If we can’t even cut federal spending by 2.4 percent without much of the country throwing an absolute hissy fit, then what hope does America have? All of this whining and crying about the sequester is absolutely disgraceful. The truth is that even if the sequester goes into effect, the U.S. government will still take in more money than ever before in 2013 and it will still spend more money than ever before in 2013. So it is a bit disingenuous to call what is about to happen “a spending cut”, but for the sake of argument let’s concede that point. Even if the budget really was being “cut” by 85 billion dollars, that only would only amount to a “cut” of 2.4 percent to federal spending. It would barely make a dent in the federal budget deficit for 2013. The U.S. government would still accumulate about as much new debt in fiscal year 2013 as it did in all the years from the inauguration of George Washington to the inauguration of Ronald Reagan combined. Our debt to GDP ratio would continue to soar. The sequester cuts would essentially only be a minor bump on the road to financial oblivion. But if you listen to Barack Obama and his allies, they would have you believe that we are facing a great national crisis because of these impending cuts. They would have you believe that hundreds of thousands of people will lose their jobs and that many government agencies will no longer be able to operate effectively. They would have you believe that “granny won’t get her lunch” and “roofs blown off by Hurricane Sandy won’t get repaired”. Well, if all of that is true, then what in the world would our country look like if we actually cut a trillion dollars from the federal budget this year and started living within our means? (Read More….)
I’m talking about the problem of pornography. Writing for the Baptist Press, (bpnews.net, 5/17/2012) Doug Carlson calls it a “pandemic.” “In this digital age, the images are no longer limited to salacious magazines or adult stores. Such content is readily available on the Internet, on smart phones, on cable and satellite TV, in hotels.” The problem is, writes Carlson, “No longer do viewers have to actively look for it; it looks for them.”
This issue is not new, but it does seem to be one gaining more attention. A new church is started in a community with many members of an existing church. Unfortunately, the existing church has not blessed the new church start, nor has it been consulted about it. In many cases, a staff member from the existing church has led the unfriendly church start.
I have emails that include phrases like “deep hurt,” “betrayal,” and “kick in the stomach.” In other words, this new church start has not been received well at all by the existing church. I understand that there are two sides to these stories, so I am ready to be corrected. Nevertheless, I have some strong opinions about unfriendly church starts. Allow me to share four of them.
‘We’re going to default eventually and that’s why feds are stockpiling’
Imagine the worst-case scenario if the sequester goes through. The market nosedives. The economy implodes. Empty shelves. Riots. The feds hit the streets in force to restore order in a “national emergency.”
Sounds like something in a Third World country or Greece. It could never happen here, right? Think again, says Sarah Palin.
The former Alaska governor and Republican vice-presidential nominee believes the federal government is “stockpiling bullets in case of civil unrest.”
CBN News TV host Erick Stakelbeck interviews Bill Salus about the Ancient Psalm 83 Bible prophecy. In part one, Erick asks Bill to give an overview of the prophecy and to identify the modern day equivalents of the Arab populations the Psalmist refers to 3000 years ago.
In this first installment, Erick and Bill discuss the differences between the prophecies of Psalm 83 and Ezekiel 38, and explain why Psalm 83 probably precedes Ezekiel 38. Erick asks Bill how the Muslim Brotherhood, Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia factor into the prophetic Psalm 83 equation in light of the Arab Spring of 2011.