Hi Jari,

Welcome to the forum.

As airIam2worship said, Jesus told us that it would be the hardest to witness to our own. Jesus did however make believers of at least some of His earthly family.

The best way is through the way that we live our lives. Being the best role model that we possibly can be is a wonderful witnessing tool. Letting them see how Jesus has worked in our own lives. Then we must not forget to pray for them daily, that Jesus will open their eyes and hearts to His word. Ask for Gods guidance, that He will give you the right words at the right time.

I will also add you and your family to my prayer list.

It ain't no smack,
all us jacks of yacks
are still on track.

The word is fellowship,
cause we be hip,
but there is one stip,
and it ain't a trip.

All of our posts
are the toast
but what we like most
is the Lord of hosts.


(Can you tell that I've been around a lot of teens?)


 

Yup, and I  say AMEN

I vote Pastor Roger the oldest teenager in the world (Dick Clark is as has been).
 
Pastor will be around for eternity, that is certainty.
He's always on track, and has no room for slack.
He's always there when someone needs him to care, and always has time and devotion to share.
It ain't no joke, pastor knows someone who will carry your yoke.
Who will make your burden light, and is outa sight.
See?  we all can rap, and into abundance tap.
As long as we have the right thing,
Jesus Christ, KING OF KINGS.

(LOL)  Amen.  

 

[JESUS CHRIST]

Jesus   Christ


So ridicule me, sue me or put me in jail, I will always capitilize  Jesus Christ.  

No, I won't ridicule you, sue you, or put you jail.

You and me both, can serve the same sentence. In fact, I think, I will capitilize ....... JESUS CHRIST full name , from now on.

I like that idea myself.

Brother Tom, I just noticed my post count. I am only 3501 more posts, till I hit 10K.

Look out, cause I'm gunning for you now.

A water gun won't cut it.  

Jesus   Christ


So ridicule me, sue me or put me in jail, I will always capitilize  Jesus Christ.  

Page two

Paul Zoltan, a Dallas immigration lawyer, says his foreign client's citizen wife was arrested in 2003 at her marriage interview and charged with shoplifting. "My trust in your office has been deeply shaken," the lawyer wrote the immigration service, complaining that the arrest had nothing to do with the immigration service's job. He got no reply, and the service has no comment. A citizen husband at an interview in Chicago was held for hours on a Georgia cocaine-possession warrant, says his wife's lawyer, Rebecca Reyes. The warrant was "years old," she says. Georgia wasn't interested; the husband was released.

Jim Austin watched as his client's citizen wife was arrested for trespassing in Kansas City, Mo. Rebecca White took her foreign client's two children into a bathroom in Seattle so they wouldn't see their citizen father taken away; the charge was failure to return household rental equipment. Also in Seattle, a citizen sponsoring his wife's application was jailed overnight on a warrant for someone else.

"They apologized," says Diana Moller, a lawyer who represented the wife, explaining why the man preferred not to give an interview. "He wants to leave it at that."

Arrests of this kind have become common enough that many lawyers now quiz citizens about warrants before sending them into immigration interviews. The service doesn't count the citizens it arrests; if any dangerous criminals have been among them, it can't say.

Customs and Border Protection can. When it nets citizens on their way into the country who are wanted for serious crimes, it puts out press releases. Two standouts from the Mexican border: a man from North Carolina wanted for multiple sex crimes against children in Arizona and Massachusetts; and a young couple on the run from Colorado, both wanted for committing a double murder. And one from the Canadian border: an escaped robber from Seattle driving a stolen car with a shotgun in the trunk and an Uzi in his luggage.

"This technology is a fast, effective weapon in the war on terror," one announcement quotes the agency's chief, Robert C. Bonner, as saying, "but also gives our agents a means to apprehend criminals and fugitives of every kind."

At airports, the border agency's screening for fugitives has become still more efficient with the passage of a new antiterror law requiring flights from overseas to transmit passenger lists before landing. Now, inspectors can organize welcoming parties in advance.

"They're surprised, let me tell you," says a former inspector at Los Angeles Airport who asked not to be named. Often, his warrants were for Las Vegas gambling debts. "Couples come back from Cancun and the husband has to explain. The wife says, 'Why didn't you tell me?' I've seen tears. I've seen breakdowns."

In 2003, the Transportation Security Administration, also part of Homeland Security, floated the idea of screening all passengers for warrants, citizens included, before they board domestic flights. The TSA's goal was to "ensure that passengers do not sit next to known terrorists and wanted murderers." After an outcry across the board -- from the American Civil Liberties Union to the American Conservative Union -- it backed off, and now is rolling out a system that limits such searches to terrorist-watch lists.

At the immigration service, the authority to run checks on citizens dates back to at least 2002, the service says in a statement. That's when the FBI granted the old INS access to "certain" files "for the purpose of adjudicating immigration-benefit applications." The new service says it derives limited access to files on citizens from that deal with the FBI.

The arrangement comes as news to legal experts and law-enforcement officials, including Judson Barce, the prosecutor in Benton County, Ind. "A civil authority ran a criminal check?" he says. "How do they do that?"

It was thanks to the search run by a Chicago immigration clerk that Mr. Barce was able to bring Issah Samori to justice.

As soon as the clerk said the word "warrant," Mr. Samori guessed what it was about. Six months earlier, on a Sunday drive to visit a relative, he was heading south in his Camry on a state highway when a Benton County police car pulled him over.

The patrolman said Mr. Samori had hit 86 miles per hour in a 55 mph zone, fast enough to be reckless in Benton. Mr. Samori says he called the county to get a court date, but no appointment letter ever reached his house. That was the last he thought about the ticket until he and his wife went in for their marriage interview.

After the immigration clerk found the warrant Benton County issued because Mr. Samori had missed his court date, he spent two nights in Chicago-area jails. Then Benton's sheriff arrived to drive him, in handcuffs, 70 miles to Indiana, where Mr. Samori spent his third night in a cell.

In court the next day, he didn't contest the charge. "I just wanted to get it over," he says. In return for a $400 bond, he was set free. He returned a month later with proof that he had taken a defensive-driving course. The reckless-driving charge was dismissed. Less the sheriff's expenses for driving down from Chicago, he got a refund of $203.98.

At the end of July, after an 18-month pause, the Samoris sat down once again at a clerk's desk in Chicago's federal building to complete their green-card interview. They brought a pile of papers and an album of wedding pictures to prove their marriage is real. They are still waiting for the immigration service to make its decision.

How tools of war on terror ensnare wanted citizens

Tuesday, November 01, 2005
By Barry Newman, The Wall Street Journal

Driving in from Mexico last March, Jaime Correa was stopped by federal inspectors at a border post near San Diego. They fed the 21-year-old U.S. citizen's name into a computer with a fast link to the federal government's huge database of criminal files. Readout: Wanted in Los Angeles for attempted murder.

Another citizen, Issah Samori, walked into a federal office in Chicago the previous year. He is 60, a cabbie, and was there to help his wife get a green card. An immigration clerk fed his name into the same computer. Readout: Wanted in Indiana for speeding.

The border guards handed Mr. Correa over to the San Diego police, who locked him up. The Chicago police came to collect Mr. Samori. He spent the night on a concrete slab in a precinct cell.

Detentions of American citizens by immigration authorities for offenses large and small are becoming routine -- and have begun to stir a debate over the appropriate use of the latest technologies in the war on terror. Since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, immigration computers have been hooked up to the expanding database of criminal records and terrorist watch lists maintained by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The computers are now in use at all airports, most border crossings, and even in domestic immigration offices, where clerks decide on applications for permanent residence and citizenship.

The screenings are mainly meant to trap foreigners, and especially foreign terrorists, but they have also proved to be a tool in the hunt for American citizens wanted by the police. In 2003, U.S. Customs and Border Protection says that it alone caught 4,555 Americans this way. In 2004, the number rose to 6,189.

Some law enforcers applaud that tally. Citizens with nothing to hide, they argue, shouldn't care if their names are put through a criminal search, and criminals should have no "expectation of privacy." The arrests have brought in some serious offenders, like Mr. Correa, a Los Angeles gang member, who was accused of a drive-by shooting. He was convicted this month of assault with a firearm, and sentenced to eight years in prison. There have been others like him: citizens wanted for armed robbery, murder and sex crimes.

But some legal scholars and defenders of privacy worry that easy access to criminal databases is giving rise to indiscriminate detentions of citizens for minor offenses, and to a "mission creep" that is blurring the line between immigration control and crime control. Routine encounters like Mr. Samori's, some say, shouldn't give civil servants a "free shot" to fish for records unrelated to the administrative purpose at hand.

It isn't as if those the computer snags are being "pulled over for a broken tail-light," says former Atlanta policeman Mark Harrold, who teaches law at the University of Mississippi. Rather, as he sees it, they are being caught as they engage in civil pursuits "like going in for a marriage license."

Born in Ghana, Mr. Samori has lived for 35 years in a brick house on Chicago's South Side. When he and his new Ghanaian wife, Hilda, sat down in an immigration clerk's cubicle in mid-2004, Mr. Samori knew that as a citizen he had a right to sponsor her for permanent residence. The two came ready to show that their marriage was genuine. But the clerk just stared at his computer.

"He said we can't do the interview," Mr. Samori recalls. "I asked why. He said, because we have an arrest warrant on you. I told him, whatever it is, I'm ready to face it."

The clerk reached for his phone. Two officers appeared. Hilda Samori cried as her husband was led out. He spent three nights in jail on his way to Indiana court, where his reckless-driving charge, a misdemeanor, was eventually set aside. Mrs. Samori had to wait a year and a half for her green-card application to be reopened.

Immigration service officials say reporting wanted citizens has become standard procedure. "If you have unfinished business with the police, it's best to take care of that before you come in asking for a service or a benefit," says Christopher Bentley, a spokesman for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, the border-protection agency's domestic sister. Apart from confirming a citizen sponsor's identity, he says, clerks search for warrants to make sure that no one on federal property poses "a threat to public safety or national security."

On the borders, the same principles have long applied. Like the immigration service, the border agency now belongs to the Department of Homeland Security. Border inspectors, who wear uniforms and carry guns, are the first line of defense against terrorists, drug smugglers and illegal immigrants trying to enter the U.S. When they face suspicious people -- mostly with dubious documents -- they used to hold them for long security checks. Today, border inspectors need only swipe passports through readers for warrants and watch lists to pop up. Millions of citizens returning from abroad now have their names scanned this way.

Behind the new dragnet is the FBI's National Crime Information Center, a repository of 40 million records covering everything from terrorists to stolen boats. On a single day in 2005 -- May 28 -- the center handled a record 5.3 million queries. Its biggest user now, with 1.5 million daily searches, is Customs and Border Protection.

"There was authority before 9/11 to stop people, but the software makes it easier than ever," says Jeffrey Lustick, a lawyer in Bellingham, Wash., a town near the Canadian border where these arrests are commonplace. "What was theoretical has become real."

The same FBI database is also available now to clerks who carry out the duties of the old Immigration and Naturalization Service. Each year, the clerks, who wear street clothes and sit behind a desk, evaluate over a million applications for citizenship and permanent residence, most sponsored by green-card holders and citizens. While clerks at other federal agencies rarely have reason to see FBI files, the immigration-service's clerks do.

Because lawbreaking can disqualify applicants, all must submit to fingerprinting and a full criminal-history check. The job used to be done by hand with the FBI's help. Now fingerprints have gone digital, and immigration clerks can hunt for applicants by name on the FBI warrants list. Citizen sponsors aren't fingerprinted, but "in the course of doing our business," says Mr. Bentley, their names are checked against the warrants list as well.

"When an individual comes into our office," he adds, "if there's an outstanding warrant, we will call local law enforcement and let them know the person's here."

The policy hasn't been announced, but immigration lawyers around the country say they have slowly been made aware of it over the past two or three years -- often by surprise.

cont'd on page two

Court TV to run series on freedom

NEW YORK, Nov. 1 (UPI) -- Court TV and the American Civil Liberties Union are presenting a series exploring issues that could threaten civil liberties in the United States.

"The ACLU Freedom Files" is a 10-part series created by Robert Greenwald's Brave New Films and directed and produced by Jeremy Kagan, The Hollywood Reporter said Tuesday.

The series premiering in January will feature real clients and their attorneys as well as actors, activists and comedians.

Margaret Cho, Wendie Malick and Harry Shearer are a few of the big names scheduled to appear in the show, which will fall into the noon Saturday slot on Court TV.

Among the topics to be explored are religious freedom, the Patriot Act, free speech and dissent, gay and lesbian rights and racial profiling.

The show, which already premiered on Link TV, will air on the college network Zilo TV as well.


_____________________________

This used to be my wifes favorite TV channel.

Comedians on the show? I have a strong feeling that it won't be very funny though.

Civil Liberties Frauds

New York Sun Editorial
November 1, 2005

Hypocrisy is on show in a Manhattan courtroom today. The New York Civil Liberties Union will argue for the second day before Judge Richard Berman that the city's subway bag search policy is an "unjustifiable erosion of the privacy rights of the American public." Yet take a walk into the NYCLU's Manhattan headquarters - which it shares with other organizations - and you'll find a sign warning visitors that all bags are subject to search. One of the city's lawyers, Jay Kranis, pointed this out yesterday in court while cross-examining a witness. Either the NYCLU believes its headquarters are at greater risk of a terrorist threat than the city's subway system, or it believes ordinary New Yorkers don't deserve the same safety precautions that they do.

As we wrote back in July - when the police first announced random searches - the supposed civil liberties champions would do well to spend less time shouting through megaphones and more time reading the Fourth Amendment of which they've proclaimed themselves the defenders. The only searches it forbids are "unreasonable searches." The July attacks on London's transit system put New York's on higher alert, and Commissioner Kelly - about whom we wrote that we doubt he "has ever done anything unreasonable in his entire career" - decided the searches were necessary.

This article is taken from the ACLUs own web site. The ACLU does not like Judge Alito. All the more reason for me to like like him.

_______________________________


ACLU Urges Senate to Explore Supreme Court Nominee Alito's Record on Reproductive Rights, First Amendment
   
October 31, 2005

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Media@dcaclu.org

WASHINGTON - The American Civil Liberties Union today urged the Senate to carefully examine the civil liberties record of Judge Samuel Alito, President Bush's nominee to replace Sandra Day O'Connor on the United States Supreme Court, especially given Justice O'Connor's pivotal role on the court.

"Justice O'Connor has provided more than a swing vote," said Steven R. Shapiro, the ACLU's National Legal Director. "She has been a moderating voice on critical civil liberties issues ranging from race to religion to reproductive freedom. Judge Alito’s position on each of these issues has been more hostile to civil liberties than positions taken by Justice O'Connor. His nomination therefore calls into question the court’s delicate balance that Justice O'Connor has helped to shape and preserve."

For example, in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Judge Alito voted to uphold a state law that required women to notify their husbands before having an abortion. Justice O'Connor joined with a majority of the court in concluding otherwise. In addition, Judge Alito has been more willing to support state-sponsored religious displays than Justice O'Connor. And he has written several dissenting opinions on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals that, if accepted, would have made it more difficult for discrimination victims to prevail and recover damages.

Judge Alito was appointed to the Third Circuit by President George H.W. Bush in 1990. He is a former United States Attorney and Justice Department official in the Reagan administration. Judge Alito is a graduate of Princeton and Yale Law School.

"This is a pivotal moment in our nation's history," said Anthony D. Romero, the ACLU's Executive Director. "The administration is claiming unprecedented national security powers, reproductive rights are in jeopardy, the teaching of evolution is under attack, and we continue to struggle with a legacy of discrimination.

"The Supreme Court remains the ultimate safeguard of our constitutional liberties. The Senate has an obligation to ensure that Judge Alito understands and will protect the court's vital position in our constitutional democracy," Romero added.

In the coming weeks, the ACLU will prepare a complete report on Judge Alito’s civil liberties record. The ACLU will not oppose a Supreme Court nominee without a vote of its national board. There have been only two nominees to the court opposed by the ACLU- then-Justice William Rehnquist and Robert Bork. The ACLU did not oppose Rehnquist’s elevation to chief justice in 1986.

_________________________

Notice the statement "and we continue to struggle with a legacy of discrimination". They are now claiming that they are being discriminated against??  This reminds me of the bully crying to Momma when they are stood up to.

Sixth Circuit Court Prepares to Hear Tennessee's Choose Life Case
Pro-Life Forces Appealing Lower Court Ruling Against Plates

More than a year after U.S. District Court Judge Todd Campbell enjoined distribution of Tennessee's Choose Life specialty license plate, pro-life forces are preparing to make their case in an appeal before the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati. "Recent decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court continue to underscore what we've said all along," said Brian Harris, President of Tennessee Right to Life. "Legislatures have not only the right to make policy decisions which favor specific viewpoints, they also have a responsibility to do so," said Harris.

Oral arguments in the lawsuit, ACLU v. Bredesen, have been set for 9:00 a.m. (EST), Wednesday, November 2, 2005 at the Court of Appeals, 100 E. Fifth Street in Cincinnati.

At question in the case is whether specialty license plates reflect the views of individuals or views of state government. Pro-abortion activists have so far succeeded in blocking the pro-life plate claiming that the Tennessee Legislature could not authorize the Choose Life plate without also making provision for a pro-abortion plate.

Harris says, however, that the U.S. Supreme Court has specifically ruled on the question and has plainly stated on several occasions that, while states may not criminalize abortion, state legislators may make policy decisions which favor "normal childbirth over abortion." The Supreme Court has also held that states may refuse to fund abortions even while funding programs which assist pregnant women in bringing the unborn child to birth. "Tennessee's Choose Life plate is clearly a program in which the legislators overwhelmingly agreed that providing practical assistance to women facing difficult pregnancies was both benevolent and appropriate," said Harris.

The Choose Life plate passed overwhelmingly in the final days of the 2003 legislative session 80-14 in the state House and 26-4 in the state Senate. Pro-abortion Governor Bredesen refused to sign the bill into law, allowing it to take effect without his signature. Supporters of the plate quickly presented more than the required pre-paid applications and submitted 1,265 applications in just six months representing drivers from each of the state's 95 counties. Those applications are still being held by the Tennessee Department of Safety pending the outcome of the Choose Life lawsuit filed by the ACLU and Planned Parenthood against distribution of the plates.

The Bredesen administration has refused to defend the Choose Life plate in the appeal leaving only pro-life advocates to argue against the ACLU in support of free speech, fair treatment, and equal access.

"There's not another non-profit which can match the immediate public support realized by the Choose Life plate," said Harris. Many non-profits have failed to meet the one year limit to collect the required 1,000 applications and have had to seek legislative extensions. "The other side wants to talk about fairness, I encourage them to introduce a bill if they want their own plate," said Harris. "All we're looking for is a fair opportunity to do what every other Tennessee non-profit is allowed to do. Give us the exact same consideration accorded other non-profits and I guarantee we'll come out just fine."

It ain't no smack,
all us jacks of yacks
are still on track.

The word is fellowship,
cause we be hip,
but there is one stip,
and it ain't a trip.

All of our posts
are the toast
but what we like most
is the Lord of hosts.


(Can you tell that I've been around a lot of teens?)


 

Jookie

It is quite clear from your question that you have not read or understood a thing that I have posted that God has told us on this subject. I suggest that you read it again.


Rom 8:35  Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?
Rom 8:36  As it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter.
Rom 8:37  Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us.
Rom 8:38  For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come,
Rom 8:39  Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Jud 1:24  Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy,
Jud 1:25  To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen.

A Bible study of Galatians is a wonderful study. It shows us the true meaning and difference between living in faith and living under the law.

Paul wrote this letter to the Galatians because they had done just that. They attempted to bring man back to the keeping of the law and circumcision. Paul chastised the Galatians for doing so but did so in great love as he called them his children. The Galatians did not abandon the teachings of faith but taught the law in addition to this as a requirement of continued salvation. Paul goes into great detail in this lengthy letter explaining the errors of this teaching.

Gal 5:14  For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

Gal 6:13  For neither they themselves who are circumcised keep the law; but desire to have you circumcised, that they may glory in your flesh.

The only bases that have gambling available is in the areas that have legalized gambling (unless that has changed since I got out). Even though the bases can do what they desire separate from the state or country that they are in this was the common practice. i.e. Gambling in the Philippines was legal so the bases in that area also had gambling. Yet there is a Military law that prevented people from openly gambling onboard ships. I think that the idea was "they can get it just off base so why not provide it on base also".

I saw an individual that had spent 17 years making the Navy a career. He was an E-7 getting ready to make E-8. He would have had E-8 in just 3 months when, because of his gambling adiction, wrote over $8,000.00 in bad checks at the local Navy exchange.  He ended up loosing his family and his career because he refused to co-operate with the programs available to him.

Yes it is saddening as well as maddening.