Recent studies show that 89 percent of married-with-children households own multiple cellphones and 66 percent have high-speed Internet connections, well above the national average of 52 percent for all households.Forty-two percent (42 percent) of parents contact their children every day via cellphone, making cellphones the most popular communication tool between parents and children; 52 percent of married-with-children households go online together at least a few times a week, and another 34 percent of those families have "shared screen moments" at least occasionally. Seventy percent (70 percent) of couples in which both partners own a mobile phone contact each other daily to say hello or chat, while 54 percent of couples who have only one or no cell phones do; 64% of couples in which both partners own a cellphone contact each other daily to coordinate their schedules and 47 percent of couples who have one or no cell phones do.
This appears to be wonderful on the surface until you listen to the tragic story of the wife narrating her ordeal with the Internet. A desperate wife writes: "My husband & I were only 21 when we got married. We've been married for 13 years and are facing a problem because of his internet sex addiction. I discovered he was visiting x-rated sites and masturbating. I confronted him about it. I was devastated! We talked and talked about it. He was sincerely sorry about it, made a promise not to visit such sites again. About a year ago I again discovered his internet infidelity and confronted him about it. I was so hurt, even more then the indoor Tracking! Over and over again he has said he's sorry, there is no excuse. So divorce is definite this time. But I love him! He is great husband and the best father there is. What can I do?"
This story is a classic demonstration of the deep spiritual crisis we live in today. We are not threatened by terrorism but by something a lot more devastating: the spread of technology and the Internet. Internet access is common everywhere and is being introduced to younger children. The argument is that we are now raising a generation of children and young people who are spiritually dull and live according to logic only.Inadvertently, we are raising children capable of any and every atrocity without raising an eyebrow because of their spiritual depravity. Tragically, technology is our Achilles heel that in the end will be worse than any weapon of mass destruction. It will destroy us from within. This frightening trend can only be reversed if more and more citizens listen to their consciences and say enough is enough.
Technology puts the "I" in the centre and ignores the fact that life is only worth living if "I" depend on my neighbour. We are infatuated with the ability the Internet gives us. To be able to obtain everything that is available at the click of the mouse gives us power and makes us feel invincible. We also feel that the Internet is the solution to all of our emotional and spiritual problems because for every emotional disorder, there is a self-help website or a group blog.Finding love in the Internet age usually requires at least a toe-dip into the pool of online dating site. A teenager took his life after he fell victim to Internet daters perpetuating extortion scams through dating site chat rooms. In this scam, unsuspecting victims begin a chat conversation with a potential match. After establishing trust, the scammer will begin to initiate more sexual conversation. Once many messages have been swapped, the scammer then posted the sexual conversations, along with his name and a picture, on a website saying that they were a cheater. They offered to take down the incriminating information after he had paid them hundreds of dollars. Once the money exchanged hands, the information remains on the site. Around the world, many divorced women over the age of 40, particularly in countries where Internet is a major way of life, have fallen victim to this scourge.
Families are breaking up because of sexual conversations online. This risk is that you really don't know to whom you are speaking and the possibility of extortion is very real, as is the chance of your reputation being ruined. But there is a good rule of thumb for online conversation: If you wouldn't be embarrassed to show it to your parents or Hands free access, then it's appropriate. The teenager who took his life could not consider what he was doing to his mum and dad or how much their lives would be drastically changed by his death. But how many other people suffered in this event?
The Internet becomes a sick and highly destructive device when it is used by crazy people like a 21-year old Great Neck, New York man who was charged in a criminal complaint in the Eastern District of Michigan, USA with Internet extortion and cyber stalking. According to the affidavit, from May 2012 through February 2013, Adam Paul Savader sent anonymous text messages using Google Voice numbers to 15 women stating that he had nude photographs of the women and threatening to distribute the nude photographs to the women's friends and family members, unless the women sent him more nude photographs of themselves. Savader sent some of the victims links to a photo-sharing website where nude pictures of the victims had been posted. If convicted on these charges, Savader faces a maximum penalty of five years' imprisonment.
The Internet is a great invention that was created to feed and continues to feed on a global economic system called capitalism. This system, according to Karl Marx, makes workers slaves to their passions and to those who own the means of production. It's about making money at any cost and those living under this system are lured into practicing religion so that they can forget about their economic exploitation. Karl Marx saw faith in religion under the capitalist system as a drug, and so he argued, in 1843, that "religion is the opium (drug) of the people". They will not rebel against the system because they are under a hallucinating drug. Under capitalism today, the drug of religion is represented by the Internet. The Internet is the drug that is supposed to cure all psychological and mental ills of today.
It is regrettable that we are quick to forget the old saying that "not everything that glitters is gold". The Internet has become our god, our idol, which we now worship instead of the true God. Yet we have never been lonelier or more isolated from other human beings. What use is it to have all the possessions the world offers right in my living room if it separates me from other people? The essence of community is being systematically destroyed. If in any culture the minds and hearts of the children and youth have been captured, the war is already won. We are succumbing to the same temptation that Satan put before Jesus: Worship me, and the whole world and its glory will be yours. It is this temptation that Jesus rejected by pointing Satan to the Scriptures. The greatest challenge of education, the greatest challenge to parents and teachers, is not to teach our children reading, writing and arithmetic, which are important, but to see that they do not become spiritually dull.
As we struggle to build modern families, we seem to be succeeding in creating separate worlds under the same roof via the Internet. There are two main reasons why the Internet does not bring people closer together. First, it eliminates interaction.Second, it dehumanises communication. By searching on the Internet for places to shop, they eliminate conversations that used to be held between friends and family.Then, when there are conversations on the Internet, because of the lack of face time, there is so little substance that no lasting connection is made. Also, these conversations tend not to be genuine because people will say things online without thinking, which, as social creatures, is not the way we were set up to interact.The Internet makes people more isolated and jaded towards their fellow human beings. Most people I know would rather stay at home and talk to strangers or play computer games rather than socialise with family, spend time with kids, play games, fish, camp or any other such social activity. Some of the evil products made by the Internet make millions rich by destroying real human love and lifelong marital bonds. Businessmen seek to divide and conquer by destroying God's gift to mankind in the form of human sexuality. Their agenda is to disrupt the family unit, ultimately rendering man and woman isolated. When the family is destroyed, mankind is powerless to resist their subjugation.
They have a multi-pronged strategy to achieve this goal. By polluting the culture with sex-based media propaganda, they create demand for instant carnal gratification devoid of responsibility or moral obligation. By sexualizing the youth, businessmen remotely control the next generation. When young boys and girls grow up believing that viewing online dirty material, engaging in "hook-ups," and "being hot" is the societal expectation, they abandon aspirations of seeking a soul-mate that will love and protect them for life. When men can be chained to their online lovers and cable-box companions, they lose respect for their partners and a chasm develops in their intimate relations.The fact of the matter is that true happiness can only be experienced with those that you love in the flesh, and who share your spiritual values. We must defeat the capitalist Satanist's agenda. The Bible says "there is a way that seems right to men but the end is destruction" and "see to it that no one takes you captive to hallow and deceptive philosophy which depend on human traditions than the teachings of Christ".
The world is plagued by false philosophy about sex. But pornography is a virus; a worm eating through the apple.Pornography is a destroyer of marriage, the home, self-dignity, society, chastity, moral value, careers and relationships. On the other hand, God is love; He'll forgive our sins if you repent. God hates all forms of immorality and defines it pretty well in His book. The Internet can be a scourge on the earth. Like Satan, it seeks whom it can devour and destroy, reaching into homes of innocent families. But families can get a screening service to monitor their home computers which should be kept in a public room of the house and not in the children's bedrooms parents cannot control what is being watched. Most of children do it because they are lazy and the computer keeps them busy and away from the parent. This is neglect and in even child abuse. When parents do not monitor what the child is accessing on the Internet, horrible things can happen. I think there should be laws against children having computers in their room for that reason.
Read the full products at http://www.ecived.com/en/!
2013年9月2日星期一
Gun Control Issue Resolved in 1791
Our rights are natural, given to us by the Creator. So, with that in mind, understand that The Second Amendment does not give you the right to keep and bear arms. The Second Amendment does not protect you against the government from taking away your guns. Your rights are given to you by God, and protecting your rights are your responsibility.
In today’s America, there is a concerted effort to remove your gun rights. But the right to keep and bear arms is so entrenched in the fabric of our society, the statists that desire to disarm you are also using a method that goes after the ammunition. Bullets are hard to come by, of late. Certain kinds of ammo, like hollow points, are under fire. In California, starting in January of 2014, background checks will be required for the purchase of projectiles, if Jerry Brown signs the bill sitting on his desk.
It almost makes me want to take up the bow and arrow. . . almost.There is no enumeration in the Constitution that grants to the federal government the authority to regulate firearms. In the first seven articles the authority to regulate firearms at the federal level is not granted. In the 2nd Amendment, the federal government is told it “shall” not infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms. But that was only added to the Constitution because the Anti-federalists feared that if it was not in writing, the federal government would ultimately infringe on our God-given gun rights.
The Second Amendment begins with a call for “A well regulated militia.” A well regulated militia is not one regulated by the government, as assumed by many folks because of their flawed notion regarding the definition of the word “regulated.” The part of the amendment that calls for a well-regulated militia is stating that the militia must be a fighting force that is in good order.
We must remember that the word “regulated” in 1791 did not necessarily mean “to control and restrict,” as the statists claim in today’s political atmosphere. The word “Indoor Positioning System,” according to the 1828 version of Webster’s Dictionary, was defined as meaning: “to put in good order.” The need to have a militia in good order makes sense when one considers that during the Revolutionary War the militia was not in good order. The muskets were all different sizes, often the clothing of some members of the militia was tattered, and many didn’t even have shoes. So, a well regulated militia, from the point of the view of the founders, was a militia that was in good order.
The need for the citizens to be armed was made evident during the Revolutionary War, and the importance of gun ownership by the people of that generation was clearly portrayed by the context of the Battle of Lexington Green, where the first shot of The Revolution was fired.
The British Troops were marching toward Concord, Massachusetts, and a rag tag company of the Massachusetts Militia met the Redcoats at Lexington, to confront them, and stop them. A shot rang out, which triggered a gun battle, and the War for Independence was in full gear.
But why was stopping the British at Lexington so imperative? What made the revolutionaries so intent on doing whatever it took to prevent the King’s Army from gaining access to Concord?In Concord was our largest munitions depot. Guns and ammunition were stored in Concord. So, it can be said that the final straw - what made us fighting mad enough that we began a bloody revolution against England - was when they came for our guns.
The current push for gun control is not the first effort by the federal government to go after our ability to defend ourselves. The federal gun-running operation called Fast and Furious placed guns in the hands of the Mexican drug cartels so that, if the democrats played their cards right, the guns would be used to kill many Mexicans, and then the party of the jackass could scream, “See what American guns have done?” hoping that American voters would demand a stop be put to the manufacturing of such dangerous weapons.
The operation backfired, two border patrol agents were killed, and the scandal grew to reveal what the Obama administration was trying to do. The administration, with no surprise to anyone, has been lying about the operation from day one. The media hopped aboard those lies, and have protected the president as best they could. The democrats have circled the wagons regarding the Fast and Furious scandal, and the scandal that would have brought down any GOP President, thanks to quick damage control by Obama’s minions, remained harmless, and has been all but forgotten.
Prior to the Fast and Furious operation being exposed, the federal government, through the courts, attempted to gain the power of dictating to the States what they can, and cannot, do, regarding firearms by ruling against State Sovereignty in the McDonald v. City of Chicago case.
Before the ruling regarding Chicago’s handgun ban, in the Washington DC v. Heller case in 2008 the Supreme Court of the United States determined that the right to bear arms is an individual right, as opposed to a collective right which would only allow the bearing of arms for the purpose of participating in government approved groups, such as law enforcement agencies.
Anti-Federalists feared the creation of a central government because they feared the federal government would become tyrannical, and take away people’s rights. Therefore, even though the Constitution in the first seven articles did not grant to the federal government any authority over gun rights, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights, those skeptical over the creation of a central government wanted an amendment that clarified clearly that the federal government had no authority to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms. The Second Amendment is the article that spells out the terms regarding gun rights in America, as the Anti-federalists desired.
We have to remember that State Sovereignty is an important factor, here. All powers belonged to the States prior to the writing of the Constitution. The first seven articles did not give to the federal government the authority to regulate firearms, therefore, any legislative power over gun rights is a State power. The 10th Amendment supports the States’ rights regarding this issue, and the 2nd Amendment confirms the limits placed on the federal government regarding guns.
This does not mean the States have the right to infringe on your gun rights, however. Remember, your right to keep and bear arms is a personal, fundamental, natural right given to you by God. The founders did not worry about the States infringing on gun rights, because the local governments were closer to the people. They expected you to protect your right to keep and bear arms, and to not let your State become tyrannical regarding that issue. But in today’s political environment, the argument has become all about the tyranny of the States. If the 2nd Amendment does not apply to the States, what keeps the States from infringing on gun rights? They seem to be stomping on our right to our guns quite readily.
My response to that query is always the same: “So don’t let them.” Gun rights, be they protected in the Second Amendment, or listed in your State Constitution, is nothing more than ink on paper if you are not willing to defend those gun rights.
The only thing that can put our rights in jeopardy concerning State governments would be if we became so complacent that we stopped taking action to protect our rights. With freedom comes the responsibility to fight for your freedoms.
Noah Webster in his “An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution,” in 1787 said it clearly: “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States.”
The federal government knows this, which is why they are trying to use the courts to overrule your sovereignty, and to limit the kinds of firearms, and ammunition, you can own.In the 2010 case of McDonald v. City of Chicago, which challenged the City of Chicago’s ban on hand guns, the debate over whether or not the 2nd Amendment only applies to the Federal Government was brought to the surface.
The 5-4 Decision of the McDonald v. City of Chicago case by the U.S. Supreme Court holds that the 2nd Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms in all cities and States. The U.S. Supreme Court concluded that originally the 2nd Amendment applied only to the Federal Government, but it is in the opinion of the court that the 14th Amendment incorporates the Bill of Rights, therefore applying those amendments, and more specifically the 2nd Amendment, to the States.
Read the full products at http://www.ecived.com/en/!
In today’s America, there is a concerted effort to remove your gun rights. But the right to keep and bear arms is so entrenched in the fabric of our society, the statists that desire to disarm you are also using a method that goes after the ammunition. Bullets are hard to come by, of late. Certain kinds of ammo, like hollow points, are under fire. In California, starting in January of 2014, background checks will be required for the purchase of projectiles, if Jerry Brown signs the bill sitting on his desk.
It almost makes me want to take up the bow and arrow. . . almost.There is no enumeration in the Constitution that grants to the federal government the authority to regulate firearms. In the first seven articles the authority to regulate firearms at the federal level is not granted. In the 2nd Amendment, the federal government is told it “shall” not infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms. But that was only added to the Constitution because the Anti-federalists feared that if it was not in writing, the federal government would ultimately infringe on our God-given gun rights.
The Second Amendment begins with a call for “A well regulated militia.” A well regulated militia is not one regulated by the government, as assumed by many folks because of their flawed notion regarding the definition of the word “regulated.” The part of the amendment that calls for a well-regulated militia is stating that the militia must be a fighting force that is in good order.
We must remember that the word “regulated” in 1791 did not necessarily mean “to control and restrict,” as the statists claim in today’s political atmosphere. The word “Indoor Positioning System,” according to the 1828 version of Webster’s Dictionary, was defined as meaning: “to put in good order.” The need to have a militia in good order makes sense when one considers that during the Revolutionary War the militia was not in good order. The muskets were all different sizes, often the clothing of some members of the militia was tattered, and many didn’t even have shoes. So, a well regulated militia, from the point of the view of the founders, was a militia that was in good order.
The need for the citizens to be armed was made evident during the Revolutionary War, and the importance of gun ownership by the people of that generation was clearly portrayed by the context of the Battle of Lexington Green, where the first shot of The Revolution was fired.
The British Troops were marching toward Concord, Massachusetts, and a rag tag company of the Massachusetts Militia met the Redcoats at Lexington, to confront them, and stop them. A shot rang out, which triggered a gun battle, and the War for Independence was in full gear.
But why was stopping the British at Lexington so imperative? What made the revolutionaries so intent on doing whatever it took to prevent the King’s Army from gaining access to Concord?In Concord was our largest munitions depot. Guns and ammunition were stored in Concord. So, it can be said that the final straw - what made us fighting mad enough that we began a bloody revolution against England - was when they came for our guns.
The current push for gun control is not the first effort by the federal government to go after our ability to defend ourselves. The federal gun-running operation called Fast and Furious placed guns in the hands of the Mexican drug cartels so that, if the democrats played their cards right, the guns would be used to kill many Mexicans, and then the party of the jackass could scream, “See what American guns have done?” hoping that American voters would demand a stop be put to the manufacturing of such dangerous weapons.
The operation backfired, two border patrol agents were killed, and the scandal grew to reveal what the Obama administration was trying to do. The administration, with no surprise to anyone, has been lying about the operation from day one. The media hopped aboard those lies, and have protected the president as best they could. The democrats have circled the wagons regarding the Fast and Furious scandal, and the scandal that would have brought down any GOP President, thanks to quick damage control by Obama’s minions, remained harmless, and has been all but forgotten.
Prior to the Fast and Furious operation being exposed, the federal government, through the courts, attempted to gain the power of dictating to the States what they can, and cannot, do, regarding firearms by ruling against State Sovereignty in the McDonald v. City of Chicago case.
Before the ruling regarding Chicago’s handgun ban, in the Washington DC v. Heller case in 2008 the Supreme Court of the United States determined that the right to bear arms is an individual right, as opposed to a collective right which would only allow the bearing of arms for the purpose of participating in government approved groups, such as law enforcement agencies.
Anti-Federalists feared the creation of a central government because they feared the federal government would become tyrannical, and take away people’s rights. Therefore, even though the Constitution in the first seven articles did not grant to the federal government any authority over gun rights, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights, those skeptical over the creation of a central government wanted an amendment that clarified clearly that the federal government had no authority to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms. The Second Amendment is the article that spells out the terms regarding gun rights in America, as the Anti-federalists desired.
We have to remember that State Sovereignty is an important factor, here. All powers belonged to the States prior to the writing of the Constitution. The first seven articles did not give to the federal government the authority to regulate firearms, therefore, any legislative power over gun rights is a State power. The 10th Amendment supports the States’ rights regarding this issue, and the 2nd Amendment confirms the limits placed on the federal government regarding guns.
This does not mean the States have the right to infringe on your gun rights, however. Remember, your right to keep and bear arms is a personal, fundamental, natural right given to you by God. The founders did not worry about the States infringing on gun rights, because the local governments were closer to the people. They expected you to protect your right to keep and bear arms, and to not let your State become tyrannical regarding that issue. But in today’s political environment, the argument has become all about the tyranny of the States. If the 2nd Amendment does not apply to the States, what keeps the States from infringing on gun rights? They seem to be stomping on our right to our guns quite readily.
My response to that query is always the same: “So don’t let them.” Gun rights, be they protected in the Second Amendment, or listed in your State Constitution, is nothing more than ink on paper if you are not willing to defend those gun rights.
The only thing that can put our rights in jeopardy concerning State governments would be if we became so complacent that we stopped taking action to protect our rights. With freedom comes the responsibility to fight for your freedoms.
Noah Webster in his “An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution,” in 1787 said it clearly: “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States.”
The federal government knows this, which is why they are trying to use the courts to overrule your sovereignty, and to limit the kinds of firearms, and ammunition, you can own.In the 2010 case of McDonald v. City of Chicago, which challenged the City of Chicago’s ban on hand guns, the debate over whether or not the 2nd Amendment only applies to the Federal Government was brought to the surface.
The 5-4 Decision of the McDonald v. City of Chicago case by the U.S. Supreme Court holds that the 2nd Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms in all cities and States. The U.S. Supreme Court concluded that originally the 2nd Amendment applied only to the Federal Government, but it is in the opinion of the court that the 14th Amendment incorporates the Bill of Rights, therefore applying those amendments, and more specifically the 2nd Amendment, to the States.
Read the full products at http://www.ecived.com/en/!
订阅：
博文 (Atom)