Sacrifice of Isaac

WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 29, 2010

Sacrifice of Isaac
There were ancient Jewish traditions which held that Abraham actually killed Isaac on the mount and the Lord brought Isaac back to life. The reference in Hebrews 11: 17-19 seems to be based upon this earlier tradition; in contrast to the Genesis account (Gen. 22: 9-13.)

If Abraham actually slew Isaac, and Isaac was raised from the dead, the trial of Abraham and the test of Isaac is more analogous to Christ's sacrifice than we imagine.

Hugh Nibley writes about these earlier traditions in Abraham in Egypt, pp. 329-344, 372-375.

We imagine the difficulties of the ancients to be less than they were. Their faith was established through trial, sacrifice, obedience and consecration. Not to the will of man or men, but to the will of God. When men attempt to displace obedience to God into submission to the will of men, then it is not merely an error, it is idolatry. It is an abomination.

More often than not, obedience to God causes conflict with your fellow man. It did not get these ancient Saints applause, position, praise or notice.

Posted by Denver Snuffer

Parenting: Touching the Hearts of Our Youth

Dennis Prager - Know America!

Holder Admits to Not Reading Arizona's Immigration Law Despite Criticizing It...Incompetent, Dishonest, Administration

Despite repeatedly voicing concerns about Arizona's new immigration enforcement law in recent weeks and threatening to challenge it, Attorney General Eric Holder said Thursday he has not yet read the law -- which is only 10 pages long.

"I have not had a chance to -- I've glanced at it," Holder said at a House Judiciary Committee hearing when asked had he read the state law cracking down on illegal immigrants.

Holder told reporters last month that he fears the new law is subject to abuse and that the Justice Department and the Homeland Security Department are in the midst of conducting a review.

The Arizona law requires local and state law enforcement to question people about their immigration status if there's reason to suspect they're in the country illegally, and makes it a state crime to be in the United States illegally.

The law has sparked protests across the country, including a City Council-approved boycott of Arizona businesses by Los Angeles.But proponents deny that the law encourages racial profilng, with some saying the local controversy is a symptom of a broken federal immigration system.

Holder said last month that a number of options are under consideration, including the possibility of a court challenge.

On Thursday, Holder said he plans to read the law before reaching a decision on whether he thinks it's constitutional.

When asked by Rep.Ted Poe, R-Texas, how he could have constitutional concerns about a law he has not read, Holder said: "Well, what I've said is that I've not made up my mind. I've only made the comments that I've made on the basis of things that I've been able to glean by reading newspaper accounts, obviously, television, talking to people who are on the review panel...looking at the law."

On Sunday, Holder said he does not think Arizona's law is racially motivated but voiced concern that its enforcement could lead to racial profiling.

Holder said he understands the frustration behind the Arizona law, but he warned during an appearance on ABC's "This Week" that "we could potentially get on a slippery slope where people will be picked on because of how they look as opposed to what they have done."

"No More Bail Outs"? Right...except the ones we want!

Fannie and Freddie Failure Forever

Yesterday, Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) told reporters about his financial regulation bill, "We've ended the 'too big to fail' debate. So no longer do I expect any argument to be made that this bill exposes the American taxpayer." Really. Someone might want to tell Sen. Dodd that in other news yesterday, Freddie Mac announced that it lost another $6.7 billion in the first quarter of 2010 and therefore needed another $10.6 billion in cash from U.S. taxpayers. Since formally nationalizing Freddie in 2008, the federal government has already spent $50.7 billion bringing the Freddie bailout total to $61.3 billion so far. Combined with Fannie Mae's raid on the Treasury, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that the American people will spend $389 billion bailing out the two Government Sponsored Entities by 2019. So much for American taxpayers no longer being exposed to "too big to fail."

In fact, nothing in the Dodd bill does anything to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. This despite the fact that Fannie and Freddie were key components in causing the very financial crises Dodd claims his bill will forever prevent. Fannie and Freddie were both created for the specific purpose of making it easier for Americans to buy more expensive housing. Starting in 1993, political forces pushed Fannie and Freddie to loosen their once strict loan purchasing requirements. By 1996, regulations required that 40% of all Fannie and Freddie-bought loans must come from individuals with below median incomes. In 1995, Fannie and Freddie began buying subprime securities originally bought and bundled by private firms. One of these firms was Countrywide Financial who, thanks to their status as Fannie Mae's biggest customer, delivered investors a 23,000% return between 1985 and 2003. By 2004, Fannie and Freddie were purchasing $175 billion worth of subprime securities per year from Countrywide and their brethren... a 44% share of the entire market. There are other factors that helped contribute to the 2008 financial crisis, but Fannie and Freddie's use of their "too big to fail" status to create and grow the subprime security market was essential.

But Sen. Dodd, who received V.I.P. treatment from Countrywide CEO Angelo Mozilo, never saw any problem with Fannie and Freddie. On July 13, 2008, Senator Dodd said on national television, "To suggest somehow that [Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac] are in trouble is simply not accurate." Less than two months later the bailouts of Fannie and Freddie began. Keep these facts in mind when Dodd says his bill solves the "too big to fail" problem.

The problems with the Dodd bill go beyond its failure to let Fannie and Freddie wither into extinction. While Dodd has agreed to get rid of the $50 billion bailout fund, the underlying bailout authority still remains. Now taxpayers are expected to front the government money while firms are liquidated. But the irresponsible creditors who let those firms borrow money irresponsibly would still be eligible for taxpayer bailouts. According to The Washington Post, "a failing firm would be forced to pay back the government any money they received above what they would have gotten under a bankruptcy proceeding." But how does the government know what creditors would have got if the company went into bankruptcy? Why not just strengthen the existing bankruptcy system and actually allow these too big to fail firms to, ya know, fail?

But Dodd and the Obama administration would never allow that. It would defeat the whole purpose this financial regulation bill, which is to transfer as much power to the federal government as possible. Never mind that these are the same government regulators who failed to see the last crisis coming

Hiding in Plain Sight by Ken Bowers

80% Say Religious Faith is Important To Their Daily Lives

Eight-out-of-10 Americans (80%) say that their religious faith is at least somewhat important in their daily lives, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. Just 18% feel their religious faith is not very or not at all important to their lives.

Fifty-seven percent (57%) of all adults describe their religious faith as very important to their daily living.

Women are more likely than men to feel their faith is very important to their lives. Sixty-six percent (66%) of African-Americans say their religious faith is very important, compared to 56% of whites. Married adults are more inclined than unmarrieds to rate their faith as very important to daily living.

While the majorities of those of all faiths say their religious beliefs are at least somewhat important to their daily lives, there are sharp differences in terms of those who describe it as very important. Eighty-two percent (82%) of Evangelical Christians say their religious faith is very important every day, a view shared by 65% of other Protestants, 46% of Catholics and 37% of those of other beliefs.

(Want a free daily e-mail update? If it's in the news, it's in our polls). Rasmussen Reports updates are also available on Twitter or Facebook.

Sixty-three percent (63%) of adults say they pray at least once a day. Nineteen percent (19%) pray occasionally, while 15% rarely or never pray at all.

Adults who attend church regularly are more inclined to pray daily.

Seventy-two percent (72%) of those who pray every day say their religious faith is very important to their daily lives.

A federal judge in Wisconsin recently struck down as unconstitutional the National Day of Prayer, declared by Congress in 1952. But 60% of Americans favor having the federal government recognize a National Day of Prayer.

Sixty-seven percent (67%) of adults who favor a National Day of Prayer say a prayer daily, compared to 17% who rarely or never pray.

But then only 21% of all Americans think that rulings by judges in recent years regarding religion in public life have correctly interpreted the U.S. Constitution. Sixty-four percent (64%) of adults believe the judges’ rulings have been more anti-religious than the Founding Fathers intended.

While the courts in recent years have pushed religion out of most schools, Americans by a nearly two-to-one margin – 61% to 31% - favor prayer in public schools. Americans also remain overwhelmingly in favor of allowing religious symbols to be displayed on public land and feel even more strongly that public schools should celebrate at least some religious holidays.

Please sign up for the Rasmussen Reports daily e-mail update (it’s free) or follow us onTwitter or Facebook. Let us keep you up to date with the latest public opinion news.

See survey questions and toplines. Crosstabs and are available to Premium Members.

Jon Voight Letter to America

Thomas Jefferson

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in their government."

Thomas Jefferson

Obama Humor

The liberals are asking us to give Obama time. We agree - and think 25 to life would be appropriate. - Jay Leno
--------------------------

America needs Obama-Care like Nancy Pelosi needs a Halloween mask. - Jay Leno
--------------------------

Q: Have you heard about McDonald's' new Obama Value Meal?
A: Order anything you like and the guy behind you has to pay for it. -
Conan O'Brian
--------------------------

Q: What does Barack Obama call lunch with a convicted felon?
A: A fund raiser. - Jay Leno
--------------------------

Q: What's the difference between Obama's cabinet and a penitentiary?
A: One is filled with tax evaders, blackmailers and threats to society. The other is for housing prisoners. -

David Letterman
--------------------------

Q: If Nancy Pelosi and Obama were on a boat in the middle of the ocean and it started to sink, who would be saved?
A. America. - Jimmy Fallon
--------------------------

Q: What's the difference between Obama and his dog, Bo?
A: Bo has papers. - Jimmy Kimmel
--------------------------

Q: What was the most positive result of the "Cash for clunkers" program?
A: It took 95% of the Obama bumper stickers off the road. - David Letterman

Zeitgeist - The truth about our world....watch all 5 parts!

CALIFORNIA IS GOING BROKE!!!

Just One State - be sure and read the last part. This is only one State... If this doesn't open eyes, nothing will! 

From the L. A. Times:

40% of all workers in L.A. County ( L. A. County has 10.2 million people) are working for cash and not paying taxes.  This is because they are predominantly illegal immigrants working without a green card.

95% of warrants for murder in Los Angeles are for illegal aliens.

75% of people on the most wanted list in Los Angeles are illegal aliens.

Over 2/3 of all births in Los Angeles County are to illegal alien Mexicans on Medi-Cal, whose births were paid for by taxpayers.

Nearly 35% of all inmates in California detention centers are Mexican nationals here illegally.

Over 300,000 illegal aliens in Los Angeles County are living in garages.

The FBI reports half of all gang members in Los Angeles are most likely illegal aliens from south of the border.

Nearly 60% of all occupants of HUD properties are illegal.

21 radio stations in L. A. are Spanish speaking.

In L.A. County 5.1 million people speak English, 3.9 million speak Spanish.

(There are 10.2 million people in L.A. County .) 

(All 10 of the above facts were published in the Los Angeles Times) Less than 2% of illegal aliens are picking our crops, but 29% are on welfare. Over 70% of the United States ' annual population growth (and over 90% of California, Florida, and New York) results from immigration.  29% of inmates in federal prisons are illegal aliens.

We are fools for letting this continue. HOW CAN YOU HELP? Send copies of this letter to at least two other people.100 would be even better. This is only one State...read on....If this doesn't open your eyes nothing will, and you wonder why Nancy Pelosi wants them to become voters! 
  

************************************* 
  LET'S IMPEACH HER NOW BEFORE SHE DOES FURTHER DAMAGE!  WHAT AN IDIOT!  IF YOU DON'T AGREE JUST DELETE -- IF YOU DO PASS IT ON!  WHERE DO WE GET THESE MORONS?

Windfall Tax on Retirement Income.

Adding a tax to your retirement is simply another way of saying to the American people, you're so darn stupid that we're going to keep doing this until we drain every cent from you.  That's what the Speaker of the House is saying.  Read below. Nancy Pelosi wants a Windfall Tax on Retirement Income. In other words tax what you have made by investing toward your retirement. This woman is a nut case!  You aren't going to believe this. Madam speaker Nancy Pelosi wants to put a Windfall Tax on all stock market profits (including Retirement fund, 401K and Mutual Funds!  Alas, it is true - all to help the 12 Million Illegal Immigrants and other unemployed Minorities! This woman is frightening. She quotes 'We need to work toward the goal of equalizing income (didn't Marx say something like this?) in our country and at the same time limiting the amount the rich can invest.'  (I am not rich, are you?)  When asked how these new tax dollars would be spent, she replied: 
 "We need to raise the standard of living of our poor, unemployed and minorities.  For example, we have an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in our country who need our help along with millions of unemployed minorities.  Stock market windfall profits taxes could go a long way to guarantee these people the standard of living they would like to have as 'Americans."

(Read that quote again and again and let it sink in.) “Lower your retirement; give it to others who have not worked as you have for it.” Send it on to your friends.  I just did! This lady is out of her mind and she is the speaker of the house! 

Social Security Another Tax and Money You May Never See Again.

Just in case some of you young whippersnappers (& some older ones) didn't know this. It's easy to check out, if you don't believe it. Be sure and show it to your kids. They need a little history lesson on what's what and it doesn't matter whether you are Democrat or Republican. Facts are Facts!!! 

Our Social Security 

Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social 

Security (FICA) Program. He promised: 

1.) That participation in the Program would be completely voluntary, 

No longer Voluntary 

2.) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual incomes into the Program, 

Now 7.65% on the first $90,000 

3.) That the money the participants elected to put into the Program would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year, 

No longer tax deductible 

4.) That the money the participants put into the independent 'Trust Fund' rather than into the general operating fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social SecurityRetirement Program, and no other Government program, and under Lyndon Johnson the money was moved to The General Fund and Spent!

5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income. Under Clinton & Gore Up to 85% of your Social Security can be Taxed.

Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are now receiving a Social Security check every month -- and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of the money we paid to the Federal government to 'put away' -- you may be interested in the following: 

------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ---- 

Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the 

independent 'Trust Fund' and put it into the 

general fund so that Congress could spend it? 

A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the democratically 

controlled House and Senate. 

------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -- 

Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax 

deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding? 

A: The Democratic Party. 

------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ----- 

Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social 

Security annuities? 

A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the 

'tie-breaking' deciding vote as President of the 

Senate, while he was Vice President of the  US 

------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- - 

Q: Which Political Party decided to start giving annuity payments to immigrants? 

AND MY FAVORITE: 

A: That's right! 

Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party! 

Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65, 

began to receive Social Security payments! The 

Democratic Party gave these payments to them, 

even though they never paid a dime into it! 

------------ -- ------------ --------- ----- ------------ --------- --------- 

Then, after violating the original contract (FICA), the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social Security away! 

And the worst part about it is uninformed citizens believe it! 

Are you one of them? 

If enough people receive this, maybe a seed of awareness will be planted and maybe changes will occur. Maybe not, some Democrats are awfully  sure of what isn't so. 

But it's worth a try. How many people can YOU send this to? 

Actions speak louder than bumper stickers. 

AND CONGRESS GIVES THEMSELVES 100% RETIREMENT FOR ONLY SERVING ONE TERM!!! 

A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.

-Thomas Jefferson

No April Fool's Joke...Don't Fall For Obama's Energy Shell Game

Can the Obama administration's desperate attempts to cover their true far left nature with centrist rhetoric and promises become any more transparent? Yesterday, the President announced "an expansion of offshore oil and gas exploration" in selected areas off the coasts of the United States. The President claims this announcement was made "in order to sustain economic growth and produce jobs," but nobody believes him. Just take a quick look at today's newspaper reporting:

• The Los Angeles Times: "President Obama ... unveiled a controversial offshore drilling plan Wednesday that was driven largely by the politics of his agenda on energy and climate change -- not by hopes of changing the nation's energy supply."
• The Washington Post: "President Obama's decision ... reflects a high-stakes calculation by the White House: Splitting the difference on the most contentious energy issues could help secure a bipartisan climate deal this year."
• Politico: "Obama’s decision is closely tied politically to the fate of the climate change bill jointly sponsored by Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), John Kerry (D-MA), and Joe Lieberman (I-CT)."
• The New York Times: "The proposal is also intended to ... help win political support for comprehensive energy and climate legislation."
• Bloomberg: "President Barack Obama’s pledge to expand offshore oil and natural-gas drilling may help Democrats deliver legislation that regulates carbon dioxide emissions before any fuel is produced."

In fact, if anything, the policies announced by President Obama yesterday will actually decrease and delay future U.S. oil production. The President actually canceled four lease sales off the Alaska coast that were planned to begin producing oil within the next two years, delayed a planned lease off Virginia until at least 2012, and placed some areas off limits for at least seven years. Go back and look at President Obama's actual announcement again: he only promised new exploration off the Atlantic coast. There is absolutely no guarantee that any new drilling will ever occur. Secretary Ken Salazar's Interior Department still has full discretion to never allow a single drop of oil to be harvested from these waters. And that doesn't even begin to address the court challenges the enviro-left will employ to attack and delay the entire process.

So if developing new energy sources that can create private sector jobs for Americans and new revenues for financially strapped states and the federal government is not the Obama administration's real goal, then what is? Well, President Obama's Energy Secretary Steven Chu, who was at yesterday's announcement, has said, "Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe." For reference purposes, when Secretary Chu said that, Europeans were paying $8 a gallon for gas at the pump.

Canceling current offshore oil leases and delaying future ones are not the only policy means the Obama administration is using to pursue the high energy price policy ends. The Obama administration has also declared war on energy production in the Mountain West, rescinding oil-shale development leases in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming. His administration has completely failed to take on the real regulatory reforms necessary to allow a private sector nuclear industry to thrive. And just this week, the Obama Environmental Protection Agency began its regulation of carbon emissions through the Clean Air Act.

And let's not forget the grand daddy of them all: a cap and trade energy tax bill. But don't call it that. Secretary Salazar toldCNBC yesterday, "I think the term 'cap and trade' is not in the lexicon anymore." Whatever you call it, placing an arbitrary penalty on carbon emissions would mean disaster for the American economy. The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis has found that cap and tax legislation would cost the average family of four almost $3,000 per year, cause 2.5 million net job losses by 2035, and produce a cumulative gross domestic product (GDP) loss of $9.4 trillion between 2012 and 2035.

So don't be fooled by President Barack Obama's energy rhetoric. High energy prices are not a side effect of climate legislation - they are the whole point. According to the latest Pew poll, 63% of Americans support allowing more offshore oil and gas drilling in U.S. waters. Americans deserve an energy policy that reduces prices, creates private sector jobs, and reduces our national debt. Right now they have the opposite.