Obama on the fiscal cliff. Does Congressman __________ support or oppose Comprehensive Immigration Reform Amnesty for illegal aliens?"

If they say Yes / Supports say...

"I hope Congressman ________ will change his position because Comprehensive Immigration reform Amnesty for illegal aliens will encourage more illegal immigration, steal my vote in future elections, cost more Americans their jobs, increase government dependents, further divide and destabilize America, and destroy and future hopes of immigration or border law enforcement."

If they say No / Opposes say...

"Good, make sure Congressman _______ knows that opposing Amnesty means opposing any form of legalization for illegal immigrants currently in America and that Congress needs to focus on overriding Obama's unlawful amnesty decrees and enforcing our existing border and immigration laws which will help American workers instead of appeasing illegal aliens and their supporters."

Remember to call to deliver your message, then send in a written version.

Step 3: Report back!

We need to know what these offices are saying back to you. Please report the results of your calls or any feedback of interest beneath the list of targets here. Using your feedback we will begin to add codes of Supports and Opposes to this list. Regardless of what codes appear, keep calling this target list.

Everyone should call a minimum of 5 offices on the list and call the whole list if possible.

Post your responses and feedback on the list here....

We have given you new and distinctive targets for your activism against illegal immigration and amnesty and a simple 1, 2, 3 process to use with our online activists standing by to assist you 24/7 in the forums of

Now we need you to pull together the time to get on the phones with us right away and to spread the word to others asking for their help by email and social media.

ALIPAC will soon launch out press releases and go forth to rally more Americans to our efforts.

Let's pick up those phones!

Let's charge forward in defense of America!

Let's Stop Amnesty 2013 together today!

William Gheen and The ALIPAC Team

Hobby Lobby Forced to Change Health Insurance to Avoid Mandate Fines

An interesting story from about Hobby Lobby's health insurance. This follows this post about the abortion battle.  For more that you can do to get involved click HERE and you can also get a very interesting book HERE.

Hobby Lobby Forced to Change Health Insurance to Avoid Mandate Fines

Hobby Lobby, the Christian craft company, has been forced to alter its employee health insurance plan in order to avoid millions of dollars in fines each and every day it refuses to comply with the HHS mandate.

The mandate compels religious employers to pay for birth control and drugs that may cause abortions for their employees in their health insurance plan. Late Thursday, in a statement, Hobby Lobby attorney Peter Dobelbower said the company will shift the plan year for employee health insurance that will delay the implementation date of the plan from January 1, so it does not coincide with the HHS mandate.

Wknd Box Office: The Last Stand, Broken City, Mama

Here is an interesting article from reviewing some of the movies that came out over the past weekend. This follows this post about some of the movies from last week and THIS POST about some movies that have been released over the past few years that you might have missed! This all follows this post about guidelines to chosing good movies to watch yourself!

Wknd Box Office: The Last Stand, Broken City, Mama

By Debbie Schlussel

It’s January, the other pet cemetery to which Hollywood sends its crappy movies to die a quick and painless death (the other movie cemetery is August). So, the new movies Hollywood dumped on us this weekend ain’t no great shakes. Oddly enough, the most enjoyable and only entertaining one of the bunch stars an aged liberal ex-Governor whom I despise.

* “The Last Stand“: This is Arnold Schwarzenegger’s comeback vehicle for senior citizen action hero status. And while it’s a crummy movie, it’s mildly entertaining and far better than I expected. You know what you’re gonna get with this–lots of guns, shooting, action, car chases, stunts, and other stuff typical to pre-Governator, Maid-Impregnator Schwarzenegger movies. Keep in mind that this extremely bloody and violent movie, filled with guns is the comeback vehicle of a man who exuberantly supported gun control as the Governor of California.

Also, I had to laugh at Arnie’s lines like, “My honor can’t be bought,” when I think of how the real-life guy uttering those lines has no honor at all.  Remember, this is the guy who invited major Nazi and Wehrmacht intelligence office Kurt Waldheim (who sent tens of thousands of Yugoslavian Jews to their deaths in the camps) to the Arnold-Maria wedding. At the Schwarzenegger-Shriver wedding, Arnold opened a gift from the Nazi Waldheim, who could not attend because, at that point, his Nazi past was exposed and he was on the no fly-list. Arnold told the assembled guests:

My friends don’t want me to mention Kurt’s name, because of all the recent Nazi stuff and the U.N. controversy, but I love him and Maria does too, and so thank you, Kurt.

More details here. And it’s the same Arnold who pardoned a convicted murderer and cut his sentence from 16 to seven years, simply because the murderer’s father was an important California Democratic legislator . . . and he mocked the family of the murder victim. Given that, it’s hard to watch Schwarzenegger in this movie and take him seriously as a law-and-order, tough-on-criminals sheriff. In real life, he was–and remains–the exact opposite as a public official and celebrity. So, when he says things like, “You give immigrants like me a bad name,” in the movie, I say, look in the mirror buddy.

The story: a violent convicted criminal, the son of a powerful Mexican drug cartel leader, is a federal prisoner who is being transferred amidst armed guards and FBI agents galore. He escapes and seeks to get to Mexico via a small Arizona border town. But the town’s sheriff, a retired Los Angeles cop (Schwarzenegger), sniffs part of the crime even before the escape. He sees thugs who pretend to be truck drivers and doesn’t quite believe their story. Then, a dairy farmer turns up dead. The sheriff gathers a motley crew of town cops, Johnny Knoxville (of “Jackass” fame), a town prisoner, etc. to fight off the escaped con, after getting a tip from the FBI that he may be headed that way.

It’s kind of weird that a sheriff with a very thick Austrian accent has the surname, Owen. Huh? Is that the anglicized for Anschluss? Also weird: almost all of the women in the movie look like Danica Patrick.

Like I said, the movie is better than I expected, but still not a good movie. It’s enjoyable empty calorie stuff if you’re into extremely violent, non-credible action flicks starring 65-year-old Nazi-lovers who pardon murderers and father kids with the maid. Just remember: the lead actor is a major hypocrite. But I guess that’s why they call it acting.

Oh, and one other thing: this movie is rated “R” for a reason. Parents who take their kids to see this are morons.


* “Broken City: More like, Broken Movie. This movie starts off okay, but descends into the most absurd, cockamamie, waste-of-time plots. And why do the major stars of a movie set in New York have stark Boston accents? Normally a tight, well-written thriller has some hint of “whodunit” and also a whiff of what the heck is going on. But this has neither because it’s a rambling, aimless two hours of silliness.

Mark Wahlberg plays a disgraced former New York cop who is now a private investigator taking photos of cheating spouses, when New York Mayor Russell Crowe (the second half of the Boston accent team – maybe Aussies can’t do New York accents?) summons Wahlberg to the Mayoral office. The Mayor wants the former police detective to tail the Mayor’s wife (Catherine Zeta-Jones) and find out with whom she’s having an affair. When he learns that the person in question is the campaign manager of the Mayor’s younger progressive opponent, he also learns that it’s not necessarily an affair the Mayor wants to find out about. And that the Mayor is not necessarily a victim, but perhaps a corrupt perpetrator. That’s when it all goes haywire and the plot is nonsensical, overwrought, and ridiculous.

Oh, and did I mention that the one of the “decent” people in the movie, the Mayor’s wife, is a big supporter of gay marriage. We’re treated to her speech at a Human Rights Campaign event where she lectures us about how “I should be able to love who I damn well please.” Barf. You know it’s a bad movie when they’re shoving politics down your throat in the first few scenes. Also, the bizarre hairstyle Russell Crowe sports in this–which looks like the tail of a wet dog is sitting on his forehead–doesn’t help relieve the unintended comedy.

An absolute time bandit, stealing two hours of your time you’ll never get back (and ten-plus bucks). Skip this.


* “Mama“: This movie is preposterous and not even scary, like it’s supposed to be. When I was supposed to scream, I laughed–in part because of the lousy CGI (Computer Generated Image) ghost. And the plot and story were silly.

A man kills his partners and his wife and runs away with his two young daughters into a snowy forest. There, they find an abandoned cottage and go inside, where the father gets possessed by a ghost and disappears. The two young girls who are probably about ages five and three miraculously manage to survive the next five years in this cold, unheated, abandoned house in wintry woods because the ghost sends them an abundance of cherries. Five years later, the girls are found by a private detective hired by their father’s brother (their uncle). They are living and functioning like animals.

The father and his goth girlfriend (Jessica Chastain in a black wig and dark make-up and t-shirts) work a deal with a state psychiatrist, allowing them to have custody of the girls, so long as they all live in a state-funded house used for observing patients and subjects. Soon, the mysterious ghost appears in the house in various manifestations and wreaks havoc.

Trust me when I say, you won’t really care who the ghost is or why she is doing this. And when you sorta find out–it’s never fully explained–you won’t care.

A complete waste of time. And just not scary. But it is laughable.


Friday, January 18, 2013

New World Order: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

An interesting article from  about international rulers. This follows this post about supporting a suffering athlete.   For a free magazine subscription or to get this book for free click HERE! or call 1-888-886-8632.

A commentary by Don Hooser

Influential people predict that world peace can't really come unless it is enforced by some world government. But many others believe that cure is worse than the problem.

Confusion and controversy are intensifying regarding a future "New World Order," commonly abbreviated as NWO. What does it mean? Would it be good or bad for the world?

Let's first acknowledge an implied difference between a new world order and the "New World Order ."

Hopes for a new world order

During the past century, many world leaders and others have expressed their desire and hope for a better world with peaceful relations among all the nations, and some have used the phrase a new world order .

For example, Woodrow Wilson and Winston Churchill spoke of their desires for a new world order following World War I and World War II, respectively.

The popular usage of the phrase escalated when President George H.W. Bush expressed in a half dozen speeches his hope for a new world order. In his March 6, 1991, address to Congress, he said, "Now, we can see a new world coming into view. A world in which there is the very real prospect of a new world order... A world where the United Nations, freed from cold war stalemate, is poised to fulfill the historic vision of its founders."

Some were alarmed by President Bush's use of the term, but it was largely seen in the context of the fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of the cold war. Now, however, it seems many more Americans have become quite alarmed after numerous remarks by President Barack Obama indicating his desire to see a powerful "international order" to solve the world's problems.

Influence of books on popular thought

British writer and futurist H.G. Wells published a nonfiction book in 1940 titled The New World Order . The book addressed the ideal of a world without war in which law and order emanated from a world-governing body and collectivist economy.

Other books have taken a negative view. Consider two popular dystopian novel s where a society promoted by the rulers as a utopia becomes, in reality, a nightmare.

Brave New World is a 1932 novel by Aldous Huxley about life in London in A.D. 2540. It describes a totalitarian state in which everyone is kept preoccupied and "happy" by hypnotic recordings, propaganda, disinformation, materialistic consumption, promiscuous sex and drugs.

Nineteen Eighty-Four is a 1949 novel by George Orwell picturing a world of pervasive government surveillance (by "Big Brother") and incessant public mind control .

American televangelist Pat Robertson in his 1991 book The New World Order popularized the NWO theory that rich and powerful people, banks, secret and semisecret societies, and other groups conspire together to form the shadow government that controls world events from behind the scenes, steering us constantly and covertly in the direction of world government under the Antichrist.

Many other books and booklets about an NWO have been marketed as well.

Fears of the New World Order

Until about 1990, most people ignored the warnings of conspiracy theorists about a coming NWO. But in addition to the other influences, the Internet has given a powerful worldwide voice to all the conspiracy theorists and subcultures.

And globalization is proceeding at an astonishing pace, having major impacts on the nations and peoples of the world—impacts good and bad.

Would a New World Order be good or bad? An NWO implies that all nations surrender their sovereignty to a world-ruling government. For nearly a century, the world has depended on the protection and leadership provided by a strong, independent United States of America. Considering the corruption that absolute power seems to always bring, a powerful world government ruled by human beings would be a catastrophe for the United States and all the world.

But that doesn't mean we need to research all the different conspiracy theories out there. The real and important truth about the past, present and future of the world is in the Bible!

The real conspiracy and the real solution

The power of human conspiracies is usually overemphasized. But throughout history, there has been one superpowerful conspiracy by Satan the devil, "who deceives the whole world" (Revelation 12:9And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

See All...).

Will an NWO happen? In a sense, the answer is that the world is going to experience two! First, there will be a New World Order that will be bad and ugly—a dystopia. Satan will mastermind the formation of an international government and religious system referred to in the Bible as "the beast" and "Babylon the great" (Revelation 17:5-7 [5] And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.

[6] And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration.

[7] And the angel said unto me, Wherefore didst thou marvel? I will tell thee the mystery of the woman, and of the beast that carrieth her, which hath the seven heads and ten horns.

See All..., 13). They will dominate "all the nations" and "the kings of the earth" and "the merchants of the earth" (Revelation 18:1-4 [1] And after these things I saw another angel come down from heaven, having great power; and the earth was lightened with his glory.

[2] And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird.

[3] For all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth are waxed rich through the abundance of her delicacies.

[4] And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.

See All...).

But Jesus Christ, the "King of Kings," will destroy that order ( disorder! ) and will replace it with a worldwide utopia—the glorious Kingdom of God (Revelation 19:11-16 [11] And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.

[12] His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself.

[13] And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.

[14] And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean.

[15] And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.

[16] And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.

See All...). He loves His human creation and has our best interests at heart. His government will never be corrupted but will produce a world where disease will be replaced with health, hunger will be banished by abundance and everyone will be able to achieve his or her full potential.


Avoiding the Wars That Never End

A very interesting post from about the current U.S. policy in wars. This follows this post about the rebels in Syria. This follows this article about American energy independence and preventing money from going to hostile countries such as Iran . For more about what is happening in the nation now click here and read a very interesting book HERE

Avoiding the Wars That Never End


By George Friedman

Founder and Chief Executive Officer

Last week, U.S. President Barack Obama announced that the United States would transfer the primary responsibility for combat operations in Afghanistan to the Afghan military in the coming months, a major step toward the withdrawal of U.S. forces. Also last week, France began an intervention in Mali designed to block jihadists from taking control of the country and creating a base of operations in France's former African colonies.

The two events are linked in a way that transcends the issue of Islamist insurgency and points to a larger geopolitical shift. The United States is not just drawing down its combat commitments; it is moving away from the view that it has the primary responsibility for trying to manage the world on behalf of itself, the Europeans and its other allies. Instead, that burden is shifting to those who have immediate interests involved.

Insecurity in 9/11's Wake

It is interesting to recall how the United States involved itself in Afghanistan. After 9/11, the United States was in shock and lacked clear intelligence on al Qaeda. It did not know what additional capabilities al Qaeda had or what the group's intentions were. Lacking intelligence, a political leader has the obligation to act on worst-case scenarios after the enemy has demonstrated hostile intentions and capabilities. The possible scenarios ranged from additional sleeper cells operating and awaiting orders in the United States to al Qaeda having obtained nuclear weapons to destroy cities. When you don't know, it is both prudent and psychologically inevitable to plan for the worst.

The United States had sufficient information to act in Afghanistan. It knew that al Qaeda was operating in Afghanistan and that disrupting the main cell was a useful step in taking some action against the threat. However, the United States did not immediately invade Afghanistan. It bombed the country extensively and inserted limited forces on the ground, but the primary burden of fighting the Taliban government was in the hands of anti-Taliban forces in Afghanistan that had been resisting the Taliban and in the hands of other forces that could be induced to act against the Taliban. The Taliban gave up the cities and prepared for a long war. Al Qaeda's command cell left Afghanistan and shifted to Pakistan.

The United States achieved its primary goal early on. That goal was not to deny al Qaeda the ability to operate in Afghanistan, an objective that would achieve nothing. Rather, the goal was to engage al Qaeda and disrupt its command-and-control structure as a way to degrade the group's ability to plan and execute additional attacks. The move to Pakistan at the very least bought time, and given continued pressure on the main cell, allowed the United States to gather more intelligence about al Qaeda assets around the world.

This second mission -- to identify al Qaeda assets around the world -- required a second effort. The primary means of identifying them was through their electronic communications, and the United States proceeded to create a vast technological mechanism designed to detect communications and use that detection to identify and capture or kill al Qaeda operatives. The problem with this technique -- really the only one available -- was that it was impossible to monitor al Qaeda's communications without monitoring everyone's. If there was a needle in the haystack, the entire haystack had to be examined. This was a radical shift in the government's relationship to the private communications of citizens. The justification was that at a time of war, in which the threat to the United States was uncertain and possibly massive, these measures were necessary.

This action was not unique in American history. Abraham Lincoln violated the Constitution in several ways during the Civil War, from suspending the right to habeas corpus to blocking the Maryland Legislature from voting on a secession measure. Franklin Roosevelt allowed the FBI to open citizens' mail and put Japanese-Americans into internment camps. The idea that civil liberties must be protected in time of war is not historically how the United States, or most countries, operate. In that sense there was nothing unique in the decision to monitor communications in order to find al Qaeda and stop attacks. How else could the needle be found in the haystack? Likewise, detention without trial was not unique. Lincoln and Roosevelt both resorted to it.

The Civil War and World War II were different from the current conflict, however, because their conclusions were clear and decisive. The wars would end, one way or another, and so would the suspension of rights. Unlike those wars, the war in Afghanistan was extended indefinitely by the shift in strategy from disrupting al Qaeda's command cell to fighting the Taliban to building a democratic society in Afghanistan. With the second step, the U.S. military mission changed its focus and increased its presence massively, and with the third, the terminal date of the war became very far away.

But there was a broader issue. The war in Afghanistan was not the main war. Afghanistan happened to be the place where al Qaeda was headquartered on Sept. 11, 2001. The country was not essential to al Qaeda, and creating a democratic society there -- if it were even possible -- would not necessarily weaken al Qaeda. Even destroying al Qaeda would not prevent new Islamist organizations or individuals from rising up.

A New Kind of War

The main war was not against one specific terrorist group, but rather against an idea: the radical tendency in Islamism. Most Muslims are not radicals, but any religion with 1 billion adherents will have its share of extremists. The tendency is there, and it is deeply rooted. If the goal of the war were the destruction of this radical tendency, then it was not going to happen. While the risk of attacks could be reduced -- and indeed there were no further 9/11s despite repeated attempts in the United States -- there was no way to eliminate the threat. No matter how many divisions were deployed, no matter how many systems for electronic detection were created, they could only mitigate the threat, not eliminate it. Therefore, what some called the Long War really became permanent war.

The means by which the war was pursued could not result in victory. They could, however, completely unbalance U.S. strategy by committing massive resources to missions not clearly connected with preventing Islamist terrorism. It also created a situation where emergency intrusions on critical portions of the Bill of Rights -- such as the need to obtain a warrant for certain actions -- became a permanent feature. Permanent war makes for permanent temporary measures.

The break point came, in my opinion, in about 2004. Around that time, al Qaeda was unable to mount attacks on the United States despite multiple efforts. The war in Afghanistan had dislodged al Qaeda and created the Karzai government. The invasion of Iraq -- whatever the rationale might have been -- clearly produced a level of resistance that the United States could not contain or could contain only by making agreements with its enemies in Iraq. At that point, a radical rethinking of the war had to take place. It did not.

The radical rethinking had to do not with Iraq or Afghanistan, but rather with what to do about a permanent threat to the United States, and indeed to many other countries, posed by the global networks of radical Islamists prepared to carry out terrorist attacks. The threat would not go away, and it could not be eliminated. At the same time, it did not threaten the existence of the republic. The 9/11 attacks were atrocious, but they did not threaten the survival of the United States in spite of the human cost. Combating the threat required a degree of proportionality so the fight could be maintained on an ongoing basis, without becoming the only goal of U.S. foreign policy or domestic life. Mitigation was the only possibility; the threat would have to be endured.

Washington found a way to achieve this balance in the past, albeit against very different sorts of threats. The United States emerged as a great power in the early 20th century. During that time, it fought three wars: World War I, World War II and the Cold War, which included Korea, Vietnam and other, smaller engagements. In World War I and World War II, the United States waited for events to unfold, and in Europe in particular it waited until the European powers reached a point where they could not deal with the threat of German hegemony without American intervention. In both instances, it intervened heavily only late in the war, at the point where the Germans had been exhausted by other European powers. It should be remembered that the main American push in World War II did not take place until the summer of 1944. The American strategy was to wait and see whether the Europeans could stabilize the situation themselves, using distance to mobilize as late as possible and intervene decisively only at the critical moment.

The critics of this approach, particularly prior to World War II, called it isolationism. But the United States was not isolationist; it was involved in Asia throughout this period. Rather, it saw itself as being the actor of last resort, capable of acting at the decisive moment with overwhelming force because geography had given the United States the option of time and resources.

During the Cold War, the United States modified this strategy. It still depended on allies, but it now saw itself as the first responder. Partly this could be seen in U.S. nuclear strategy. This could also be seen in Korea and Vietnam, where allies played subsidiary roles, but the primary effort was American. The Cold War was fought on a different set of principles than the two world wars.

The Cold War strategy was applied to the war against radical Islamism, in which the United States -- because of 9/11 but also because of a mindset that could be seen in other interventions -- was the first responder. Other allies followed the United States' lead and provided support to the degree to which they felt comfortable. The allies could withdraw without fundamentally undermining the war effort. The United States could not.

The approach in the U.S.-jihadist war was a complete reversal from the approach taken in the two world wars. This was understandable given that it was triggered by an unexpected and catastrophic event, the reponse to which flowed from a lack of intelligence. When Japan struck Pearl Harbor, emotions were at least as intense, but U.S. strategy in the Pacific was measured and cautious. And the enemy's capabilities were much better understood.

Stepping Back as Global Policeman

The United States cannot fight a war against radical Islamism and win, and it certainly cannot be the sole actor in a war waged primarily in the Eastern Hemisphere. This is why the French intervention in Mali is particularly interesting. France retains interests in its former colonial empire in Africa, and Mali is at the geographic center of these interests. To the north of Mali is Algeria, where France has significant energy investments; to the east of Mali is Niger, where France has a significant stake in the mining of mineral resources, particularly uranium; and to the south of Mali is Ivory Coast, where France plays a major role in cocoa production. The future of Mali matters to France far more than it matters to the United States.

What is most interesting is the absence of the United States in the fight, even if it is providing intelligence and other support, such as mobilizing ground forces from other African countries. The United States is not acting as if this is its fight; it is acting as if this is the fight of an ally, whom it might help in extremis, but not in a time when U.S. assistance is unnecessary. And if the French can't mount an effective operation in Mali, then little help can be given.

This changing approach is also evident in Syria, where the United States has systematically avoided anything beyond limited and covert assistance, and Libya, where the United States intervened after the French and British launched an attack they could not sustain. That was, I believe, a turning point, given the unsatisfactory outcome there. Rather than accepting a broad commitment against radical Islamism everywhere, the United States is allowing the burden to shift to powers that have direct interests in these areas.

Reversing a strategy is difficult. It is uncomfortable for any power to acknowledge that it has overreached, which the United States did both in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is even more difficult to acknowledge that the goals set by President George W. Bush in Iraq and Obama in Afghanistan lacked coherence. But clearly the war has run its course, and what is difficult is also obvious. We are not going to eliminate the threat of radical Islamism. The commitment of force to an unattainable goal twists national strategy out of shape and changes the fabric of domestic life. Obviously, overwatch must be in place against the emergence of an organization like al Qaeda, with global reach, sophisticated operatives and operational discipline. But this is very different from responding to jihadists in Mali, where the United States has limited interests and fewer resources.

Accepting an ongoing threat is also difficult. Mitigating the threat of an enemy rather than defeating the enemy outright goes against an impulse. But it is not something alien to American strategy. The United States is involved in the world, and it can't follow the founders' dictum of staying out of European struggles. But the United States has the option of following U.S. strategy in the two world wars. The United States was patient, accepted risks and shifted the burden to others, and when it acted, it acted out of necessity, with clearly defined goals matched by capabilities. Waiting until there is no choice but to go to war is not isolationism. Allowing others to carry the primary risk is not disengagement. Waging wars that are finite is not irresponsible.

The greatest danger of war is what it can do to one's own society, changing the obligations of citizens and reshaping their rights. The United States has always done this during wars, but those wars would always end. Fighting a war that cannot end reshapes domestic life permanently. A strategy that compels engagement everywhere will exhaust a country. No empire can survive the imperative of permanent, unwinnable warfare. It is fascinating to watch the French deal with Mali. It is even more fascinating to watch the United States wishing them well and mostly staying out of it. It has taken about 10 years, but here we can see the American system stabilize itself by mitigating the threats that can't be eliminated and refusing to be drawn into fights it can let others handle.


Read more: Avoiding the Wars That Never End

Liberalism Versus Blacks

A very interesting post from about how liberalism has hurt African-Americans. This follows this post about the Epic Failure of this presidency.This follows this post about a race hoax at U.T. Austin.  This follows this post about Emmit Till. In the meantime, you can read a very interesting book HERE.

Liberalism Versus Blacks

By Thomas Sowell
There is no question that liberals do an impressive job of expressing concern for blacks. But do the intentions expressed in their words match the actual consequences of their deeds?

San Francisco is a classic example of a city unexcelled in its liberalism. But the black population of San Francisco today is less than half of what it was back in 1970, even though the city's total population has grown.

Severe restrictions on building housing in San Francisco have driven rents and home prices so high that blacks and other people with low or moderate incomes have been driven out of the city. The same thing has happened in a number of other California communities dominated by liberals.

Liberals try to show their concern for the poor by raising the level of minimum wage laws. Yet they show no interest in hard evidence that minimum wage laws create disastrous levels of unemployment among young blacks in this country, as such laws created high unemployment rates among young people in general in European countries.

The black family survived centuries of slavery and generations of Jim Crow, but it has disintegrated in the wake of the liberals' expansion of the welfare state. Most black children grew up in homes with two parents during all that time but most grow up with only one parent today.

Liberals have pushed affirmative action, supposedly for the benefit of blacks and other minorities. But two recent factual studies show that affirmative action in college admissions has led to black students with every qualification for success being artificially turned into failures by being mismatched with colleges for the sake of racial body count.

The two most recent books that show this with hard facts are "Mismatch" by Richard Sander and Stuart Taylor, Jr., and "Wounds That Will Not Heal" by Russell K. Nieli. My own book "Affirmative Action Around the World" shows the same thing with different evidence.

In all these cases, and many others, liberals take positions that make them look good and feel good — and show very little interest in the actual consequences for others, even when liberal policies are leaving havoc in their wake.

The current liberal crusade for more so-called "gun control" laws is more of the same. Factual studies over the years, both in the United States and in other countries, repeatedly show that "gun control" laws do not in fact reduce crimes committed with guns.

Cities with some of the tightest gun control laws in the nation have murder rates far above the national average. In the middle of the 20th century, New York had far more restrictive gun control laws than London, but London had far less gun crime. Yet gun crimes in London skyrocketed after severe gun control laws were imposed over the next several decades.

Although gun control is not usually considered a racial issue, a wholly disproportionate number of Americans killed by guns are black. But here, as elsewhere, liberals' devotion to their ideology greatly exceeds their concern about what actually happens to flesh and blood human beings as a result of their ideology.

One of the most polarizing and counterproductive liberal crusades of the 20th century has been the decades-long busing crusade to send black children to predominantly white schools. The idea behind this goes back to the pronouncement by Chief Justice Earl Warren that "separate educational facilities are inherently unequal."

Yet within walking distance of the Supreme Court where this pronouncement was made was an all-black high school that had scored higher than two-thirds of the city's white high schools taking the same test — way back in 1899! But who cares about facts, when you are on a liberal crusade that makes you feel morally superior?

To challenge government-imposed racial segregation and discrimination is one thing. But to claim that blacks get a better education if they sit next to whites in school is something very different. And it is something that goes counter to the facts.

Many liberal ideas about race sound plausible, and it is understandable that these ideas might have been attractive 50 years ago. What is not understandable is how so many liberals can blindly ignore 50 years of evidence to the contrary since then.

Every weekday publishes what many in the media and Washington consider "must-reading". Sign up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.

Thursday, January 17, 2013

All Those Yellow Bracelets

An interesting article from  about supporting a suffering athlete. This follows this post about the existance of life in the universe.  For a free magazine subscription or to get this book for free click HERE! or call 1-888-886-8632.

Source: Stock Xchng/Bobd3142 For years you have seen people wearing them. A symbol of solidarity with a sports icon who represented courage in the face of adversity and what was thought to be excellence in his field.

The yellow silicon bracelets that say "live strong" became a symbol of a man and his fight against the ravages of cancer. More than 80 million have been sold. In the wake of Lance Armstrong's admission to doping during his cycling career you wonder what they might symbolize going forward.

Sold for $1 a piece they raised a lot of money for a good cause–cancer survivorship. The foundation the sales support has dropped Armstrong's name and now goes by "Livestrong Foundation " Presumably they will continue their work despite the backlash against Armstrong who is now proved to be a liar as as well as a doper.

There are many obvious lessons from this sad and disheartening matter. We did a BT Daily episode  this week and quoted the scripture in Numbers 32:23But if ye will not do so, behold, ye have sinned against the LORD: and be sure your sin will find you out.

See All... that says "your sins will find you out". I am not sure how many will learn from this solid spiritual truth, but we have a clear example of it right in the daily headlines. Another man, chosen by legions of followers, as a role model is shown to have feet of clay. This undermining of trust within our social fabric continues on. No wonder cockroaches are rising in the public esteem.

A suggestion. If you bought one of the yellow bracelets please, keep wearing it. The idea to live strong is noble. Because one man did not live up to its creed is no excuse for us to let the flag fall. Keep it up. Hold on to the ideal, the goal of something good to live for. The idea counts and the failure of one man can cause us to rally and continue moving forward. A life well lived is worth the effort.

No Amnesty: Be the first to tell Your U.S. Rep.‏

A very interesting post from about messaging your representive at the beginning of this Congress. This follows this post about the GOP not standing firm against Barack Obama's amnesty attempts!  This follows this post about how to Report Illegal Immigrants! For more about what is happening in the nation now click here and you can read a very interesting book HERE.

Make "No Amnesty" the first message your Rep hears this Congress

Please go to your NumbersUSA Action Board this week and send a message to your U.S. Representative and President Obama that you strongly oppose amnesty for illegal aliens and any attempt to raise overall immigration numbers.

With various amnesty proposals currently being floated by prominent Democrats and Republicans from both Chambers and the White House, it is absolutely critical that the drumbeat for No Amnesty begins to echo through the halls of Congress. You can read more about the current legislative situation below.

Our Content & Activism team has been working closely with our Capitol Hill team to craft messages specifically targeted toward your U.S. Representative based on his or her past immigration voting record, political affiliation, as well as what arguments we believe will resonate most in each office. Those of you with newly elected Members will see special "Welcome to Congress messages."

Every one of you will have an opportunity to fax President Obama as well.

Since every Congressional district was redrawn prior to the 113th Congress, our Tech Team has been working furiously to ensure that every one of you is properly matched with your current U.S. Representative. If you believe you are seeing a fax to the wrong Representative, please contact our helpdesk immediately.


The threat level is high and will likely stay that way for months. This is not going to be a short-lived campaign. To be candid, we are in for a sustained, prolonged fight and our opposition is far more organized than it was in 2007 when we defeated the last massive amnesty proposal that was seriously considered by Congress. So you can expect that we will be coming to you with action opportunities frequently over the next several months. However, we will be making a special effort this Spring to ensure that you are seeing targeted, specific opportunities so we will not exhaust you. But don't worry, we will be sure you hear from us every time you can help!

Our Capitol Hill team has been monitoring this situation since the morning after the election. The situation is still quite fluid, with priorities changing almost daily, but our current information suggests that the amnesty bill will start in the Senate. To that end, we will be paying particular attention to the Democratic Senators who opposed the 2007 amnesty as well all Senators who are up for re-election in 2014. Meanwhile, we will continue to focus on not only holding the line in the House but pursing opportunities to get a few good things through the House too. Although we were disappointed to lose Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) as chair of the House Judiciary Committee, we are hopeful and excited about the new chair, Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) who has proven to be a real leader for immigration reductions. We also have reasons to be hopeful that the Immigration Reform Caucus under new leadership of Rep. Ted Poe (R-TX) will be increasingly active in opposing the amnesty bill once it is introduced.


In the race to comment on amnesty, we have seen wildly different statements from all kinds of Members of Congress. On the one hand, supporters of the DREAM amnesty (particularly Democrats) who were willing to settle for a small-scale amnesty last year appear to feel emboldened by the election and are now making grand promises about not settling for anything other than a massive, all-encompassing amnesty. On the other hand, several Republicans who came out in the days following the election expressing support for some sort of amnesty are now qualifying their statements, indicating support for smaller-scale amnesties that do not grant citizenship. You have probably seen articles this week mentioning Senator Rubio's (R-FL) immigration proposal (not a bill at this point) and Rep. Ryan (R-WI) commenting on the Rubio plan. In the middle of all this, Members from both parties have come out saying that they doubt that anything will get done for many months because it will be too difficult for Members to reach any sort of agreement on the details of the amnesty. All of this is good news for us.


While political inefficiencies and partisanship may work toward our advantage, I would be highly nervous if that was all we had to count on. Fortunately, we have you.

You and the other 1.3 million NumbersUSA activists are what give us confidence that we can stop the amnesty freight train in its tracks. You are the lifeline of NumbersUSA and the voice we use to respond to the outrageous statements and proposals made by elected officials, the media, and other policy elites. In a time as confusing and politically dangerous as we are in now, it is critical to have a strong, experienced grassroots army committed to bringing stability and rationality to the situation.

Our opponents on Capitol Hill are now showing signs of fear that our 1.3 million activists will show up as they did in 2007 (when we only had 350,000 activists) and block amnesty. Let's prove them right. Your fellow citizens and future generations are counting on you.

Thanks for all you do in the name of a sensible immigration policy,

Wednesday, January 16, 2013

Does Life Exist Somewhere Out There?

An interesting article from about the existance of life in the universe. This follows this post about the relationship between the U.S. and Great Britain.  For a free magazine subscription or to get this book for free click HERE! or call 1-888-886-8632.

God, Science and the Bible: Does Life Exist Somewhere Out There?

article by Mike Kelley

For years people have wondered: Are we alone in the universe? Do other life forms exist out there? Will we ever find them?

Source: NASA Astronomy began to develop as a science in the 15th century, sparked by the discoveries of Galileo and Copernicus that the Earth is not the center of the universe. Based on information gathered by their primitive telescopes, they discovered that Earth revolves around the Sun—not the other way around, as had been supposed for centuries. Far more advanced telescopes of the 20th century revealed billions of specks of light that turned out to be galaxies millions of light years away.

As we learned more about our own solar system, astronomers began to focus attention on Mars, one of the two planets closest to us and the one thought most likely to harbor life. More than 40 years ago America's National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) launched a probe toward Mars, the 1965 Mariner IV, that sent back faint radio signals showing the planet to be a lonely, pock-marked wasteland, a dead world with seemingly no way to support life.

Eternally curious, scientists wanted to know more. Last August, the attention of millions was riveted on the approach of a spacecraft to the surface of Mars. Its payload was the most advanced robotic rover ever designed to explore the surface of another planet. Through maneuvers of amazing complexity, that rover, dubbed Curiosity, landed successfully on the Martian surface on August 5.

About the size of a tiny car, Curiosity was designed for one singular purpose—to look for signs of life on the Red Planet. A roving laboratory, Curiosity will spend at least two years trying to unlock the scientific history of Mars. Equipped with an array of scientific sensors and other instruments, the explorer will scoop soil and rock samples for analysis to determine if life exists, or ever existed, on Mars. For example, the rover can analyze soil to determine if the soil ever offered the environmental conditions to support microbial life.

Scientists are looking for "biomarkers"—evidence, however faint, that life may have at one time existed on Mars. One of those biomarkers, perhaps the most important one, is the existence of water, a key ingredient needed to support even microbial life.

Even before Curiosity, astronomers noted the similarity between Mars and Earth. Both have an atmosphere, although Mars' is much less dense than Earth's and chemically much different. Both have a surface covered with soil. Curiosity has analyzed soil samples that show Martian soil to be a volcanic type, somewhat similar to volcanic soils here on Earth. Scientists have long puzzled over the presence of Mars' huge polar ice caps, similar in appearance to those on Earth.

Curiosity has lived up to its name. In the three months since it touched down, it has sent back thousands of pictures and hundreds of hours of communications. The scientific world thrilled to the late September discovery of evidence that a stream of water once ran across the area of Mars where the rover is exploring. In early October, a hammer-like device on Curiosity gathered powder samples of a Martian rock that was found to be similar in mineral composition to common rocks here on earth.

In late October and early November, Curiosity experienced dust storms similar to those on Earth. As on Earth, the atmosphere provides some shielding from outside radiation and helps to regulate temperatures. However, because the atmosphere is thinner, the rover detected, as expected, evidence of large amounts of radiation present. And the Martian atmosphere was found to keep surface temperatures within a range of -130° F to about 5°, a difficult abode for even microbial life.

Uniqueness of planet Earth

So one might well ask: Do the various similarities point to the possibility of life on Mars?

Beyond the similarities are huge differences that make the probabilities of life as we know it being found on Mars or any other planet in our solar system quite miniscule.

At more than twice the Earth's distance from the Sun, surface temperatures on Mars seldom rise above 0° Fahrenheit. Life as we know it would not be able to survive in the thin Martian atmosphere (only 1 percent that of Earth), composed predominantly of carbon dioxide with much smaller amounts of nitrogen and argon. The Curiosity scientific team had hoped to find methane, which might be an indicator of life, but none has been detected.

It was reported Dec. 3 that in soil sample analysis Curiosity had detected "water and sulfur and chlorine-containing substances," as well as "one-carbon organics"—which are needed for life—though "it is possible the carbon may be of Earth origin, carried by Curiosity and detected by [its lab's] high sensitivity design" ("NASA Mars Rover Fully Analyzes First Soil Samples," In any case, in its several months on Mars, Curiosity has not discovered any clear evidence of life.

However, even if no life is found that's not to say that life doesn't exist outside our planet. It does —it's just not life as we know it.

Extraterrestrial life of a different kind

God Almighty, Maker of the universe, dwells in the spiritual abode of heaven. And sometime in the ancient past, God created spirit beings to help Him rule and administer the vast universe. We call these spirit beings angels. In your Bible, Psalm 148:1-5 [1] Praise ye the LORD. Praise ye the LORD from the heavens: praise him in the heights.

[2] Praise ye him, all his angels: praise ye him, all his hosts.

[3] Praise ye him, sun and moon: praise him, all ye stars of light.

[4] Praise him, ye heavens of heavens, and ye waters that be above the heavens.

[5] Let them praise the name of the LORD: for he commanded, and they were created.

See All... shows that they, and the physical universe, were created at God's command! There are millions of them (Daniel 7:9-10 [9] I beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool: his throne was like the fiery flame, and his wheels as burning fire.

[10] A fiery stream issued and came forth from before him: thousand thousands ministered unto him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him: the judgment was set, and the books were opened.

See All...), and God created them with some of the same supernatural powers He Himself possesses.

God refers to these angels in several ways. Job 38:7When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

See All... calls them "morning stars" and says they sang and shouted for joy when God created the earth. So the angels have been around for eons.

Over the past 35 years, millions have flocked to the Star Wars movie series. They've thrilled to the adventures of Jedi warriors Luke Skywalker and Yoda in their struggles against Darth Vader and the evil Sith. It's the classic struggle between the forces of good and evil.

You may be surprised to learn that a true cosmic battle between the forces of good and evil did take place in the universe! This cataclysmic event occurred before human beings existed. The pockmarked surface of the moon and other scarred planets, moons and asteroids of our solar system may be evidence of that battle. But what led up to it?

One of the archangels God created, referred to as Lucifer in translations of Isaiah 14:12How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

See All..., was, as Ezekiel 28:17Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness: I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee.

See All... shows, a being of immense beauty and perfection—and entrusted by God with vast responsibilities. But Lucifer became dissatisfied and led a rebellion of one third of the angels against God (Revelation 12:3-4 [3] And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads.

[4] And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born.

See All...).

Does this sound like fantasy? Isaiah 14:13-15 [13] For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:

[14] I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.

[15] Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.

See All... reveals that Lucifer planned to "exalt [his] throne above the stars of God" and "be like the Most High." In other words, this being led an angelic rebellion to overthrow God!

So there was what we might call an original "star wars," a literal war in heaven among supernatural beings. "And war broke out in heaven. Michael [another archangel] and his angels fought with the dragon [Lucifer now having become Satan, meaning "Adversary"]; and the dragon and his angels fought" (Revelation 12:7And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,

See All...).

Revelation 12:9And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

See All... shows that Satan and his angels, since their rebellion referred to as demons, were defeated and hurled from heaven back to the earth (see Revelation 12:4And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born.

See All...). Jesus Christ said of that time, "I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven" (Luke 10:18And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.

See All...). Again, that great cosmic catastrophe may be why we see such scattered debris—in the form of comets, asteroids and other such wreckage—in outer space.

That may well be when Mars was likewise left a wasteland. Was Mars created a barren wasteland, or did it become that way? We don't know. But nothing Curiosity has discovered on Mars has changed the reality of its desolate condition.

God will expand life throughout the universe

So what do we know at present? We are certainly familiar with life on Earth, including the seven billion human beings who call this planet home. Your Bible says God created angels to be His servants. Despite the fact that a third of them rebelled, we know that two thirds still serve God as His messengers and servants.

And here is the exciting good news: God is not finished with the universe He's created! He reveals there will be more life throughout the universe. And what many may find astounding is that human beings are part of that plan!

It will come as a surprise to many religious people to learn that the reward of God's followers is not just to float off at death to live in the spiritual heaven of His throne. Notice what God says in Matthew 5:5Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.

See All...: "Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth." Those words are Christ's own, from the Sermon on the Mount. John 3:13And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.

See All... further tells us, "No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, that is, the Son of Man who is in heaven."

But if going to heaven at death is not the reward of the saved, then what is? Let's pose this question: Does it make sense that a God who endowed human beings with the desire to know more about the universe, and the ability to explore it, would not have a higher purpose for mankind than to merely live a brief physical life and then die?

While science strives to find out if life exists on planets other than Earth, God's Word reveals—if one is willing to look—the incredible potential of human life. In the book of Hebrews we read this: "What is man, that you are mindful of him . . . you made him a little lower than the angels; you crowned him with glory and honor, and put everything in subjection under his feet" (Hebrews 2:6-8 [6] But one in a certain place testified, saying, What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man, that thou visitest him?

[7] Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands:

[8] Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him. But now we see not yet all things put under him.

See All..., NIV).

Did you catch that? Man's current status is "a little lower than the angels"—or "for a little while lower," as some versions translate this—but God reveals that in time everything will be put in subjection under man!

We begin to get a clue about our future and our place in the universe in recognizing that the "all things" God has promised us in various verses includes everything—the earth, heaven, the entire physical universe! God says that, for those willing to believe what He says, the vast universe, with all its billions of galaxies, its innumerable stars and planets, will be put under our dominion.

Romans 8:22For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.

See All... is quite revealing: "We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time" (NIV). All of our exploration has revealed this to be true—that the planets we have been able to observe other than our own are lifeless, dead places with conditions hostile to life. But notice Romans 8:21Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.

See All... of the same chapter: "The creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God" (NIV).

No evidence has yet been found for life on other planets. But even if some form of physical life—bacteria or something more complex—were to be found elsewhere, that would only mean that God created it too—not that it somehow evolved there on its own. However, other than the wishful thinking of some, we have no reason to think there is any physical life at all beyond the earth.

In any case, there is indeed certain "life out there" already—and there will yet be more in the wonderful future God has in store for us!