Border Patrol Opens First Unmanned Crossing on U.S.-Mexican Border

This from the Cutting Edge:

NEWS BRIEF: "Border Patrol Opens First Unmanned Crossing on U.S.-Mexico Border", ABC News, January 2, 2013

 

"Get ready for the very first 'unmanned' border station on the U.S.-Mexico border. Slated to open at the end of this month, the Big Bend National Park in Texas will be staffed by, you guessed it, computers. The station will be equipped with machines that can scan citizenship documents and conduct live video interviews with U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents at a station in El Paso, Texas ... Mexican citizens will be able to use the crossing..."

This concept was borrowed from similar unmanned border crossing stations on the Canadian border.

"While similar unmanned border crossings are already implemented successfully on the Canadian border, this will be the first time a totally computerized station is built on the U.S.-Mexico border."

This unmanned border crossing will become a beehive of illegal crossings of both immigrants and drugs, but the major point is that this action is just one more sign that the planned merger of the three countries on the North American continent as created by the Club of Rome is moving forward on numerous fronts.

While I am totally opposed to America surrendering her sovereignty to the regional government, I realize that this plan will be successfully implemented one day because the Club of Rome plan fulfills prophecy (Daniel 7:7-8).

Warn your unsaved loved ones! The time for receiving Jesus Christ as Savior is quickly moving past us all. The time is coming when no man can contend for precious eternal souls.

Watch "What's Up With all the Unrest in Global Politics?"

“Fundamental Transformation” to Chill the Blood

“Fundamental Transformation” to Chill the Blood

Is Getting a Tattoo a Sin?

 

http://www.blogos.org/compellingtruth/christian-tattoo.php

By Robin Schumacher

A young woman at our church was confused over whether or not it's sinful to get or have a tattoo. Thinking it may not be appropriate for Christians to get tattoos, she referenced Leviticus 19:28, which says, "You shall not make any cuts in your body for the dead nor make any tattoo marks on yourselves: I am the LORD."

How would you have responded to her? Is it wrong for Christians today to have tattoos?

What Matters Most

It should first be understood that Scripture makes it clear that God cares most about the inside of a person rather than what's on the outside. Jesus said, "That which proceeds out of the man, that is what defiles the man. For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed the evil thoughts, fornications, thefts, murders, adulteries, deeds of coveting and wickedness, as well as deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride and foolishness. All these evil things proceed from within and defile the man" (Mark 7:20-23).

Later, Jesus chastises the Pharisees, who were all about keeping a pristine outside public appearance, by saying, "Now you Pharisees clean the outside of the cup and of the platter; but inside of you, you are full of robbery and wickedness. You foolish ones, did not He who made the outside make the inside also? But give that which is within as charity, and then all things are clean for you" (Luke 11:39–41).

The examples of this principle are legion in Scripture, so suffice it to say that God is clear in His Word: the priority is to get your heart right before Him and everything else will follow in good fashion.

But that said, does such a truth mean that the external characteristics of a Christian don't matter to God?

Making Heads or Tails of Old Testament Commands

Leviticus 19, as a whole, addresses Israel's behavior within the purview of the pagan nations around them. Our present day Church is also present within a pagan world that rejects the true God.

There are a number of seemingly odd verses in this passage, including verse 19: "You shall not breed together two kinds of your cattle; you shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed, nor wear a garment upon you of two kinds of material mixed together."

Wait a minute. Does God really care about things like wool and polyester blends?

Not at all. Instead, many of the commands in this passage should be understood in this way: God is giving Israel physical reminders at that time about spiritual truths that still carry forward to us today as modern day believers.

For example, in verse 19, He's telling Israel that a garment made of a singular material is a reminder for them not to take the pure, singular faith given to them by God and mix it together with the pagan religions that were around them. One fabric, one unpolluted faith.

Now, we in the Church may not be required to wear garments of a single fabric, but are we still commanded by God not to incorporate the beliefs and practices of other religions (a philosophy called Pluralism) into Christianity? You bet we are (cf. Romans 4, Galatians, Jude, etc.) So while the physical reminder of pure fabric given to Israel may not carry forward to us today, the spiritual principle behind it certainly does. Now, on to tattoos.

Why do we see the prohibition on tattoos in Leviticus?

One of the physical characteristics of the pagan communities around Israel was that they marked themselves with tattoos and engaged in physical, religiously-motivated, superstitious practices that included the disfigurement of their bodies. For example, when Elijah confronted the false prophets of Baal on Mount Carmel, they "cut themselves according to their custom" when their false god didn't respond to their requests (cf. 1 Kings 18:28).

In forbidding tattoos, God was telling Israel He did not want them to personally possess any physical marks or characteristics that externally resembled the pagan nations. Such a thing would link them visibly to the false religious practices and immoral behaviors of those nations, which ran contrary to God's standards.

What's the spiritual principle that carries forward to us today? In short, "Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect" (Romans 12:2). One way Christians adhere to this mandate is to abstain from externally identifying themselves with any visible signs that would link them to the world, its false religions, and immoral behavior.

Does getting a tattoo today violate this spiritual principle?

Today, it is unlikely a Christian would say it's morally wrong for women to wear pantyhose. However, the history of pantyhose usage can be traced back to prostitutes in Italy hundreds of years ago. It was one of their externally identifying "marks" that told others who they were and what they practiced. Now, if an Italian pastor back then asked the ladies of his congregation to abstain from wearing pantyhose, it would be because he didn't want them externally identified with prostitution and thus mistakenly link them and the Church to a segment of society that practiced gross immorality. In other words, those in the Church should not reflect the world system that opposes God.

The fact is, God calls His people to be separate from the world, and this includes how we live and conduct ourselves from an external facing standpoint. One reason for this is that what's on the outside can oftentimes represent what's on the inside.

So while the literal principles in Leviticus 19 do not apply to us today, the spiritual principles do. We as Christians are to be in the world, but not of the world. Just as a boat is fine when it is in the water but sinks when it becomes of the water, so a Christian is to live in the world but not become a part of the world. This includes external signs or marks that would identify us as being of the world—beyond mere physical imprints on the body.

Some will try to argue that a Christian's tattoo can serve as a witnessing tool or help bridge a gap between them and non-Christians. Such thinking is admirable, but I believe it is the promotion of the pragmatism philosophy, which says if something seems to "work", then it must be right and moral. Using that philosophy, the adherents to the Children of God cult could argue that their "flirty fishing" is moral because their supposed aim is to make new Christians.

It is interesting that the chapter in Leviticus starts off by saying in verse 2: "You shall be holy, for I the LORD your God am holy." "Holy" means being separate, set apart, and refers in Scripture to a separation from sin and the world. This includes giving ourselves to God in every way, including what we do with our bodies. "Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body" (1 Corinthians 6:19-20).

When it comes to tattoos, Christians need to ask themselves if—today—tattoos have become as benign as pantyhose, or if they still represent a subculture whose beliefs and moral practices run contrary to God's Word. If the end of that investigation says such a linkage indeed exists, the prudent stance from a Christian perspective would be to avoid them, and therefore continue to practice the spiritual principle laid down by God for His people in His Word.

Another view by an inked minister: to be taken seriously.

I Repeat, We Must Get the U.S. out of the UN and the UN out of the U.S.

 Jerry McConnell (Bio and Archives) Saturday, January 5, 2013
(4) Comments | Print friendly | Subscribe | Email Us

I have made the statement seen above on many occasions over the past years, but I fear we are not a bit closer today than we were the first time I said it. Oh, there have been others who have agreed and carried the demand to new locations and people, but it remains just that; a statement.The only acceptance of any significance in this country comes from Obama and his forty thieves; correct that, he has far more than forty thieves as his co-conspirators agreeing with him and working hand in hand with the corrupt, evil and greedy charlatans ruling the United Nations, but the acceptance referred to above is what comes from dishonest and devious liberal Democrats who follow Obama in lock-step agreement.

That agreement is on the ultimate destruction of America and complete subjugation of all American citizens into the One World’ers and their ultimate goal of domination of everyone on the surface of the earth. And they will do anything in order to complete this task, including death to those who resist.By their own admission, as noted online at UN Watch was established in 1993 about twenty years ago, a non-governmental organization (NGO), based in Geneva, under the Chairmanship of Ambassador Morris B. Abram, a former U. S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations.It participates at the UN as an accredited NGO Special Consultative Status to the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC). UN Watch is affiliated with the American Jewish Committee (AJC). One of its goals is to promote universal human rights and Arab-Israeli peace.

Published on ‘IsraelandStuff.com’ on January 1, 2013 was a listing of the “Top 10 Worst U N Decisions of 2012” By Phillip Pasmanick. The listing was compiled by U. N. Watch. This compilation may help you to understand that U. N. Watch is not necessarily an entity that is soft on UN activities, but will critique when criticism is warranted. The “Decisions” as presented here really are not favorable to the United States.

1.) The very FIRST of the ten total decisions considered “worst” for 2012 is the one involving the election by the UN body of the Sudan to the ECOSOC in spite of its highly critical activities of acts of genocide or deliberate and systematic destruction of whole cultural groups of people. Ironically the ECOSOC oversees human rights for the UN, a highly questionable position for a country involved in genocidal activities. Even more ironic is that the Sudan received more votes for election to ECOSOC than did the United States.

2.) SECOND - The Castro Regime had a shameful role at the UN Human Rights Council in backing Syria in a flagrant disregard for Human Rights when it succeeded in getting the UN to adopt Cuba’s “right to Peace” resolution which endorses “terrorism” at the same time on March 01, 2012.

3.) THREE - The deviousness of Richard Falk as UN investigator of “Israeli violations” even after he was removed from Human Rights Watch in wake of protests over his support for Hamas; his 9-11 conspiracies; and promotion of anti-semitism. Martin Griffiths wrote (to Wikipedia) that Falk described his family background as “assimilationist Jewish with a virtual denial of even the ethnic side of Jewishness”. More recently he has described himself as “an American Jew” and written about his Jewish identity. A man with such deviousness should not be trusted.

4.) FOUR - A UN March 15, 2012 report ridiculed worldwide for lavishing praise on the Qaddafi regime’s human rights record was unanimously adopted today by the 47-nation UN Human Rights Council, with president Laura Dupuy Lasserre overruling the objection made in the plenary by UN Watch. Libya under Qaddafi has documented severe violations of human rights and evidences of war.

5.) FIVE - When the UN starts its slippery slide into depravity, it moves along like lightning bolts. As of November 12, 2012 two dictators were elected to the (I wouldn’t kid you on this) Human Rights Council; the infamous Hugo Chavez of Venezuela and N. Nazarbayev of Kazakhstan. This brings the total of absolute Dictators with membership on the Council originally created to for the protection of Human Rights, to SEVEN! Nice keepers of the peace eh?

6.) SIX - As recorded online at jihadwatch.org, UN adopts 22 resolutions attacking Israel in the General Assembly, compared to 4 in the rest of the world combined in one week beginning December 19, 2012. The 4 resolutions other than against Israel, were one each against Syria, Iran, North Korea and Burma. These 22 anti-Israel resolutions accumulated during a period when Syria was massacring its own people and being sanctioned just ONE time.

7.) Seven - Adopting 0 (zero) UN resolutions for victims of human rights abuse in China, Pakistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Zimbabwe, and many other non-democracies.

8.) Eight - Appointing a top official of the UN Human Rights Council, a hero to Holocaust deniers and defends Iranian tyrant Ahmadinejad’s “right to nuclear energy.”

9.) Nine - Celebrating a new “State of Palestine” days after Palestinians in Gaza committed armed aggression by attacking Israel with hundreds of rockets, and while the PA fails to exercise effective control over any part of Gaza or in much of the West Bank.

10.) Ten - Deciding to keep Syria’s Assad as a full member on UNESCO’s human rights committee.

With a United Nations overwhelmingly organized and actively aimed at destroying everything we cherish as a nation, it is sheer folly to continue to send many more billions of our tax dollars to the corrupt and greedy mercenaries that control their activities and belligerent actions taken against us. We not only send far more than our fair share but we receive NOTHING in return and what’s more, our most trusted friend, Israel, is the goal of extermination by this pack of thieves.

Our illegal president pays homage to the UN and is constantly working with them to bring our country to its knees and us to servitude at the hands of these enemies who sit in our country at our expense and danger.

LET’S GET THE UNITED STATES OUT OF THE UN. and LET’S GET THE UN OUT OF THE UNITED STATES.

To read the whole story of the UN and it's march toward bringing us under a global socialistic society, read The Fearful Master by G. Edward Griffin.

Also read http://fredanderson.blogspot.com/2012/09/lucis-trust-spiritual-foundation-of.html

If You Love Jesus Christ, You Defend His Doctrine

Video: all true Christians should share these convictions.

http://youtu.be/sEVbGsAwZB0

Let’s Give Up on the Constitution

First, let me say, I do NOT agree with this guy!  But he is a professor of constitutional law at Georgetown University, is the author of the forthcoming book “On Constitutional Disobedience.”

"Opened as Georgetown Law School in 1870, Georgetown Law was the first law school run by a Jesuit institution within the United States."

                                        pic from:
http://www.policymic.com/articles/21779/louis-michael-seidman-georgetown-law-professor-give-up-on-the-constitution  Great article rebuting Mr. Steidman!

AS the nation teeters at the edge of fiscal chaos, observers are reaching the conclusion that the American system of government is broken. But almost no one blames the culprit: our insistence on obedience to the Constitution, with all its archaic, idiosyncratic and downright evil provisions.

Consider, for example, the assertion by the Senate minority leader last week that the House could not take up a plan by Senate Democrats to extend tax cuts on households making $250,000 or less because the Constitution requires that revenue measures originate in the lower chamber. Why should anyone care? Why should a lame-duck House, 27 members of which were defeated for re-election, have a stranglehold on our economy? Why does a grotesquely malapportioned Senate get to decide the nation’s fate?

      

Our obsession with the Constitution has saddled us with a dysfunctional political system, kept us from debating the merits of divisive issues and inflamed our public discourse. Instead of arguing about what is to be done, we argue about what James Madison might have wanted done 225 years ago.

      

As someone who has taught constitutional law for almost 40 years, I am ashamed it took me so long to see how bizarre all this is. Imagine that after careful study a government official — say, the president or one of the party leaders in Congress — reaches a considered judgment that a particular course of action is best for the country. Suddenly, someone bursts into the room with new information: a group of white propertied men who have been dead for two centuries, knew nothing of our present situation, acted illegally under existing law and thought it was fine to own slaves might have disagreed with this course of action. Is it even remotely rational that the official should change his or her mind because of this divination?

 

Constitutional disobedience may seem radical, but it is as old as the Republic. In fact, the Constitution itself was born of constitutional disobedience. When George Washington and the other framers went to Philadelphia in 1787, they were instructed to suggest amendments to the Articles of Confederation, which would have had to be ratified by the legislatures of all 13 states. Instead, in violation of their mandate, they abandoned the Articles, wrote a new Constitution and provided that it would take effect after ratification by only nine states, and by conventions in those states rather than the state legislatures.

 

No sooner was the Constitution in place than our leaders began ignoring it. John Adams supported the Alien and Sedition Acts, which violated the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of speech. Thomas Jefferson thought every constitution should expire after a single generation. He believed the most consequential act of his presidency — the purchase of the Louisiana Territory — exceeded his constitutional powers.

 

Before the Civil War, abolitionists like Wendell Phillips and William Lloyd Garrison conceded that the Constitution protected slavery, but denounced it as a pact with the devil that should be ignored. When Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation — 150 years ago tomorrow — he justified it as a military necessity under his power as commander in chief. Eventually, though, he embraced the freeing of slaves as a central war aim, though nearly everyone conceded that the federal government lacked the constitutional power to disrupt slavery where it already existed. Moreover, when the law finally caught up with the facts on the ground through passage of the 13th Amendment, ratification was achieved in a manner at odds with constitutional requirements. (The Southern states were denied representation in Congress on the theory that they had left the Union, yet their reconstructed legislatures later provided the crucial votes to ratify the amendment.)

 

In his Constitution Day speech in 1937, Franklin D. Roosevelt professed devotion to the document, but as a statement of aspirations rather than obligations. This reading no doubt contributed to his willingness to extend federal power beyond anything the framers imagined, and to threaten the Supreme Court when it stood in the way of his New Deal legislation. In 1954, when the court decided Brown v. Board of Education, Justice Robert H. Jackson said he was voting for it as a moral and political necessity although he thought it had no basis in the Constitution. The list goes on and on.

The fact that dissenting justices regularly, publicly and vociferously assert that their colleagues have ignored the Constitution — in landmark cases from Miranda v. Arizona to Roe v. Wade to Romer v. Evans to Bush v. Gore — should give us pause. The two main rival interpretive methods, “originalism” (divining the framers’ intent) and “living constitutionalism” (reinterpreting the text in light of modern demands), cannot be reconciled. Some decisions have been grounded in one school of thought, and some in the other. Whichever your philosophy, many of the results — by definition — must be wrong.

 

IN the face of this long history of disobedience, it is hard to take seriously the claim by the Constitution’s defenders that we would be reduced to a Hobbesian state of nature if we asserted our freedom from this ancient text. Our sometimes flagrant disregard of the Constitution has not produced chaos or totalitarianism; on the contrary, it has helped us to grow and prosper.

This is not to say that we should disobey all constitutional commands. Freedom of speech and religion, equal protection of the laws and protections against governmental deprivation of life, liberty or property are important, whether or not they are in the Constitution. We should continue to follow those requirements out of respect, not obligation.

 

Nor should we have a debate about, for instance, how long the president’s term should last or whether Congress should consist of two houses. Some matters are better left settled, even if not in exactly the way we favor. Nor, finally, should we have an all-powerful president free to do whatever he wants. Even without constitutional fealty, the president would still be checked by Congress and by the states. There is even something to be said for an elite body like the Supreme Court with the power to impose its views of political morality on the country.

 

What would change is not the existence of these institutions, but the basis on which they claim legitimacy. The president would have to justify military action against Iran solely on the merits, without shutting down the debate with a claim of unchallengeable constitutional power as commander in chief. Congress might well retain the power of the purse, but this power would have to be defended on contemporary policy grounds, not abstruse constitutional doctrine. The Supreme Court could stop pretending that its decisions protecting same-sex intimacy or limiting affirmative action were rooted in constitutional text.

 

The deep-seated fear that such disobedience would unravel our social fabric is mere superstition. As we have seen, the country has successfully survived numerous examples of constitutional infidelity. And as we see now, the failure of the Congress and the White House to agree has already destabilized the country. Countries like Britain and New Zealand have systems of parliamentary supremacy and no written constitution, but are held together by longstanding traditions, accepted modes of procedure and engaged citizens. We, too, could draw on these resources.

 

What has preserved our political stability is not a poetic piece of parchment, but entrenched institutions and habits of thought and, most important, the sense that we are one nation and must work out our differences. No one can predict in detail what our system of government would look like if we freed ourselves from the shackles of constitutional obligation, and I harbor no illusions that any of this will happen soon. But even if we can’t kick our constitutional-law addiction, we can soften the habit.

 

If we acknowledged what should be obvious — that much constitutional language is broad enough to encompass an almost infinitely wide range of positions — we might have a very different attitude about the obligation to obey. It would become apparent that people who disagree with us about the Constitution are not violating a sacred text or our core commitments. Instead, we are all invoking a common vocabulary to express aspirations that, at the broadest level, everyone can embrace. Of course, that does not mean that people agree at the ground level. If we are not to abandon constitutionalism entirely, then we might at least understand it as a place for discussion, a demand that we make a good-faith effort to understand the views of others, rather than as a tool to force others to give up their moral and political judgments.

 

If even this change is impossible, perhaps the dream of a country ruled by “We the people” is impossibly utopian. If so, we have to give up on the claim that we are a self-governing people who can settle our disagreements through mature and tolerant debate. But before abandoning our heritage of self-government, we ought to try extricating ourselves from constitutional bondage so that we can give real freedom a chance.

Louis Michael Seidman, a professor of constitutional law at Georgetown University, is the author of the forthcoming book “On Constitutional Disobedience.”

 Still think the Roman Catholic plan for the USA is benevolent?

A version of this op-ed appeared in print on December 31, 2012, on page A19 of the New York edition with the headline: Let’s Give Up on the Constitution.

A New Years Resolution- Do Not Take the Lord's Name in Vain!

The BIG TEN:        
                                               
OK-The top 3 all go together for this resolution to work...

Exo 20:1  And God spake all these words, saying,
Exo 20:2  I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.

I.
Exo 20:3  Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

 

II.
Exo 20:4  Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:
Exo 20:5  Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
Exo 20:6  And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

 

III.
Exo 20:7  Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.

 

IV.
Exo 20:8  Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
Exo 20:9  Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
Exo 20:10  But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
Exo 20:11  For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

 

V .
Exo 20:12  Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.

 

VI.
Exo 20:13  Thou shalt not kill.

 

VII .
Exo 20:14  Thou shalt not commit adultery.

 

VIII.
Exo 20:15  Thou shalt not steal.

 

IX.
Exo 20:16  Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.

 

X.
Exo 20:17  Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.

Good to know- now what does that mean, not taking the Lord's name "in vain"?
 

(Strong’s Concordance # H2338) Means to Ruin, to Bring to Uselessness, Emptiness of Speech, the Quality of Being Worthlessness, Emptiness of Speech, Lying, Deceit, Useless.
 

Mat. 6:7  But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking. (probably best: emptiness of speech)

Rosary anyone- or Our Fathers?

 

Mat. 15:9  But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. (Worthlessness)

 Mar. 7:7  Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. (Same)

“The Pope is of great authority and power, that he is able to modify, declare, or interpret even divine laws. The Pope can modify divine law, since his power is not of man, but of God, and he acts as vicegerent of God upon earth...” — Lucius Ferraris, in “Prompta Bibliotheca Canonica, Juridica, Moralis, Theologica, Ascetica, Polemica, Rubristica, Historica”, Volume V, article on “Papa, Article II”, titled “Concerning the extent of Papal dignity, authority, or dominion and infallibility”, #30, published in Petit-Montrouge (Paris) by J. P. Migne, 1858 edition.

“We may according to the fullness of our power, dispose of the law and dispense above the law. Those whom the Pope of Rome doth separate, it is not a man that separates them but God. For the Pope holdeth place on earth, not simply of a man but of the true God....dissolves, not by human but rather by divine authority....I am in all and above all, so that God Himself and I, the vicar of God, hath both one consistory, and I am able to do almost all that God can do...Wherefore, no marvel, if it be in my power to dispense with all things, yea with the precepts of Christ.” — Decretales Domini Gregori ix Translatione Episcoporum, (on the Transference of Bishops), title 7, chapter 3; Corpus Juris Canonice (2nd Leipzig ed., 1881), col. 99; (Paris, 1612), tom. 2, Decretales, col. 205 (while Innocent III was Pope).

The Pope is a man, not a god.  The above statements are in direct conflict with the true word of God, and show the shallowness and sinfulness of those speaking.

 

1Cor. 15:1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;

1Co 15:2  By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. (Worthlessness seems to fit well)

1Co 15:3  For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;

1Co 15:4  And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

 

Taking the Lord's name in vain would be to claim Christianity, but teach doctrine opposed to the word of God, claiming the authority of God to undermine His Truth.

 

For a better understanding of what the bible really teaches about the gospel and being born again, please click this link.

The Communist in the Room

by Erik Rush

click this link:
The Communist in the Room

Erik Rush is a New York-born columnist, author and speaker who writes sociopolitical commentary for numerous online and print publications. In February of 2007, Erik was the first to break the story of President (then Senator) Barack Obama’s ties to militant Chicago preacher Rev. Jeremiah Wright on a national level, which ignited a media firestorm that smolders to this day. His latest book, “Negrophilia: From Slave Block to Pedestal ~ America’s Racial Obsession,” examines the racist policies by which the political left keeps black Americans in thralldom, white Americans guilt-ridden and yielding, and maintains the fallacy that America remains an institutionally racist nation. Links to his work are available at Erikrush.com.

It's not Christmas without Christ!

Reprinted from

Saturday, December 12, 2009

Enough of this "x-mas" junk! Christmas means NOTHING without CHRIST! If you don't accept Jesus as THE CHRIST...stop celebrating OUR holiday! "Happy Holidays" is only meaningful within the context of Christmas...a purely Christian holiday! I can accept "happy holidays" because, to me, it's automatically filtered through a Christian mindset, and means Happy Christmas!

Matt. 1:
18. Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
19. Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily.
20. But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.
21. And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.
22. Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,
23. Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

Many argue that Jesus is not God, but merely the Son of God, a second (inferior) person of the godhead.

John 3:16. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

But in order to understand John 3:16, you must also read 1 John 3:16...
16. Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren.

When was the beginning of Sonship? Did it start on that 1st Christmas day...whatever day and month it came? Or did it really start...in the beginning?

Jesus tells us a secret in Rev. 3:14. He slides it in unobtrusively, without great fanfare, but an absolute TRUTH about his true identity, that many deny to there own hurt.

...these things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;

John tried to make it clear.
John 1:
1. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2. The same was in the beginning with God.
3. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
4. In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
5. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
6. There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
7. The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.
8. He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.
9. That was the true Light, ( ed.-read the account of the 1st day of creation...it was the beginning of Sonship) which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. (ed.- the sun was created on the 4th day)
10. He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
11. He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
12. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
13. Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
14. And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

The Light created on day 1 was the pre-incarnate Jesus, only He was revealed as Jehovah to Israel. Reading about His second coming in Zachariah, we find He is consistantly referred to as the LORD, all caps, which identifies Him as Jehovah by the KJV translators.

When we sing Christmas carols, we are singing about the Almighty (Rev.1: 8. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty) God, creator of heaven and earth (re-read John 1:3 above).

Also read Col. 1:
16. For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
17. And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
18. And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.
19. For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell;

Which answers the question: Is Jesus in the Godhead, or is the Godhead in Jesus?

Colossians 2:
8. Beware lest any man spoil ( think: rotted meat) you through philosophy ( humanistic reasoning) and vain (empty) deceit (lies), after the tradition of men (traditions added to scripture, not taught by Jesus or the apostles... like the doctrine of the trinity), after the rudiments ( simplest things ) of the world, and not after Christ.
9. For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

This Christmas rejoice with resounding joy, that the creator God of all creation, who loves you enough to personally redeem you Himself, came born of a virgin (who then had other children with Joseph) for the sole purpose of offering Himself as a sacrifice to pay for your sin!

Isaiah 9:6-7 says it best...
6. For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counseller, The mighty God, the everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
7. Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this.

Thank God, and Merry Christmas!

'I am the devil': Former classmate reveals school gunman had 'online devil worshiping page' as childhood barber recounts how he never spoke and just stared at floors

By Meghan Keneally and Rachel Quigley

PUBLISHED:11:05 EST, 19 December 2012 | UPDATED: 11:51 EST, 19 December 2012

The Sandy Hook gunman worshiped the devil and had an online page dedicated to Satan, a former classmate revealed, as his childhood barber recalls Adam Lanza never spoke and would stare at the floor every time he had his hair cut.

Lanza's worshiping page had the word 'Devil' written in red, Gothic-style letters against a black background, Trevor L. Todd told The National Enquirer, something which he said was 'weird' and 'gave him the chills'. 

The FBI are trying to piece together his smashed up hard drive to see if his online footprint will reveal any motive for the killing, but they strongly believe he made use of devil-worshiping and suicide sites and boasted of his murder plans on message forums.

For the rest of this article go here;

Biblical Christianity believes this boy was possessed.

From the article

It's Called "Do WHat THou Wilt"- Alester Crowley's Religion of Thelema

It was in December 1896 that he had his first significant mystical experience, of which he would later claim that "this philosophy was born in me." His later biographer, Lawrence Sutin, believed that this was the result of Crowley's first homosexual experience, which brought him "an encounter with an immanent deity." Crowley would eventually introduce the practice of male homosexual sex magick into O.T.O. as one of the highest degrees of the Order for he believed it to be the most powerful formula.

 Sacriments: Crowley's magical and initiatory system has amongst its innermost reaches a set of teachings on sex magick. Sex magick is the use of the sex act—or the energies, passions or arousal states it evokes—as a point upon which to focus the will or magical desire for effects in the non-sexual world. In the view of Allen Greenfield,Crowley was inspired by Paschal Beverly Randolph, an American Abolitionist, Spiritualist medium, and author of the mid-19th century who wrote (in Eulis!, 1874) of using the "nuptive moment" (orgasm) as the time to make a "prayer" for events to occur.

From Texe Marr’s web site:

In my investigations I have found that every mass killer is a hater of God and of Jesus Christ. Remember Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris, the Columbine High School killers? They left behind videos espousing their hatred of God. They especially sought as victims young, fellow students whom they knew to be Christians and cruelly blew their brains out.

 

Klebold and Harris were proven to be God-haters who, just like our current culprit, Jared Lee Loughner, were Jews. The three youths loved death and fantasized about killing innocents. Klebold and Harris, too, were big devotees of satanic heavy metal music

 

Loughner Is a Jewish Satan Worshipper

Yet another fact the media avoid like the plague is that Klebold and Harris were homosexuals who could not relate to girls. I was not surprised to discover that Jared Lee Loughner is a homosexual. He had been quoted as saying, “I would like to be a woman.” The Scriptures state flat out that people who participate in perverted sex as gays are mentally sick, being “turned over by God to a reprobate mind.”

According to one media source, Jared Lee Loughner is a Satan worshipper. New York’s Daily News published photos of a “Devil shrine” and altar found in the Loughner family’s back yard of their home in suburban Tucson. What appear to be sinister candles, a skull, and other paraphernalia are all shown there in photos. The Daily News used words like “chilling,” “sinister,” “twisted,” and “frightening” to describe what was found by investigators

The Problem is NOT guns, or really even mental illness...it is SIN.  Get rid of the sin through the blood of Jesus, the gospel, and you get rid of the mass murders.

 

Cameo Smith's Christmas Story

originally posted on Facebook-

Twas' 11 days before Christmas, around 9:38
when 20 beautiful children stormed through heaven's gate.
their smiles were contagious, their laughter filled the air.
they could hardly believe all the beauty they saw there.
... they were filled with such joy, they didn't know what to say.
they remembered nothing of what had happened earlier that day.
"where are we?" asked a little girl, as quiet as a mous...e.
"this is heaven." declared a small boy. "we're spending Christmas at God's house."
when what to their wondering eyes did appear,
but Jesus, their savior, the children gathered near.
He looked at them and smiled, and they smiled just the same.
then He opened His arms and He called them by name.
and in that moment was joy, that only heaven can bring
those children all flew into the arms of their King
and as they lingered in the warmth of His embrace,
one small girl turned and looked at Jesus' face.
and as if He could read all the questions she had
He gently whispered to her, "I'll take care of mom and dad."
then He looked down on earth, the world far below
He saw all of the hurt, the sorrow, and woe
then He closed His eyes and He outstretched His hand,
"Let My power and presence re-enter this land!"
"may this country be delivered from the hands of fools"
"I'm taking back my nation. I'm taking back my schools!"
then He and the children stood up without a sound.
"come now my children, let me show you around."
excitement filled the space, some skipped and some ran.
all displaying enthusiasm that only a small child can.
and i heard Him proclaim as He walked out of sight,
"in the midst of this darkness, I AM STILL THE LIGHT."

Written by Cameo Smith, Mt. Wolf, PA

Various Quotes of the Roman Catholic Church

 

Reprint from Saturday, March 1, 2008

“The Pope is not only the representative of Jesus Christ, but he is Jesus Christ, Himself, hidden under the veil of human flesh.” — Catholic National, July 1895.

“The Pope and God are the same, so he has all power in Heaven and earth.” — Pope Pius V, quoted in Barclay, Chapter XXVII, p. 218, “Cities Petrus Bertanous”.

“We hold upon this earth the place of God almighty.” — Pope Leo XIII, Encyclical Letter, June 20, 1894.

“Even if the Pope were Satan incarnate, we ought not to raise up our heads against him, but calmly lie down to rest on his bosom. He who rebels against our Father is condemned to death, for that which we do to him we do to Christ: we honor Christ if we honor the Pope; we dishonor Christ if we dishonor the Pope. I know very well that many defend themselves by boasting: “They are so corrupt, and work all manner of evil!” But God has commanded that, even if the priests, the pastors, and Christ-on-earth were incarnate devils, we be obedient and subject to them, not for their sakes, but for the sake of God, and out of obedience to Him.” — St. Catherine of Siena, SCS, p. 201-202, p. 222, (quoted in Apostolic Digest, by Michael Malone, Book 5: “The Book of Obedience”, Chapter 1: “There is No Salvation Without Personal Submission to the Pope”).

“The (Catholic) Church is the entrance to life; all others are thieves and robbers. On this account we are bound to avoid them....Resist them in defense of the only true and life giving faith, which the Church has received from the Apostles and imparted to her sons.” — St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book III, (quoted in article “The Perennial Understanding of the Church”, by Saint Benedict Center).

“He is a heretic who does not believe what the Roman Hierarchy teaches.” — The American Textbook of Popery, p 164 (quoting from the “Directory for the Inquisitors”).

“Heretics (those who are not members of the Catholic Church or who do not hold to Catholic doctrine) worship a God who is a liar, and a Christ who is a liar.” — St. Augustine, (quoted in “Patrologiae Cursus Completus: Series Graca”, by Fr. J. P. Migne, Paris: 1866, 42:207).

“The church may by divine right confiscate the property of heretics, imprison their person, and condemn them to flames. In our age, the right to inflict the severest penalties, even death, belongs to the church. There is no graver offense than heresy, therefore it must be rooted out.” — Public Eccliastical, Vol. 2, p.142.

“When confronted with heresy, she (Catholic Church) does not content herself with persuasion, arguments of an intellectual and moral order appear to her insufficient, and she has recourse to force, to corporal punishment, to torture.” — The Rector of the Catholic Institute of Paris, H.M.A. Baudrillart, quoted in The Catholic Church, The Renaissance, and Protestantism 182-183.

“A heretic merits the pains of fire....By the Gospel, the canons, civil law, and custom, heretics must be burned.” — The American Textbook of Popery, p 164 (quoting from the “Directory for the Inquisitors”).

“The Pope is of great authority and power, that he is able to modify, declare, or interpret even divine laws. The Pope can modify divine law, since his power is not of man, but of God, and he acts as vicegerent of God upon earth...” — Lucius Ferraris, in “Prompta Bibliotheca Canonica, Juridica, Moralis, Theologica, Ascetica, Polemica, Rubristica, Historica”, Volume V, article on “Papa, Article II”, titled “Concerning the extent of Papal dignity, authority, or dominion and infallibility”, #30, published in Petit-Montrouge (Paris) by J. P. Migne, 1858 edition.

“We may according to the fullness of our power, dispose of the law and dispense above the law. Those whom the Pope of Rome doth separate, it is not a man that separates them but God. For the Pope holdeth place on earth, not simply of a man but of the true God....dissolves, not by human but rather by divine authority....I am in all and above all, so that God Himself and I, the vicar of God, hath both one consistory, and I am able to do almost all that God can do...Wherefore, no marvel, if it be in my power to dispense with all things, yea with the precepts of Christ.” — Decretales Domini Gregori ix Translatione Episcoporum, (on the Transference of Bishops), title 7, chapter 3; Corpus Juris Canonice (2nd Leipzig ed., 1881), col. 99; (Paris, 1612), tom. 2, Decretales, col. 205 (while Innocent III was Pope).

“We confess that the Pope has power of changing Scripture and of adding to it, and taking from it, according to his will.” — Roman Catholic Confessions for Protestants Oath, Article XI, (Confessio Romano-Catholica in Hungaria Evangelicis publice praescripta te proposita, editi a Streitwolf), as recorded in Congressional Record of the U.S.A., House Bill 1523, Contested election case of Eugene C. Bonniwell, against Thos. S. Butler, Feb. 15, 1913.

“And God himself is obliged to abide by the judgment of his priest and either not to pardon or to pardon, according as they refuse to give absolution, provided the penitent is capable of it.” — St. Alphonsus De Liguori, in The Dignity of the Priesthood, p. 27.

“Unless therefore they receive saving baptism in the Catholic Church, which is one, they cannot be saved, but will be condemned with the carnal in the judgment of the Lord Christ.” — Catholic Bishop Nemesianus of Thubunae, The Seventh Council of Carthage Under Cyprian, Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. V.

“When we say that faith is necessary for the remission of sins, we mean to speak of the Catholic faith, not heretical faith. Without the habit of this faith, no man is justified.” — St. Alphonsus Maria Liguori, (quoted in Apostolic Digest, by Michael Malone, Book 3: “The Book of Faith”, Chapter 1, “There is No Salvation Except in the Catholic Faith”).

But the Bible says: 

Mat 23:9  And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

Rev 22:18  For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

Rev 22:19  And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

Col 2:8Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. :9For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

Gun Control, Thought Control and People Control

Gun Control, Thought Control and People Control

SWAT Cops To Ask For IDs From Everyone In Arkansas Town

December 18, 2012

in Front Page, U.S. Constitution

There isn’t a lot to do in Paragould, Arkansas, but residents of the town of barely 25,000 seem to have no problem finding trouble. Now in order to curb the rising crime rate, the city is proposing heavily armed police patrol the streets on foot.

At a town hall meeting on Thursday, Mayor Mike Gaskill and Police Chief Todd Stovall endorsed a plan to send cops dressed in full-fledged SWAT gear and equipped with AR-15s into downtown Paragould starting in 2013.

The militarized police force will be tasked with trying to control a crime rate that has made Paragould an increasingly dangerous place to live in recent years. According to statistics collected by city-data.com, Paragould has had a property crime index rating more than double the national average since 2007. Rapes, burglaries, thefts and assaults per capita are also well above the mean there, statistically suggesting Paragould is perhaps the least-safe among area cities.

“This fear is what’s given us the reason to do this. Once I have stats and people saying they’re scared, we can do this,”Stovall said, according to the Paragould Daily Press. “It allows us to do what we’re fixing to do.”

In order to bring crime down, residents of Paragould may soon have to endure police officers brandishing semi-automatic assault riddles on the regular. What’s more, Stovall says, is he intends to have the cops collecting identification from everyone and anyone in an attempt to discourage criminal activity.

“If you’re out walking, we’re going to stop you, ask why you’re out walking, check for your ID,” the Daily Press reports him saying during last week’s meeting.

“To ask you for your ID, I have to have a reason,” he said. “Well, I’ve got statistical reasons that say I’ve got a lot of crime right now, which gives me probable cause to ask what you’re doing out. Then when I add that people are scared…then that gives us even more [reason] to ask why are you here and what are you doing in this area.”

“They may not be doing anything but walking their dog,” added Mayor Gaskill, “but they’re going to have to prove it.”

“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms… disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes… Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”
~Thomas Jefferson

Gestapo America!  Is this what America is coming to?  Will we really feel safer in a police state.  We are basically a National Socialist state; now with this new doctrine of SWAT presence for our security and demanding to see our "papers", we are not far from old Naziism.