The Wal-Mart Employee Tragedy

An interesting article from http://www.ucg.org/ about the commercialization of Thanksgiving and Christmas. This follows this post about ignoring Thanksgiving to get to Christmas. For a free magazine subscription or to get the book shown for free click HERE! or call 1-888-886- 8632.

The Wal-Mart Employee Tragedy


A commentary by Melvin Rhodes




The trampled Wal-Mart employee incident says a great deal about the age in which we live! Clearly, money is still the nation's number one god. As long as it is, we will continue to experience mounting economic and social problems!



The trampled Wal-Mart employee incident says a great deal about the age in which we live!



The morning after Thanksgiving has been known for many years as "Black Friday"—the busiest shopping day of the year. Stores in the United States traditionally try to entice customers to their retail outlets on this day with bargains that are usually not repeated.



Every year the store openings get earlier. Shoppers line up well before dawn, ready to rush in as soon as the doors open to be among the first to get limited sales items.



Perhaps it was inevitable that in the midst of such frenzy a tragedy would occur. And it did—on November 28, 2008 at a Wal-Mart store in the state of New York.



When the doors opened, crowds surged in and trampled to death a 34-year-old store employee who was 6'5" tall and weighed 270 pounds.



In effect, the young man died so that those who arrived first could save a few dollars on the latest electronic gadget! To put it bluntly, a human life was worth less than things!



This has long been a materialistic age, especially in the western world and most especially in the United States, where many stores open 24 hours a day and seven days a week in intense competition to get business. Employees have had their family lives almost destroyed as they work long hours for minimal wages, neglecting spouses and children at home.



There is no thought for a day of rest, giving people an opportunity to worship the God who has given them everything. Ironically, the only time most stores think about religion is when they can make money on it during the annual holiday season which began the day after Thanksgiving!



It is perhaps appropriate that amidst all this greed, our economy seems to be collapsing. Every day the news gets worse. The stock market has been in turmoil for months, affecting the retirement funds of millions. House prices keep falling; unemployment is increasing; and business is down. These worrisome events are now worldwide problems, as nations economically implode.



Tens of millions of people who have neglected God for years in a mad pursuit for wealth are now losing everything.



Perhaps this is what Jesus Christ had in mind when He said: "Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal; but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also" (Matthew 6:19-21 [19] Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal:

[20] But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal:

[21] For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.





See All...).



No society can prosper indefinitely if it is built on wrong values; and greed is most assuredly wrong. When a lawyer asked Jesus what was most important in life, His response was quite simple: "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself" (Matthew 22:37-39 [37] Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

[38] This is the first and great commandment.

[39] And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.





See All...).



In other words, true and lasting happiness is built on a solid foundation of putting God first in our lives and through our relationships with people, beginning with family.



When people care more about people than they do about material goods, tragedies like the one at Wal-Mart will not happen. Even Black Friday would be a thing of the past!



Some stores this year tried to beat the rush by beginning sales a day earlier, on Thanksgiving Day itself. A day set aside by the Pilgrims almost four centuries ago as an annual day giving thanks to the Almighty for His blessings seems set to become yet another sales day as gratitude has been replaced by greed.



Clearly, money is still the nation's number one god. As long as it is, we will continue to experience mounting economic and social problems!



Long ago the apostle Paul warned: "You must understand this, that in the last days distressing times will come. For people will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, inhuman, implacable, slanderers, profligates, brutes, haters of good, treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, holding to the outward form of godliness but denying its power. Avoid them!" (2 Timothy 3:1-5 [1] This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.

[2] For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,

[3] Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,

[4] Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;

[5] Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.





See All..., New Revised Standard Version).

.

Israelis, Saudis and the Iranian Agreement

A very interesting post from www.Stratfor.com about the U.S. and its allies Israel and Saudi Arabia. This follows this post about the U.S. talks with Iran. This follows this article about American energy independence and preventing money from going to hostile countries such as Iran. For more about what you can do to get more involved click here and you can read two very interesting books HERE.


Israelis, Saudis and the Iranian Agreement

Geopolitical Weekly


Stratfor By George Friedman



A deal between Iran and the P-5+1 (the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council plus Germany) was reached Saturday night. The Iranians agreed to certain limitations on their nuclear program while the P-5+1 agreed to remove certain economic sanctions. The next negotiation, scheduled for six months from now depending on both sides' adherence to the current agreement, will seek a more permanent resolution. The key players in this were the United States and Iran. The mere fact that the U.S. secretary of state would meet openly with the Iranian foreign minister would have been difficult to imagine a few months ago, and unthinkable at the beginning of the Islamic republic.



The U.S. goal is to eliminate Iran's nuclear weapons before they are built, without the United States having to take military action to eliminate them. While it is commonly assumed that the United States could eliminate the Iranian nuclear program at will with airstrikes, as with most military actions, doing so would be more difficult and riskier than it might appear at first glance. The United States in effect has now traded a risky and unpredictable air campaign for some controls over the Iranian nuclear program.



The Iranians' primary goal is regime preservation. While Tehran managed the Green Revolution in 2009 because the protesters lacked broad public support, Western sanctions have dramatically increased the economic pressure on Iran and have affected a wide swath of the Iranian public. It isn't clear that public unhappiness has reached a breaking point, but were the public to be facing years of economic dysfunction, the future would be unpredictable. The election of President Hassan Rouhani to replace Mahmoud Ahmadinejad after the latter's two terms was a sign of unhappiness. Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei clearly noted this, displaying a willingness to trade a nuclear program that had not yet produced a weapon for the elimination of some sanctions.



The logic here suggests a process leading to the elimination of all sanctions in exchange for the supervision of Iran's nuclear activities to prevent it from developing a weapon. Unless this is an Iranian trick to somehow buy time to complete a weapon and test it, I would think that the deal could be done in six months. An Iranian ploy to create cover for building a weapon would also demand a reliable missile and a launch pad invisible to surveillance satellites and the CIA, National Security Agency, Mossad, MI6 and other intelligence agencies. The Iranians would likely fail at this, triggering airstrikes however risky they might be and putting Iran back where it started economically. While this is a possibility, the scenario is not likely when analyzed closely.



While the unfolding deal involves the United States, Britain, France, China, Russia and Germany, two countries intensely oppose it: Israel and Saudi Arabia. Though not powers on the order of the P-5+1, they are still significant. There is a bit of irony in Israel and Saudi Arabia being allied on this issue, but only on the surface. Both have been intense enemies of Iran, and close allies of the United States; each sees this act as a betrayal of its relationship with Washington.



The View from Saudi Arabia

In a way, this marks a deeper shift in relations with Saudi Arabia than with Israel. Saudi Arabia has been under British and later American protection since its creation after World War I. Under the leadership of the Sauds, it became a critical player in the global system for a single reason: It was a massive producer of oil. It was also the protector of Mecca and Medina, two Muslim holy cities, giving the Saudis an added influence in the Islamic world on top of their extraordinary wealth.



It was in British and American interests to protect Saudi Arabia from its enemies, most of which were part of the Muslim world. The United States protected the Saudis from radical Arab socialists who threatened to overthrow the monarchies of the Arabian Peninsula. It later protected Saudi Arabia from Saddam Hussein after he invaded Kuwait. But it also protected Saudi Arabia from Iran.



Absent the United States in the Persian Gulf, Iran would have been the most powerful regional military power. In addition, the Saudis have a substantial Shiite minority concentrated in the country's oil-rich east. The Iranians, also Shia, had a potential affinity with them, and thereby the power to cause unrest in Saudi Arabia.



Until this agreement with Iran, the United States had an unhedged commitment to protect Saudi Arabia from the Iranians. Given the recent deal, and potential follow-on deals, this commitment becomes increasingly hedged. The problem from the Saudi point of view is that while there was a wide ideological gulf between the United States and Iran, there was little in the way of substantial issues separating Washington from Tehran. The United States did not want Iran to develop nuclear weapons. The Iranians didn't want the United States hindering Iran's economic development. The fact was that getting a nuclear weapon was not a fundamental Iranian interest, and crippling Iran's economy was not a fundamental interest to the United States absent an Iranian nuclear program.



If the United States and Iran can agree on this quid pro quo, the basic issues are settled. And there is something drawing them together. The Iranians want investment in their oil sector and other parts of their economy. American oil companies would love to invest in Iran, as would other U.S. businesses. As the core issue separating the two countries dissolves, and economic relations open up -- a step that almost by definition will form part of a final agreement -- mutual interests will appear.



There are other significant political issues that can't be publicly addressed. The United States wants Iran to temper its support for Hezbollah's militancy, and guarantee it will not support terrorism. The Iranians want guarantees that Iraq will not develop an anti-Iranian government, and that the United States will work to prevent this. (Iran's memories of its war with Iraq run deep.) The Iranians will also want American guarantees that Washington will not support anti-Iranian forces based in Iraq.



From the Saudi point of view, Iranian demands regarding Iraq will be of greatest concern. Agreements or not, it does not want a pro-Iranian Shiite state on its northern border. Riyadh has been funding Sunni fighters throughout the region against Shiite fighters in a proxy war with Iran. Any agreement by the Americans to respect Iranian interests in Iraq would represent a threat to Saudi Arabia.



The View from Israel

From the Israeli point of view, there are two threats from Iran. One is the nuclear program. The other is Iranian support not only for Hezbollah but also for Hamas and other groups in the region. Iran is far from Israel and poses no conventional military threat. The Israelis would be delighted if Iran gave up its nuclear program in some verifiable way, simply because they themselves have no reliable means to destroy that program militarily. What the Israelis don't want to see is the United States and Iran making deals on their side issues, especially the political ones that really matter to Israel.



The Israelis have more room to maneuver than the Saudis do. Israel can live with a pro-Iranian Iraq. The Saudis can't; from their point of view, it is only a matter of time before Iranian power starts to encroach on their sphere of influence. The Saudis can't live with an Iranian-supported Hezbollah. The Israelis can and have, but don't want to; the issue is less fundamental to the Israelis than Iraq is to the Saudis.



But in the end, this is not the problem that the Saudis and Israelis have. Their problem is that both depend on the United States for their national security. Neither country can permanently exist in a region filled with dangers without the United States as a guarantor. Israel needs access to American military equipment that it can't build itself, like fighter aircraft. Saudi Arabia needs to have American troops available as the ultimate guarantor of their security, as they were in 1990. Israel and Saudi Arabia have been the two countries with the greatest influence in Washington. As this agreement shows, that is no longer the case. Both together weren't strong enough to block this agreement. What frightens them the most about this agreement is that fact. If the foundation of their national security is the American commitment to them, then the inability to influence Washington is a threat to their national security.



There are no other guarantors available. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu went to Moscow, clearly trying to get the Russians to block the agreement. He failed. But even if he had succeeded, he would have alienated the United States, and would have gotten instead a patron incapable of supplying the type of equipment Israel might need when Israel might need it. The fact is that neither the Saudis nor the Israelis have a potential patron other than the United States.



U.S. Regional Policy

The United States is not abandoning either Israel or Saudi Arabia. A regional policy based solely on the Iranians would be irrational. What the United States wants to do is retain its relationship with Israel and Saudi Arabia, but on modified terms. The modification is that U.S. support will come in the context of a balance of power, particularly between Iran and Saudi Arabia. While the United States is prepared to support the Saudis in that context, it will not simply support them absolutely. The Saudis and Israelis will have to live with things that they have not had to live with before -- namely, an American concern for a reasonably strong and stable Iran regardless of its ideology.



The American strategy is built on experience in Iraq and Afghanistan. Washington has learned that it has interests in the region, but that the direct use of American force cannot achieve those goals, partly because imposing solutions takes more force than the United States has and partly because the more force it uses, the more resistance it generates. Therefore, the United States needs a means of minimizing its interests, and pursuing those it has without direct force.



With its interests being limited, the United States' strategy is a balance of power. The most natural balance of power is Sunni versus Shia, the Arabs against the Iranians. The goal is not war, but sufficient force on each side to paralyze the other. In that sense, a stable Iran and a more self-reliant Saudi Arabia are needed. Saudi Arabia is not abandoned, but nor is it the sole interest of the United States.



In the same sense, the United States is committed to the survival of Israel. If Iranian nuclear weapons are prevented, the United States has fulfilled that commitment, since there are no current threats that could conceivably threaten Israeli survival. Israel's other interests, such as building settlements in the West Bank, do not require American support. If the United States determines that they do not serve American interests (for example, because they radicalize the region and threaten the survival of Jordan), then the United States will force Israel to abandon the settlements by threatening to change its relationship with Israel. If the settlements do not threaten American interests, then they are Israel's problem.



Israel has outgrown its dependence on the United States. It is not clear that Israel is comfortable with its own maturation, but the United States has entered a new period where what America wants is a mature Israel that can pursue its interests without recourse to the United States. And if Israel finds it cannot have what it wants without American support, Israel may not get that support, unless Israel's survival is at stake.



In the same sense, the perpetual Saudi inability to create an armed force capable of effectively defending itself has led the United States to send troops on occasion -- and contractors always -- to deal with the problem. Under the new strategy, the expectation is that Saudi soldiers will fight Saudi Arabia's wars -- with American assistance as needed, but not as an alternative force.



With this opening to Iran, the United States will no longer be bound by its Israeli and Saudi relationships. They will not be abandoned, but the United States has broader interests than those relationships, and at the same time few interests that rise to the level of prompting it to directly involve U.S. troops. The Saudis will have to exert themselves to balance the Iranians, and Israel will have to wend its way in a world where it has no strategic threats, but only strategic problems, like everyone else has. It is not a world in which Israeli or Saudi rigidity can sustain itself.



Send us your thoughts on this report.



Reprinting or republication of this report on websites is authorized by prominently displaying the following sentence, including the hyperlink to Stratfor, at the beginning or end of the report.

"Israelis, Saudis and the Iranian Agreement is republished with permission of Stratfor."





Read more: Israelis, Saudis and the Iranian Agreement
Stratfor

Follow us: @stratfor on Twitter
Stratfor on Facebook

Pressure Governor Chris Christie NOT to Sign the In-State Tuition for Illegal Aliens Bill

A very interesting post from www.Alipac.us about Governor Chris Christie and in-state tuition for illegal aliens. This follows this post about John Boehner’s unfortunate position on immigration amnesty. REMEMBER, “Amnesty” means ANY non-enforcement of existing immigration laws! This follows this comment and this post about how to Report Illegal Immigrants! For more about what you can do click here and you can read two very interesting books HERE.

Should Governor Chris Christie Sign The In-State Tuition for illegal aliens bill?


by

ALIPAC   You know those of us fighting against illegal immigration and amnesty here at ALIPAC and AgainstAmnesty.com are against in-state tuition for illegal aliens.


And according to a March 2009, Monmouth University/Gannett poll "only 20% of New Jersey residents favor extending in-state college tuition rates to undocumented immigrants living in the state, compared to 37% who say illegal immigrants should pay higher out-of-state rates. 39% say that illegal immigrants should not even be allowed to attend New Jersey’s public colleges and universities at all!

Unfortunately, the New Jersey legislature has just passed a bill S2479 that forces New Jersey taxpayers to pay to replace our own American students in the limited seats in our already overcrowded colleges with illegal aliens!




What could be more encouraging to future illegal aliens making plans to break into America than to know New Jersey, and now 14 other states, will pay most of their college tuition at taxpayer and American student expense!



The good news is that we still have one chance to stop this bill.



Governor Chris Christie who is a big two faced Republican liar won his race for governor by blasting his Democrat predecessor John Corzine for supporting licenses and in-state tuition for illegals. And now that Christie is in office and wants to run for President, he has flipped 180 degrees on his campaign promises and now supports these agendas too!



Only a massive public backlash against the bill combined with a large volume of calls and messages to Christie can stop in-state tuition for illegal aliens! It's up to you to let flip flop "lie to get elected" Chris Christie know that his chances of winning a GOP Primary to become President are nonexistent if he signs that bill!


TAKE ACTION NOW!



Step 1: Illegal alien supporting groups are trying to cook an online poll against the large majority of Americans who oppose them, so please go vote 'NO' on this in-state tuition poll and then share the poll with others.



Online poll: Poll: Should Christie sign bill allowing in-state tuition to undocumented immigrants?

http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2013/11/poll_will_christie_sign_bill_granting_in-state_tuition_to_undocumented_immigrants.html

Step 2: Form your own distinctive version of our sample message and then call Chris Christie's offices to complain.




"I'm calling to ask Governor Chris Christie to not sign the in-state tuition for illegal immigrants bill S2479! The vast majority of Americans oppose in-state tuition for illegals. Why should taxpayers have to reward illegal aliens by replacing our own kids in college at taxpayer expense? Does Chris Christie not remember that both Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich destroyed their GOP primary campaigns for President by supporting taxpayer tuition for illegal alien college students? Tell Governor Chris Christie not to tie his name permanently with in-state tuition for illegal aliens and to please veto the bill!"



Chris Christie Contact Info



Office of the Governor

PO Box 001

Trenton, NJ 08625


Phone: 609-292-6000
Email: http://www.state.nj.us/governor/contact/

Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/GovChrisChristie

Twitter: http://twitter.com/GovChristie
Please post any comments, questions, progress reports, or suggestions at our activism tracking link here...

http://www.alipac.us/f8/should-governor-chris-christie-sign-state-tuition-illegal-aliens-bill-292825/#post1381545

Thank you for joining the fight against this deadly and costly corporation sponsored illegal alien invasion of our American homeland via www.AgainstAmnesty.com  and www.ALIPAC.us


Let's roll!
William Gheen and The ALIPAC Team

Boehner Still Committed to Immigration Reform

A very interesting post from www.NumbersUSA.com  about John Boehner’s unfortunate position on immigration amnesty. This follows this post about the new DHS secretary hearings. REMEMBER, “Amnesty” means ANY non-enforcement of existing immigration laws! This follows this comment and this post about how to Report Illegal Immigrants! For more about what you can do click here and you can read two very interesting books HERE.

Boehner Still Committed to Immigration Reform


Thursday, November 21, 2013 - posted on NumbersUSA



At a press conference today, Speaker John Boehner reiterated his commitment to enacting immigration reform in a piecemeal approach during this Congress. Some media outlets suggested the prospects were nil after Boehner said the House would not go to conference committee with the Senate’s comprehensive amnesty bill.
Today Boehner told reporters, “Is immigration reform dead? Absolutely not…I believe the Congress needs to deal with this. Our committees are continuing to do their work. There are a lot of private conversations that are underway to try to figure out how do we best move on a common-sense, step-by-step basis to address this very important issue. Because it is a very important issue.”
Boehner said he was “encouraged” by President Obama’s recent acceptance of the House’s piecemeal approach. At a business forum yesterday, Obama had said, "If they want to chop that thing up into five pieces, as long as all five pieces get done, I don't care what it looks like, as long as it's actually delivering on those core values that we talk about."
“The American people are skeptical of big, comprehensive bills, and they should be,” Boehner said today. “The only way to make sure immigration reform works this time is to address the complicated issues one step at a time. I think doing so will give the American people confidence that we’re dealing with these issues in a thoughtful way and a deliberative way. So I’m hopeful that we can make progress on this very important issue.”
He did not lay out a specific timetable for House votes on immigration bills, or discuss the issue of legal status or citizenship for illegal aliens.
In an effort to spur movement on amnesty legislation, advocates confronted Boehner several times over the last week. Today amnesty activists entered his personal congressional office in an attempt to deliver a turkey and a bottle of wine, which was meant to represent the work that illegal aliens do in harvesting food. Early Wednesday morning, several hundred held a candlelight vigil in front of his Washington, D.C. home. And last week, two activists confronted him while he ate breakfast in his favorite local diner.   Amnesty advocates also targeted Majority Leader Eric Cantor, although with more extreme tactics. 11 activists conducted a "civil disobediance protest" in Cantor's personal congressional office yesterday afternoon. All were arrested after refusing to leave, including five illegal aliens. Then late last night, about 60 activists poured into the lobby of Cantor's condominium complex and shouted chants. They were allowed to continue their protest in front of the building and used bullhorns despite police warnings.

Editorial: Changing the subject from Obamacare!

Editorial

Last week was an attempt to get away from the failings of Obamacare, and that is far more than website failures. The two attempts were the end of the Senate Filibuster, and the Iran deal (appeasement?). The next attempt is likely to be another gun control attempt.

Are the distractions succeeeding in what the President wants to do?

Examining JFK: Was John F. Kennedy Pro-Life on Abortion?

An interesting story from www.lifenews.com  about J.F.K.’s views on abortion. This follows this post about a boy in San Francisco doing the Batman. For more that you can do to get involved click HERE and you can also get two very interesting books HERE.

Examining JFK: Was John F. Kennedy Pro-Life on Abortion?


On the fiftieth anniversary of his death it is hard to avoid stories about John F. Kennedy (JFK) so I thought I would add another one. Most stories describe JFK as a devout Catholic, though most stories also highlight the former president’s extra-marital activities.



The truth is during John F. Kennedy’s lifetime abortion was simply not the hot button issue it is today so there is little found that could point in one direction or another. One book, JFK, Conservative by Ira Stroll did find this quote: http://www.lifenews.com/2013/11/22/examining-jfk-was-john-f-kennedy-pro-life-on-abortion/

Wknd Box Office: The Hunger Games: Catching Fire, The Book Thief, Delivery Man

Here is an interesting article from http://www.debbieschlussel.com/ 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 choosing good movies to watch yourself!

Wknd Box Office: The Hunger Games: Catching Fire, The Book Thief, Delivery Man


By Debbie Schlussel



I wasn’t that thrilled with any of this weekend’s new movies, but none of them is particularly terrible, as in many other weeks. I didn’t have time to finish up and post my reviews before the Jewish Sabbath began, so my apologies. Here they are:



* “The Hunger Games: Catching Fire“: While I liked this second installment of “The Hunger Games” movies better than the first (read my review). But it’s basically the same movie, cut in half.   And my objections remain the same: that it’s too violent and bloody for the kids at whom it is aimed, that its anti-capitalist and filled with class warfare–the enemies in the movie are rich people in “The Capitol” (while the oppressed and the heroes are the poor), that it’s a rip-off of other movies, such as “The Condemned” (read my review) and “Battle Royale,” and that it’s simply not believable that a stiletto thin woman can kick butt against males twice her size.   While the first half of this movie is slow and boring, when it finally heats up, it’s very suspenseful, action-packed, and the special effects are better than those in the first movie (the movie includes very cool clothing made of flames). But just as it gets to its most exciting point, the movie ends abruptly, and you have to wait for the next sequel to find out what happens. That’s a rip-off. Also a rip-off is that they merely repeat the same story almost verbatim in this movie as in the original. I felt like the writers phoned it in, and the story’s kinda silly.



The story: it’s a post-apocalyptic world in which there is no longer America, but Panem, a country made up of the rich and gaudy residents of “The Capitol” and several “districts,” which are filled with poor people who are basically enslaved, oppressed, and at the mercy of the President (Donald Sutherland) and the Capitol people. Katniss Everdeen and Peeta Mellark won the Hunger Games in the first movie (a teen male and female are chosen at random and forced to compete in a reality show in the wilderness, where they must kill each other and only one winner is supposed to survive).



The President is upset at what he perceives is a growing rebellion against Panem. So, he tells Katniss and Peeta that they must convince the country that they are in love (they aren’t). Since he thinks that Katniss and Peeta are symbols of the rebellion, he decides to do a new Hunger Games, requiring past winners, including Katniss and Peeta, to compete to the death against each other. So the movie from there is really a repeat of the first one.



Also, I felt like I was watching a futuristic version of “The Butler,” when Katniss and Peeta (both White) visit the districts of those who died in their Hunger Games, and the movie only shows the scene when they visit the Black district, showing how oppressed they are and how the families of the two kids who died in the Hunger Games are grieving. But this is the case in every district, so why focus on the Black district? To show us that Blacks are always the victims?



And, finally, when I saw that Katniss’ clothing designer is murdered, I was wondering if we can get rid of Mark Jacobs, too.



HALF A MARX


* “The Book Thief“: I was really excited to see this movie . . . and so incredibly disappointed when I did. It soft-peddles the Holocaust and tries to make us sympathetic to Germans who supported the Nazis and their “plight.” Um, no thank you. America doesn’t need a movie from the “German point of view.” The ghost of Leni Riefenstahl is laughing at us.

My late maternal grandparents struggled to survive the Holocaust and nearly died on a daily basis. Both of their families were wiped out, murdered by the Nazis, but you don’t see any of that, just a Jew who hides in a basement, and then miraculously survives at the end despite all odds against him. Yes, one German couple in a fiction movie risks their lives to save a Jew, but they were–in real life–the extreme exception, NOT the rule. I was disgusted at this Whitewash of the German people. Oh, and they show us the German bodies of “innocent victims” of Allied air raids. Guess what? There were plenty of bodies of Jewish Holocaust victims and American and British soldiers. Those they don’t show.




I realize the movie is based on a fiction book for young adults (although I’m told the book is better and the movie screws it up), but come on. The small German town where this takes place is an idyllic German town that reminded me of the “Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory” set, with gingerbread houses and charming, cute children. Even the townspeople and kids who support Hitler are cute and charming and not at all hateful.



The story: a young girl, Liesel (Sophie Nélisse), is the daughter of a Communist. The Nazis take her mother away, and she is adopted by a working class German couple in a small, charming town. Her new adoptive father, Geoffrey Rush, teaches her to read, and she eventually warms to her new parents. They are decent people who are reluctant about the Nazi book-burning rallies and so on. And, as they struggle to survive in meager times, they hide a Jewish boy in their cold basement (he is the son of a Jewish German soldier who saved Rush’s life in World War I).



The Jewish boy gets sick in the cold of the basement, and Sophie reads to him as he is unconscious, hoping this will save him. She “borrows” books by taking them from the Burgermeister’s house. And throughout it all, Liesel has her friend, Rudy, a cute blond friend who is a boy her age. He is a decent kid and helps her keep her secret about the Jew hiding in the basement. And that’s despite Rudy’s Nazi-loving, racist father. That’s not very believable either, as it would be rare for a very young kid to have morally sound views in opposition to those of his Nazi-supporting father.



While the acting is very good–Rush is always masterful and newcomer Nélisse is outstanding, the story is revisionist history. The Nazis came to power because the people in towns like these supported them and their Jew-hatred, but the movie glosses over and soft-peddles most of that. I guess I shouldn’t be surprised since the movie comes from the film studio owned by Rupert Murdoch and Jew-hating Saudi Prince Al-Waleed Bin Talal.



Two other things: the movie is very slow and seemed long because of it. And the use of “Death” as the narrator was not that effective.



ONE MARX


* “Delivery Man“: This is a remake of a French-language, French Canadian film, and it’s directed by the same guy. I had mixed feelings about this movie. While there are (a very few) moments that are touching and warm and show the importance of a father in kids’ lives, the overall message of the movie is Hillary Clinton’s “It Takes a Village” BS. And it’s that old world values and nuclear families with a traditional mother and father are passe. And it’s that men, particularly fathers, are dopes and losers.

This isn’t your typical Vince Vaughn movie, in that it’s more serious and less funny. And the real cut-up in the movie is the fabulously funny Chris Pratt, who plays Vaughn’s lawyer friend.




Vaughn plays a screw-up/loser who works at his Polish immigrant father’s meat business in New York. He is growing marijuana in his apartment, owes tens of thousands of dollars to the mob, and his cop girlfriend is pregnant with his kid (though she wants to raise it alone). He wants to be in his future child’s life, so he sets out to show her he deserves to be in her life. But just as he’s finally starting to realize he needs to shape up, he learns that a sperm bank where he made over 600 donations of sperm gave his sperm to every woman who sought the stuff. Therefore, he now has over 500 children, more than 100 of whom are suing to learn his identity.



Vaughn decides to see some of his sperm bank kids and gets involved in their lives. This is against the repeated advice of Vaughn’s best friend, Chris Pratt, who is a suspended lawyer and a father of four, whose young kids never listen to him. And, of course, Vaughn’s sperm bank kids are completely diverse as you would expect from any politically correct movie. He has Black, Indian, Asian, gay, and drug addict kids.



As I said, there are some touching points in this movie, such as when Vaughn repeatedly goes to visit a developmentally disabled sperm bank kid of his who is in an institution. The kid who does not communicate and is basically a vegetable (a term I hate, but is the best way to describe the situation), and yet Vaughn shows him love and respect for human dignity.



But almost all of the father figures in this movie–including Vaughn and Pratt–are dopes and idiots. And the one father who is decent, Vaughn’s married Polish immigrant father is seen as “backwards” and poor. He cannot afford to take his wife on a dream honeymoon to Italy, and yet later in life, Vaughn pays for the trip. But we later learn, Vaughn got the money to pay for the trip from his many masturbating sessions donating sperm to the sperm bank. Ick.



Eventually, Vaughn takes responsibility for all of his actions, but that doesn’t justify some of the many whacked out messages in the movie.



HALF A MARX

Thanksgiving vs. Christmas

BLOGGERS NOTE: I WILL BE MOVING FROM FACEBOOK TO TWITTER AND BLOGSPOT SOON!


An interesting article from http://www.ucg.org/ about ignoring Thanksgiving to get to Christmas. This follows this post about suicide prevention. This follows this post about the anniversary of the Gettysburg Address. This follows this post about the anniversary of the Kennedy assassination. For a free magazine subscription or to get the book shown for free click HERE! or call 1-888-886- 8632.

  Thanksgiving vs. Christmas

by Dennis Luker

America just largely ignored its most biblical holiday: Thanksgiving.



Christmas shopping ad campaigns like Black Friday, Cyber Monday, Green Tuesday—even Black Friday Month—dominated advertising and even news coverage at the end of November. But so little attention was given to Thanksgiving.

Some Christians denounce the commercializing of the religious meaning of Christmas, but sadly, they miss many vital points of truth. However, our premise with The Good News magazine is that you don’t have to miss those points.

Three reasons why Thanksgiving is more biblical than Christmas:


1. Jesus Christ did give thanks to God the Father.



When He fed the 4,000 and the 5,000 hungry men plus women and children, Jesus gave thanks and blessed the food (Matthew 15:30-39 [30] And great multitudes came unto him, having with them those that were lame, blind, dumb, maimed, and many others, and cast them down at Jesus' feet; and he healed them:

[31] Insomuch that the multitude wondered, when they saw the dumb to speak, the maimed to be whole, the lame to walk, and the blind to see: and they glorified the God of Israel.

[32] Then Jesus called his disciples unto him, and said, I have compassion on the multitude, because they continue with me now three days, and have nothing to eat: and I will not send them away fasting, lest they faint in the way.

[33] And his disciples say unto him, Whence should we have so much bread in the wilderness, as to fill so great a multitude?

[34] And Jesus saith unto them, How many loaves have ye? And they said, Seven, and a few little fishes.

[35] And he commanded the multitude to sit down on the ground.

[36] And he took the seven loaves and the fishes, and gave thanks, and brake them, and gave to his disciples, and the disciples to the multitude.

[37] And they did all eat, and were filled: and they took up of the broken meat that was left seven baskets full.

[38] And they that did eat were four thousand men, beside women and children.

[39] And he sent away the multitude, and took ship, and came into the coasts of Magdala.





See All...; John 6:1-14 [1] After these things Jesus went over the sea of Galilee, which is the sea of Tiberias.

[2] And a great multitude followed him, because they saw his miracles which he did on them that were diseased.

[3] And Jesus went up into a mountain, and there he sat with his disciples.

[4] And the passover, a feast of the Jews, was nigh.

[5] When Jesus then lifted up his eyes, and saw a great company come unto him, he saith unto Philip, Whence shall we buy bread, that these may eat?

[6] And this he said to prove him: for he himself knew what he would do.

[7] Philip answered him, Two hundred pennyworth of bread is not sufficient for them, that every one of them may take a little.

[8] One of his disciples, Andrew, Simon Peter's brother, saith unto him,

[9] There is a lad here, which hath five barley loaves, and two small fishes: but what are they among so many?

[10] And Jesus said, Make the men sit down. Now there was much grass in the place. So the men sat down, in number about five thousand.

[11] And Jesus took the loaves; and when he had given thanks, he distributed to the disciples, and the disciples to them that were set down; and likewise of the fishes as much as they would.

[12] When they were filled, he said unto his disciples, Gather up the fragments that remain, that nothing be lost.

[13] Therefore they gathered them together, and filled twelve baskets with the fragments of the five barley loaves, which remained over and above unto them that had eaten.

[14] Then those men, when they had seen the miracle that Jesus did, said, This is of a truth that prophet that should come into the world.





See All...). At the end of His ministry He specifically thanked God for the unleavened bread and wine of the Passover ceremony that commemorated the sacrifice of His own life for our sins (Luke 22:14-23 [14] And when the hour was come, he sat down, and the twelve apostles with him.

[15] And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer:

[16] For I say unto you, I will not any more eat thereof, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God.

[17] And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves:

[18] For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come.

[19] And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.

[20] Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.

[21] But, behold, the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table.

[22] And truly the Son of man goeth, as it was determined: but woe unto that man by whom he is betrayed!

[23] And they began to enquire among themselves, which of them it was that should do this thing.





See All...).



The principle of thanking God for all our physical and spiritual blessings and for life itself is woven throughout the Bible. As national holidays America’s and Canada’s Thanksgiving Days are based on honoring the blessings that God has given their people. ( Is Thanksgiving Rooted in a Biblical Festival?)   2. Jesus Christ did not command that His birthday be observed.



Part of developing Christianity decided to observe Christ’s day of birth, but "Christ-mass," as it came to be called, was not widely observed until A.D. 354! However, Jesus, His disciples and the apostles did not observe His birthday.



Instead of His day of birth, Christ commanded His followers to observe the day of His death—the Passover (1 Corinthians 11:26For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.



See All...).
Unfortunately, Christianity long ago rejected the Passover and substituted Easter—a day named after and honoring the pagan fertility goddess Ishtar. This is something that Jesus doesn’t approve of!  ( Easter: Masking a Biblical Truth)

3. Jesus Christ was not born on December 25.




Despite the popular idea, the shepherds did not stay out at night with their flocks in mid-winter. It got too cold for that during winter near Bethlehem! Also, the Christmas-observing part of Christianity had no clear idea when He was born, so they suggested dates from all over the calendar during the early centuries after Christ.


However, had they more carefully read the details in the Bible, those early church leaders could have found that although the exact day of His birth is not revealed, Jesus of Nazareth was born in the autumn—not in the winter. ( Biblical Evidence Shows Jesus Wasn't Born on December 25)

We want to thank you for being a reader of The Good News and encourage you to share it with your friends and family. Keep reading and learning more!

Senate Republicans Can Retaliate. Will They?

BLOGGERS NOTE: I WILL BE MOVING FROM FACEBOOK TO TWITTER AND BLOGSPOT SOON!


A timely post about from www.redstate.com about the GOP & the nuclear option. This follows this post about Oliver Stone’s comments about Obamacare critics. In the meantime, you can get more involved if you like here and read an interesting book HERE.  Senate Republicans Can Retaliate. Will They?

By: Daniel Horowitz
Who can blame Harry Reid for pulling the nuclear option, eliminating the filibuster on judicial nominees? He has punched Senate Republicans in the face all year and they have failed to respond. In fact, Senate Republicans have turned around and fought their fellow Republicans in the House, jamming them with bad legislation which they helped Harry Reid pass out of the Senate.



Throughout the past few years, aside for a few judicial nominees, Republicans have been willing to grant Democrats a super-majority on major liberal initiatives. They helped Reid pass amnesty. They gave him the votes for the massive farm/food stamp bill. They were all in the tank for the deceptively-named Violence Against Women Act. They recently gave him the 60 votes for ENDA. And most importantly, they stood shoulder to shoulder with Reid against House Republicans during the most important time when conservatives were united behind defunding Obamacare.



So why would Harry Reid fear reprisal from Republicans? What would stop him from pulling the nuclear option?



When he threatened the nuclear option earlier this year, Republicans agreed to let through the most radical nominees for Obama’s second term cabinet. Reid figured he’d go all the way this week.



And based on Mitch McConnell’s reaction, his wager was correct. Instead of fighting fire with fire, McConnell is basically saying we can’t do anything until after the elections:



“The solution to this problem is an election,” McConnell said at a Thursday press conference after the Senate voted to go nuclear, changing the rules of the filibuster.



“The solution to this problem’s at the ballot box,” McConnell said. “We look forward to having a great election in November 2014.” […]



“I don’t think this is a time to be talking about a reprisal,” he said. “I think it’s at time to be sad about what’s been done to the United States Senate.” [Daily Caller]



I’m sure Harry Reid is scared to death.



There is one simple thing Republicans can do to retaliate. They can start by ending the Democrat super-majority on legislative issues. They can easily pledge to filibuster every piece of legislation and deny all requests for unanimous consent until the rules change is overturned.



How would Harry Reid respond to a complete shutdown of the Senate? Would he abolish the filibuster even for legislation? Let him try. But for now, he has nothing to fear from just eliminating the filibuster on judges because he knows Republicans will not retaliate. Reid knows that there is not a single issue where McCain, Corker, Graham, and Alexander will now withhold support simply because they were stiffed with the nuclear option.



Just an hour after Reid blew up the Senate, Republicans rewarded him by not objecting to the first unanimous consent. Every day, standing committees need consent to conduct hearings. This is a prime opportunity to grind the Senate to a halt until Reid changes his ways.



Harry Reid has identified a soft target. And until we change GOP leadership in the Senate, he will keep punching.

"Knockout Game" v. "Polar Bear Hunting"

BLOGGERS NOTE: I WILL BE MOVING FROM FACEBOOK TO TWITTER AND BLOGSPOT SOON!


A timely post from http://isteve.blogspot.com about the “Knockout Game” and “Polar Bear Hunting.” This follows this post about John F. Kennedy’s failings when compared to Richard Nixon. This follows this post about John F. Kennedy’s role with black Americans. This follows this previous post about the anniversary of the Kennedy assassination. In the meantime, you can get more involved if you like here and read an interesting book HERE.  "Knockout Game" v. "Polar Bear Hunting"

The seemingly synonymous phrases for black-on-white random hate attacks on pedestrians, "Knockout Game" and "Polar Bear Hunting," have both been around for awhile. I've tended to use them interchangeably. Yet, it turns out they are wildly different in popularity with the news media. From Google News:

"knockout game"

About 33,500 results (0.40 seconds)

"polar bear hunting"

10 results (0.23 seconds)

By Steve Sailer

Suicide is Never the Answer

BLOGGERS NOTE: I WILL BE MOVING FROM FACEBOOK TO TWITTER AND BLOGSPOT SOON!

An interesting article from http://www.ucg.org/ about suicide prevention. This follows this post about the anniversary of the Gettysburg Address. This follows this post about the anniversary of the Kennedy assassination. This follows this post about ignoring Thanksgiving to get to Christmas. For a free magazine subscription or to get the book shown for free click HERE! or call 1-888-886- 8632.   Suicide is Never the Answer


article by Rainer Salomaa


A Canadian minister's perspective on the hopeless act of taking one's life. Can you spot a suicidal person?


A report by the United Nations Children's Emergency Fund singled out Canada as one of the countries that "head the league for suicide of young people." According to their figures, Canada's youth suicide rate of 15.8 per 100,000 people aged between fifteen and twenty-four is the world's third highest, exceeded only by the rates in Australia and Norway. In the United States, there is a reported average of sixteen teen suicides every day. Going back to Canada, statistics also reveal that among Canadians in general, more than 3,500 kill themselves every year, making the suicide rate 15.3 per 100,000. This is still well below Hungary which, according to 1992 figures, had the world's highest suicide rate of 40 suicides per 100,000. Still, although the North American rates are still cause for concern, few people like to talk about the crisis.



Suicide is the fifth most common cause of premature death among Canadians of all ages and the second leading cause of death, after accidents, among people under the age of thirty-five. Although experts estimate that one Canadian in twenty-five attempts suicide and close to eighty percent consider the idea sometime in their life, suicide statistics are often understated because many cases go unreported. Only about ten to fifteen percent of people who commit suicide leave a note. Family members often prefer to believe the cause of death as accidental rather than go through the agony of an investigation.



Doctor-assisted suicide has grabbed the attention of the Canadian news media in recent years, partly due to the case of Sue Rodriguez from British Columbia who sought to end her life and her suffering from Lou Gehrig's disease. Her highly publicized case percolated up through the Canadian court system, championed by her Member of Parliament. Similar court challenges of doctor-assisted deaths have been heard in the United States as a result of Dr. Jack Kevorkian's assistance in the suicides of terminally ill patients. Dr. Kevorkian is a retired pathologist who has acknowledged taking part in forty-five suicides since 1990 and has been acquitted in three trials covering five deaths. Recently, the Vatican condemned Australia's world-first euthanasia law as a revolt against God and a crime against life. The condemnation came after Janet Mills, 52, who had a rare form of skin cancer, used a device driven by a laptop computer to deliver a fatal dose of drugs to end her life.



A Japanese book entitled, "The Complete Manual of Suicide" offered detailed, cartoon-illustrated, how-to instruction on methods of self- destruction ranging from pills to freezing. More graphic than an American release, "Final Exit," the Japanese best-seller even suggested "good" places to hang oneself and high buildings from which to leap.



A High Pressure World

We live in a high-pressure world that often puts people over the edge. Suicide is considered to be a permanent solution to a temporary problem. The road to self-destruction begins with depression and ends in the grave. One hallmark of depression is that it causes its victims to magnify their troubles out of all proportion. Problems that commonly lead to prolonged depression include job loss, financial trouble, bad health, divorce, the death of a loved one and family difficulties. Yet there is no complete answer why someone chooses to die to escape unbearable pain. For some, it might be stress. For some, it is brain chemistry. For others, it is a despair that rots the soul. Who knows why Vince Foster, Abbie Hoffman, Marilyn Monroe, Kurt Cobain and Ernest Hemingway all chose to end their lives at the peak of their respective careers? Did they consider themselves too successful to cry for help?



Suicide rates generally increase about two years after an economic slump when unemployment benefits and hope have both run out. Even seemingly small problems such as being passed over for a promotion, losing a pet or even the onset of winter can be enough to put some over the edge. Young people are particularly vulnerable as their emotions are very fragile and they put much emphasis on what others think about them. A break up with a girlfriend can be devastating and, for some, enough cause to end it all. Warning signs are usually given.



A partial list of warning signs includes:



Depression



Feelings of hopelessness



Extreme mood changes



Odd behavior



Giving away prized possessions



Loss of interest in work and hobbies



Isolation from friends and family



Loss of appetite or sexual desire



Disturbed sleep



Lack of interest in appearance



Here are some suggestions to anyone even contemplating suicide:



Talk to someone.



Ask for help.



Consider the consequences. It's not pretty.



Keep busy.



Get your mind off yourself.



Don't take yourself too seriously.



Deal with what is making you depressed.



Realize that time solves many problems.



Emphasize the positive.



Consider the worst case scenario.



Consider other options.



Pray for strength.



Seek help and comfort from God's Word.



Even though prayer and going to God's Word are the last items on the list, they are really the first and most important.



There have been lonely and depressed people throughout the centuries who have found hope and comfort from the Holy Scriptures. In those pages, we discover that God loves us so deeply that He gave us the life of His only begotten Son through His voluntary death so that we might live forever and not have to die in our sins. In the Bible we find meaning and purpose to life. We find keys to happiness and successful Christian living. We find lessons and can read about mistakes that others have made - things that we don't have to repeat in our own lives.



The Bible is a book that deals with the realities of life - including the topic of suicide. The New Testament mentions the suicide of Judas Iscariot who became filled with remorse after betraying Jesus (Matthew 27:3-5 [3] Then Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders,

[4] Saying, I have sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent blood. And they said, What is that to us? see thou to that.

[5] And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself.





See All... and Acts 1:16-18 [16] Men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus.

[17] For he was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry.

[18] Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.





See All...).



The Old Testament states that Ahithophel hanged himself after his advice was not followed (2 Samuel 17:23And when Ahithophel saw that his counsel was not followed, he saddled his ass, and arose, and gat him home to his house, to his city, and put his household in order, and hanged himself, and died, and was buried in the sepulchre of his father.



See All...). Zimri's act of arson and suicide is detailed in 1 Kings 16:18And it came to pass, when Zimri saw that the city was taken, that he went into the palace of the king's house, and burnt the king's house over him with fire, and died,



See All.... The death of Saul and his armourbearer by suicide is covered in 1 Samuel 31:4-6 [4] Then said Saul unto his armourbearer, Draw thy sword, and thrust me through therewith; lest these uncircumcised come and thrust me through, and abuse me. But his armourbearer would not; for he was sore afraid. Therefore Saul took a sword, and fell upon it.

[5] And when his armourbearer saw that Saul was dead, he fell likewise upon his sword, and died with him.

[6] So Saul died, and his three sons, and his armourbearer, and all his men, that same day together.





See All.... Samson killed himself in a final act of destroying a large group of Philistines (Judges 16:29-30 [29] And Samson took hold of the two middle pillars upon which the house stood, and on which it was borne up, of the one with his right hand, and of the other with his left.

[30] And Samson said, Let me die with the Philistines. And he bowed himself with all his might; and the house fell upon the lords, and upon all the people that were therein. So the dead which he slew at his death were more than they which he slew in his life.





See All...).



In their mental and physical anguish, both Job and Solomon contemplated suicide (Job 7:14-15 [14] Then thou scarest me with dreams, and terrifiest me through visions:

[15] So that my soul chooseth strangling, and death rather than my life.





See All...; Ecclesiastes 2:17-18 [17] Therefore I hated life; because the work that is wrought under the sun is grievous unto me: for all is vanity and vexation of spirit.

[18] Yea, I hated all my labour which I had taken under the sun: because I should leave it unto the man that shall be after me.





See All...). Jonah wanted to die (Jonah 4:3Therefore now, O LORD, take, I beseech thee, my life from me; for it is better for me to die than to live.



See All...).



Back in the New Testament, the keeper of the prison in which Paul and Silas were held was about to kill himself when he thought that his prisoners had escaped (Acts 16:27And the keeper of the prison awaking out of his sleep, and seeing the prison doors open, he drew out his sword, and would have killed himself, supposing that the prisoners had been fled.



See All...).



Satan tempted Christ through suicide (Matthew 4:6And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.



See All...). Christ responded by saying, "It is written again, 'You shall not tempt the Lord your God'" (verse 7). It is too bad that nine Tanzanian pupils and a priest who tried to walk on the waters of Lake Victoria as a test of their faith did not heed Christ's statement. This incident, in which all ten drowned, received world wide coverage through an international news agency.



If you are depressed or considering suicide, please take time to read the book of Psalms. It gives hope and encouragement to help with life's difficulties. David, who wrote many of the Psalms, had more than his fair share of troubles but he successfully came through them. The Psalms will tell you, too, how you can successfully cope with your problems. Times are tough, it is true. Times will continue to be tough. In fact, the Bible says that, during a certain period of plagues before Christ's return, many will seek relief through suicide but will not find it (Revelation 9:6And in those days shall men seek death, and shall not find it; and shall desire to die, and death shall flee from them.



See All...).



God commands, "You shall not murder" (Exodus 20:13Thou shalt not kill.



See All...). Taking life is God's prerogative, not ours. He expects us to deal with our problems, not to try to escape from them. He advises us that there is to be a resurrection from the dead (I Corinthians 15) so we will have to face our problems down the road anyway. With this in mind, the taking of one's own life is proved to be, at best, merely a temporary solution to one's problems. Suicide is never the answer.

.

Six Senators Question DHS Nominee on Lack of Immigration Enforcement

BLOGGERS NOTE: I WILL BE MOVING FROM FACEBOOK TO TWITTER AND BLOGSPOT SOON!


A very interesting post from www.NumbersUSA.com about the new DHS secretary hearings. This follows this post about fighting against the current immigration surge. This follows this post about Barack Obama and “Faith Leaders” attempting to pass immigration amnesty.. REMEMBER, “Amnesty” means ANY non-enforcement of existing immigration laws! This follows this comment and this post or about how to Report Illegal Immigrants! For more about what you can do click here and you can read two very interesting books HERE.   Comprehensive Amnesty Threat

Six Senators Question DHS Nominee on Lack of Immigration Enforcement

posted on NumbersUSA
Six GOP Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee have sent a letter to Homeland Security Secretary nominee Jeh Johnson about the administration's lack of enforcing immigration laws. The Senators posed more than 50 questions asking Johnson for his opinion on how former Secretary, Janet Napolitano, dealt with enforcement and whether or not he would pursue a more aggressive approach to enforcement.
The letter was signed by Senators Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), Mike Lee (R-Utah), Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Jon Cornyn (R-Texas). Not suprisingly, the letter was not signed by the two GOP committee members who cosponsored the Schumer-Rubio amnesty bill - Sentators Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.).
"At your confirmation hearing, you stated that, '[I]f confirmed, I will work to implement all legislation enacted into law,' the letter reads. "While we may have different views than President Obama on how to reform our immigration system, we have all repeatedly expressed our strong disapproval of the refusal of this administration -- and DHS in particular -- to enforce our immigration laws, contradicting duly enacted federal law through administrative orders and internal memoranda.

"These actions have eroded the rule of law and undermined Americans' confidence in their government. We hope you will commit to discontinuing these lawless policies if confirmed."

For more information, see the Daily Caller.