|
|
|
|
Standing in support of Israel, Jews, and believers in all the nations, in the name of Jesus (Yeshua). Sharing biblical truth, encouragement, news and prophecy.
Tuesday, June 27, 2017
Prophetic Word: It's Time to Create History, Not Reenact | Lance Wallnau Issues a Prophetic Word for Each and Every One of Us - PROPHETIC INSIGHT CHARISMA
A Safe Place By Morris Ruddick
| |||||||
| |||||||
|
WATCH: Here’s How to Say Abortion Using Sign Language - FAITHWIRE
 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Monday, June 26, 2017 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
'Focus on the Family' Founder James Dobson Marks 40 Years in Broadcasting - CBN News Wendy Griffith
Dr. James Dobson
'Focus on the Family' Founder James Dobson Marks 40 Years in Broadcasting
06-26-2017
CBN News Wendy Griffith
COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. -- He's been called one of the most influential Evangelical leaders of our time, and for good reason. For the past four decades, Dr. James Dobson has devoted his life and ministry to preserving the family. He's best known for his long-running radio show, "Focus on the Family" and this year celebrates 40 years in broadcasting. CBN's Wendy Griffith recently traveled to his Colorado Springs headquarters to find out what's next for the iconic broadcaster.
Jim Dobson was born in Shreveport, Louisiana in 1936, the son, grandson and great-grandson of ministers.
Wendy: "A lot of people don't know this but you had some rebellious years?"
Teenaged Rebellion Changes Everything
Dobson: "Surprise, Surprise....My Dad was gone a lot and my mother raised me. She was a great, great mother, but like a lot of kids when I turned 16 I began to think I knew more than she did. And I had been out somewhere, I didn't do anything really bad, but I came home and she said, 'I know where you've been,' and I said, 'Right. I'm going to do it again.' And I'd never taken her on like that and she looked at me and said, 'what did you say?' and I said, 'I've made up my mind there are some things I'm going to do my way.' And she just said, hmmm and she had the phone sitting there and she reached over and took the phone, my dad was a thousand miles away, and she called him, while I was standing there. She had a simple message for him: 'I need you' ...and to my shock my Dad canceled a four-year slate of revival meetings and said I'm not doing that anymore. He got on a train and came home."
That decision changed everything for the young "Jimmy."
Dobson: "My Dad, by making that sacrifice, invested in me. We hunted, we fished, he was with me. It pulled me back from the edge. I was an only child so that time with my mother and dad was idyllic."
Dobson Takes a Different Path
But the young Dobson did not follow his forefathers to the pulpit, choosing instead the path of academia. That decision led him to become a child psychologist at Children's Hospital in Los Angeles. But his growing concern for the rapid demise of the family overshadowed his love for academia.
He says he could see what was coming to the culture - a breakdown of the family unit.
With his wife Shirley and two young children, Dobson left university life in 1977 to begin a radio program on 34 Christian stations called
"Focus on the Family." Unfortunately, that was when his own family began to suffer.
"Focus on the Family." Unfortunately, that was when his own family began to suffer.
Heeding the Warning Signs in His Own Family
Dobson: "I was neglecting my own family and my Dad saw it. He wrote me a letter and I still have it today. He started off by saying how proud he was of me...but the world into which your children are born is very different than the world into which you were born and if you don't have time to invest in them and pray for them you'll lose them. I could cry today, it's been all those years. He said to me, when you sit where I sit, all this other stuff you're doing, it's wonderful, but I'm telling you, it won't matter anything."
Dobson cut back on travel and Focus on the Family took off. It eventually grew to 7,000 stations in 150 countries and at its peak reached 220 million people each day.
In addition to his radio show, Dobson wrote numerous best sellers including, Dare to Discipline and What Wives Wish Their Husbands Knew About Women. He also started the influential Family Research Council and served as an advisor to five U.S. presidents including Ronald Reagan.
Dobson: "He said, 'I want you to tell me what I can do to strengthen the family'. And I said, 'Why not a family impact study commission so that you can't mess with the family without knowing what you're doing to it?' There were four of those and he issued Executive Orders for all four and they stayed in place until Bill Clinton canceled them."
Interview with a Convicted Serial Killer
In 1989, Dobson shocked the nation when he met with serial killer Ted Bundy the day before his execution. Bundy told Dobson violent pornography led to his unthinkable behavior.
After more than 30 years at Focus on The Family, Dobson left in 2009 because of what he called "significant philosophical differences" with his successor. He began a new nationally syndicated show called "Family Talk" but says the message hasn't changed.
Dobson: "You cannot have a strong country without strong families. That's the next generation, those are the kids that are going to inherit everything from you, what you believe, what your spiritual views are, everything depends on that. And we are really playing with fire when we begin to rip into the fabric of that structure."
Wendy: "You have spent your life fighting for the family, fighting for traditional marriage, helping parents to raise good kids. When you look around today and you see gay marriage pretty much the law of the land and trans-gender becoming sort of the norm, do you ever get discouraged?"
Dobson: "Of course I do, because the family is the ground floor, that's the foundation for the entire culture; everything sits on that, our institutions, our government, our way of life, our values, our children, everything sits on that foundation."
No Plans for Retirement
At 81, Dobson says he has no plans to retire. He starts each day with 45 minutes on the treadmill before coming here to his office that looks more like a ski chalet - adorned with rustic furniture, family photos and a majestic view of Pike's Peak. And like Pike's Peak which towers more than 14,000 feet above Colorado Springs, Dobson says one thing remains paramount over all else - teaching your children to love the Lord.
Dobson: "There's nothing more important than introducing them to Jesus Christ. If you don't get that done and they die in an unrepentant state, according to my theology, you never see them again, boy if that doesn't put it in perspective...so to have an opportunity to influence those families is a great thrill for me..."
In honor of Dr. Dobson's 40th anniversary in broadcasting, Family Talk is launching the Dobson Digital Library. The project brings four decades of tried-and-true, family-centered content to a new generation of families on the worldwide web.
"The digital library is quite possibly the most important project we've ever undertaken, and that's why we've made it free for families and ministries everywhere," says Dobson.
The Federal Government Owns 61 Percent Of Idaho, 64 Percent Of Utah And 84 Percent Of Nevada - Michael Snyder THE ECONOMIC COLLAPSE BLOG
Posted: 26 Jun 2017 Michael Snyder THE ECONOMIC COLLAPSE BLOG
Did you know that the federal government owns 28 percent of all land in the United States? Today, the feds control approximately 640 million acres of land, and after decades of very poor management, many are calling on the states to take a larger role. This is particularly true in the 11 western states where the federal government collectively owns 47 percent of all land. East of the Mississippi River, the feds only own 4 percent of all land, and there is no reason for such a disparity to exist. In Connecticut and Iowa, the federal government only owns 0.3 percent of all land. Such an arrangement seems to work very well for those states, and so why can’t we dramatically reduce federal land ownership in the western states as well? Of course the federal government will always need a very small amount of land for certain national purposes, and nobody is disputing that. According to the Heritage Foundation, the following are the primary purposes that federal land is being used for… These holdings include national parks, national forests, recreation areas, wildlife refuges, vast tracts of range and wasteland managed by the Bureau of Land Management, reservations held in trust for Native American tribes, military bases, and ordinary federal buildings and installations.We will always need to have some land set aside for those purposes. But does the Bureau Of Land Management really need more than 247 million acres? Does the Forest Service really need more than 192 million acres? Does the Fish and Wildlife Service really need more than 89 million acres? If the feds were doing a good job, that would be one thing, but in so many instances federal land managers have gotten an extremely bad reputation. The following comes from an article by Sue Lani Madsen… For example, federal land is exempt from state noxious weed control laws, and lack of weed control has earned federal land a reputation as a bad neighbor. Frustrated local federal land managers are hindered by layers of internal regulations and restricted funding that make timely response to weed outbreaks difficult.And thanks to mismanagement by the feds, wildfires tend to spread very rapidly in many areas owned and controlled by the federal government. At this point more than 2.6 million acres of land have already burned in 2017, and that is close to 30 percent ahead of last year’s pace. If you have never lived in a western state, it may be difficult for you to imagine just how frustrating it is to have the federal government in control of vast stretches of your state. In so many cases the feds simply do not care about local issues or concerns, and when they drop the ball there is often very little that can be done about it. According to Ballotpedia, the federal government owns more than 28 percent of the land in 12 different western states… Washington: 28.5 percent Montana: 29.0 percent New Mexico: 34.7 percent Colorado: 35.9 percent Arizona: 38.6 percent California: 45.8 percent Wyoming: 48.1 percent Oregon: 52.9 percent Alaska: 61.2 percent Idaho: 61.6 percent Utah: 64.9 percent Nevada: 84.9 percent Here in Idaho, we are glad to have so much public land because it is a wonderful thing for hunters, fishers, hikers and those that enjoy other outdoor activities. So we want to continue our tradition of having wide open spaces that are owned by the public – we just want the federal government to hand over the keys and leave. We believe that Idaho land should be owned by the people of Idaho, and we believe that Idaho’s natural resources should be managed by the people of Idaho. Those that are against transferring ownership of federal land to the states often argue that it would be too expensive for the states to handle… Paying for wildfire protection alone—it accounts for about half of the U.S. Forest Service’s annual budget of $6.5 billion—would burden Western taxpayers, says the Center for Western Priorities, a conservation group.But one study found that it is actually profitable for states to manage their own public lands. Here is more from Sue Lani Madsen… A 2015 study by the Property and Environment Research Center, a free-market environmental think tank, consistently found state-managed land provided a return on every dollar spent while federal lands managed by the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management cost more to operate than they return in revenue.At the end of the day, this is just another area where we need to readjust the balance of power between the states and the federal government. Our founders intended to create a system where the states had much more power than the central government, but instead that has become totally flipped around. Today, it is almost as if the 10th Amendment does not even exist. Most of the time the federal government treats state governments as little more than puppets, and very few state governments have the backbone to stand up for themselves. As conservatives, we need to start standing up against the costly federal mandates that are imposing such a financial burden on our state governments. We want control of our own laws and our own budgets. It is also time for the feds to get off the backs of our farmers, our miners, our loggers and our ranchers. Some of the most abusive federal agencies, such as the EPA, need to be shut down entirely. And if our local communities do not want to take Islamic refugees from the Middle East, they should not be forced to do so by the federal government. Here in Idaho, three young Islamic refugees raped a 5-year-old girl, and yet the federal government does not seem to care about our outrage. Recently, I have been talking to so many people that just want the federal government to leave us alone. Instead of solving our problems, most of the time the federal government is the problem, and things would be so much better if the feds would just stay out of our business. |
What Would Justice Anthony Kennedy's Resignation Mean for America? - CBN News John Reid
What Would Justice Anthony Kennedy's Resignation Mean for America?
06-27-2017
CBN News John Reid
Rumors have intensified of Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy’s imminent retirement. But such rumors raise questions as to the implications of the Court’s only swing seat being vacated.
A prominent tenet to the 2016 presidential election was the incumbent’s influence on the judiciary. With the High Court’s three eldest jurists now aging 79-84, parties were concerned that the next president would replace a third of the bench. This concern became even more crucial upon the unexpected passing of the late Justice Antonin Scalia, who was recently replaced by Justice Neil Gorsuch.
Gorsuch holds conservative values akin to his predecessor and thus makes no dramatic difference in the Court’s proportions. However, the political left may fear that President Trump will appoint a less neutral, more conservative justice to replace Kennedy, inevitably causing a shift in the Court’s jurisprudence.
Appointed in February of 1988 by president Ronald Reagan, Kennedy has taken a strictly juristic approach to constitutional interpretation. Kennedy has ruled across a wide spectrum of jurisdictive narratives during his judicial tenure. Here is how Kennedy has ruled among the more incendiary topics introduced by the Court in recent years:
Religious Liberties and LGBT Rights
Kennedy has reputably leaned conservative in cases of religious liberties but liberal in cases of homosexuality. In the recent Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer Kennedy joined the 7-2 majority, a victory for the local church and religious liberties in general. However, Kennedy has defended homosexuality more times than not. Kennedy took the liberal position in Romer v. Evans (’96), United States v. Windsor (’13), Obergefell v. Hodges (’15) and others. In an anomaly decision, he opined that the Boy Scouts of America do have the right to ban homosexuals from being scoutmasters in Boy Scouts of America v. Dale (’00).
Kennedy has reputably leaned conservative in cases of religious liberties but liberal in cases of homosexuality. In the recent Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer Kennedy joined the 7-2 majority, a victory for the local church and religious liberties in general. However, Kennedy has defended homosexuality more times than not. Kennedy took the liberal position in Romer v. Evans (’96), United States v. Windsor (’13), Obergefell v. Hodges (’15) and others. In an anomaly decision, he opined that the Boy Scouts of America do have the right to ban homosexuals from being scoutmasters in Boy Scouts of America v. Dale (’00).
A contentious variable to consider: The Court just announced that they will hear the case of Denver baker, Jack Phillips, who refused to customize a cake for a gay wedding and has since been ruled against by the state of Colorado. This case involves both religious liberties and LGBT rights but Kennedy will likely not be on the bench when the Court hears the case this fall. It is debatable whether Kennedy’s replacement will be appointed and confirmed before this case, and if not then Phillips risks a SCOTUS tie, which would defer to the municipal ruling.
Abortion
In Hodgson v. Minnesota (’90), Kennedy supported a mandate that minors inform both parents before having an abortion.
In Planned Parenthood v. Casey (’92), Kennedy joined the pluralistic majority citing Roe v. Wade as precedent.
In Stenberg v. Carhart (’00), Kennedy dissented a ruling that struck down a Nebraska law criminalized partial-birth abortions.
In Hodgson v. Minnesota (’90), Kennedy supported a mandate that minors inform both parents before having an abortion.
In Planned Parenthood v. Casey (’92), Kennedy joined the pluralistic majority citing Roe v. Wade as precedent.
In Stenberg v. Carhart (’00), Kennedy dissented a ruling that struck down a Nebraska law criminalized partial-birth abortions.
Gun Control
Kennedy joined the majority in two cases that affirmed the 2ndAmendment to be applied to domiciled residence: Disctrict of Columbia v. Heller (’08), which struck down the ban on handguns in Washington D.C., and McDonald v. Chicago (’10), which ruled that the 2nd Amendment is applied to the States through the Due Process Clause of the 14thAmendment.
Kennedy joined the majority in two cases that affirmed the 2ndAmendment to be applied to domiciled residence: Disctrict of Columbia v. Heller (’08), which struck down the ban on handguns in Washington D.C., and McDonald v. Chicago (’10), which ruled that the 2nd Amendment is applied to the States through the Due Process Clause of the 14thAmendment.
Free Speech
In the 1989 case of Texas v. Johnson, Kennedy delivered a famous opinion that diplomatically merged his detest for flag burning with his conviction that it be a protected right:
In the 1989 case of Texas v. Johnson, Kennedy delivered a famous opinion that diplomatically merged his detest for flag burning with his conviction that it be a protected right:
"It is poignant but fundamental that the flag protects those who hold it in contempt."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)