Contact: Mike Dworak, Biblica, 719-867-2768
COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo., March 10 /Christian Newswire/ -- With the explosive growth of Africa's Church and its increasing influence in world evangelism and missions, maybe it's time to rediscover African Christianity--and grow deeper in our own faith.
In Rethinking Life (Biblica Publishing, $14.99, paper, ISBN: 9781606570418), former Rwanda Archbishop Emmanuel Kolini and Dr. Peter Holmes illuminate the rich beauty and wisdom of African spirituality and culture. God prepared Africa for the gospel, they say, and God is now using Africa to transform the Western Church.
The authors explore pre-Christian African spirituality, noting its similarities with Old Testament thought and tradition. They briefly trace the history of the missionary movement in Africa, noting both its importance and its mistakes. They conclude by showing how African values--the importance of living in community, a reverence for God's creation, a belief that life is primarily spiritual--can enrich the North American Church.
"Our desire is that the Western church and the Global South church would walk hand in hand, learning together from our mistakes and building a future global church that is stronger and more relevant," say Kolini and Holmes. Written in a conversational tone and with practical suggestions, Rethinking Life is ideal for small groups and individuals intrigued by Africa and how God has worked through its rich spiritual traditions and values to bring a people to Himself.
An unscientific CBS News poll evaluating President Obama's first year in office gives him – by an overwhelming margin – a failing grade.
In the poll, which has been online for several weeks and has attracted thousands of comments, not even 3 percent of the respondents grade Obama with an "A," barely another 3 percent give him a "B" and about 4 percent give him a "C."
Almost 26 percent give him a "D" and more than 63 percent him an "F."
Said one person on the poll's comments section: "Obama may be a Harvard Law School graduate, but when it comes to common sense, he must of skipped that class, or failed it miserably.
"His problem is that because he doesn't really have any lead[er]ship ability or experiance (sic), he leaves it up to others to make the decisions. Why do you think this whole Health Care Bill is in such trouble, he left it to a bunch of First Class Idiots to compose, and it is so bad they had to buy votes to get it passed in both the House & Senate."
The poll explains CBS is "giving you the chance to weigh in on how you think he has done on the job." Readers are asked to choose a grade from an "A" to "F' scale. The 10 categories are economy, foreign policy, health care, Afghanistan, Iraq, threat of terror, energy and environment, social issues, bipartisanship and overall.
The results showed Americans believe Obama is moving the nation in the wrong direction on every count.
Fewer than 6 percent gave him an "A" or a "B" on the economy. Seventy percent gave him an "F" and another 18 percent a "D." On foreign policy, more than 84 percent gave him a "D" or "F" and only 3.9 percent gave him an "A."
On Obama's proclaimed No. 1 priority, health care, nearly 82 percent graded him with an "F" and nearly another 10 percent handed out a "D." Only 2.6 percent gave him an "A."
On Afghanistan, where Obama has maintained many of George W. Bush's policies – to the point of dispatching more troops to Afghanistan – his grades of "D" or "F" made up about 55 percent of the respondents' total. Under 30 percent granted him a "C."
Overall on terrorism, 61 percent gave him an "F" and 21 percent a "D." On energy and the environment those figures were 58 percent and 22 percent, respectively. On social issues they were 58 and 21.
His "A" grade in those categories was under 4 percent.
One of his poorest ratings was in bipartisanship, following his "I won" remark to congressional Republicans last year and his rebuke to Sen. John McCain that the "election's over."
Nearly 80 percent flunked him in that category, while only 2.9 percent gave him an "A."
Some of commenters on the CBS site were supportive: "The government was in a terrible state when he took over," said one. "It will take a while to get thing (sic) back in order."
Others said Obama is doing no more or less than what should be expected.
"Most Americans were not listening or just didn't want to hear when this president was campaigning. He is doing pretty much what he said he would do ... fundamentally transform America, redistribute the wealth etc. Most Americans did not listen when shown his radical friends and acquaintances. It was all there for anyone to objectively see," said one.
"This guy has zero understanding how to do anything but stand in front of a camera and make another of his long-winded-do-nothing speeches. It is unbelievable that the American voters could even consider a jerk like this with absolutely no experience on how to manage anything," said another.
"This is the time I have ever seen a president screw so much up, so fast," added another.
"He has traveled the world apologizing for our mistakes (his conception), his social agenda is too similar to those which failed in fascist and communist countries, he ignores what is sacred to most Americans regarding, religion, patriotism and independence from big government," added another. "He decries the actions of the opposition regarding healthcare, yet in the present formulation of same, he left them out deliberately. His speeches, which are endless, are repeats of his campaign rhetoric, all promise and no substance. He is charismatic in his delivery of promises and to this 81senior, he reminds me of a few other saviors, Long, Wilkie, Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin. This may seem harsh, but his embracing the likes of Acorn is too reminiscent."
Another contributor stated more succinctly: "I think President Obama is doing the worst job any president has ever done."
Further, there was mention of term limits – "I am talking about both parties."
Another, a self-described Vietnam-era Marine, said, "We as a collective group elected Obama and now see our mistake. We have a problem with no jobs, illegal immigrants, a corrupt government, a situation out of control with over spending, and I could go on and on and on with problems within our country."
He continued, "Folks I do not advocate violence. It is time that we grow a backbone and stand up for the values and principals that made this country the best one on earth. It is time that we say hell no to those who are trying to tear it down."
_________________________________________________
JMC Ministries Response
Does it really come as a surprise to us that most people who took the poll gave the President a Failing Grade? I don't think so. Even though the "mainstream media" tries to prove other wise at times. But they can't dispute the voices of the American People.
On the Oprah Show Mr. Obama when asked what Grade would he gave himself on his first year in office he gave himself a B. But when you look at the results from the CBS Poll less than 3-4 percent gave him a B Grade. Over 60% Gave him a failing Grade. Do you think Mr. Obama is a bit dilluted?
We as American Citizens must continue to make our voices heard and change the direction our Country is heading in. But we also need to pray for our President and Leaders that they see the light and realize this is not the direction our Country needs to be on.
Lawmakers working to craft a new comprehensive immigration bill have settled on a way to prevent employers from hiring illegal immigrants: a national biometric identification card all American workers would eventually be required to obtain
Under the potentially controversial plan still taking shape in the Senate, all legal U.S. workers, including citizens and immigrants, would be issued an ID card with embedded information, such as fingerprints, to tie the card to the worker.
The ID card plan is one of several steps advocates of an immigration overhaul are taking to address concerns that have defeated similar bills in the past.
The uphill effort to pass a bill is being led by Sens. Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) and Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.), who plan to meet with President Barack Obama as soon as this week to update him on their work. An administration official said the White House had no position on the biometric card.
"It's the nub of solving the immigration dilemma politically speaking," Mr. Schumer said in an interview. The card, he said, would directly answer concerns that after legislation is signed, another wave of illegal immigrants would arrive. "If you say they can't get a job when they come here, you'll stop it."
The biggest objections to the biometric cards may come from privacy advocates, who fear they would become de facto national ID cards that enable the government to track citizens.
"It is fundamentally a massive invasion of people's privacy," said Chris Calabrese, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union. "We're not only talking about fingerprinting every American, treating ordinary Americans like criminals in order to work. We're also talking about a card that would quickly spread from work to voting to travel to pretty much every aspect of American life that requires identification."
Mr. Graham says he respects those concerns but disagrees. "We've all got Social Security cards," he said. "They're just easily tampered with. Make them tamper-proof. That's all I'm saying."
U.S. employers now have the option of using an online system called E-Verify to check whether potential employees are in the U.S. legally. Many Republicans have pressed to make the system mandatory. But others, including Mr. Schumer, complain that the existing system is ineffective.
Last year, White House aides said they expected to push immigration legislation in 2010. But with health care and unemployment dominating his attention, the president has given little indication the issue is a priority.
Rather, Mr. Obama has said he wanted to see bipartisan support in Congress first. So far, Mr. Graham is the only Republican to voice interest publicly, and he wants at least one other GOP co-sponsor to launch the effort.
An immigration overhaul has long proven a complicated political task. The Latino community is pressing for action and will be angry if it is put off again. But many Americans oppose any measure that resembles amnesty for people who came here illegally.
Under the legislation envisioned by Messrs. Graham and Schumer, the estimated 10.8 million people living illegally in the U.S. would be offered a path to citizenship, though they would have to register, pay taxes, pay a fine and wait in line. A guest-worker program would let a set number of new foreigners come to the U.S. legally to work.
Most European countries require citizens and foreigners to carry ID cards. The U.K. had been a holdout, but in the early 2000s it considered national cards as a way to stop identify fraud, protect against terrorism and help stop illegal foreign workers. Amid worries about the cost and complaints that the cards infringe on personal privacy, the government said it would make them voluntary for British citizens. They are required for foreign workers and students, and so far about 130,000 cards have been issued.
Mr. Schumer first suggested a biometric-based employer-verification system last summer. Since then, the idea has gained currency and is now a centerpiece of the legislation being developed, aides said.
A person familiar with the legislative planning said the biometric data would likely be either fingerprints or a scan of the veins in the top of the hand. It would be required of all workers, including teenagers, but would be phased in, with current workers needing to obtain the card only when they next changed jobs, the person said.
The card requirement also would be phased in among employers, beginning with industries that typically rely on illegal-immigrant labor.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce doesn't have a position on the proposal, but it is concerned that employers would find it expensive and complicated to properly check the biometrics.
Mr. Schumer said employers would be able to buy a scanner to check the IDs for as much as $800. Small employers, he said, could take their applicants to a government office to like the Department of Motor Vehicles and have their hands scanned there.
Contact: Juda Myers, Freedom Ministries, 281-451-8460, info@juda4praise.com
NEW YORK, March 3 /Christian Newswire/ -- March 7-12, 2010, Juda Myers, conceived in an eight man rape, will be sharing her powerful story at the United Nations Conference on the Status of Women. International speaker, singer/songwriter, author and paint artist, Myers seeks to empower women with knowledge of better choices, offering life as the better choice for all involved. Her message translated into Chinese, French, and Spanish, will be distributed to U.N. delegates.
The U.N.'s focus is to advance and empower women. While equal rights, education and health will be discussed, abortion "rights" is a hot topic. Myers' argument for life is powerfully moving, changing lives. Speaking at Harvard University in October 2009 with Harvard's largest pro life attendance in years, Myers' witnessed brilliant minds turn from the acceptance of abortion in any case to the reality of the gift of life. She speaks to all people from within the walls of prisons to the halls of the United Nations. "One can count the seeds in an apple but not the apples in a seed." Myers says referring to future generations that we may lose to abortions.
Placed for adoption at birth, she found her birthmother, Ann and her story, four years ago. Bursting into tears Myers' mother quickly patted her, "Honey stop your crying. I've forgiven those men. Look what God's done. He's brought you back to me. God is faithful." Ann said that Juda was just an innocent baby.
Myers' passion for people compels her to help others find joy in life. She's found that many women who are raped are usually talked into an abortion. Myers' own grandmother insisted she be aborted. Ann refused. Today Ann has no regrets, but it isn't the case for so many who have aborted rape babies or any other baby.
Myers' does training on forgiveness at conferences believing anyone can forgive any offense to gain health and happiness. She speaks on life, incorporating her original songs from her CD, God is Faithful. One song on the CD, called War Cry, challenges the listener to "love your enemy." Her new book, Hostile Conception Living With Purpose, along with her story, also offers practical steps to forgiveness with an entire chapter with stories of many other people who forgave horrific offenses.
_________________________________________________________
JMC Ministries Response
Last Year We talked about Juda Myers Story on our JMC LIVE Show. The article we found then only talked about Juda's Mothers Story and how her mother decided not to abort the pregnancy and also how she found the through the love of Christ was able to Forgive The Men that had raped her.
Now to See Juda Taking her story to the United Nations and across the U.S and how she is here today because her mother didn't get the abortion and really making an impact on young and old who want to support abortion and changing their minds on Pro-Choice. And helping them see that Abortion is killing generations of people who never had a chance to even breath their first breaths.
Below is our JMC LIVE Show from October 13, 2009 talking about This Amazing Story Enjoy
To View Next Video Click on the Right Tab and to See Previous Video Click on the Left Tab
CANTON, Ohio, March 4 /Christian Newswire/ -- Paul Schiffer, Republican Candidate for Congress in Ohio's 16th Congressional District, has written legislation to outlaw Barack Obama's dozens of 'CZARS' in the White House. Schiffer promises to introduce this legislation in Congress after election to Congress. Schiffer explained:
"I believe 'Czars' are un-American. It started out as almost an inside-the-Beltway joke under Republican Administrations -- calling a Presidential adviser a 'Czar.' But the idea of Presidential 'Czars' has become a worrying trend. If we continue on this path, Presidential over-use of White House 'Czars' threatens to weaken America's democratic system."
Schiffer stated:
"Placing the authority for Executive Branch business under unelected, unaccountable 'Czars' confuses and undermines our American system. The U.S. Constitution establishes the idea of Departments whose heads must be confirmed by the U.S. Senate. Concentrating more and more power in the hands of 'Czars' has the effect of setting up a whole new, alternative 'shadow government' outside of our American system. This is creating worry among some patriots that at a time of national crisis and confusion, these Czars could serve as a power center outside of our established American system of Departments, with Secretaries confirmed by the United States Senate."
Paul Schiffer further clarified:
"My legislation allows Presidents to have any advisors they want, and call them anything they want. However, White House advisors like 'Czars' will have no authority over any part of the U.S. Government. My legislation would prohibit any White House advisor from exercising authority over any Federal or State government official, employee, office or department, and would protect every government official and employee from not obeying any White House advisor other than the President himself. The President, of course, is the Chief Executive of the Executive Branch and the President may always act under his own authority in his own name. Obviously, my legislation creates exceptions for any special chain of command established by statute that might be agreed to between the Congress and the President, such as with national security matters."
Paul Schiffer is the only real conservative -- with a demonstrated record of action over 20 years -- seeking the GOP nomination for Congress. Ohio's 16th District was held by Republican Ralph Regula for 33 years and by the GOP for 58 years. In 2008, the District voted 43% for McCain vs. 41% for Obama yet narrowly elected John Boccieri. Paul's website: www.PaulSchiffer2010.com.
In Pakistan, a Christian man was sentenced to life in prison after a neighbor with whom he had a business disagreement accused him of desecrating the Quran, and a husband and wife were jailed for 25 years for touching Islam's holy book without washing their hands.
The reports came from Compass Direct News,the Center for Legal Aid Assistance and Settlement and LogansWarning.com.
According to Compass, the life term was imposed on Imran Masih, 22, of Faisalabad after he was convicted under the notorious Section 295-B of Pakistan's legal code, which bans "blasphemy" against Islam.
The conviction was based on the accusation of a rival shopkeeper who was accused of using a mosque loudspeaker to incite a mob that beat Masih.
Masih had been accused by Hajji Liaquat Abdul Ghafoor, the neighboring shopkeeper, of tearing pages out of the Quran and burning them. But Masih explained he was burning old merchandise records he had gathered while cleaning his store.
Compass reported Masih's family members claimed Ghafoor fabricated the blasphemy case because of a business disagreement. Other shopkeepers reported to Compass they has seen the two arguing over business just a few days before the accusations
"Ghafoor started shouting that Masih had desecrated the Quran and made blasphemous remarks about Islam and prophet Muhammad," said one of the shopkeepers, according to Compass. "Ghafoor spread misconceptions about Imran Masih, and a mob of angry Muslim men unaware of the facts attacked Masih and viciously beat him, looted his shop and later handed him over to police."
An appeal is planned to the Lahore High Court.
The second episode developed, according to reports from CLAAS, when Munir Masih and Ruqqiya Bibi were accused of touching a Quran without washing their hands.
The organization said the husband and wife were convicted of "contaminating" the Quran when they touched it.
________________________________________________________ JMC Ministries Response
Video from our JMC LIVE Show on March 9, 2010 discussing this article and other Eternal Flame News Articles
A British Christian organization reports children as young as 5 years old soon could have their names added to "hate registers" of people accused of showing disrespect to homosexuality in violation of "hate crimes" laws. According to the Christian Institute, a nondenominational charity committed to upholding the truths of the Bible, already a 10-year-old child was added to the registry after he called a friend a "gay boy."
The case was reported by the London Daily Mail, which said teachers are being ordered to write up even minor incidents as "serious bullying" and add them to a database that will follow a student through a school career.
The report confirmed that when small children use "homophobic" or racist words without knowing what they mean, they still must be written up.
The parents of the 10-year-old, Peter Drury, a student in Somerset, were told his name would be registered as an offender, according to the paper.
The report said an assessment from a civil liberties think tank estimated 40,000 children have such accusations, mostly involving alleged racism, added to their school records annually.
Further, government officials are considering rules that also would require education officials to report incidents to local authorities.
"This is totally appalling," Margaret Morrissey, founder of the campaign group Parents Outloud, told the London paper. "The use of such language is part of the learning process. Children need to learn where the boundaries lie. And I very much doubt they understand what they are saying."
Drury's mother, Penny Drury, 43, reported she was summoned to her son's elementary school recently when he was accused of using "homophobic" language, the newspaper said. She was informed he would be registered, his behavior watched and his records monitored.
"He must have picked up the word from somewhere and thought it to mean stupid," she said.
Parents and educators in the U.K. agree the slang use of the word "gay" for children means "inferior."
The Christian Institute reported Penny Drury commented, "He doesn't even understand about the birds and the bees, so how can he be homophobic?"
The government has explained its goals are to prevent "gender bullying." WND also has reported on the move toward "hate crimes" plans in the United States similar to those in the U.K.
A law ultimately was enacted under President Obama's direction last year.
A campaign recently was launched in Montgomery County, Md., to classify the speech of advocates for people who choose to leave the homosexual lifestyle as "hate speech," which then could be banned under Obama's law.
"Hate speech is unwelcome in Montgomery County Public Schools," said an e-mail to the offices of Regina Griggs, national director of Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays, known as PFOX. "I would like to ask that you immediately cease distribution of your flyers at our public schools.
"We intend to pursue every method possible to protest your actions if you choose to continue," the message warned.
__________________________________________ JMC Ministries Response
JMC LIVE Show from March 9, 2010 Discussing this topic and other Eternal Flame News Article
A battle is set to begin in the U.S. Supreme Court, as backers of traditional marriage hope to fend off a law that would make their names and addresses public and, therefore, make them prime targets for homosexual activists intent on bullying them into silence.
The case calls into question whether voters have protected free speech and anonymity rights in signing petitions and ballot initiatives or whether states must release signatories' names and addresses as a matter of public record.
With reported cases of bullying, organized boycotts and threats of violence against the signers of traditional marriage initiatives in several states already – and homosexual activists pledging to make lists of signatories public and searchable online – lawyers at the American Center for Law and Justice are concerned that voters may grow fearful of reprisal should they sign a petition seeking to restrict marriage to one man and one woman. That fear, the ACLJ is arguing in a brief filed this week before the Court, is exactly the kind of political and voter intimidation that the Constitution should protect against.
"The right to secret ballot safeguards citizens from the historic evil of voter intimidation," the ACLJ brief argues. "Similarly, the right to anonymity in signing referendum petitions is no less essential in safeguarding signers from reprisal or intimidation."
As WND has reported, those who have dared to sign or vote for traditional marriage in state petitions and referendums have faced backlash. In Maine, homosexual activists targeted churches with IRS complaints, and following California's passage of the controversial Proposition 8, supporters of the measure limiting marriage to one man and one woman were fired from their jobs, subjected to vandalism, bullied by angry mobs and threatened with violence.
Churches that rallied in support of Proposition 8 were targets of particular wrath on Internet sites and blogs:
"Burn their f---ing churches to the ground, and then tax the charred timbers," wrote "World O Jeff" on the JoeMyGod blogspot within hours of California officials declaring Proposition 8 had been approved.
On another site, Americablog, "scottinsf" wrote, "Trust me. I've got a big list of names of Mormons and Catholics that were big supporters of Prop 8. … As far as Mormons and Catholics … I warn them to watch their backs."
"If you're planning a heterosexual wedding in California … be prepared for picketers. Designate someone to watch the parking lot … You're going to have lots of unexpected expenses. Add $500 to your budget for security," stated another threat. "Be afraid. Be very afraid. We are everywhere."
"Californians have been shocked by the aggressiveness of radical homosexual activists," states Brad Dacus, president of the Pacific Justice Institute, on the group's website. "These tactics of fear and intimidation in retaliation for supporting a lawful ballot measure are completely unacceptable."
The current case before the Supreme Court has arisen over similar fears among voters in the state of Washington, but with ramifications that could affect the entire nation.
Last fall, 138,000 Washington voters petitioned to put on the ballot Referendum 71, which challenged the state's recently expanded domestic-partnership law granting benefits to homosexual couples.
And while the measure failed in the general election, an organization called WhoSigned.org, along with its national partner KnowThyNeighbor.org, has asked for the names and addresses of the petition's signatories under the state's public-records act. The plan is to post them on a searchable website.
Protect Marriage Washington then sued to block release of the names, saying the state's public disclosure law "chills free speech ... particularly when it is reasonably probable that those exercising their First Amendment rights would be subjected to threats and harassment."
The charges of potential harassment have long been dismissed by KnowThyNeighbor.org, which has already posted similar lists of names and addresses for four other states: Arkansas, Florida, Massachusetts and Oregon.
"Such claims are irresponsible, incendiary and totally untrue," wrote Aaron Toleos, co-director of KnowThyNeighbor.org, in 2007. "There is no organized plan to confront petition signers. In fact, we have never advocated for this and don't think it's constructive. No one is going to be knocking on random doors. It just doesn't happen."
According to an article published in the Olympian, however, a spokesman for WhoSigned.org said he hoped posting the list of names "would lead to conversations between neighbors about the legislation" and that "the list would give gay rights advocates the opportunity to educate individuals."
Further, the ACLJ contends it is not necessary to prove intimidation is happening, as the issue is a matter of Constitutional protection of free speech and the political process. And now that the case – which was decided against traditional marriage supporters at the appellate level – has gone to the Supreme Court, the upcoming ruling could affect voters in all 50 states.
"The Supreme Court has an opportunity to correct a damaging decision that threatens the constitutional protections afforded to political speech," said Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the ACLJ, in a statement. "The process of initiating legislation is constitutionally protected as well. To force petitioners who oppose controversial ballot measures to disclose their identities as well as personal information is not only wrong, but violates core political speech rights protected by the First Amendment."
"There is no meaningful distinction between signing a referendum petition and voting," the ACLJ brief explains. "Whether the citizen touches a screen, presses a lever or signs his name, he is participating in the political process – expressing his convictions on the political issue at hand. The right to secret ballot – 'the hard-won right to vote one's conscience without fear of retaliation,' McIntyre, 514 U.S. at 343, – is, of course, one of the most precious rights."
"Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority," the brief continues, quoting a 1995 Supreme Court case. "It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation – and their ideas from suppression – at the hand of an intolerant society."
Washington Secretary of State Sam Reed, the defendant in the case, told the Seattle Times that Washington is defending its public-disclosure law as a matter of government transparency: "We welcome an opportunity to go to the highest court in the land to defend Washington citizens' strong desire for transparency, openness and accountability in government, and the public's belief that our state and local public documents must be available for public inspection."
Arguments before the court are scheduled for April, with a decision possible as soon as June.
"It is not surprising," Reed said, "that the Supreme Court would be intrigued by a nationally-watched case dealing with disclosure, First Amendment considerations and public discourse during the Internet era."
___________________________________________________ JMC Ministries Response
JMC LIVE Show from March 9, 2010 talking about this topic and other Eternal Flame News articles
