Showing posts with label Wyoming. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Wyoming. Show all posts

Friday, April 15, 2016

Addictions to Prescription Painkillers Are Epidemic!

An interesting article from http://www.ucg.org/ about heroin and other addictions. This follows this post about LGBT homosexuality.This follows this post about Planned Parenthood in light of Kamala Harris's raid. For a free magazine subscription or to get the books recommended for free click HERE! or call 1-888-886- 8632.


Could you or someone you know be addicted to pain pills?
Quick relief from severe suffering is a welcome blessing, but prescription pain medications often turn into a curse when abused.
When you think about drug abuse and drug addictions, you may tend to think of three images: rich superstars (think Michael Jackson and Elvis Presley), foolish kids, and “bad” people who often end up in prison. But there are millions of “good” people, young and old, who are addicted to prescription drugs, often without anyone else knowing about it.

The commonly abused prescription drugs

When you hear about addictions to “drugs,” you may think first of street drugs, such as cocaine, heroin and methamphetamine (“meth”). But the number of people addicted to prescription drugs is greater than the number of addictions to all three of those street drugs combined.
The prescription drugs most commonly abused are the ones most commonly prescribed , which fall into three categories:
1. Opiods (narcotic analgesics, i.e., pain relievers) such as oxycodone (Oxycontin and Percocet), hydrocodone (Vicodin) and meperidine (Demerol).
2. Sedatives and tranquilizers such as Valium, Xanax and Nembutal.
3. Stimulants such as Ritalin, Adderall and Dexedrine.
The most commonly abused category? The painkillers . And because addictions to painkillers in the U.S. are epidemic, even among expectant mothers, there is also an epidemic of babies who are born addicted to painkillers . The suffering newborns then have to be gradually weaned off that drug. Very, very sad.

What is addiction? What is “drug abuse”?

Addiction can be either a physical (biological, chemical and pathological) or psychological dependence (an emotional longing for the effects of the drug—which can lead to physical addiction). People often experience both at the same time.
When an addictive substance is regularly ingested, that person's body will eventually build up a tolerance to it so larger amounts are needed over time to achieve the same result. This temptation to increase the dosage often leads to addiction.
Be forewarned that physical addictions are often permanent, which means the addicted person will have a life-long battle trying to resist the temptation to relapse into again using that drug.
Addictions to prescription drugs usually occur only when the prescription is “abused.” Abuse includes many easy-to-make mistakes: taking more pills or more frequently than prescribed, taking them after the pain has stopped, mixing them with alcohol or other drugs, taking a medication that was not prescribed for you, or using similar prescriptions from more than one doctor.
Once addicted, a person usually feels desperate because the withdrawal symptoms can be terrible. He might go “doctor shopping” (going to several trusting doctors to obtain similar prescriptions), search for sources on the Internet, go to unscrupulous “pill mills” or stoop to buying on the street illegally.

Why are most prescription painkillers so addictive?

To better understand the power of painkillers, let's compare opiates and opioids . Opiates are extractions from opium poppy plants. They include morphine and codeine. And morphine is frequently processed chemically to produce—guess what— heroin for the illegal drug trade.
The painkillers are opioids that are synthetic or semi-synthetic but chemically similar to opiates. The addictive properties of the painkillers are similar to heroin and morphine!
Opioids give some people a mild emotional uplift. This too can present a temptation to abuse the prescription, especially for someone who is depressed.
If these facts were more widely understood, there would be more healthy fear and respect for the potential risks involved in taking narcotic painkillers.

Youth addiction and adult addiction

Youth painkiller abuse often starts with young people “experimenting” by taking a “leftover” medication that was prescribed for someone else like a family member. Motivations include curiosity, thrill-seeking or an urge to relieve anxieties.
When adults (of any age) become addicted, it generally is because they have abused their own prescriptions. When there is drug abuse, addiction can occur within only a few weeks.
The good news is that when a patient takes an opioid painkiller for only as long as there is severe pain, strictly follows the prescription and is closely monitored by one doctor, it is rare that he will become addicted.
The main point of this message is this: Please don't let yourself become addicted to anything. Prevention is a thousand times easier than any cure! Stay alert for any early-warning signs of addiction!

If you or a loved one is addicted, seek help right away!

Valuable and thorough information on addictions is abundant, including many helpful Internet websites.
If you suspect that you or a loved one is addicted, begin by educating yourself. If you are addicted, please, please seek help. People very seldom overcome an addiction on their own.
If a loved one or friend is addicted, please don't put him on a guilt trip. Address it like any other medical problem. He's already feeling terribly ashamed and fearful. What he needs from you is respect, compassion and encouragement as well as your gentle guidance.
If an addicted person will also rely on God for comfort, guidance, motivation and strength, he has a huge advantage! Trying to conquer an addiction may seem like an impossible task. But Jesus Christ said, “The things which are impossible with men are possible with God” (Luke 18:27).
The United Church of God has a special website— Breaking Free Journal —devoted to helping people break free from the chains of addictions and other self-destructive behaviors. It does not give medical advice, but you will find it quite helpful and encouraging. Go to breakingfree.ucg.org . To read about addictions, click on Topics and then click on Addictions  .

You might also be interested in...

Comments

Thursday, April 7, 2016

What's Behind the Gay Agenda?

An interesting article from http://www.ucg.org/ about homosexuality. This follows this previous post about it. For a free magazine subscription or to get the books recommended for free click HERE! or call 1-888-886- 8632.

In most civilizations traditional marriage is considered a fundamental institution and the backbone of a stable society.
Yet today we're seeing one of the greatest attempts at social reengineering in history in the fight to uproot the definition of marriage to include same-sex partners. It threatens the very foundation of the traditional family already battered by the prevalence of premarital sex, unmarried couples living together and rampant divorce.
As most of our Good News readers know, we view trends and events in culture and society through the prism of the Bible, the revealed Word of God. When societal changes run contrary to biblical revelation, it's necessary for us to keep our readers informed of influences that are detrimental to their future and that of their families. So what's going on? What's behind the gay agenda that's sweeping in this dramatic change?

What is the gay agenda?

If you were to ask gay activists about their agenda, the vast majority would insist there is no such thing as a gay agenda. In fact, proponents instruct their followers that such terminology should be avoided. A good example can be found on the website of the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) under “GLAAD Media Reference Guide—Offensive Terms to Avoid”:
“Offensive: 'gay agenda' or 'homosexual agenda'
“Preferred: Accurate descriptions of the issues …”
“Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people are motivated by many of the same hopes, concerns and desires as other everyday Americans …
“Notions of a so-called 'homosexual agenda' are rhetorical inventions of anti-gay extremists seeking to create a climate of fear by portraying the pursuit of equal opportunity for LGBT people as sinister …”
So while the gay activists clearly have an agenda, they want to hide that fact by replacing the word “agenda” with more euphemistic terms.
But is it really sinister to provide an honest evaluation of what is really taking place?  The fact is, there is a gay agenda. Simply put, it's an organized effort to produce political, social and religious change within society that will lead to tolerating—and eventually accepting as normal—homosexual relationships.

Let's define our words

In this article, “gay” (or “lesbian,” if female) refers to one who is actively engaging in a homosexual lifestyle, indulging in sexual relationships and activity.
We are not using the word “gay” to refer to someone who merely has a homosexual attraction or leaning but does not act out on his or her temptations by engaging in sexual actions. This attraction or leaning is often labeled same-sex attraction, or SSA for short.
To understand the struggles of those with SSA who are sincerely trying to resist sexual temptations and who are trying to “be transformed” to follow “the perfect will of God” (Romans 12:2), please see “The Human Side of Homosexuality: From One Who Has Struggled “).

What drives the aggressiveness of the gay agenda?

Why is there is so much zeal—and at times militant rhetoric and actions—behind the gay agenda?
In part it's reactionary against the past. It's understandable that gays want to avoid persecution as severe as they once felt from some religious, social and political groups. They want to avoid this deeply painful treatment fraught with fear, isolation and ridicule.
Until recent years, many homosexuals felt publically scorned by some who view homosexual acts as the worst of sins—usually with little or no mercy shown.
But the apostle James points out that, spiritually speaking, if a person stumbles in one point of God's law, it's as if he is guilty of breaking all of it (James 2:10-11). And he warns that God will judge individuals as they judge others (James 2:13).
Another aspect, though, is that, as increasing numbers in society drift further from traditional values, they inevitably join ranks to push acceptance of them and their values by wider society. And the more gains they make, the more brazen they become in their efforts—even to the point of tearing down traditional values. The root of the problem, however, is ultimately spiritual, as we will later consider.    

Many organizations with specific plans

While not all homosexuals support the gay agenda or are actively involved in trying to redefine marriage, many gay organizations are involved, as Michael Brown points out in his 2011 book A Queer Thing Happened to America: And What a Long, Strange Trip It's Been.
As he documents, “There are well-funded, highly-motivated, sharply-focused gay activist organizations such as HRC [Human Rights Campaign] and NGLTF [National Gay and Lesbian Task Force] and PFLAG [Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays] and GLSEN [Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network] and GLAAD [Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation] and Lambda Legal—just to mention a few” (p. 40).
But, again, the activists would have us believe there's no such thing as a gay agenda!
Brown shows that many of these organizations have specific plans with targeted goals. These include creating visibility, increasing awareness and fostering community. To promote their agenda they utilize task forces, policy institutes, organizing and training programs and even an annual “Creating Change” conference (p. 37).
Later Brown categorizes some of the movements. “There is a gay revolution, a gay liberation movement, a plethora of gay activist organizations with clearly identified missions and goals, but no gay agenda … How can that be? …
“Ironically, when it comes to denying the existence of a gay agenda, there is 'immense unity' in the gay community. Why? It is because the denial of that agenda is part of the agenda … It must be a stealth agenda. Otherwise, its progress will be thwarted and its success greatly impeded, because the open, unambiguous, full disclosure of the goals and ramifications of the gay agenda would stop that agenda in its tracks” (pp. 42-43, emphasis added throughout).

How far have they come?

It's the view of many that the impact the gay agenda is having on society is a bellwether indicator of just how far society has morally degenerated and where it's ultimately headed.
The Los Angeles Times summarizes the growing impact in an article titled, “Gays May Have the Fastest of All Civil Rights Movements” (May 20, 2012).
The article notes that “attitudes toward gays and lesbians have changed so much in just the last 10 years that, as Gallup reported last week, 'half or more now agree that being gay is morally acceptable, that gay relations ought to be legal and that gay or lesbian couples should have the right to legally marry.' (In 1996, when Gallup first asked about legalizing same-sex marriage, 68% of Americans were opposed).”
In about a generation we have seen society transformed from considering homosexuality to be a psychological disorder to the point that those who do not accept or affirm homosexuality are themselves called homophobic and viewed as mentally abnormal!
Homosexual behavior, once considered morally wrong and outlawed in many countries and U.S. states, is now largely immune from public condemnation or even public criticism. And in some countries those who do criticize it face fines and/or imprisonment!
The term “tolerance” is now employed to mean the complete acceptance of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) lifestyles and ideology—in the family, in the workplace, in education, in media and in religion. Those who do not accept this definition of “tolerance” are often labeled intolerant.
Today the term “diversity” means more than seeking women and minorities to join a company or organization. It often includes embracing homosexuality, LGBT behavior and showing solidarity with the gay agenda.
The gay agenda, along with the sexual revolution that began half a century ago, has transformed America's moral standard that was once based on biblical values to one that accepts as commonplace the homosexual lifestyle and many other biblically condemned behaviors.
Ironically, while gay activists demand tolerance toward themselves, they are quick to slam anyone who dares to disagree with them as intolerant, biased, bigoted or homophobic. In demanding their “rights,” they not only demand that everyone else recognize their self-proclaimed rights, but they actually strip away the freedoms and rights of those who disagree with them and who are standing up to their agenda.

Growing support at many levels

This powerful political and cultural current is explosively impacting society. Due in part to the activists' hype and that of the media, most Americans think the size of the homosexual community is seven or eight times larger than it actually is. The title of the most recent Gallup poll on the subject explains: “U.S. Adults Estimate That 25% of Americans Are Gay or Lesbian” (Gallup.com, May 27, 2011).
The actual number, confirmed by surveys going back several decades, is 2 to 4 percent—admitted even by researchers supportive of the gay-rights movement.
In recent years the gay-rights movement has changed the target of its agenda. Thirty years ago gay activists made little effort to try to change the definition of marriage. But today this change is central to the gay agenda in most of the Western world.
And they have gained considerable political support. American President Barack Obama's policies have consistently favored the expansion of gay rights. On June 29, 2009, the 40th anniversary of what established gay pride month, Obama welcomed 300 gay activists to the White House, stating, “Welcome to your White House,” assuring them that their goals would be realized in his administration.
Another example is his pushing for the 2011 ending of restrictions on homosexuals serving openly in the U.S. military, a practice which had been in existence since the time of George Washington.
Last summer U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta went so far as to give a thank-you speech for homosexual, lesbian and bisexual military service members as part of the Pentagon's first-ever celebration of gay pride month.
Last spring Obama became the first sitting president to publicly declare support for the legalization of same-sex marriage. This was followed by the Democratic Platform Committee unanimously endorsing it for the 2012 presidential elections—a first for a major-party platform.
More than a year ago the Obama administration ordered the Justice Department to halt any legal defense for the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which was passed by Congress in 1996 to preserve marriage as a union between one man and one woman.
Since DOMA passed, 42 states have instituted their own support-of-marriage acts, defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. This helps ensure that children, the next generation of taxpayers, grow up in a stable family unit. So far, eight states have approved gay marriage by legislative or court-ordered action—though none by popular vote of citizens.

Biological differences

Why is there so much sound and fury coming from so many quarters demanding a change to the definition of marriage?
One reason is that the gay agenda has successfully changed the public focus away from the fundamental biological difference between same-sex couples and heterosexual partners. They may be able to fool some people some of the time, but they cannot fool God. There is simply no way to magically erase the inherent biological differences.
Think about it! If everyone took up the homosexual lifestyle, populations would begin to rapidly dwindle and the human race would eventually die out. It should be evident to everyone that, barring some artificial outside assistance, biological procreation is only possible in heterosexual relationships.
God designed marriage to provide a husband and wife the opportunity to raise their own biological children in a caring, balanced family environment conducive for developing their children's personal identity (Genesis 1:28).
God “seeks godly offspring” and hates anything that undermines or destroys marriage because of the harm that creates (Malachi 2:14-16). The inherent contradiction between what God designed marriage relationships to be and same-sex marriage cannot be changed by altering the definition of marriage or carefully couching arguments to make alternative lifestyles seem more acceptable.

How far will they go?

It appears that those pushing the gay agenda won't give up until the definition of marriage is changed in law and common language and their influence is felt in every aspect of society, as Brown documents:
“Children in elementary schools will be exposed to the rightness and complete normality of homosexuality, bisexuality, and transgender expression … Opposing views will be branded as dangerous and homophobic, to be silenced and excluded from the classroom. Middle schools, high schools, and colleges will go out of their way to encourage both the celebration of homosexuality and deep solidarity with gay activism” (p. 49).
In addition, Brown believes that pressure will build for American businesses to openly embrace every aspect of these biblically immoral practices to the point that employees who resist or refuse to follow suit will be dismissed.
Pastors and religious groups teaching that homosexual behavior is immoral will increasingly find themselves being accused of “hate speech.” In some countries ministers have already been convicted and fined for simply teaching the biblical truth on the subject.

Lasting impressions on our children

When you realize where their agenda is headed, it's extremely disconcerting to see gay activists targeting younger and younger children—the most impressionable among us. American schools have become bastions of homosexual and transgender activism beginning as early as kindergarten.
Brown provides an example of the efforts of one homosexual advocacy organization over the past two decades: “This is the day of the 'queering of elementary educations' —to quote the title of a highly-praised book —and much of this is due to the influence of GLSEN, the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Educational Network (pp. 87-88).
GLSEN wants homosexuality and transgenderism completely normalized—and even encouraged, celebrated, and nurtured—in the educational system … Gay-inspired curricula and gay-affirming educational programs are now everywhere today” (p. 89).
In addition, GLSEN offers a comprehensive training program for teachers called GLSEN Lunchbox 2, which is designed for educators to use beginning at the kindergarten level. It comes with a training video, a 141-page trainer's manual, game cards with gay or transgender historical figures and terminology cards designed to teach a variety of sexual lifestyle alternatives.
It offers activities designed to subvert the family, including one titled “Deconstructing Definitions of Family.”  Brown summarizes, “In short, say goodbye to male and female, to masculinity and femininity, to 'biological sex,' and say hello to genderqueer, gender non-conforming, transgender, and transsexual” (p. 95).
In the United States GLSEN also sponsors the rapidly growing Gay Straight Alliances (GSAs) in middle schools, high school and college campuses. There are now more than 4,000 student clubs on campuses, and the number continues to grow rapidly.
These do far more than just provide a “safe place” for homosexual, bisexual and transgender students to hang out. They have become a springboard for pro-homosexual advocacy. They seek to alter curriculum and silence dissent. They push for the full acceptance of homosexuality in schools.
And they encourage children as young as 11 years old to declare themselves gay in GSA meetings, often without the knowledge of their parents.

Civil rights cover-up

All these blatantly aggressive efforts are a direct assault on the God-designed family unit. And they are cleverly hidden under the banner of “equal opportunity” or “civil rights.”
Activists even guide the media in how they want their agenda positioned. The GLAAD Media Reference Guide, quoted earlier, points out the terms they expect to be used or not used:  “Offensive: 'special rights.' Preferred: 'equal rights' or 'equal protection.'”
But is the real motive behind their agenda simply to gain the same rights as others?
In most states gays already can gain most if not all the rights heterosexual marriage partners have by voluntarily entering into a private, informal domestic partnership agreement specifying their mutual obligations. And they can even hold private religious marriage ceremonies.
Likewise, nothing prohibits private companies from offering benefits to same-sex partners of their employees. In fact, the majority of Fortune 500 companies already do.
A deeper question is: Does it make logical sense to form a special class of people based purely on sexual orientation and then equate it to a race or ethnic group's push for civil rights?
There are at least three reasons that the two are not a legitimate comparison.
First, homosexuals (of both sexes), bisexuals and the transgendered are not all united by having the same sexual attractions—each subgroup is different.
Second, the black civil rights movement was united around those who had the same skin color, which does not change. On the other hand, the LGBT community was artificially linked together based solely on sexual orientations, which can change over time.
Third, there is no moral difference between being black or white (or yellow or red). But romantic attractions and sexual behavior often have moral (or immoral) qualities.

The underlying moral issues

Society places way too much emphasis on sex, and gay activists are trying to convince everyone that you can have it your way, their way or any way.
One of the critically destructive forces behind this gay agenda is the idea that everything is malleable to accommodate changes in society. But no matter what the changing vagaries of fickle public opinion, God's principles of right and wrong do not change (see Malachi 3:6; Hebrews 13:8).
God set certain natural laws in motion at creation that were designed to govern and support humanity's existence on earth. His Word tells us that sex was designed exclusively for only one relationship—that between a man and a woman in marriage.
Because homosexual activity, premarital sex and adultery are all outside of marriage, all are violations of God's instructions. These sins exact negative penalties, whether a person understands God's laws or not. And unless they are repented of, the ultimate consequence is death (Romans 6:23).
The Bible contains specific passages condemning both male and female homosexual behavior (Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 18:24-30; Romans 1:24-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9; 1 Timothy 1:9).
When it comes to sexual relations, the only two options affirmed for Christians are God-designed marriage or abstinence (no sexual relationships).
It can be a struggle for those who desire to leave the gay lifestyle (again, see “The Human Side of Homosexuality: From One Who Has Struggled “). And like other human temptations, it may be a battle they fight all their lives. But God knows how to deliver the godly out of temptations (2 Peter 2:9).
And it is encouraging to see there is clear biblical evidence that God can help change wrong behavior—including homosexuality and sodomy, as some of the Corinthian church members were able to do (1 Corinthians 6:9-11).

Marriage cannot be redefined

In law and society, marriage touches every aspect of life from birth to death. Since God is the Creator of human beings and marriage, only He has the right to define what the marriage relationship should be.
Human beings were created with a deep need to bond to others. And there is no deeper bonding relationship among human beings than the one that can be achieved between a husband and wife. Eve was created so that Adam would not have to live alone (Genesis 2:18). The two were directed to be fruitful and multiply through the only physical union capable of producing new life (Genesis 1:28).
The institution of this marital union was one of the very first actions God took to establish the basic structure of human society (Genesis 2:24; Genesis 4-6; Ephesians 5:31). It is a natural union and a divine institution ordained of God.
Like no other institution, it can provide material and emotional support as well as a sense of safety and love for as long as both husband and wife are alive (Romans 7:2).
Our loving Father gave us the institution of marriage and the blessing of family so that we might learn to love one another as He loves us (Ephesians 5:25-33). Because of the importance of this divine institution, Jesus Christ stood up to those who wanted to adapt marriage to the changing whims of society and brought them back to God's original instructions regarding the sanctity of marriage (Mark 10:1-12).
Notice Christ's instructions: “But from the beginning of the creation, God 'made them male and female.' 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'; so then they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate” (Mark 10:6-9).

Sign of the times

What this all adds up to is that the gay agenda has become one of the greatest attempts at social reengineering in history. The fight to uproot the definition of marriage to include same-sex partners is just one more social trend threatening to further undermine the very foundation of the family unit and the stability of society itself.
The sad reality is that our society is continuing headlong down the moral spiral prophesied for the end time before Jesus Christ's return (2 Timothy 3:1-7, 2 Timothy 3:13). God's Word says the family will continue to be under assault as we approach the end of this age.
Perhaps not so coincidentally, Jesus Christ compares the days leading up to His second coming to the destruction of Sodom in Lot's day (Luke 17:28-30). Thanks in part to the gay agenda, our society is headed in the same direction. Nearly all the people of Sodom had turned away from God's way of life (Genesis 18:16-22). There were not even 10 righteous people to be found in the city. The men of the city threatened to sexually violate the two angelic messengers God sent to warn Lot to leave before He destroyed the city (Genesis 19:1-29; Jude 7).
While Lot and his family were in some ways negatively influenced by the evils of the society around them, he is called “righteous Lot” (2 Peter 2:7). He felt tormented, oppressed and distressed by the immoral and degrading ways of those around him (2 Peter 2:7-8).
We must remain vigilantly on guard against letting a morally degenerating society pull us down with it—as Christ warned: “And because lawlessness will abound, the love of many will grow cold” (Matthew 24:12).
Thankfully, our loving and merciful Savior will return to heal the hearts and minds of all humanity (Isaiah 9:6-7). He will save mankind from complete depravity and self-destruction (Matthew 24:21-22). He will establish a healthy, wholesome and happy world. May God speed that day!

You might also be interested in...

MSNBC's Chris Matthews blames lack of E-Verify mandate on GOP Leadership in interview with Trump

An interesting article from www.numbersusa.com about the GOP and E-Verify. This follows this post about the U.S. general election. This follows this post about Pope Francis and immigration. Remember, “Amnesty” means ANY non-enforcement of existing immigration laws! This follows this comment and this post about how to Report Illegal Immigrants! Also, you can read two very interesting books HERE.
Please follow me here.


MSNBC's Chris Matthews blames lack of E-Verify mandate on GOP Leadership in interview with Trump


https://www.numbersusa.com/sendfax 

There was an interesting exchange earlier this week during an MSNBC town hall meeting with GOP Presidential Hopeful Donald Trump. Moderator and MSNBC host, Chris Matthews asked Trump about his support for E-Verify and went after GOP Party Leaders for their failure to push E-Verify legislation through the House.
"Why won't these guys in your party pass it? Why won't they ever pass something like that?... They don't believe in it. In principle, if you hire someone illegally to save money on labor... You are basically encouraging illegal immigration... Ryan won't even bring it up on the floor. They talk a lot about illegal immigration and they want to play these games. They like the cheap labor... The regular business guys don't want it, but the corporate leaders want the cheap labor... The way to stop illegal immigration is to stop illegal hiring... It makes economic sense."
-- Chris Matthews
Matthews, unfortunately, left out the part about Pres. Obama and Congressional Democrats refusing to support E-Verify unless it's part of a grand immigration bargain that includes amnesty for the estimated 11-18 million illegal aliens living in the United States.
Last year, the House Judiciary Committee marked up Rep. Lamar Smith's Legal Workforce Act, H.R. 1147, that would require all businesses to use E-Verify within 3 years. All 13 Democrats on the Committee voted against final passage.
Even though it passed the Committee, former House Speaker John Boehner and current Speaker Paul Ryan refuse to bring the bill to the House floor for a vote.
Yesterday, Roy held an Ask Me Anything (AMA) on Reddit where he had an opportunity to answer hundreds of questions from citizens across the country. (For those that may be unfamiliar with Reddit, it's an online social community that's one of the most visited sites in the world. It often hosts AMAs that offer its users direct access to public figures. Pres. Obama, big business owners, and musicians and actors have all participated in AMAs.) The topic of E-Verify was brought up a half-dozen times. When asked about Trump's plan to build a wall along the Southern border, Roy said:
"It would not be nearly as helpful in fighting the numbers of illegal aliens as passing mandatory E-Verify..."
Roy answered questions for nearly two hours; you can read the full AMA here: http://tinyurl.com/zzyzk6c
We've posted new faxes on your Action Board that refer to Matthews' comments and urge your three Members of Congress to take the most effective action in deterring illegal immigration -- passing Rep. Smith's mandatory E-Verify bill.
Of the remaining Presidential Hopefuls, all but Hillary Clinton have taken a position on E-Verify. As for Trump, he actually receives our highest rating; not only did he tell Matthews that he supports mandatory E-Verify for all businesses, but it's also listed on his website as part of his overall immigration enforcement plan. Gov. John Kasich has only mentioned E-Verify in passing, and Sen. Bernie Sanders hasn't talked about it much, but did support its inclusion in the Gang of 8's amnesty bill. Sen. Ted Cruz's position is a bit more nuanced. He hasn't directly come out in support of an E-Verify mandate for all businesses, but he's consistently discussed increasing penalties for employers that hire illegal labor and supports using E-Verify has a safe harbor for employers.
You can see all the Hopefuls' positions on all the issues by visiting https://www.numbersusa.com/2016.
CHRIS CHMIELENSKI is the Director of Content & Activism for NumbersUSA
Tags:  
e-verify

NumbersUSA's blogs are copyrighted and may be republished or reposted only if they are copied in their entirety, including this paragraph, and provide proper credit to NumbersUSA. NumbersUSA bears no responsibility for where our blogs may be republished or reposted. The views expressed in blogs do not necessarily reflect the official position of NumbersUSA.

Wednesday, April 6, 2016

Is it true that Jesus never condemned homosexuality?

An interesting article from http://www.ucg.org/ about homosexuality. This follows this post about bankrupt governments. This follows this post about former Muslims in America. This follows this post about the Pope and immigration. For a free magazine subscription or to get the books recommended for free click HERE! or call 1-888-886- 8632.


MP3 Audio (1.06 MB)
Video of BT Daily: Homosexuality - Jesus never said?

Is it true that Jesus never condemned homosexuality?

Transcript


[Steve Myers] A question came up about homosexuality. And one of the points some people try to make is the fact that Jesus never condemned homosexuality. They’ll look through the New Testament and say, “He never said anything.” In fact, they’ll point to the Apostle Paul and say that he was very hard on homosexuals. In fact, one of the past BT Dailies , we talked about several sections in Romans and in 1 Corinthians–some of Paul’s writings–where he condemns the act of homosexuality.
Now, is this true? Is it really true that Jesus never said anything about homosexuality? It’s not true. It is not true–there’s a basic misunderstanding that many people have. They forget what the Bible actually says.
If you were to go back to the book of Leviticus, it shows very clearly some interesting insight into this behavior. In Leviticus 18:22 the Bible says, “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.” Now we read that and people will say, “Well, that’s Old Covenant. That’s Old Testament. That doesn’t apply to us today.” Well, is that true?
Well a couple of pages over, it says in verse 13 of chapter 20, “If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination” (Leviticus 20:13). Now if you were to check this out, you’d see very clearly who’s actually doing the talking? It’s not Moses. It’s not any man. But it’s the Lord. If you look at the beginning of chapter 18, the beginning of chapter 19, the Lord spoke (Leviticus 18:1 and Leviticus 19:1). And so very clearly, who is it? It’s the Lord.
Now, here’s the question: who is the Lord? And that’s the vital question that everyone has to answer when it comes to what the Bible says and whether or not Jesus said anything about homosexuality. You know where we find the key? The key is found over in 1 Corinthians. If you look at 1 Corinthians it is very clear who the Lord is. 1 Corinthians 10:4, it says very clearly the Lord that spoke to Moses–notice what the Apostle Paul says under inspiration. He says, “I don’t want you to be unaware that all our fathers were under the cloud.” Verse 2 of chapter 10 of 1 Corinthians, “All were baptized into Moses and passed through the sea” (1 Corinthians 10:2).
Now, we know that story of the Israelites coming out of Egypt. Well, who was the God that was with the Israelites at that time? Who was God, the Lord, that spoke to Moses that spoke to the people? Well it says in verse 4, “All drank the same spiritual drink, for they drank of that spiritual Rock, which followed them and that Rock was Christ” (1 Corinthians 10:4).
So, you see what the Bible says is the God of the Old Testament is the One who became Jesus Christ. So, the Lord that spoke homosexuality is an abomination in the Old Testament was not some mean, old God that was different than Jesus Christ. It was the One who became Jesus Christ. Hebrews 13:8 is so clear. It says Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever. And if you fast forward to the end of the book, go to the book of Revelation. Revelation 22:14-15, it says, “Blessed are those who do His commandments. They have a right to the tree of life.” They have a right to eternal life. But verse 15 says, “Outside are dogs, sorcerers, sexual immoral, and murderers and idolaters. “
So Christ is consistent. The Bible is consistent. God loves the sinners, but He hates the sin. And that’s the problem. So, He calls all to repentance. He doesn’t wish that any would perish–but that all would come to repentance. That’s God’s hope for all of us.
So Jesus Christ is consistent. Jesus Christ did speak clearly–not only about homosexuality, but He talked about lying and murdering. Look at the big ten . They are so clear. And so never forget that. Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever.
That’s BT Daily . We’ll see you next time.

Will Reality Trump Fantasy Regarding Muslim Immigration?

A timely post about from http://www.jihadwatch.org about U.S. presidential candidates. This follows this post about the Koran (Quran)This follows this article about American energy independence and preventing money from going to hostile countries. For more, you can read two very interesting books HERE.You can follow me here.

Raymond Ibrahim: Will Reality Trump Fantasy Regarding Muslim Immigration?

trumpclinton3
Are U.S. presidents charged with protecting American lives or protecting American vanity—especially when the two clash?  Put differently, what’s more important: our security or our ability to “feel good” about ourselves?
Consider the two leading presidential candidates’ positions on Muslim immigration after the Brussels terror attack.
Donald Trump continues “calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on.”
Conversely, Hillary Clinton continues to offer fine platitudes without practical solutions:  “I know that Americans have every reason to be frightened by what they see, we’ve got to work this through, consistent with our values,” she said after Brussels.
Clinton is correct that it’s an American value not to discriminate by religion.  However, a troubling implication arises when this value is scrutinized in the context of Islam:  Even if most Muslim migrants will not engage in jihadi terrorism and other subversive acts, some most certainly will.  This is an established fact, one that Clinton knows: ISIS operatives arepassing for refugees and “non-ISIS” refugees are committing acts of violence and rapeacross Western nations.  And both ISIS and its millions of likeminded supporters aremotivated by Islamic teachings.
Nor does it matter if only a teeny tiny percentage of Muslim migrants harbor such animus. If only 1% of a beverage is poisoned and you ingest it, will it matter that 99% of it was clean? No, you will still suffer. The only sure way to preserve your health is not to put it into your body in the first place.
Of course, the liberal elite will never take such logic into account. After all, they are the ones most shielded from the consequences of their own starry-eyed ideals. Instead, no name, no face Americans—statistics, like the 14 killed in San Bernardino in part by a Muslim refugee—will continue paying the price for politicians, celebrities, and other media talking heads to grandstand about “our values.”
What of Trump’s proposed ban on Muslims entering America “until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on?” While antithetical to the lofty and utopic platitudes offered by most politicians, it would actually work. A “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States” would prevent Muslim wolves in refugee clothing from entering into America.
Put differently, the only sure way of not dying from Russian Roulette is—don’t play Russian Roulette.
Does this mean that America has no obligation towards true refugees? No. It means that there are far superior alternatives, for all concerned. Remember, this refugee crisis was supposedly precipitated by the Islamic State. Rather than passively accepting what ISIS sends to America—some of which is tainted and will be harmful to its body—the U.S. should annihilate the genocidal terror state. Instead of playing ISIS’ game, the U.S. should end the game, quickly and decisively.
Then, instead of having to start anew in some foreign land, true, displaced refugees would happily return to their homes and families, in peace and safety. Such would be a win-win for all—except for the savages who deserve no mercy.
US seizes thousands of Iranian weapons, including grenade launchers
Feds' counterterror program failing: Hamas-linked CAIR opposes it
FacebookTwitterLinkedInDiggBlogger PostDeliciousEmailPinterestRedditStumbleUponPrint

Monday, November 17, 2008

Should Conservatives Have Really Wanted to win this election?

This is an article about the bright side for conservatives of Obama winning. Part of it is that the party out of power can capitalize on all that is going wrong.


Did We Really Want To Win This Election?
View
What links here
by Sean Oxendine
Your Friday question. I ask this because I've been contemplating: Had Bush lost in 2004, Iraq still would have been a disaster in 2006, and Hurricane Katrina still would have been a disaster on Kerry's watch and the economy still would have only stumbled along. But instead of a Republican President shouldering the blame, it would have been a Democrat.
In other words, we would probably have picked up 10-20 House seats in 2006, would have held most of our Senate seats except maybe Pennsylvania, and probably would have picked up Democratic Senate seats in New Jersey, Minnesota, and maybe even Washington and Nebraska. The credit crisis still would be going on today, and President Kerry would be going into this election with a horrendous approval rating. Mary Landrieu would be toast, Democratic Senate seats in Montana, Iowa, New Jersey and Michigan would probably be a couple notches closer than they are today, and we'd probably only have a handful of competitive seats of our own to worry about. In other words, we'd probably be heading toward a Republican President with a filibuster-proof Senate majority, instead of the opposite.
Now the counter-argument to all this -- and it is not a small one -- is that we would have lost Iraq, and Kerry would have appointed the Chief Justice and probably replaced Justice O'Connor, though control of the Senate would have limited what President Kerry could do. These are no small considerations. But the point is, you could make the argument that the Republicans would be better off in the long run if they had lost in 2004.
This time, the incoming President is likely to inherit an economy that stumbles along for several years. It may even be in a severe recession. Things overseas may get better, but it is unlikely. This will be blamed on Bush for a while (just as the 2001 recession was blamed by most Americans on Clinton in the beginning of Bush's term), but sooner or later, if it lingers, it will be blamed on the Democrats. And there's reason to suspect it will linger: proposals like raising the capital gains tax and renegotiating NAFTA -- when exports are the only thing carrying the economy along right now -- are economic insanity. And there will probably be no internet bubble to pull Obama's chestnuts out of the fire like Clinton's were pulled out.
In other words, 2010 would probably be a very good Republican year in the event of an Obama victory. Remember, in 1993-1994, Clinton did a few small things -- raised taxes on the rich marginally, tried to let gays into the military, and signed a gun ban. He lost 52 seats. Imagine what happens if Democrats go down a similar path, and go into an election with 1/4 of their caucus in districts Bush carried twice, with a softer economy than Clinton had in 1994. And quite frankly, the dirty little secret is that Obama doesn't have a fraction of Clinton's political sense and skill, and Joe Biden is a babbling buffoon, something that he (and the press) just won't be able to hide anymore once he is President.
2010, of course, is a critical election. Democrats will be defending open Governors seats in Arizona, Kansas, Maine, Michigan, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Wyoming. They will have incumbents in red or purple states up for re-election in Colorado, Iowa, New Hampshire, Ohio and Wisconsin, and will probably have unpopular incumbents or open seats in Massachusetts, Maryland, and Illinois. Wins in many of those seats, accompanied by even marginal statehouse gains, will mean that Republicans will control redistricting in some of the biggest states in the country (though we will probably lose California, where it would be hard to do too much more damage to Republicans), which would set Republicans up for controlling Congress for the better part of the next decade.
The best thing that happened to the Republican party was Jimmy Carter winning in 1976 -- had Ford won, he would have had to have dealt with many of the same problems, and probably would not have fared much better. It could be that losing in 2008 is a similarly good option. There's some times the Presidency isn't worth having.
UPDATE: Just to be clear on one thing; I think the Supreme Court is probably the best argument against this argument. To make matters worse, this is basically unknowable. People have been arguing that each election is the most important in a lifetime since at least 1996. Democrats have warned that a Republican President would replace Justice Stevens since at least then. Personally, I believe the man to be a vampire, who will live forever, but I digress. The bottom line is that it is true -- President Obama probably has a good shot at replacing Stevens and Ginsburg, and possibly Souter, in his first term. President McCain has a reasonable shot, though less than Obama. If Obama is re-elected -- and I think whoever wins has a very small chance of being re-elected -- he has a better chance at Breyer, Scalia, and Kennedy which is much worse. The bottom line is this: This is an unknown. It's all unknown, but the SCOTUS selections are more unknown than most things. As such, its hard to weigh in the analysis.
I just take the longer view. If we lose in '08 and Obama replaces Stevens, Ginsburg and Souter, but we win big in '10 and '12 and get whomever we want to replace Scalia, Kennedy, and Breyer, its a win. At that level, and at other levels.

Latest Update here: http://www.thenextright.com/sean-oxendine/want-to-make-a-difference-in-the-rightosphere