Thursday, June 24, 2010

Obama Opens US Floodgates to Thousands of Iraqi Refugees

An interesting post from www.debbieschlussel.com about even More immigrants coming to America, this time from Iraq. This follows this post about the religious dimension in immigration and this post about the MURDER of ROBERT KRENTZ, who the protestors and boycotters won't give a solution for, but will call Americans racist for trying to prevent another MURDER, and this post which shows that there are 30,000 openly illegal immigrants in the border town of El Paso across from the recent Juarez shooting. For more interesting stories like this click here to follow this blog.



Obama Opens US Floodgates to Thousands of Iraqi Refugees: If We Really “Won” In Iraq, Why . . .
By Debbie Schlussel
. . . Do we continue to let thousands of Iraqi refugees–many of them MUSLIM–into the United States, especially in economically depressed areas like Michigan, where there aren’t enough jobs and unemployment is nearly 14%?
Iraqi Refugees: Shukran [Thanks] America & Obama/Bush
For “Winning” in Iraq & Letting Our People Invade Your Country
I’ve written about this before. We are importing tens of thousands of Iraqi immigrants. Why? Those on the right and those who cheered Bush and still love the guy tell us that “we won” in Iraq, that the surge worked, that there’s now democracy, and tolerance, and freedom for all religions and religious sects in Iraq. Just yesterday, Rush Limbaugh was ridiculing Joe Biden for saying that Shi’ites, Sunnis, and Kurds couldn’t live together peacefully. Well, the proof is in who’s coming here to American shores. Thousands of Christian and Sunni Iraqis. And Shi’ite Iraqis, too. If things are so great there, why are they coming here?
Answer: because things aren’t so great there. Because we didn’t “win.” Because extremist Iran-backed Shi’ites rejected Christian and Sunni votes and candidates to keep themselves in power. And Christians can no longer live there. Neither can many Sunnis. And the Shi’ites–well, they’re coming here, too. We make no distinction for the religion of those whom we admit in the thousands of Iraqi immigrants crowding our shores. Looks like Biden–however much the fool that he is–wasn’t so foolish or wrong, after all. Yet, no-one on the right will admit it . . . while the Iraqi refugees pour onto our shores.
And, to make matters worse, the Obama State Department is lifting restrictions and allowing thousands more to come to the most economically depressed state in America because, apparently, there aren’t enough jobless people and those draining benefits:
Refugees from Iraq can again settle in southeastern Michigan, provided they have relatives or at least friends in the area.
A federal policy change, effective immediately, loosens two-year-old guidelines limiting refugees from moving here except in “family reunion” cases where they have close relatives in the region.
“This placement restriction is modified to allow the placement of any refugees in the Detroit metro region who have ties there,” Terry Rusch, director of the Office of Admissions Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration, wrote in a memo to local state department agencies.
Friends? Ties? Puh-leeze. Anyone can say they have friends and ties here. This is an opening of the floodgates that we cannot afford, even if those seeking to come here are Christian. And as I noted, they don’t restrict people by religion with regard to immigration. We will be getting many more Iraqi Muslim immigrants because of this boneheaded move. Thanks, Obama.
The policy change came at the request of placement agencies and organizations that work with refugees. The state is home to about 35 percent of Iraqi-born U.S. residents, according to the Census Bureau. Most live in Metro Detroit. . . .
The State Department restricted resettlement in June 2008, fearing an influx of refugees would worsen Metro Detroit’s economy and joblessness.
Michigan’s unemployment rate was around 8 percent in May 2008. It was 13.6 percent last month, but is improving, according to the Department of Labor and Economic Growth.
Improving???? Huh? Drive the streets of any Detroit suburb. Store fronts are empty, houses are in foreclosure. People have given up looking for jobs. There is NO improvement, only a drop-off in those seeking work.
This is flat-out ridiculous. Sorry, but on this, Joe Biden was right. Had we split Iraq up into provinces, the Chaldeans would have been able to stay and live in peace with the Kurds. And the Shi’ite and Sunni Muslims could stay there, too.
We simply cannot absorb this influx of people. It is a recipe for disaster and a hastening of the Islamic population growth in America.

Philadelphia Scouts Can Keep Building Despite Homosexual Ban: Federal Jury

An interesting story from http://www.lifesitenews.com/ about homosexuals in the Boy Scouts. This follows this post about Elena Kagan. For more interesting stories like this click here to follow this blog.

Philadelphia Scouts Can Keep Building Despite Homosexual Ban: Federal Jury

By James Tillman
PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania, June 24, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) -- In another victory for the Boy Scouts of America's continued defiance of the homosexualist agenda, a federal jury ruled Wednesday that the city of Philadelphia cannot evict the Cradle of Liberty Council from a city-owned building for refusing to allow homosexuals to enter the Scouts.
In the Boy Scouts of America v. Dale case of 2000, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a close 5-4 ruling that the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) were constitutionally permitted to prohibit open homosexuals from being members or troop leaders.
But the city of Philadelphia had maintained that, despite the Constitutional permission, if the Scouts wished to continue using city property for the nominal rent of $1 a year, they had to abide by city anti-discrimination ordinances.
The jury found that such a requirement violated the council's First Amendment rights. The city is still permitted to terminate the lease, but must not do so because of the organization's views on homosexuality.
"From now on, the Boy Scouts will be negotiating from a position of strength," said the Scouts' lawyer Jason Gosselin. "The city can't come in and impose its views on what the scouts ought to do."
The jury of six women and two men deliberated for about seven hours over two days.
Nevertheless, the ruling was not as favorable as the Scouts had desired. They had sought an injunction barring the city from either evicting them or charging $200,000 a year in rent, the two alternatives the city had presented them with before the Scouts’ suit.
U.S. District Judge Ronald L. Buckwalter did not immediately issue the injunction, however. Instead, he told jurors that he hoped that city and the Scouts would be able to work something out.
City Solicitor Shelley Smith said, however, that despite the jury's unanimous ruling, the answers to the 11 questions on the verdict sheet were "inconsistent."
According to the Inquirer, she said that "when verdict sheets have inconsistent answers, the potential exists that the verdict is flawed. We will be exploring our options."
Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter's press secretary, Doug Oliver, issued a statement saying that the "City remains steadfast in its commitment to prevent its facilities from being used to disadvantage certain groups."
He continued: "In the meantime, we will review the trial record to determine our legal options."
The Boy Scouts have inhabited the stately Beaux Arts building since they constructed it 80 years ago. At the time, the land on which the building sits had been turned over to the city by the Scouts with the understanding that the Scouts would be able to stay in it "in perpetuity."
Since then the Cradle of Liberty BSA Council has paid all the costs associated with the maintenance, repair, and improvement of the building.
The Cradle of Liberty Council serves over 87,000 youths in the area; the Philadelphia building is one of its two headquarters.
In 2003 the Cradle of Liberty Council had attempted to repudiate the official BSA position on homosexual membership. The national BSA, however, ordered them to continue following official BSA policy.

See related stories on LifeSiteNews.com.
Suit over Boy Scout Homosexual Discrimination Opens http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/jun/10061610.html
Philadelphia Boy Scouts to Lose Historic Building for Not Accepting Homosexuality http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/dec/07121107.html

87 Senators Sign Letter Urging Obama's Support of Israel, Media Mostly Mum

A very interesting post from http://www.newsbusters.com/ about the Senators' support of Israel. This follows this post about the death of this Hezbollah terrorist! This follows this post about Genocide in South Africa and this article about the recent news about offshore drilling to encourage American energy independence This is a key issue to prevent money from going to hostile countries such as Iran and Venezuela. For more posts like this click here.


87 Senators Sign Letter Urging Obama's Support of Israel, Media Mostly Mum

By Noel Sheppard (Bio Archive)Thu, 06/24/2010

On Monday, 87 Senators signed a letter to President Obama affirming their support for Israel while urging his.
This comes in response to last month's highly-publicized flotilla incident in the Mediterranean Sea and the United Nations predictable anti-Israel reaction.
A similar letter has been circulated in the House that has apparently garnered 307 signatures.
Despite the overwhelming bipartisan outcry -- something rather rare in Washington these days to be sure -- very few American media outlets bothered to report the news.
Fortunately, the Hill published the following Wednesday (h/t Weasel Zippers):
Story Continues Below Ad ↓
Led by Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) - and signed by 85 other members of the upper chamber - the letter argues that Israel's blockade of Gaza was both legal and necessary, and that Israeli commandos were acting in self-defense when they landed on the ship.
"[V]ideo footage shows that the Israeli commandos who arrived on the sixth ship, which was owned by the Turkish Humanitarian Relief Foundation (the IHH), were brutally attacked with iron rods, knives, and broken glass," the senators wrote.
"They were forced to respond to that attack and we regret the loss of life that resulted," the letter adds.
The bipartisan group of lawmakers urged Obama to oppose a resolution in the United Nations critical of Israel.
According to JTA.org, a similar letter has been signed by 307 Representatives in the House.
Yet, besides the Hill, LexisNexis and Google News searches produced only Agence France-Presse and UPI reporting this news in the States.
No newspapers, no television outlets, and no Associated Press.
Why might that be?
For those interested, full text with signatories of the Senate letter is available here.
Readers are advised that too many of the signatures were illegible making it impossible to know who the thirteen Senators that didn't sign the letter are.
Stay tuned.
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters. Follow him at Facebook and Twitter.

Get a Free "I Don't Believe the Liberal Media!" Bumper Sticker!

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2010/06/24/87-senators-sign-letter-urging-obamas-support-israel-media-mostly-mum#ixzz0rn9DrDwt

Wednesday, June 23, 2010

Anti-Amnesty Christians Are Like Those Who Supported Slavery & Segregation? Religious Leaders Say Amnesty Morally Necessary

An interesting post from http://www.numbersusa.com/ about the religious dimension in immigration. This follows this post about E-Verify and this post about the MURDER of ROBERT KRENTZ, who the protestors and boycotters won't give a solution for, but will call Americans racist for trying to prevent another MURDER, and this post which shows that there are 30,000 openly illegal immigrants in the border town of El Paso across from the recent Juarez shooting. For more interesting stories like this click here to follow this blog.

Anti-Amnesty Christians Are Like Those Who Supported Slavery & Segregation? Religious Leaders Say Amnesty Morally Necessary

By Roy Beck, - posted on NumbersUSA

A Brookings Institute conference today about the near unanimity of the nation's religious leaders in favor of amnesty and more foreign workers cast the debate in stark moral absolutes.
The Christian leaders repeatedly compared the fight for legalization of illegal aliens to the battles against slavery and segregation and pledged to convert and mobilize their members in the pews to force a vote on "comprehensive immigration reform."
ARIZONA THE NEW SELMA?
Arizona has become this generation's Selma.
-- Jim Wallis, head of the evangelical Sojourners movement
Wallis was referring to the brutal attempts of police and government in Selma, Alabama in the 1960s to stop civil rights marchers from trying to end racial segregation.
This has become a common theme as top leaders of the Southern Baptists, Lutherans, Jews, Methodists, Assemblies of God, Catholics, Presbyterians and the broad independent evangelical community have locked arms in a march for massive increases in immigration and foreign labor importation into the United States.
To Wallis and many others, the overwhelming majority of Christians who, polls show, support Arizona's recent law cracking down on immigration are the equivalent of the minority of Americans who supported racist, cruel laws that denied Black Americans many of their most basic rights as U.S. citizens. To these Christian leaders, a foreign national who breaks our immigration laws immediately becomes a victim of an oppressive U.S. system and is entitled to all the rights and privileges of a native-born citizen or naturalized immigrant.
Rev. Sam Rodriguez, head of the nation's largest coalition of Hispanic clergy, compared himself and the other pro-amnesty religious leaders to two of recent history's great Christian champions against inhumanity:
We are committed to oppose xenophobia and nativism (as we speak) in the voice of Martin Luther King and William Wilberforce.
-- Rev. Sam Rodriguez, president of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference
Wilberforce was the great evangelical and member of British Parliament who spent his career eventually ending the British slave trade.
GIDDY OVER AMNESTY SUPPORT BY SOUTHERN BAPTIST & EVANGELICAL LEADERS
Catholic and liberal Protestant leaders have become almost giddy about the fact that they are now joined by top leaders of the nation's powerful and growing evangelical community and of the largest Protestant denomination, the Southern Baptist Convention.
Just last week, eight of them met with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and with White House staff calling on them to not give up on "comprehensive immigration reform" but to bring the amnesty to a vote this year.
The Rev. Richard Land, head of the Southern Baptists' national public policy commission, described his vision of a moral outcome by insisting that borders first be totally secured and then:
We move forward with a period of grace, where people can come forward and register and begin a pathway . . . (to) earned, legal status."
-- Rev. Richard Land, national Southern Baptist leader, quoted by Baptist Press
Rev. Land is vehement that it is not an amnesty to give permanent legal residency and permanent work permits to foreigners who broke immigration laws to illegally reside in this country and to illegally hold a job. Asked if illegal aliens have committed a crime, he responded:
Most of the people in my constituency (Southern Baptists) would say, 'Yes, they've broken the law, and there need to be penalties for that.' The question is: What are the panalties? And we would argue that there needs to be an earned pathway to legal status that would include paying a fine, agreeing to come forward and register and undergo a background check, and to start taking English classes."
-- Rev. Richard Land, national Southern Baptist leader, quoted by Baptist Press
To Rev. Rodriguez, making illegal aliens go home would be cruel and unusual punishment. The punishment for breaking immigration laws should be a fine:
Mass deportations are not the answer. The punishment should fit the crime.
-- Rev. Rodriguez, national evangelical Hispanic leader
Remember the late Jerry Falwell of Liberty University? Remember how he was often considered a leader of the most right-wing part of the Christian community? Well, Matthew Staver from Liberty University's Law School was one of the leaders imploring Nancy Pelosi to bring the amnesty up for a vote this year.
What does Staver think about making immigration lawbreakers go home?
Not only is it not practical, it's not moral. And I don't believe that's biblical either."
-- Matthew Staver of Jerry Falwell's Liberty University, quoted by Baptist Press
UNPRECEDENTED UNITY AMONG RELIGIOUS LEADERS FOR A SOCIAL CHANGE
Perhaps never in U.S. history has the leadership of nearly all faith groups united behind a single major social change -- until the current near unanimity in favor of comprehensive immigration reform (amnesty for illegal aliens and increases in future foreign labor), speakers at Brookings indicated.
And I can't think of another case like this myself.
Here's what Brookings had to say about it:
Religious leaders have demonstrated a remarkable degree of unity across theological, denominational, and ideological lines for comprehensive immigration reform.
Religious groups have organized marches, prayer vigils and postcard campaigns to pressure the U.S. Congress to take up immigration reform.
Largely because of the activism of these religious groups, immigration has remained on a legislative agenda crowded with other pressing domestic concerns.
-- Brookings Institute
Despite the general attitude of politicians in Congress and the White House that passing an amnesty is not possible this election year, the religious leaders pledged to do all they can to break the stalemate and force a vote.
If anybody can do this, it will be a bi-partisan effort by the faith community.
-- Rev. Wallis
NOT FOR OPEN BORDERS . . . BUT NOT REALLY FOR ANY ENFORCEMENT OR LIMITS EITHER
Katharine Jefferts Schori, the Presiding Bishop of the nation's Episcopal Churches, was challenged about how religious leaders' opposition to the nation's immigration laws could appeal to their constituents who, polls show, are very much committed to concepts of rule of law,
The role of the prophetic tradition is to challenge laws and structures that appear to be unjust. . . . We are meant to see every human being as our neighbor.
-- Katharine Jefferts Schori, Presiding Bishop, Episcopal Church
The implication seemed to be that neighbors don't let neighbors get punished for breaking immigration laws.
All the leaders insisted that they don't believe in open borders. But every form of enforcement that was mentioned was opposed by the Brookings religious leaders.
Even the greatly reduced enforcement level under the Obama Administration is unacceptable:
Yes, it is time for Christian disobedience (against the enforcement of immigration laws).
-- Rev. Wallis
What they mean by NOT open borders is that they would definitely stop people who arrived carrying a bomb. But if they arrived at the border with a letter from a U.S. employer promising a job, they should be let in, without limit apparently.
We are trying to replace illegal behavior with legal avenues. If you provide legal visas, the Border Patrol will go after criminal elements. . . . Part of the solution is to create a system where everybody is legal and on the same playing field.
-- Kevin Appleby, spokeman for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops
This religious idea basically is that foreigners who can get a job in the U.S. should be allowed to become an immigrant and eventually a citizen. This, by the way, is the idea of Steve Forbes, too. Globalize the U.S. labor market so that anybody in the world can come in to compete for a job with U.S. citizens -- that's the idea.
Appleby did say that the system should be set up so that U.S. citizens get first crack at a job. But I've never heard a pro-amnesty religious leader ever describe how that would happen.
The problem, agreed Bishop Schori, is that we just don't provide enough green cards to foreign workers:
We encourage people to come here from an economic perspective but we don't provide them the means to come legally.
-- Katharine Jefferts Schori, Presiding Bishop, Episcopal Church
DISTORTING ARIZONA LAW FOR RHETORICAL ADVANTAGE
One thing that was pretty apparent to me today is that the religious leaders are far more radical than almost any of the Democrats in Congress in their opposition to real enforcement and to any real limits on immigration.
The religious leaders gave a sort of comic book description of the Arizona law.
The Presiding Episcopal Bishop indicated that some of her underling bishops will be fearful of being threatened by Arizona police:
Our bishops will meet in September in Arizona. It has been planned a few years. We will express solidarity with the Latino community. A number of our bishops are temporary sojourners themselves. Members of our group will be at some hazard at having to present identification themselves while there.
-- Katharine Jefferts Schori, Presiding Bishop, Episcopal Church
Rev. Wallis repeated as truth the rumor that the Arizona law will make criminals out of church workers who provide food, clothing and other material help to illegal aliens.
JUST HOW EVIL DO THEIR LEADERS THINK THE CHRISTIANS IN THE PEWS ARE?
The Brookings speakers were challenged a little about just how much influence the religious leaders have when polls show such largescale support of the their membership for the Arizona law.
We do need to do a better job reaching those middle classes who aren't sure and need an answer to their question, 'What part of illegal don't you understand.'
-- Kevin Appleby, spokesman of U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops
The reality is when people are threatened they do ugly things and that is what is happening in Arizona.
-- Katharine Jefferts Schori, Presiding Bishop, Episcopal Church
A similar question is how could Christians in this nation have supported slavery and segregation so long?
There is a disconnect between pulpit and pew. The majority of faith leaders support comprehensive immigration reform. But the pew is still disconnected. Pews still listen to cable news. We have some work to do.
-- Rev. Sam Rodriguez, Board of Directors, National Association of Evangelicals
In the end, national religious leaders from every part of the theological spectrum have paraded through Washington in the last few weeks both claiming that they speak for the majority of their faith groups' members and also that too many of their members are part of the evil thread in America that protected slavery, that protected segregation and that now protects enforcement of immigration laws.
Not a word from the religious leaders today about the 25 million Americans who want a full-time job and can't find one. You would never know listening to the national religious leaders that anybody other than illegal aliens are "the least of these" that Jesus admonished his followers to care for. You would never know that there is a giant Black and Hispanic American underclass that competes directly for jobs and services with the illegal population.
LOOK OUT -- PRO-AMNESTY SERMONS ARE COMING YOUR WAY
My sense listening to the leaders today is that they are cornucopians -- Christian utopians who can't be bothered with any concept of limits, of rationing or of the need to prioritize anything. Their idea is that one can show mercy to millions of illegal aliens and not commit injustice against millions of America's most vulnerable and poor.
For all their bravura about forcing an amnesty vote in Congress, they sound disappointed that more of their members aren't following them. A Ford Foundation-supported poll found that only one out of four Christians has heard immigration preached from the pulpit.
It sounds like the pro-amnesty champions hope to persuade a lot more preachers to do their job and convince the people in the pews that they'd better start pushing amnesty or risk being lumped in with segregationists and slave owners.

ROY BECK is Founder & CEO of NumbersUSA (and lifelong churchgoer)
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. Views and opinions expressed in blogs on this website are those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect official policies of NumbersUSA.
Subscribe to our Blog Feed

Changes in Christian Scholars' Perspective on God's Law

An interesting article from www.ucg.org This follows this post about the Shema, "The Lord is One." For more interesting stories like this click here to follow this blog.

Changes in Christian Scholars' Perspective on God's Law
Regard for God's law in mainstream Christianity has been remarkably inconsistent since the Protestant Reformation. On the one hand, the Ten Commandments have been considered the greatest moral law mankind has ever known. On the other hand, they have usually been regarded as too inconsequential or arbitrary to be obligatory for Christians.
These contradictory views of God's commandments became evident in the 16th century with the theological differences between Martin Luther and John Calvin, the principal founders of Protestant theology.
Calvin believed Christians should keep the Ten Commandments, even though he bowed to tradition by substituting the first day of the week for the seventh day in the Fourth Commandment. Calvin's view, though popular in past centuries, steadily lost ground during the 20th century.
Today most Christian denominations reflect, at least in practice, Luther's view toward the commandments of God. Luther incorrectly assumed that the apostle Paul had rejected the authority of the Old Testament just as Luther had rejected the authority of the Catholic hierarchy of his day. But Luther's perception of Paul's teachings was inaccurate.
Luther saw that Paul taught salvation by grace through faith (Ephesians 2:8). But Luther took this teaching one step too far, and therein lies the source of his colossal error that later shaped the views of hundreds of millions of people around the world.
He taught that salvation is by faith alone. By this he meant that laws in the Old Testament, including the Ten Commandments, are not binding on Christians. He taught that a simple belief in Christ is sufficient for salvation—that faith alone is all that is necessary. As a result, Luther pitted the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments against each other. James D.G. Dunn, Lightfoot professor of divinity at the University of Durham, England, explains that Luther's first incorrect assumption was that Paul's personal experience in Judaism was identical to his own experience in the Catholicism of his day. Luther incorrectly assumed Paul was troubled by his personal relationship to God's law.
Dunn then explains: "The trouble with all this is that when Paul speaks explicitly of his own experience before he became a Christian there is nothing of all of this . . . In Philippians 3:6 he states quite simply that prior to his conversion he regarded himself as 'blameless as regards righteousness within the law.' In other words, there is no indication or hint of a period of guilt-ridden anxiety [in Paul], like that suffered by Luther."
"The second assumption Luther made," continues Dunn, "was that the Judaism of Paul's time was just like the mediaeval Catholicism of Luther's day, at least so far as the teaching about God's justice and justification were concerned. The second assumption was natural, given the first. If Paul had made the same discovery of faith as Luther, then he must also have been reacting against the same misunderstanding as Luther" (The Justice of God, 1994, pp. 13-14).
As a result of these inaccurate assumptions, Luther concluded that Christ's death abolished the laws of God in the Old Testament. He mistakenly deduced that Paul taught the same thing.
But that was not what Paul believed or taught. During the past 30 years Paul's obedience to the teachings of the Old Testament Scriptures have been categorically confirmed by many Christian and Jewish scholars.
Here are some comments from scholars on this subject from Removing Anti-Judaism from the Pulpit (edited by Howard Kee, emeritus professor of biblical studies at Boston University, and Irvin Borowsky, chairman of the American Interfaith Institute, 1996).
John T. Pawlikowski, a professor at the Catholic Theological Union of Social Ethics, Chicago, says: "The claimed total opposition to Torah [Old Testament teachings] which theologians, especially in the Protestant churches, frequently made the basis for their theological contrast between Christianity and Judaism (freedom/ grace vs. Law) now appears to rest on something less than solid ground" (p. 32). Also: "It is now becoming increasingly apparent to biblical scholars that the lack of a deep immersion into the spirit and content of the Hebrew Scriptures leaves the contemporary Christian with a truncated version of Jesus' message. In effect, what remains is an emasculated version of biblical spirituality" (p. 31, emphasis added throughout).
Robert J. Daly, professor of theology and a Jesuit priest, tells us, "Expressed bluntly from the Christian perspective, to be anti-Jewish is to be anti-Christian" (p. 52).
Frederick Holmgren, research professor of Old Testament at a Chicago seminary, explains the significance of the discoveries of these scholars: "Despite Jesus' conflict with some interpreters of his day, both Jewish and Christian scholars see him as one who honored and followed the Law." Holmgren also explains that "Jesus embraced the Torah of Moses; he came not to end it but to fulfill it (Matt. 5:17)—to carry its teachings forward. Further, to those who came to him seeking eternal life, he held it up as the essential teaching to be observed (Luke 10:25-28)" (p. 72).
These and other Christian scholars are changing their views of the status of God's laws in New Testament. One cannot help but hope that many others will be encouraged by their example to change their prejudices against obeying the Ten Commandments. However, it is most unlikely this understanding will be widely believed and accepted because "the sinful mind is hostile to God" and "does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so" (Romans 8:7, NIV).

BREAKING: US Kills Hezbollah Terrorist Who Murdered Stethem (in Pakistan); Hezbollah Now Working w/ Taliban

A very interesting post from http://www.debbieschlussel.com/ about the death of this Hezbollah terrorist! This follows this post analyzing General McCrystal's interview. This follows this post about foreign terrorists being educated in the U.S. This follows this post about Genocide in South Africa and this article about the recent news about offshore drilling to encourage American energy independence This is a key issue to prevent money from going to hostile countries such as Iran and Venezuela. For more posts like this click here.


BREAKING: US Kills Hezbollah Terrorist Who Murdered Stethem (in Pakistan); Hezbollah Now Working w/ Taliban
By Debbie Schlussel
*** bumped up from 1:36 p.m. ET ***
I just received a call from Katherine and Patrick Stethem, the sister-in-law and brother of Navy diver Robert Dean Stethem, who informed me that, over the weekend, Mohammad Ali Hamadi–the Hezbollah terrorist who murdered Rob Stethem–was killed by U.S. drones over Pakistan. The story hasn’t been covered by any mainstream English-language media, but it is all over the non-English foreign press. One wonders why America is not publicizing and celebrating the elimination of this top terrorist and vile being. Hamadi is on the FBI list of most wanted terrorists.

Hezbollah Terrorist Murderer Mohammad Ali Hamadi:
Thanks to US, He’s On His Way to the 72 Dark Eyed Revirginized

You may recall that, last week, DebbieSchlussel.com was one of the only media outlets to remember the 25th anniversary of the Hezbollah hijacking of TWA Flight 847 and the Hezbollah torture murder of Stethem, a brave patriot who refused to denounce America. As you may also recall, in December 2005, I broke the story that Germany released Hamadi to freedom, despite U.S. protests, something I’d predicted would happen. Hamadi was released in exchange for a German convert to Islam, who was held hostage in Iraq.
Hamadi’s presence in Pakistan is significant because it shows that Shi’ite Hezbollah is working with the Sunni Taliban. Hamadi was a top Hezbollah operative, and he would not be in Pakistan without the express blessing of Iran and Hezbollah chief Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, as well as Hezbollah spiritual leader Sheikh Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah. Hamadi was meeting with top Al-Qaeda officials at the time he was sent to 72-dark-eyed-virgin-land. That is also significant because it is yet more confirmation of that which I’ve already written about repeatedly on this site repeatedly: that Hezbollah continues to work with Al-Qaeda in yet more terrorist activity–yet another reason why the Obama plan (identical to the previous Bush plan) to recognize Hezbollah as a legitimate political group is an outrage.
Robert Dean Stethem, Murdered by Hezbollah on June 15, 1985, RIP
Good for the U.S. that we finally eliminated this piece of trash, Hamadi, from this earth.
The Stethems tell me that Hamadi’s death on Sunday, Father’s Day, is significant because 25 years ago, on Father’s Day, Navy officials knocked on the Stethems’ door to notify Robert Stethem’s parents that their son was murdered by Hamadi and his fellow Hezbollah terrorists.

More:
Peshawar, Pakistan – A major Lebanese terrorist released by the German government five years ago has been killed in a US drone attack in Pakistan’s tribal region, Pakistani intelligence sources said on Sunday.
Mohammed Ali Hamadi died when a missile fired by a CIA-operated unmanned drone aircraft destroyed a compound in North Waziristan, a known hub of al-Qaeda and Taliban militants, on Saturday.
“Altogether 16 militants died in the drone attack and 11 of them were foreigners,” said a Pakistani intelligence official who spoke on condition of anonymity. The term foreigner is used to refer to al-Qaeda associated operatives of Arab and Central Asian origin.
“We have identified those who were killed and among them is Mohammad Ali Hamadi,” added the official.
Another intelligence official who also sought anonymity verified the death of Hamadi. However, there was no government official available who could confirm the killing on record. . . .
Pakistani intelligence officials said that Hamadi traveled to Afghanistan to fight NATO troops in November 2009 and joined the Central Asia-based al-Qaeda linked terrorist group Jamaat al-Jihad al-Islami, which is believed to have recruited many Turkish and German nationals.
In March 2010, Hamadi came to Pakistan’s North Waziristan district, from where al-Qaeda and Taliban fighters conduct cross- border attacks on international forces in Afghanistan, to join colleagues based there.
“Hamadi and his comrades were in a meeting to plan further attacks in Afghanistan when the drone strike took place,” a Pakistani intelligence official said.
Among the other killed were: Atif bin Saeed, believed to be a close associate of al-Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden; Turkish national Abdul Waheed al-Turkey; Saudi citizens Abdul Hamam and Brother Gul (a nick name); and Palestinian national Abdul Wali.
Of course, there’s always a Palestinian in there somewhere. But clearly Hezbollah was working with Al-Qaeda on some new terrorist attacks against our soldiers, or even something on American soil. We’ll never know.
In case you were wondering, of the other Hezbollah hijackers who took TWA Flight 847 and torture-murdered Rob Stethem, one–Imad Mughniyeh–was killed by a car bomb in Syria, believed to have been detonated by the Israelis. The other two–Hasan Izz-Al-Din and Ali Atwa–-remain free, and are believed to be in Lebanon, Iran, or Syria.
Well, it’s a start. Mohammad Ali Hamadi, Rot In Hell.

The Open-Borders Assault On e-Verify

An interesting post from www.Vdare.com about E-Verify. This follows this post about the changes in the Federal ICE department and this post about the MURDER of ROBERT KRENTZ, who the protestors and boycotters won't give a solution for, but will call Americans racist for trying to prevent another MURDER, and this post which shows that there are 30,000 openly illegal immigrants in the border town of El Paso across from the recent Juarez shooting. For more interesting stories like this click here to follow this blog.

National Data, By Edwin S. Rubenstein
The Open-Borders Assault On e-Verify
There they go again. Having failed to sway public opinion on the virtues of amnesty and mass immigration, the “compassion” crowd is focusing on the place Americans are most vulnerable: their wallets. Purge illegal immigrants from the labor force, these zealots insist, and we merely push them into the underground economy where they pay less tax than before. Natives end up covering a larger fiscal shortfall.E-Verify is their latest bugaboo:
“E-Verify has left millions without proper, tax-paying jobs— either because immigrants are flagged or because it deters them from applying. According to figures from the Pew Institute, an estimated 11.9 million unauthorized immigrants were in the U.S. in 2008. In some states, they make up more than half of the workforce in construction and other service industries.
“An expansion of E-Verify would put many of these workers on the street or in jobs where they won't be paying taxes. Friedrich Schneider’s 1996 calculation that the underground economy accounts for 8.8 percent of the national gross domestic product is still considered authoritative by academics.” [E-Verify and the unintended consequences of immigration reform, By Miranda Simon, Salon.com, June 21, 2010]Get it? Every illegal flagged by e-Verify means one fewer worker paying federal income, payroll, and excise taxes. According to this worldview, illegals do the jobs that Americans do not want to do. Deficit relief requires that we legalize their work status.Nothing could be further from the truth.Illegal aliens account for about 5.4% of the civilian labor force, or roughly 8.3 million of the 153 million total in 2009. These numbers may be conservative, with the “real” percentages being higher due to statistical undercounts. But even if we count all immigrants—legal and illegal—there are practically no occupations in which foreign-born workers constitute the majority.Most jobs thought to be dominated by foreign-born workers are, in fact, manned mostly by native-born:
Janitors: 75% native-born
Porters, bellhops, concierges: 71% native- born
Construction workers: 65% native-born
Grounds maintenance workers: 65% native-born
Butchers and meat processors: 63% native-born
Maids and housekeepers: 55% native-born
[Source: Jobs Americans Won’t Do? A Detailed Look at Immigrant Employment by Occupation By Steven A. Camarota, Karen Jensenius, CIS, August 2009, and see also my earlier article, Looking (in vain) for "Jobs Americans Won’t Do", February 23, 2006]While it’s true that these occupations are primarily low-income jobs requiring little formal education, it is equally true that plenty of Americans are available to fill them. Consider this sequence from BLS’s 2009 report on foreign and native-born workers: [PDF]
Native-born population without a high school diploma: 16.6 million
Native-born population without a HS degree in the labor force: 6.3 million
Native-born population without a HS degree employed: 5.2 million Only 38% (6.3/16.6) of natives lacking a High School degree are in the labor force, and 1.1 million, or 16.5%, of this poorly educated native workforce are unemployed. Even before the recession American workers in construction, food preparation, and building maintenance faced double-digit unemployment rates. Prediction #1 if the feds ever get serious about e-Verify, mandate its use throughout the country (instead of the 12 states and several cities that currently require some limited use), and allow Homeland Security to cross-check names with the Social Security Administration, native dropouts will fill every job vacated by illegals. Prediction #2: Government deficits will fall as unemployed natives replace low income, high dependency illegals in the workforce. You see, there was never a dearth of American workers but rather a deterioration of wages and working conditions that dissuaded them from even looking for work. Music to the ears of a U.S. Chamber of Commerce that wants a steady inflow of easily exploited immigrants—and opposes any expansion of E-Verify.
Edwin S. Rubenstein (email him) is President of ESR Research Economic Consultants in Indianapolis.