Category: What’s Up!

  • IS THERE WICKEDNESS IN THE REPUBLICAN PARTY? – PART I

    CLICK HERE FOR INFO

    According to the Free Dictionary, wickedness means: “To reveal one’s evil intentions; to expose one’s malicious, venomous, or insidious nature.”  This terrible word, wickedness, prompted the question in my mind, “Is There Wickedness in the Republican Party?”  As I pondered this question in relation to the application of this definition, I decided to review some of the policies and initiatives going on in Federal and state governments.  Two Federal government examples come to mind – the Ryan and Issa proposals.

    With a colorful video presentation, Republican Paul Ryan presented his 2012 “Path to Prosperity” budget blueprint which showed a scary looking graph titled, “We are in a Spending-Driven Debt Crisis.”  Ryan claims that his budget is based on the Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO) Alternative Fiscal Scenario.  However, when you actually look at one of the CBO supporting documents, the scary scenario is also based on taxes being too low, not just spending being too high.  Of course, Ryan decided to withhold that information from the CBO.  In addition, Ryan relies on parts of the CBO analysis but blatantly ignores CBO estimates that repeal of the health care law would lead to an increase in the deficit as well as leaving millions of middle class America without health insurance.

    This radical plan that most House Republicans voted for and most Republican senators and all presidential candidates endorse, penalizes senior citizens by changing Medicare into a voucher program that would be used to purchase private health insurance and turning Medicaid into a block grant for states to spend as they choose.  Ryan also includes a drastic tax reform proposal to lower top individual and corporate rates to 25 percent and end deductions.   The plan also caps domestic spending, repeals Obamacare and slashes farm subsidies.  In addition, the plan proposes cuts on future retirees, working families, and the poor.  In my view, the Ryan Plan definitely fits the definition of “wicked” by assaulting seniors and middle-class America.

    Republican Representative Darrell Issa, Chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, co-sponsored a bill, H.R. 2309, that literally destroys the Postal Service as we know.  This Bill passed the House subcommittee on September 21, 20011, by a vote of eight to five.  All Republicans voted for the bill, Democrats voted against it.  This Bill, designed to eliminate the Postal Union and destroy the Postal Service, empowers a newly-created “solvency authority” to unilaterally cut wages and abolish benefits.  The Bill mandates 2 billion dollars worth of processing facility closures and reduces “door delivery” by 75 percent within two years.  The Bill also includes several changes that would negatively affect workers who are injured on duty, including one that would cut the monthly compensation of totally disabled employees from about 66 percent to 50 percent, once they meet the age and service requirements for retirement.  The Postal Service is a critical part of the US economy and is the center of a $1.2 trillion industry that employs 8 million people, including printers, mailers, and other businesses that rely on the Postal Service.  The Issa Bill certainly meets the definition of “wicked” since it is another assault on middle class America and encourages the termination of thousands of employees.

    As we prepare for the 2012 presidential election, Republican state officials have launched an exceptional, centrally focused crusade to suppress the Democratic voters.  Republican governors and state legislators have passed a variety of measures that could prevent millions of students, minorities, immigrants, ex-convicts and the elderly from voting in the 2012 election. This is perhaps the most significant setback to voting rights in this country since passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.  In an orchestrated and uniform ploy, Republican governors and state legislators are trying to do everything in their power to drive Democratic voters away from the polls in 2012.

    CHECK OUT PART II TOMORROW

    Free 86 Minute Fully-Loaded FaceBook Webinar will teach you EVERYTHING you must know to make money on FaceBook.  Click Here.

    If you want a simple step by step way to build a list in online presence and make money from social media, Click Here to learn about the only government approved way to make money on Facebook. (You will need to authorize the app to view the presentation.)

    If you are interested in getting more information on acquiring wealth through the accumulation of silver click here to view the video.  If not, just delete.

  • WHAT DOES THE BIBLE SAY ABOUT WOMEN IN MINISTRY – PART IV

    CLICK HERE FOR INFO

    Based on what we discussed previously, what then do we make of the troubling verses (1 Corinthians 14:34 and 1 Timothy 2:11-12) that command women to be silent in the churches?  First of all, we must interpret those verses in light of what we have established—that there were women in leadership position of the church.  Obviously, Paul is not writing to them so he must be addressing another issue entirely—the women who were loud and unruly during the service, causing disorder and confusion.

    Let’s talk about the Church at Corinth – It seems that every large city has at least one pocket where prostitutes, strippers, gamblers, and drug dealers hang out.  In New York, it may be Times Square; in San Francisco, the North Beach district; in New Orleans, Bourbon Street; and in Las Vegas, it’s probably everywhere.  In the ancient world, the whole city of Corinth was known for that kind of lifestyle.  Romans made the Corinthians the butt of dirty jokes, and playwrights consistently portrayed them as drunken brawlers.  The Greek verb “to Corinthianize” meant to live shamelessly and immorally.  Everyone knew what the Corinthians worshiped: money and the kinky things it could buy.  Money flowed freely, for Corinth straddled one of the Roman Empire’s most vital trade routes.  This city was a sprawling open-air market, filled with slaves, Orientals, Jews, Greeks, Egyptians, sailors, athletes and gamblers.  Yet Corinth was no blue-collar town.  It had a population of 700,000, second only to Rome’s, and as the capital of a large province, the city hosted a parade of Roman diplomats and dignitaries.  For their religious ideal, the fun-loving Corinthians adopted Venus, the goddess of love.  A temple built in her honor employed more than 1,000 prostitutes.

    Because of all these influences, Corinth loomed as the one city “least likely to convert” to the Christian faith.  What crazy cults and new religions did spring up there quickly gave in to the prevailing good-time atmosphere.  The mighty Paul, reeling from one of his most difficult missionary assignments in Athens, came to Corinth “in weakness and fear, and with much trembling” (1 Corinthians 2:3).  He knew its strategic importance: if the gospel could take root there, it could transplant anywhere.  Paul worked in Corinth 18 months.  To everyone’s surprise, the church he founded became one of the largest in the first century.  But several years later, he heard reports that the church, true to its city’s heritage, had broken out in a series of spiritual ills.

    When Paul wrote the Corinthians, he was dealing with a church that was very disorderly in their services.  Much of the letter was spent correcting excesses and abuses.  Some of these pertained to women in particular and some were to the entire church.  Paul is not being prejudiced against women when he instructs the Corinthian women to keep silence.  In the early church the seating arrangement was quite different from our modern day churches.  Men were seated on one side of the church while the women and children were seated on the opposite side.  This is still practiced in many cultures today.

    The women of Christ’s day were generally uneducated and usually only the men were privileged with an education.  Due to this situation, when the church met the women were tempted to shout across the room and ask their husbands the meaning of whatever was being taught.  This disturbed the service.

    Paul was simply saying during the service, “Women, keep your children quiet and you be quiet, and if you have anything to ask your husbands, wait until you get home.”  Because of the new equality that Christianity brought to women, it could be that some of them were taking their freedom too far, to the point of being obnoxious.

    When Paul wrote to Timothy, he gave him a similar directive.  Again, it is important to understand the context in which the letter was written.  In 1 Timothy, a careful reader becomes aware that many severe heresies and false teachings that were being dealt with.  We can draw a conclusion here that many of the proponents and victims of the false teachings were women.

    Timothy pastored in Ephesus, and it has been suggested that goddess worship might have played a large part in Paul dealing so severely with the women.  Ephesus was a primary center of the worship of Diana or Artemis.  The heresies being taught might have suggested that women were authoritative over men and had higher access to spiritual knowledge than men did.  Regardless of the particulars, in both cases we can see Paul is dealing with specific incidents in specific churches for very particular reasons.

    We must understand that many of Paul’s epistles dealt with local problems and his commandments are not meant to be taken as “commandments” across the board for all situations.  Rather, we are to seek God for the basic principal that needs to be incorporated in our churches.  Because of Old Testament precedents that had already been set, apparently it never occurred to Paul to re-establish the case for women in ministry.  Why would he need to? The early church took it as a matter of course that Jesus would call and ordain anyone He chose—and that settled it! As a matter of fact, the Bible mentions a prophetess who was in the Temple when Jesus was brought there as a baby (see Luke 2:25-36).

    Paul’s writings are sometimes misunderstood today because we do not know all of the details that led him to write as he did.  We must rely on the Holy Spirit, and the rest of the testimony of Scripture to interpret how we are to apply these things to our everyday lives.  Scripture should always be compared with other Scripture and the context taken into consideration.  Even in Paul’s day, there were those who tried to twist the meaning of his words.

    2 Peter 3:15-16 – “And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.”  What Peter is saying is that Paul’s letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

    Another associate of Paul’s Lydia (Acts 16:14-15), a seller of purple dye, opened her home for ministry (Acts 16:40), as did many other Christian women in the Roman Empire, including the “elect lady” to whom John addressed his second epistle.  Close examination of 2 John would suggest that she was functioning in a pastoral capacity, as would also have been the case of Lydia (Acts 16:40), Nympha was also Pastor of a Home Church (Colossians 4:15), and Chloe (1 Corinthians 1:11).

    It is a fair conclusion that the testimony of the bulk of Scripture, church history and God’s anointing upon them, all speak plainly for women being able to fulfill all positions of the five-fold offices of apostle, prophet, pastor, evangelist and teacher.

    Hasn’t it always been a strange doctrine that will allow women to go to foreign mission fields and teach heathen men, but will not allow “heathen” men at home to be taught by the same women!  It makes absolutely no sense to think that a female who is learned in the Scriptures cannot teach a male who is unlearned.  Additionally, it is acceptable for many women to teach Sunday school to children, and for mothers to teach their sons.  Where do we draw the line and say to women that they can no longer teach a male once they reach a certain age?  This may seem like a ridiculous scenario, yet there are those in the church who teach along these lines.  In fact, church people caused all of the problems during Jesus’ day.  What does that tell us today”

    At this point, you may be thinking to yourself, I understand what you are saying, but there are still some questions that need answers.  For example, if Jesus wanted women to minister, how come all of His disciples were men?  This question is actually raised from a misunderstanding of the word “disciple.”  A disciple is a follower, supporter, believer, pupil, etc.  An apostle is a messenger; the persons Jesus originally ordained to go spread the gospel.

    John 11:1-4 – Jesus had many women disciples.  These include Mary and Martha (John 11:1-4), and many other references as well.  Mary and Martha, along with their brother Lazarus, were among Jesus’ closest friends.

    Luke 8:1-3 – “And it came to pass afterward, that he went throughout every city and village, preaching and showing the glad tidings of the kingdom of God: and the twelve were with him and certain women, which had been healed of evil spirits and infirmities, Mary called Magdalene, out of whom went seven devils, and Joanna the wife of Chuza Herod’s steward, and Susanna, and many others, which ministered unto him of their substance.”

    In John 1:1-42, we see that it is a Samaritan woman who leads a large population of her community to Jesus.

    Why didn’t Jesus choose any women to be among His twelve original apostles?  It is my belief that Jesus could not chose women to be among the 12 for a variety of reasons.  (1) During that time, it was difficult for men to preach the gospel without being beaten so what kind of a problem would it have created if women were doing it? (2) Women were not considered equal to men and it was hard enough getting men to listen to other men, let alone trying to get them to listen to a woman. (3) He could not choose women to be among the twelve because it would not be wisdom for men and women to be traveling about together when any of them were single.  It just wouldn’t look right.

    Although the scriptures are not very clear, some believe that the 12 apostles fulfilled the “type and shadow” of the twelve patriarchs, so they had to be equal to men (Revelation 21:12).  The twelve patriarchs I am referring to are the sons of Abraham – Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar, Zebulun, Dan, Joseph, Benjamin, Naphtali, Gad and Asher (1 Chronicles 2:1-2).

    Just in case there is still a little doubt about God’s calling of women in the ministry, Acts 2:17-21 contains the promise from the Prophet Joel.  This prophesy was initially fulfilled at Pentecost, and as we draw closer to the End, we can expect to see it fulfilled in even greater measures.

    Acts 2:17-21, “And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams.  And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit, and they shall prophesy.  And I will show wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood, and fire, and vapor of smoke: The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before that great and notable day of the Lord come: and it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.”

    Well, that’s my take on Women in Ministry.

    Free 86 Minute Fully-Loaded FaceBook Webinar will teach you EVERYTHING you must know to make money on FaceBook.  Click Here.

    PS. If you want a simple step by step way to build a list in online presence and make money from social media, Click Here to learn about the only government approved way to make money on Facebook. (You will need to authorize the app to view the presentation.)

    PPS. If you are interested in getting more information on acquiring wealth through the accumulation of silver click here to view the video.  If not, just delete.

  • MY TAKE ON THE 2012 ELECTION

    CLICK HERE to learn more about acquiring a silver portfolio.

    As we consider the 2012 election, shouldn’t we elect a President, Senator and Representative who can best serve the interests and needs of the American people including keeping America safe, resolving our economic situation, and creating jobs?  Both Republicans and Democrats are making arguments on being the better selection for America, but let’s examine the facts and history of Presidential fiscal responsibility, job creation, and action against terrorism, to see which Party best served the American people.

    One of the most significant acts of terrorism in this country occurred on September 11, 2001, during the Republican Administration.  Instead of pursuing Osama Bin Laden, the mastermind behind this attack, President Bush decided to start a war with Iraq resulting in thousands of American casualties and costing billions of dollars to the American economy.  When asked about Bin Laden, President Bush said he didn’t know where Bin Laden was and even gave up on the search for him.

    President Obama’s record in fighting terrorism during his first term has been nothing short of outstanding.  During the 2008 Presidential campaign, members of the Republican Party including Palin, McCain, Cheney and others, said that Obama was “weak on National security” and would not be able to keep America safe.  Rudy Giuliani even warned that electing Barack Obama would mean that the U.S. would play defense, not offense, against the terrorists.  But let’s look at President Obama’s record on dealing with terrorists.

    The list of senior terrorists killed during the Obama presidency is extensive.  There’s Osama bin Laden whom Bush couldn’t find and most recently, Anwar al-Awlak.  Earlier this month officials confirmed that al Qaeda’s chief of Pakistan operations, Abu Hafs al-Shahri, was killed in Waziristan, Pakistan. In August, ’Atiyah ‘Abd al-Rahman, the deputy leader of al Qaeda was killed. In June, one of the group’s most dangerous commanders, Ilyas Kashmiri, was killed. In May, al Qaeda’s number three commander, Sheik Saeed al-Masriwas killed.  In addition, having been authorized by President Obama to kill the Somali pirates if Richard Phillips was in imminent danger, the US commander on the scene ordered a team of snipers to open fire when it looked like his captors were about to shoot him.  Three of the pirates were killed and a fourth, aged 16, was arrested having earlier left their 15ft motorized lifeboat for medical attention and surrendered to the US Navy.  All this during Obama’s first two plus years, an outstanding record.

    New Jersey Governor Christi recently said that, “If you’re looking for leadership in America, you know you’re not going to find it in the Oval Office.” Christi and other Republicans continue to say that President Obama’s policies are “fiscally irresponsible” and he is engaging in “class warfare.”  So let’s look at the facts and a brief history of real fiscally irresponsibility since the Reagan presidency, the “Republican model” of success.

    • 1980: Ronald Reagan runs for president, promising a balanced budget
    • 1981 – 1989: With support from congressional Republicans, Reagan runs enormous deficits, adds $2 trillion to the debt.
    • 1993: Bill Clinton passes economic plan that lowers deficit, gets zero votes from congressional Republicans
    • 1998: U.S. deficit disappears for the first time in three decades. Debt clock is unplugged.
    • 2000: George W. Bush runs for president, promising to maintain a balanced budget.
    • 2001: CBO shows the United States is on track to pay off the entirety of its national debt within a decade.
    • 2001 – 2009: With support from congressional Republicans, Bush runs enormous deficits, adds nearly $5 trillion to the debt.  The FY2009 budget was a spending plan by President Bush to fund government operations for October 2008 – September 2009.
    • 2002: Dick Cheney declares, “Deficits don’t matter.”
    • 2009: Barack Obama inherits $1.3 trillion deficit from Bush; Republicans immediately condemn Obama’s fiscal irresponsibility.
    • 2009: Congressional Democrats unveil several domestic policy initiatives — including health care reform, cap and trade, DREAM Act — which would lower the deficit.  GOP opposes all of them while continuing to push for deficit reduction.
    • September 2010: In Obama’s first fiscal year, the deficit shrinks by $122 billion. Republicans again condemn Obama’s fiscal irresponsibility.
    • October 2010: S&P endorses the nation’s AAA rating with a stable outlook, saying the United States looks to be in solid fiscal shape for the foreseeable future.
    • November 2010: Republicans win a U.S. House majority, citing the need for fiscal responsibility.
    • December 2010: Congressional Republicans demand extension of Bush tax cuts, relying entirely on deficit > financing. GOP continues to accuse Obama of fiscal irresponsibility.
    • March 2011: Congressional Republicans declare intention to hold full faith and credit of the United States > hostage — a move without precedent in American history — until massive debt-reduction plan is approved.
    • July 2011: Obama offers Republicans a $4 trillion debt-reduction deal. GOP refuses, pushes debt-ceiling standoff until the last possible day, rattling international markets.
    • August 2011: S&P downgrades U.S. debt, citing GOP refusal to consider new revenues. Republicans rejoice and blame Obama for fiscal irresponsibility.

    When we consider the facts since the Reagan Presidency, reasonable people would have to conclude that it was the Republican Administrations who were fiscally irresponsible. “Reaganomics” didn’t work and added 2 trillion to the debt.  Bush cut taxes for the wealthy and added 5 trillion to the debt and created only 3 million jobs in eight years compared to Clinton’s 23 million jobs. George H. W. Bush created 2.5 million jobs; Reagan created 16 million jobs; Carter created 10.5 million jobs; Ford created 1.8 million jobs; Nixon created 9.4 million jobs; Johnson created 11.9 million jobs; Kennedy created 57.3 million jobs; Eisenhower created 3.5 million jobs; and Truman created 8.4 million jobs.

    Even if you don’t consider the approximately 3 million jobs saved or created through the Obama stimulus package, since the Eisenhower Presidency, Republicans created only 36.2 million jobs while the Democrats created 111.1 million jobs.  Remember, it took a Republican (Hoover) to get us into the first depression, and a Democrat (FDR) to get us out.  In addition, since Eisenhower, there has only been one President who produced a balanced budget and a budget surplus.

    President Bill Clinton left office in 2001 with a balanced budget and federal budget surplus of $236 billion.  President George Bush ran a budget deficit of $319 billion by 2005 and sent Americans into two unfunded wars with mostly negative results, but that’s just my take.

    If you want a simple step by step way to build a list in online presence and make money from social media, Click Here to learn about the only government approved way to make money on Facebook. (You will need to authorize the app to view the presentation.)

    Free 86 Minute Fully-Loaded FaceBook Webinar will teach you EVERYTHING you must know to make money on FaceBook. Click Here.