This past Sunday, Faith Community Church picked back up the summer series of “Faith Matters.” Greg Gifford (WEBSITE | TWITTER) taught on how to apply Scripture to prioritizing your marriage by strengthening the “core” of this all-important relationship. Below are some practical tools to help you prioritize your marriage by faith:
1) DIGITAL BOUNDARIES: This means you need a location to keep your phones while at home so that they are not always on you, and always demanding your attention. A simply priority would be that you do not engage technology before you meaningfully engage your spouse.
2) FIRST FIFTEEN MINUTES PROJECT: Another thing that I encourage couples to all the time is the idea of crystallizing the first fifteen minutes that you are home for each other. This means that the wife stops what she’s doing if she’s home, or the husband stops what he’s doing and you guys take 15 minutes to talk with each other. We have to hang up the phone when our spouse walks in the door. We have to put dinner on hold for a few minutes. This is just a very practical way of saying you matter to me. You’re a priority. Children—be quiet. TV—be quiet. Telephone—be quiet. My spouse is home and they are a priority to me.
The Young Turks are at it again with their clickbait titles and blatant disregard for factual content. This time claiming that Germany’s “universal health care as always worked”. We take a moment for rebuttal…
Why is the government so bad at healthcare? Why did Obamacare make it more expensive than it already was? Is there a solution? Former Member of Congress Bob McEwen explains.
Mark Levin reads from the following FOX NEWS piece:
Even with the Senate health care bill on hold pending the return of a key lawmaker, moderate Republicans already have extracted what critics call “payoffs” from Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell in exchange for their support.
Those familiar with the process, even from the other side of the aisle, told Fox News “this is how things get done.” But the sweeteners are reminiscent of the wheeling and dealing then-Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., did to pass ObamaCare, which Republicans criticized at the time.
And just as critics used nicknames like the “Cornhusker Kickback” to blast those ObamaCare add-ons, some are doing the same for the special provisions tucked into the ObamaCare overhaul.
Get ready to hear howls about what critics dub the “Polar Payoff” (for Alaska GOP Sen. Lisa Murkowski); “Bayout Bailout” (for Louisiana GOP Sen. Bill Cassidy); and “Sunshine Sellout” (for Florida GOP Sen. Marco Rubio).
These provisions were added in an effort to win over votes from these senators, Capitol Hill sources told Fox News.
They are as follows:
Polar Payoff — The revised legislation requires that 1 percent of funds meant to ‘stabilize’ the insurance market are available to states “where the cost of insurance premiums are at least 75 percent higher than the national average,” sources told Fox News. Alaska is the only state that meets this benchmark under the new legislation and would receive $1.82 billion over the next eight years, sources said.
Bayou Bailout — Louisiana and Alaska — and potentially other states — would benefit from this sweetener. The provision, a major selling point for Cassidy, would tweak the formula so that states that were late to expand Medicaid could get more funding.
Sunshine Sellout — Sources said this provision was meant to benefit Rubio’s Florida. The tweak would change the way funding is calculated under the “Disproportionate Share Hospital” program, resulting in more money for Florida.
Former Nebraska Democratic Sen. Ben Nelson, who was the beneficiary of ObamaCare’s “Cornhusker Kickback” and received considerable GOP scorn at the time, told Fox News on Monday that Republicans are guilty of hypocrisy.
“When roles are reversed, it’s humorous,” Nelson told Fox News. “Republicans were criticizing Democrats for things done back then, and now, they’re engaged in the same thing in order to get the number of votes necessary.”………..
Antonia Okafor, a young, single, black woman, recently discovered that’s she’s a racist, sexist, misogynist. How in the world did this happen? None other than Antonia Okafor explains.
Three things happened – a “Tri-Fecta” of sorts – to make me look seriously at my conspiratorial views of history and the world. MANY years ago, as a newer Christian (as do many new Christians who are reading through the Bible for the first time) – often times [the collective] we get caught-up in an “overabundance” of the eschatological material and issues. This is natural in some respect. It offers a suspensful, fast paced idea to the future. Not only that, but I think God ingrains in us this “the end is coming soon” to make us search for truth a bit. We see it in every generation (literally), and there have been secular versions of it as well all throughout history. The latest being the “Existential Climate Crisis.” In that early fascination of everything “end-times,” my early book collection focused heavily on the New World Order and all that that entails conspiracy-wise. I am still proud [being a bibliophile] that my “conspiracy”/NWO portion of my library holds classics as well as new books on the topic.
I was mesmerized by the conspiratorial view of history. Really, I was. But Y2K came and went without but a murmur, much to the consternation of the many theorists I followed at the time. At that same time, I started listening to the Michael Medved Show who, on every full moon dedicated his 3-hours on that day to taking calls on EVERYTHING under the sun conspiracy-wise. It was the first time I had heard reasonable responses to history I was misinterpreting. So, I started to go through (re-read) many of my books and actually follow the footnotes to see if they “panned-out”… and much of the info I was assuming to be sound was in fact not:
Quotes attributed to Founding Fathers were spurious;
items in museums were not in fact where they were said to be;
fuller readings of the source material showed isolated topics that in a fuller reading (context is king) showed a twisting of the material;
So with these three issues I was well on the way to recovery. Then 9/11 hit, and all the crazy conspiracies that came from it… as well as all the misinformation about Iraq, Big-Oil, Halliburton, WMDs, and the like. Physician, heal thy self.
And so I reject the conspiratorial view for many reasons, not the least of which is one of the same reasons I reject Darwinism.
I have spent a lot of time debunking some issues… not the least of which are 9/11 truther junk. Glad to see some may have found this page with your thinking helmet on.
A VERY SMALL sample of my library on this topic (remember, my home library boasts over 5,000 books, I have about a hundred-or-so of these books dealing with the conspiratorial view of history). I usually starighten and edit my scans, but the rough scans below are a form of saying, “yes I own them… fool!” Lol.
(Above) The Paris Climate Agreement will cost at least $1 trillion per year, and climate activists say it will save the planet. The truth? It won’t do anything for the planet, but it will make everyone poorer–except politicians and environmentalists. Bjorn Lomborg explains.
CLIMATE CHANGE: WHAT’S SO ALARMING? || Are droughts, hurricanes, floods and other natural disasters getting stronger and more frequent? Are carbon dioxide emissions, global temperatures and sea levels putting us on a path for climate catastrophe? Bjorn Lomborg, Director of the Copenhagen Consensus Center, breaks down the facts about the environment and shows why the reality of climate change may be very different from what you hear in the media.
DO 97% OF CLIMATE SCIENTISTS REALLY AGREE? || Is it true that 97% of climate scientists agree that climate change is real? Where does the 97% figure come from? And if it is true, do they agree on both the severity of and the solution to climate change? New York Times bestselling author Alex Epstein, founder of the Center for Industrial Progress, reveals the origins of the “97%” figure and explains how to think more clearly about climate change.
FOSSIL FUELS: THE GREENEST ENERGY || To make earth cleaner, greener and safer, which energy sources should humanity rely on? Alex Epstein of the Center for Industrial Progress explains how modern societies have cleaned up our water, air and streets using the very energy sources you may not have expected–oil, coal and natural gas.
CLIMATE CHANGE: WHAT DO SCIENTISTS SAY? || Climate change is an urgent topic of discussion among politicians, journalists and celebrities…but what do scientists say about climate change? Does the data validate those who say humans are causing the earth to catastrophically warm? Richard Lindzen, an MIT atmospheric physicist and one of the world’s leading climatologists, summarizes the science behind climate change.
ARE ELECTRIC CARS REALLY GREEN? || Are electric cars greener than conventional gasoline cars? If so, how much greener? What about the CO2 emissions produced during electric cars’ production? And where does the electricity that powers electric cars come from? Environmental economist Bjorn Lomborg, director of the Copenhagen Consensus Center, examines how environmentally friendly electric cars really are.
IS CLIMATE CHANGE OUR BIGGEST PROBLEM? || Is man-made climate change our biggest problem? Are the wildfires, droughts and hurricanes we see on the news an omen of even worse things to come? The United Nations and many political leaders think so and want to spend trillions of tax dollars to reverse the warming trend. Are they right? Will the enormous cost justify the gain? Economist Bjorn Lomborg, director of the Copenhagen Consensus Center, explains the key issues and reaches some sobering conclusions.
CAN WE RELY ON WIND AND SOLAR ENERGY? || Is green energy, particularly wind and solar energy, the solution to our climate and energy problems? Or should we be relying on things like natural gas, nuclear energy, and even coal for our energy needs and environmental obligations? Alex Epstein of the Center for Industrial Progress explains. Learn about Alex Epstein’s book, The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels.
WHY I LEFT GREENPEACE || Patrick Moore explains why he helped to create Greenpeace, and why he decided to leave it. What began as a mission to improve the environment for the sake of humanity became a political movement in which humanity became the villain and hard science a non-issue.
WHAT THEY HAVEN’T TOLD YOU ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE || Since time immemorial, our climate has been and will always be changing. Patrick Moore explains why “climate change,” far from being a recent human-caused disaster, is, for a myriad of complex reasons, a fact of life on Planet Earth.
THE TRUTH ABOUT CO2 || Global Warming activists will tell you that CO2 is bad and dangerous. The EPA has even classified it as a pollutant. But is it? Patrick Moore provides some surprising facts about the benefits of CO2 that you won’t hear in the current debate.
TREES ARE THE ANSWER || Everybody loves trees, so why are they so controversial? Patrick Moore untangles the knotty issue of “deforestation” and shows how, from a purely environmental perspective, it is possible and desirable to grow more trees and use more wood products.
WHY YOU SHOULD LOVE FOSSIL FUEL || Every year on Earth Day we learn how bad humanity’s economic development is for the health of the planet. But maybe this is the wrong message. Maybe we should instead reflect on how human progress, even use of fossil fuels, has made our environment cleaner and healthier. Alex Epstein of the Center for Industrial Progress explains.
IS ORGANIC FOOD WORTH THE COST? || Are organic foods really healthier than non-organic foods? Are they better for animals? Are they better for the environment? Bjorn Lomborg, president of the Copenhagen Consensus Center, explains.
CAN A DESERT NATION SOLVE THE WORLD’S WATER SHORTAGE? || From California to Africa, we are facing a global water shortage. But one tiny country, in the middle of a desert, has found remarkable solutions. Which country? And can we replicate its success? Businessman and New York Times bestselling author Seth Siegel explains. (SEE ALSO: “Do You Pass the Israel Test?“)
(12/2017) Steven Crowder Explains Net Neutrality | Steven Crowder breaks down Net Neutrality and the ulterior motives behind big corporations like Google and Facebook supporting it!
(12/2017) Rush Limbaugh Explains Net Neutrality | Rush does a good job in explaining the countering info to all the scare tactics of the Left about “net neutrality.” At about the 10:15 mark Rush starts talking about ZERO RATING, an important factor in the freedom of the market that Leftists want government to control.
(12/2017) Net Neutrality – Ma Bell | Ajit Pai (Chairman of the United States Federal Communications Commission [FCC]) responds to a challenge by Dennis Prager. Various articles and media — but the main article shows Ma Bell to be a monopoly BECAUSE of government regulation!
(11/2017) Steven Crowder and Ben Shapiro Discuss “Net Neutrality” | A couple articles and…[Video Description] Back from Thursday night mega show hiatus talking all things Trump Jr./Russia, Net Neutrality, Afghan robotics teams, dating abortionists and more. Special guests Ben Shapiro and Cassie Jaye of “The Red Pill”. Colton Wade makes his debut!
(03/2013) Professor Thomas Hazlett – Net Neutrality | [Video One] “I’m very confident a hundred years from now we won’t have an FCC,” says Thomas Hazlett, Reason contributor and George Mason economics professor. [Video Two] Professor Thomas Hazlett (George Mason University) discusses net neutrality at a lecture given at the Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford.
(05/2011) Steven Crowder Does Net Neutrality | This week, we asked people at South by Southwest how the felt about Net Neutrality. Everyone supported it, until they found out what it actually is…
(01/2011) Verizon Suing the FCC-Right On! | Verizon Communications has become the first of what many expect to be many, to sue the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to undo its voting themselves Internet Overlords on December 21st….
(01/2011) Net Neutrality (Have You Ever Known the Gov to be Neutral? | Net Neutrality is a proposed set of regulatory powers that would grant the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) the ability to control how Internet service providers (ISPs) package their services. Proponents argue that such rules are necessary to ensure that ISPs treat all data on the Internet equally and don’t slow or even restrict access to various websites and other parts of the Internet. However well-intentioned, the practical effect will be to limit consumer choice and grant the federal government unprecedented power over the Internet, all in the name of fixing a problem that doesn’t exist in any meaningful way. Indeed, examples of the behavior that Net Neutrality will combat are few and far between.
(12/2010) What is Net Neutrality? And Why Should Someone Oppose It? | Seton Motley talks about the FCC’s upcoming Net Neutrality regulations, which will affect the way you receive your Internet. In his view – negatively. Here’s why, and what else you should be concerned about. (Marxist connections discussed)
Articles (newest to oldest)
(12/2018) PREDICTIONS ABOUT NET NEUTRALITY DID NOT COME TO PASS |REAL CLEAR POLICY|
(12/2017) California To Bring Back Net Neutrality… But Only For California | HOT AIR |
(12/2017) Debunking the Left’s Myths on Net Neutrality | HERITAGE FOUNDATION |
(10/2017) Millennial Asks for Net Neutrality Explanation | RUSH LIMBAUGH |
(07/2017) 7 Reasons Net Neutrality Is Idiotic: The government should keep its grubby hands off the Internet | THE DAILY WIRE |
(04/2017) Why ‘Net Neutrality’ Is a Problem | CATO INSTITUTE |
(07/2016) Ma Bell Suppressed Innovation for Thirty Grueling Years: In light of this history, so-called net neutrality should give us pause | FOUNDATION for ECONOMIC EDUCATION (FEE) |
(03/2015) Opinion: The Fcc’S Net Neutrality Victory Is Anything But | WIRED MAGAZINE |
(09/2014)Limbaugh is Right, Net Neutrality Is An Attack On Free Speech — So Why Is Comcast For It? | FORBES |
(09/2014) Net Neutrality — or Destroying Internet Innovation and Investment? | CATO INSTITUTE |
(07/2013) Don’t Blame Big Cable. It’s Local Governments That Choke Broadband Competition | WIRED MAGAZINE |
(03/2013) “The FCC did not have the statutory authority to do what it did” On Net Neutrality, Says Departing FCC Commissioner | REASON.ORG |
(08/2012) Thank Goodness We Have Net Neutrality to Save Us From the Threat of People Paying to Video Chat Over Mobile Networks | REASON.ORG |
(08/2012) The Free Market Doesn’t Need Government Regulation: Bureaucrats regulate by threat of physical force while the market operates peacefully through millions of cooperating participants | REASON.ORG |
(12/2010) John Fund: The Net Neutrality Coup (Marxist connections discussed) | ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER |
(05/2010) The Breakup Of Ma Bell — Let me caveat this article by saying I am NOT a fan of the New American Magazine. They are a John Birch publication, and my understanding of this organization is intimate, and so are my ultimate rejection of many of it’s positions. THAT BEING SAID, I thoroughly enjoyed much of the content (minus the NWO crap!) | NEW AMERICAN MAGAZINE |
(07/2007) The Comcast Net Neutrality Controversy: A Discussion | HERITAGE FOUNDATION |
(04/2000) Internet Access Should Be Left to the Free Market: Forced Access Legislation Will Not Achieve Its Intended Goals | FOUNDATION for ECONOMIC EDUCATION (FEE) |
“If you believe in equal rights, then what do ‘women’s rights,’ ‘gay rights,’ etc., mean? Either they are redundant or they are violations of the principle of equal rights for all.” — Thomas Sowell
FETUS (Latin)That which is born, an offspring (usu of beast occ. of human being, ect) b (sg. collect.) the young (of an animal), the children (of a parent). c the young born at one time, brood, litter. d the young while still in the womb – Oxford Latin Dictionary
White Student: This school seems to focus so much on race that it’s actually becoming more racist. Because I choose not to focus on race I’ve actually been labeled a racist and white supremacist. I’ve been told several times that I’m not allowed to speak because I’m white. I think people are becoming more violent. The campus is becoming more of an unsafe place.
