URGENT PRAYERS/PETITIONS:
Stop Censoring the Abortionist Gosnell Mass Murder Trial! - Please go to the following site and join me by adding your name to a petition signed by a growing number of people who want the mainstream media to finally report on this incredible trial that they have largely CHOOSEN not to do. (Go to the site to get full info about this, though I did post an article about it in post #493 last Saturday.) https://www.mrc.org/action/stop-censoring-abortionist-gosnell-mass-murder-trial?roi=echo3-15276168063-12322625-78ab33e7c6cdfb9ca6e76919b81a7eaa&utm_source=apr16remark&utm_medium=email&utm_content=abortiontrial&utm_campaign=stopcensoring
PRAY that 1) justice will be served to this abortionist for his crimes and that he would repent of his sins and find salvation in Jesus, and 2) this trial will lead many involved in performing abortions to finally repent and turn away from doing evil and turn their lives over to Jesus.
Same -Sex "Marriage"- PLEASE PRAY WITH ME (every day untill the decision is revealed around mid-June) THAT THE SUPREME COURT WILL VOTE TO UPHOLD THE 2 LAWS REVIEWED SUPPORTING A TRADITIONAL DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE.. PRAY that the Court will resist any pressure to MAKE new law based on "cultural trends." PRAY as though the very future of the institution of the family is at stake because it is. PRAY! - for the sake of possibly millions of children, and for our country if it is to continue to be shown any more favor by our Heavenly Father, who I promise you will be very displeased if homosexual marriage is legalized; "GOD IS NOT [TO BE] MOCKED..." - (Gal. 6:7) - Stan [Be sure to check out my brief essay at post #478.]
URGENT PRAYERS/PETITIONS:
Stop Censoring the Abortionist Gosnell Mass Murder Trial! - Please go to the following site and join me by adding your name to a petition signed by a growing number of people who want the mainstream media to finally report on this incredible trial that they have largely CHOOSEN not to do. (Go to the site to get full info about this, though I did post an article about it in post #493 last Saturday.) https://www.mrc.org/action/stop-censoring-abortionist-gosnell-mass-murder-trial?roi=echo3-15276168063-12322625-78ab33e7c6cdfb9ca6e76919b81a7eaa&utm_source=apr16remark&utm_medium=email&utm_content=abortiontrial&utm_campaign=stopcensoring
PRAY that 1) justice will be served to this abortionist for his crimes and that he would repent of his sins and find salvation in Jesus, and 2) this trial will lead many involved in performing abortions to finally repent and turn away from doing evil and turn their lives over to Jesus.
CONTINUE TO PRAY FOR PASTOR SAEED (Iranian-born AMERICAN pastor who just started an 8 year sentence for helping the underground churches in Iran) If you have not already, please join over 500,000 (was recently250,000) who have signed the petition for Pastor Saeed's release and tell your friends about it. http://aclj.org/iran/save-american-pastor-from-iranian-prison-sentence As the Lord leads, please pray: *For Pastor Abedini as he endures one of Iran’s most deadly prisons, potentially beaten and abused regularly, simply because of his Christian faith. *For the pastor’s wife and family and the Holy Spirit’s comfort upon them. * For God to visit his tormenters and all in his cell with him with supernatural dreams of the risen Christ, and use the pastor's actions and words to draw them to repent and turn to Christ; that God would use the pastor's time in that prison to spark a genuine spiritual revival that will bring scores of Iranians to Christ..*For the U.S. State Department to get involved in a significant way to obtain the pastor’s release.
April 9 - 1) It's been reported that even though Pastor Saeed has developed internal bleeding from months of beating by prison guards, he has been denied medical attention. (http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/2013/April/Iran-Denies-Pastor-Saeed-Medical-Treatment/) PRAY that Pastor Saeed might finally receive the medical treatment he needs. 2) More than 550,000 people from 180 countries have signed the petition to Save Saeed. Your voice has moved the U.S., the European Union, and many others to call for his release. But as Pastor Saeed's May 7th 33rd birthday approaches, it's time to encourage him directly. At the ACLJ, they've obtained the address of Evin Prison, and their goal is to flood the prison with thousands of messages of encouragement for Pastor Saeed. Just write a letter (or simply sign your name to one proposed greeting) and they will be sure that its delivered. These messages will let Pastor Saeed know that we're praying for him and his release, as well as send a signal to the Iranian leaders that Americans will not give up standing up for him. Go to Save Saeed.org and add your name to those sending letters to him.
"On guns, A Fact-Free Crusade," Thomas Sowell,
Think about all the states, communities within states, as well as foreign countries, that have either tight gun control laws or loose or non-existent gun control laws. With so many variations and so many sources of evidence available, surely there would be some compelling evidence somewhere if tighter gun control laws actually reduced the murder rate.
And if tighter gun control laws don’t actually reduce the murder rate, then why are we being stampeded toward such laws after every shooting that gets media attention? Have the media outlets that you follow ever even mentioned that some studies have produced evidence that murder rates tend to be higher in places with tight gun control laws?
The dirty little secret is that gun control laws do not actually control guns. They disarm law-abiding citizens, making them more vulnerable to criminals, who remain armed in disregard of such laws. In England, armed crimes skyrocketed as legal gun ownership almost vanished under increasingly severe gun control laws in the late 20th century. (See the book “Guns and Violence” by Joyce Lee Malcolm). But gun control has become one of those fact-free crusades, based on assumptions, emotions and rhetoric.
What almost no one talks about is that guns are used to defend lives as well as to take lives. In fact, many of the horrific killings that we see in the media were brought to an end when someone else with a gun showed up and put a stop to the slaughter.The Cato Institute estimates upwards of 100,000 defensive uses of guns per year. Preventing law-abiding citizens from defending themselves can cost far more lives than are lost in the shooting episodes that the media publicize. The lives saved by guns are no less precious, just because the media pay no attention to them.
Many people who have never fired a gun in their lives, and never faced life-threatening dangers, nevertheless feel qualified to impose legal restrictions that can be fatal to others. And politicians eager to “do something” that gets them publicity know that the votes of the ignorant and the gullible are still votes.
Virtually nothing that is being proposed in current gun control legislation is likely to reduce murder rates. Restricting the magazine capacity available to law-abiding citizens will not restrict the magazine capacity of people who are not law-abiding citizens. Such restrictions just mean that the law-abiding citizen is likely to run out of ammunition first. Someone would have to be an incredible sharpshooter to fend off three home invaders with just seven shots at moving targets. But seven is the magic number of bullets allowed in a magazine under New York State’s new gun control laws.
People who support such laws seem to blithely assume that they are limiting the damage that can be done by criminals or the mentally ill — as if criminals or mad men care about such laws. Banning so-called “assault weapons” is a farce, as well as a fraud, because there is no concrete definition of an assault weapon. That is why so many guns have to be specified by name in such bans — and the ones specified to be banned are typically no more dangerous than others that are not specified.
Some people may think that “assault weapons” means automatic weapons. But automatic weapons were banned decades ago. Banning ugly-looking “assault weapons” may have aesthetic benefits, but it does not reduce the dangers to human life in the slightest. You are just as dead when killed by a very plain-looking gun.
One of the dangerous inconsistencies of many, if not most, gun control crusaders is that those who are most zealous to get guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens are often not nearly as concerned about keeping violent criminals behind bars. Leniency toward criminals has long been part of the pattern of gun control zealots on both sides of the Atlantic. When the insatiable desire to crack down on law-abiding citizens with guns is combined with an attitude of leniency toward criminals, it can hardly be surprising when tighter gun control laws are accompanied by rising rates of crime, including murders.
[bold, italics, and undelined portions are my emphasis]
" Senate Gun Control Bill Erodes Your Rights and Privacy" - by Amy Payne , April 17, 2013 ; http://blog.heritage.org/2013/04/17/morning-bell-senate-takes-up-gun-control/print/?roi=echo3-15279750116-12326514-e0616ec92a3490034addeead63311470&utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Morning%2BBell
"Obama Snubs Margaret Thatcher’s Funeral,"
b John Hayward, ; http://www.humanevents.com/2013/04/16/obama-snubs-margaret-thatchers-funeral/
...‘That the present administration feels unable to be represented as the world marks the extraordinary contribution Margaret Thatcher made will be a source of disappointment to those who served with her in that great endeavour.’ The snub is especially noteworthy because the Queen herself will attend the funeral, a decision that “effectively elevated it to a state occasion unprecedented for a political figure in Britain since the death of Sir Winston Churchill in 1965.” ”But Downing Street is most angered by rejections from Obama, First Lady Michelle, and Vice-President Joe Biden,” the Sun continues. ”A No 10 source said last night: ‘We are a little surprised by the White House’s reaction, as we were expecting a high-profile attendance.’”
The given reason for the complete lack of Administration officials at Lady Thatcher’s service is that everyone is busy pushing gun control legislation back in the United States, as the Daily Mail explains: "The US embassy insisted no snub was intended, but confirmed that Mr Baker and Mr Schulz would represent the US. ‘This is a hugely significant week in terms of US domestic politics,’ a spokesman added. He said that both the First Lady and the Vice President were ‘the President’s point people on gun control’, adding: ‘This is a week when there is a lot of movement on Capitol Hill on gun control issues.’[Can you believe this excuse?!! - Stan]
Every single member of the Administration is required to shove a half-baked grab bag of gun control measures nobody will actually read through Congress? Half of the proposals heading for the Senate floor are born-to-die distractions, whose only purpose is to get voted down by red-state Democrats so they can polish up their “pro-gun” merit badges for the benefit of gullible constituents. How about if Americans just keep our Constitutional rights, leaving Obama free to bring a blue-ribbon delegation to show proper respect to a towering figure of Western history?
[bold and italics emphasis mine]
And if tighter gun control laws don’t actually reduce the murder rate, then why are we being stampeded toward such laws after every shooting that gets media attention? Have the media outlets that you follow ever even mentioned that some studies have produced evidence that murder rates tend to be higher in places with tight gun control laws?
The dirty little secret is that gun control laws do not actually control guns. They disarm law-abiding citizens, making them more vulnerable to criminals, who remain armed in disregard of such laws. In England, armed crimes skyrocketed as legal gun ownership almost vanished under increasingly severe gun control laws in the late 20th century. (See the book “Guns and Violence” by Joyce Lee Malcolm). But gun control has become one of those fact-free crusades, based on assumptions, emotions and rhetoric.
What almost no one talks about is that guns are used to defend lives as well as to take lives. In fact, many of the horrific killings that we see in the media were brought to an end when someone else with a gun showed up and put a stop to the slaughter.The Cato Institute estimates upwards of 100,000 defensive uses of guns per year. Preventing law-abiding citizens from defending themselves can cost far more lives than are lost in the shooting episodes that the media publicize. The lives saved by guns are no less precious, just because the media pay no attention to them.
Many people who have never fired a gun in their lives, and never faced life-threatening dangers, nevertheless feel qualified to impose legal restrictions that can be fatal to others. And politicians eager to “do something” that gets them publicity know that the votes of the ignorant and the gullible are still votes.
Virtually nothing that is being proposed in current gun control legislation is likely to reduce murder rates. Restricting the magazine capacity available to law-abiding citizens will not restrict the magazine capacity of people who are not law-abiding citizens. Such restrictions just mean that the law-abiding citizen is likely to run out of ammunition first. Someone would have to be an incredible sharpshooter to fend off three home invaders with just seven shots at moving targets. But seven is the magic number of bullets allowed in a magazine under New York State’s new gun control laws.
People who support such laws seem to blithely assume that they are limiting the damage that can be done by criminals or the mentally ill — as if criminals or mad men care about such laws. Banning so-called “assault weapons” is a farce, as well as a fraud, because there is no concrete definition of an assault weapon. That is why so many guns have to be specified by name in such bans — and the ones specified to be banned are typically no more dangerous than others that are not specified.
Some people may think that “assault weapons” means automatic weapons. But automatic weapons were banned decades ago. Banning ugly-looking “assault weapons” may have aesthetic benefits, but it does not reduce the dangers to human life in the slightest. You are just as dead when killed by a very plain-looking gun.
One of the dangerous inconsistencies of many, if not most, gun control crusaders is that those who are most zealous to get guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens are often not nearly as concerned about keeping violent criminals behind bars. Leniency toward criminals has long been part of the pattern of gun control zealots on both sides of the Atlantic. When the insatiable desire to crack down on law-abiding citizens with guns is combined with an attitude of leniency toward criminals, it can hardly be surprising when tighter gun control laws are accompanied by rising rates of crime, including murders.
[bold, italics, and undelined portions are my emphasis]
" Senate Gun Control Bill Erodes Your Rights and Privacy" - by Amy Payne , April 17, 2013 ; http://blog.heritage.org/2013/04/17/morning-bell-senate-takes-up-gun-control/print/?roi=echo3-15279750116-12326514-e0616ec92a3490034addeead63311470&utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Morning%2BBell
"Obama Snubs Margaret Thatcher’s Funeral,"
b John Hayward, ; http://www.humanevents.com/2013/04/16/obama-snubs-margaret-thatchers-funeral/
...‘That the present administration feels unable to be represented as the world marks the extraordinary contribution Margaret Thatcher made will be a source of disappointment to those who served with her in that great endeavour.’ The snub is especially noteworthy because the Queen herself will attend the funeral, a decision that “effectively elevated it to a state occasion unprecedented for a political figure in Britain since the death of Sir Winston Churchill in 1965.” ”But Downing Street is most angered by rejections from Obama, First Lady Michelle, and Vice-President Joe Biden,” the Sun continues. ”A No 10 source said last night: ‘We are a little surprised by the White House’s reaction, as we were expecting a high-profile attendance.’”
The given reason for the complete lack of Administration officials at Lady Thatcher’s service is that everyone is busy pushing gun control legislation back in the United States, as the Daily Mail explains: "The US embassy insisted no snub was intended, but confirmed that Mr Baker and Mr Schulz would represent the US. ‘This is a hugely significant week in terms of US domestic politics,’ a spokesman added. He said that both the First Lady and the Vice President were ‘the President’s point people on gun control’, adding: ‘This is a week when there is a lot of movement on Capitol Hill on gun control issues.’[Can you believe this excuse?!! - Stan]
Every single member of the Administration is required to shove a half-baked grab bag of gun control measures nobody will actually read through Congress? Half of the proposals heading for the Senate floor are born-to-die distractions, whose only purpose is to get voted down by red-state Democrats so they can polish up their “pro-gun” merit badges for the benefit of gullible constituents. How about if Americans just keep our Constitutional rights, leaving Obama free to bring a blue-ribbon delegation to show proper respect to a towering figure of Western history?
[bold and italics emphasis mine]
No comments:
Post a Comment