What's stupid are fools who don't recognize History and similarities, and then ask, how did that happen? http://www.forbes.com/sites/jimpowell/2013/02/05/how-dictators-come-to-power-in-a-democracy/print/
Not what the left, the media and quite a few Christians would have you think.
It's always problematic when you look to the mainstream media and other left-wingers for an understanding of what Scripture says. To listen to them, you'd think Jesus was concerned with little more than sending checks to the poor, installing solar panels on roofs and surrendering to any and all foreign enemies.
That's why it's been easy for those who only crack a Bible when they're looking for something to justify an agenda to claim that "Christian compassion" demands we take in Syrian refugees without regard for the potential threat of ISIS terrorists who slip in among the crowd.
Is that what the Bible actually says? Of course not
But there is actually no contradiction. As liberals often do, they take directives aimed at individuals in the Bible and try to make them the responsibility of the state. More than that, they insist that the only way the directive can be fulfilled is in the manner they prefer.
What was extraordinary about the actions of the Samaritan in Jesus' parable is that Samaritans and Jews typically would not associate with each other, yet in this case the Samaritan who found the Jew beaten alongside the road picked him up, tended to his wounds and brought him to an inn - where he instructed the innkeeper to look after him and even paid the bill. And yes, that is absolutely the sort of love and compassion to which we are called as Christians, even when we're talking about someone we typically regard as an enemy.
But it's important to recognize a couple of things. First, the Samaritan did not take the man into his own home. He paid the bill, but he did not in any way put himself at risk of harm from the man. Even more importantly, the Samaritan made a free choice of his own will to help the man.
What the left wants to do in the case of the Syrian refugees is use the power of the state to force an entire nation to welcome people into their midst without any effort to ensure that members of ISIS with evil intentions were filtered out. That's not compassion. That's national suicide. And if you think God wants nations to commit suicide, just skim through the Old Testament and consider the many instructions He gave to Israelite kings to attack foreign armies - even killing and plundering those they conquered. When it came to warfare, God instructed the kings of Israel to be pretty ruthless in dealing with their enemies.
The Syrian refugee situation is a tricky conundrum because there surely are many among the group who have no evil intentions and genuninely need help. America should want to help. But there are ways to do that without risking our own security. It would make more sense for them to be resettled in majority Muslim countries anyway, and we can do a lot of things to support that process.
But the responsibility of government is to protect its people from harm, and the government is well aware of the fact that previous terrorist attacks have been perpetrated by people who slipped in as refugees or asylum-seekers. Knowing full well that this one of the enemy's tactics, and doing absolutely nothing to prevent them from succeeding at it, is not "Christian compassion." It's a dereliction of duty.
We can help and we should. But not by putting ourselves in jeopardy. If individuals are called by the Lord to take a risk and help a potentially dangerous person, then those individuals should trust the Lord. But for the leaders of our nation to decide that we all have to take that risk is neither scriptural nor moral. It's just plain wrong.
It's always problematic when you look to the mainstream media and other left-wingers for an understanding of what Scripture says. To listen to them, you'd think Jesus was concerned with little more than sending checks to the poor, installing solar panels on roofs and surrendering to any and all foreign enemies.
That's why it's been easy for those who only crack a Bible when they're looking for something to justify an agenda to claim that "Christian compassion" demands we take in Syrian refugees without regard for the potential threat of ISIS terrorists who slip in among the crowd.
Is that what the Bible actually says? Of course not
Indeed, Scripture draws a clear line between the responsibility of the individual and the role of the state. Individuals are to forswear vengeance, leaving justice to earthly rulers as God’s “agents of wrath” who bring “punishment on the wrongdoer.” The state has an affirmative responsibility to protect its citizens, even to the point of bringing a sense of “terror” to those “who do wrong.” There is no contradiction between personally welcoming the “strangers” among us while our leaders endeavor to protect us from a genocidal terrorist force that uses refugee status as a shield and disguise to perpetrate brutal attacks against innocent civilians.
This is not to say that Scripture creates a paradigm of compassionate individuals and heartless governments. Throughout the Bible, entire nations — not just individuals — are condemned for injustice, including unjust treatment of the poorest and most vulnerable members of society. But to say that the only way to meet that standard is to open our doors to migrants when we know our enemy intends to plant terrorists within their ranks is once again to read far too much into Scripture.
French is quoting Romans 13, which lays out clear lines of responsibility for governments - particularly the imperative to protect the innocent from wrongdoers. Now that might seem to contradict Luke 10, in which Jesus teaches the importance of being a neighbor to someone in need, even if that someone comes from an enemy camp.This is not to say that Scripture creates a paradigm of compassionate individuals and heartless governments. Throughout the Bible, entire nations — not just individuals — are condemned for injustice, including unjust treatment of the poorest and most vulnerable members of society. But to say that the only way to meet that standard is to open our doors to migrants when we know our enemy intends to plant terrorists within their ranks is once again to read far too much into Scripture.
But there is actually no contradiction. As liberals often do, they take directives aimed at individuals in the Bible and try to make them the responsibility of the state. More than that, they insist that the only way the directive can be fulfilled is in the manner they prefer.
What was extraordinary about the actions of the Samaritan in Jesus' parable is that Samaritans and Jews typically would not associate with each other, yet in this case the Samaritan who found the Jew beaten alongside the road picked him up, tended to his wounds and brought him to an inn - where he instructed the innkeeper to look after him and even paid the bill. And yes, that is absolutely the sort of love and compassion to which we are called as Christians, even when we're talking about someone we typically regard as an enemy.
But it's important to recognize a couple of things. First, the Samaritan did not take the man into his own home. He paid the bill, but he did not in any way put himself at risk of harm from the man. Even more importantly, the Samaritan made a free choice of his own will to help the man.
What the left wants to do in the case of the Syrian refugees is use the power of the state to force an entire nation to welcome people into their midst without any effort to ensure that members of ISIS with evil intentions were filtered out. That's not compassion. That's national suicide. And if you think God wants nations to commit suicide, just skim through the Old Testament and consider the many instructions He gave to Israelite kings to attack foreign armies - even killing and plundering those they conquered. When it came to warfare, God instructed the kings of Israel to be pretty ruthless in dealing with their enemies.
The Syrian refugee situation is a tricky conundrum because there surely are many among the group who have no evil intentions and genuninely need help. America should want to help. But there are ways to do that without risking our own security. It would make more sense for them to be resettled in majority Muslim countries anyway, and we can do a lot of things to support that process.
But the responsibility of government is to protect its people from harm, and the government is well aware of the fact that previous terrorist attacks have been perpetrated by people who slipped in as refugees or asylum-seekers. Knowing full well that this one of the enemy's tactics, and doing absolutely nothing to prevent them from succeeding at it, is not "Christian compassion." It's a dereliction of duty.
We can help and we should. But not by putting ourselves in jeopardy. If individuals are called by the Lord to take a risk and help a potentially dangerous person, then those individuals should trust the Lord. But for the leaders of our nation to decide that we all have to take that risk is neither scriptural nor moral. It's just plain wrong.
I never believed 'em when they said Obama was The Antichrist bcuz they had said that all the other previous presidents were The Antichrist shortly after each one took office and all of those guys ended up not being The Antichrist.
They said that Russian Guy who was their President was The Antichrist which looked very promising bcuz he had a wierd red splotch on his head like a Birthmark that looked really weird.
It really looked like Reagan was The Antichrist bcuz he had 6 letters in each of his name Ronald Wilson Reagan so 666 there plus they said that he was born on June 6, 1906 so 666 there too but they lies about that part.
He was born in 1910. I think. Or on June 10, 1906. I forget which but a ten got into it and messed that all up.
They haven't accused Trump yet, of being The Antichrist. Just a "Dick Tater". Quite an Astonishing Leap: from Antichrist to a Penis Shaped Potato but whatever
This Fake Religious, Phony, self admitted Hypocritical fraud was at the Forefront of complaining that Obama was too soft on Muslims. Now he's complaining because Obama bombed them too much? Blatant Hypocrisy at it's finest, but no surprise.
"One thing you have been right about, is that it is hypocritical for me to be a Christian, and spew venom the way I have been. I'm not proud of it, and I know I've said that before, and haven't improved"
<section class="main" style="box-sizing: inherit; padding: 0px; position: relative;"><section id="js_discussion-region" class="discussion-region" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin-top: 40px; min-height: 1420px;">
</section>
</section>
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_..._detained_because_of_trump_s_immigration.html
- <article id="reply_1791792049" class="reply reply--depth-0 js_reply" data-id="1791792049" data-parentid="1791764252" data-authorname="notoriousgigi" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin-left: 0px; display: flex; flex-flow: row wrap; max-width: 800px; padding: 20px 0px; position: relative;">The Aziz brothers’ story is particularly stunning because, says Sandoval-Moshenberg, not only were they handcuffed while they were detained by CBP at Dulles, and not only were they turned away and sent to Ethiopia, but they were also made to sign a form, known as the I-407. In doing so, they surrendered their green cards, under the threat of being barred from the U.S. for the next five years if they did not. Sandoval-Moshenberg tells me he couldn’t quite believe the two young men “were straight-up bullied into having their green cards taken away.” They were at no point given copies of any of the documents they had signed. 9
</article>
</section>
</section>
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_..._detained_because_of_trump_s_immigration.html
The Trump administration points out that all were previously on a list of "countries of concern." This is true.
The DHS compiled the list last year, following the passage of the Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act.
On January 21, 2016, Iran, Iraq, Sudan and Syria were the first countries put on the list. The following month, the DHS added Libya, Somalia and Yemen after consulting the director of national intelligence and the State Department.
But -- and it's a substantial "but" -- those new restrictions were not aimed at citizens of these countries. They were aimed at those eligible for the Visa Waiver Program (VWP): people of dual nationality or -- for example -- someone of French or Belgian nationality who'd been to Yemen or Iraq. Those restrictions did not amount to a ban on entry but demanded much more information from applicants.
The main reason, according to the US Customs and Border Patrol, was "the risks posed by the situation in Syria and Iraq, where instability has attracted thousands of foreign fighters, including many from VWP countries. Such individuals could travel to the United States." (The US maintains a Visa Waiver Program with 38 countries.)
By contrast, President Trump's executive order is specifically aimed at nationals of the seven countries, not those who have traveled to th
ose states, and it is an outright ban.
The DHS compiled the list last year, following the passage of the Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act.
On January 21, 2016, Iran, Iraq, Sudan and Syria were the first countries put on the list. The following month, the DHS added Libya, Somalia and Yemen after consulting the director of national intelligence and the State Department.
But -- and it's a substantial "but" -- those new restrictions were not aimed at citizens of these countries. They were aimed at those eligible for the Visa Waiver Program (VWP): people of dual nationality or -- for example -- someone of French or Belgian nationality who'd been to Yemen or Iraq. Those restrictions did not amount to a ban on entry but demanded much more information from applicants.
The main reason, according to the US Customs and Border Patrol, was "the risks posed by the situation in Syria and Iraq, where instability has attracted thousands of foreign fighters, including many from VWP countries. Such individuals could travel to the United States." (The US maintains a Visa Waiver Program with 38 countries.)
By contrast, President Trump's executive order is specifically aimed at nationals of the seven countries, not those who have traveled to th
ose states, and it is an outright ban.
You're wasting your time posting this over and over and over and over trying to get guys in this RX Community to think less of FestreingZit (FZ) cuz FZ is a good Poker Player so he is loved on RXForum plus this sentence just describes The Struggle that all Humans undergo, a Struggle that is inherent to being Human part & parcel of The Human Journey plus he has a really really Smoking Hot Rossian Girlfriend who is peering at you right now, and she can Bench 104 Lbs and has even stronger legs.
