http://www.observingsurveillance.org/
From behind an American Flag, lurks an all-seeing eye, watching, and waiting. Just to keep you safe, yep.
Ever wonder what the founding fathers thought about trading liberty & privacy for an alleged protection?
Heh, that flag is probably made in China anyway
God help us.
http://7thfloor.stumbleupon.com/
We live in similar New York State towns, heheh
Great SU page for fun and laughs, intended laughs for a change!
The best review is already presented by my SU bretheren:
SleepingFox
rated 10 months ago:
“Ms Kjos goes to great lengths to thoroughly research her topics and undergirds them with documentation. I do not recommend this site for those who are adherents of the New World Order,Illuminati apologists,intellectually dishonest, supporters of the North American Union,enthusists of the UN, etc. However, for Christians and for those non-Christian who entertain a pragmitism and open mind, I recommend.“
http://bahurim.stumbleupon.com/
Another inactive stumbler that has very very good stuff on his page. Hope he stumbles more and adds comments again, atleast he’s been logging in once in a while.
Dang, he was off to a great start but seems to have bailed. Hope he returns.
http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/fbns/fbns15.html
From the page: “BILLY GRAHAM SAYS PEOPLE IN OTHER RELIGIONS CAN BE SAVED
In an interview with McCall’s magazine, January 1978, entitled “I Can’t Play God Any More,” Graham said: “I used to believe that pagans in far-off countries were lost–were going to hell–if they did not have the Gospel of Jesus Christ preached to them. I no longer believe that. … I believe that there are other ways of recognizing the existence of God–through nature, for instance–and plenty of other opportunities, therefore, of saying `yes’ to God.”
Though Graham later tried to stem the controversy brought about by his comments, he continued to allow for the possibility that the unsaved in other religions might not go to hell if they respond to natural light.
In 1985, Graham affirmed his belief that those outside of Christ might be saved. Los Angeles reporter David Colker asked Graham: “What about people of other faiths who live good lives but don’t profess a belief in Christ?” Graham replied, “I’m going to leave that to the Lord. He’ll decide that” (Los Angeles Herald Examiner, July 22, 1985). While this answer might appear reasonable to those who do not know the Bible, in reality it is a great compromise of the truth. God has already decided what will happen to those who die outside of faith in Jesus Christ. The book of Ephesians describes the condition of such as “children of wrath” (Eph. 2:3) and “having no hope, and without God in the world” (Eph. 2:12). That is why Christ must be preached. Men without a saving knowledge of Christ are condemned already (John 3:18). There is no mystery or question about this matter, because the Bible has plainly spoken.
In 1993, Graham repeated this philosophy in an interview with David Frost. “And I think there is that hunger for God and people are living as best they know how according to the light that they have. Well, I think they’re in a separate category than people like Hitler and people who have just defied God, and shaken their fists at God. … I would say that God, being a God of mercy, we have to rest it right there, and say that God is a God of mercy and love, and how it happens, we don’t know” (The Charlotte Observer, Feb. 16, 1993).”
http://ptdc.blogspot.com/2006/08/billy-graham-what-means-this.html
From the page: “It is well documented that Dr. Graham came from a fundamentalist upbringing. Indeed, it is known that Dr. Graham once told his wife that her father could not be in the will of God because he was a Presbyterian. Murray notes that â€oewhen Graham was the youthful president of Northwestern Schools (a fundamentalist college in Minneapolis), he had said, â€We do not condone nor have any fellowship with any form of modernismâ€â€ť (see Pilot, the magazine of Northwestern Schools, April 1951; quoted by Murray, Evangelicalism Divided, 29). Apparently this theological worldview changed sometime around the 1957 Manhattan crusade. Dr. Graham relates that the invitation to that crusade â€oerepresented a much broader base of church support than the previous ones had” (see Billy Graham, Just as I Am, 229).
Murray argues that over the years Dr. Graham became convinced that he could unite liberals and religious conservatives under the banner of evangelicalism. To do so meant that doctrinal and theological differences must be flattened in order to accommodate the masses. This insipient accommodation may be seen when Dr. Graham increasingly began inviting Roman Catholics to play critical roles in preparing and speaking at his crusades. Doctrinal and theological accommodation is further reflected as Dr. Graham speaks of the differences in Protestantism and Roman Catholicism, saying, â€oeI donâ€t think the differences are important as far as personal salvation is concerned” (see W. Martin, A Prophet With Honor: The Billy Graham Story, 461). When asked if he was in favor of the ordination of women, Dr. Graham replied, â€oeI feel I belong to all churches. I am equally at home in an Anglican or Baptist or a Brethren assembly or a Roman Catholic church. I would identify with the customs and the culture and the theology of that particular church” (see David Frost, Billy Graham in Conversation, 68), and later Dr. Graham exclaims, â€oeToday we [i.e., our crusades] have almost 100 per cent Catholic support in this country. That was not true twenty years ago. And the bishops and archbishops and the Pope are our friends” (Ibid., 143).
In 1978, Dr. Graham temporarily came full circle, saying, â€oeI used to believe that pagans in far countries were lost if they did not have the gospel of Christ preached to them. I no longer believe that” (McCallâ€s, January, 1978). The statement caused such a stir that it was quickly dismissed by Christianity Today (founded by Dr. Graham and his father-in-law) as a misquotation. McCallâ€s apparently did not misquote.
On a May 31, 1997, Dr. Graham took part in a seven-minute televised interview with Robert Schuller. The following is an exact excerpt of that broadcast:
Dr. Schuller: Tell me, what do you think is the future of Christianity?
Dr. Graham: Well, Christianity and being a true believer–you know, I think thereâ€s the Body of Christ. This comes from all the Christian groups around the world, outside the Christian groups. I think everybody that loves Christ, or knows Christ, whether they’re conscious of it or not, theyâ€re members of the Body of Christ. And I donâ€t think that weâ€re going to see a great sweeping revival that will turn the whole world to Christ at any time. I think James answered that, the Apostle James in the first council in Jerusalem, when he said that God’s purpose for this age is to call out a people for His name. And thatâ€s what God is doing today, Heâ€s calling people out of the world for His name, whether they come from the Muslim world, or the Buddhist world, or the Christian world or the non-believing world, they are members of the Body of Christ because theyâ€ve been called by God. They may not even know the name of Jesus but they know in their hearts that they need something that they donâ€t have, and they turn to the only light that they have, and I think that they are saved, and that theyâ€re going to be with us in heaven.
Dr. Schuller: What, what I hear you saying [is] that itâ€s possible for Jesus Christ to come into human hearts and soul and life, even if theyâ€ve been born in darkness and have never had exposure to the Bible. Is that a correct interpretation of what youâ€re saying?
Dr. Graham: Yes, it is, because I believe that. Iâ€ve met people in various parts of the world in tribal situations, that they have never seen a Bible or heard about a Bible, and never heard of Jesus, but theyâ€ve believed in their hearts that there was a God, and theyâ€ve tried to live a life that was quite apart from the surrounding community in which they lived.
Dr. Schuller: Iâ€m so thrilled to hear you say this. Thereâ€s a wideness in God’s mercy.
Dr. Graham: There is. There definitely is.
“
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-241.html
From the page: “Archer Daniels Midland:
A Case Study In Corporate Welfare
by James Bovard
James Bovard is an associate policy analyst with the Cato Institute. His most recent book is Shakedown: How the Government Screws You from A to Z (Viking, 1995).
Executive Summary
The Archer Daniels Midland Corporation (ADM) has been the most prominent recipient of corporate welfare in recent U.S. history. ADM and its chairman Dwayne Andreas have lavishly fertilized both political parties with millions of dollars in handouts and in return have reaped billion-dollar windfalls from taxpayers and consumers. Thanks to federal protection of the domestic sugar industry, ethanol subsidies, subsidized grain exports, and various other programs, ADM has cost the American economy billions of dollars since 1980 and has indirectly cost Americans tens of billions of dollars in higher prices and higher taxes over that same period. At least 43 percent of ADM’s annual profits are from products heavily subsidized or protected by the American government. Moreover, every $1 of profits earned by ADM’s corn sweetener operation costs consumers $10, and every $1 of profits earned by its ethanol operation costs taxpayers $30. One of the most politically charged debates in Washington revolves around business subsidies known as “corporate welfare.” A number of policy organizations have published studies examining the corporate welfare phenomenon: what qualifies as corporate welfare, how much it costs taxpayers, and how much it damages the economy. This study examines the dynamics of corporate welfare somewhat differently by investigating ADM as a classic case study of how those subsidies are obtained, how the welfare state encourages such “rent seeking,” and how such practices fundamentally corrupt the political life of a nation. Congress’s expressed desire to foster a free marketplace cannot be taken seriously until ADM’s corporate hand is removed from the federal till.”
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,195737,00.html
From the page: “Fuel vs. Food Debate Facing Cargill, ADM
Tuesday, May 16, 2006
MINNEAPOLIS — One agribusiness giant is enthusiastic about using farmland to produce fuel. Another says growing food should be the top priority for those fields.
My Weblog 