You are currently browsing the monthly archive for August 2017.

On Wednesday, August 16, 2017, US Representative Dana Rohrabacher (R-California) flew to London to meet with Julian Assange within the confines of the Ecuadorian embassy.

Recall that, as far back as January, Assange has consistently maintained that there has been no Russian collusion. He even gave an interview to Fox News’s Sean Hannity to say so.

On August 16, the Daily Caller reported:

Charles Johnson, a conservative journalist, told TheDC that he arranged the meeting for Assange because the WikiLeaks chief wants to strike a deal with the U.S. so he can stop living in asylum.

Rohrabacher’s spokesman Ken Grubbs told TheDC, “I can confirm that the meeting happened” and said that Johnson was in the meeting.

Johnson said that he arranged for the meeting to happen and that Rohrabacher would be the envoy in charge of bringing back a deal to the Trump White House …

Rohrabacher issued a statement afterward to the effect that:

Assange “emphatically stated that the Russians were not involved in the hacking or disclosure of those emails.”

The congressman, Johnson and Assange met for three hours:

A press release from the California congressman’s office stated that Rohrabacher “plans to divulge more of what he found directly to President Trump.”

The Hill reported:

“Our three-hour meeting covered a wide array of issues, including the WikiLeaks exposure of the DNC [Democratic National Committee] emails during last year’s presidential election,” Rohrabacher said, “Julian emphatically stated that the Russians were not involved in the hacking or disclosure of those emails” …

“Julian also indicated that he is open to further discussions regarding specific information about the DNC email incident that is currently unknown to the public,” he said.

Sean Hannity spoke with The Hill‘s executive vice president John Solomon, who wrote the above article. Hannity concluded the interview by saying that Robert Mueller, the special counsel leading this hacking investigation, and the Republican-majority Congress have ‘a duty’ to find out more about this.

Guess what happened in ten days’ time? Rohrabacher was connected with Russians, but, strangely enough, as Fox’s Tucker Carlson said, not with Assange. You can see the board with the congressman’s notional connections in the first few moments of the following video:

Rohrabacher found this laughable, since he was President Ronald Reagan’s speechwriter during a time when Russia was far from being America’s friend. However, he is Chairman of the Europe, Eurasia, and Emerging Threats Subcommittee of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, so will have met with Russians through his work. Seriously, if anyone has Russian connections it’s the Clintons and the Podestas. This post has more on wider Democrat connections.

Rohrabacher told Carlson that, while he does not approve of all WikiLeaks releases, he largely approves of their work in exposing governmental over-reach.

He told Carlson that Assange said the leaks were an inside job.

On August 30, Sean Hannity interviewed Rohrabacher. The congressman has not seen President Donald Trump yet but has been told that a meeting is being arranged:

Meanwhile, in possibly related news, the FBI says that Hillary Clinton’s emails are not in the public interest. The Washington Times reported:

Hillary Clinton’s case isn’t interesting enough to the public to justify releasing the FBI’s files on her, the bureau said this week in rejecting an open-records request by a lawyer seeking to have the former secretary of state punished for perjury.

Ty Clevenger has been trying to get Mrs. Clinton and her personal attorneys disbarred for their handling of her official emails during her time as secretary of state. He’s met with resistance among lawyers, and now his request for information from the FBI’s files has been shot down.

“You have not sufficiently demonstrated that the public’s interest in disclosure outweighs personal privacy interests of the subject,” FBI records management section chief David M. Hardy told Mr. Clevenger in a letter Monday.

The next day, Assange sent this message:

Good.

In the meantime, I hope that a meeting between Trump and Rohrabacher is imminent.

On Tuesday, August 29, 2017, President Donald Trump paid a visit to Texas, as he said he would a few days ago.

First Lady Melania Trump accompanied him, and, yes, she did change from stilettos into tennis shoes en route. Boy George defended her choices of footwear and added:

His tweet received much support, including this little GIF:

So much Big Media misinformation — or lack of coverage — surrounded this trip to Corpus Christi and Austin, that it needs to be laid out with videos.

For a start, Trump never said he would visit Houston immediately. He and the First Lady might travel there this weekend, depending on how relief efforts and flooding are going. They are highly unlikely to go to Houston if they could be getting in the way, particularly with the high security needed for a presidential visit. However, chances are good that they might visit elsewhere in Texas in a few days’ time.

The Trumps’ first stop was Corpus Christi, which was on the edge of Hurricane Harvey. Crowds lined the highway:

You can see the motorcade in this video:

You can hear the crowd shouting ‘USA! USA!’

Texas governor Greg Abbott was their host for the update they received on the situation in and around Houston:

Trump addressed first responders — and the crowd — outside. The cheers are overwhelming:

The Daily Mail has more on the Corpus Christi visit.

The next stop was Austin, the state capital:

At 3:10 p.m. the Trumps arrived at the state facility housing the Emergency Operations Center (EOC). As Owen Shroyer from Infowars explains below, the couple received a tour of the facility, then received a briefing from the EOC, again with Governor Abbott in attendance:

This video records Trump’s remarks and gratitude to the EOC staff:

Of course, it being Austin — unofficial motto, ‘Keep Austin Weird’ — there were protesters outside the facility:

The Trumps returned to Washington DC later that day. Mrs Trump disembarked in tennis shoes.

She issued this statement:

The effects of Hurricane Harvey will be felt in Texas, Louisiana, and other parts of the country for many months and years to come.  So far, 1.7 million people are under orders to evacuate their homes, and, as the floodwater in Houston rises, sadly, so will the number of evacuees.  

I want to be able to offer my help and support in the most productive way possible, not through just words, but also action.  What I found to be the most profound during the visit was not only the strength and resilience of the people of Texas, but the compassion and sense of community that has taken over the State.  My thoughts and prayers continue to be with the people of Texas and Louisiana.

The situation in Texas is highly serious. Trump made it known in his remarks to the teams he met with that it will take a lot of money and a lot of time to resolve. Texas has a state emergency reserve fund of approximately $3 bn, which is likely to be allocated to clearing up the damage post-Harvey.

On Monday, August 28, the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) held a press briefing to explain the situation. Unfortunately, it means more flooding, as water from the Addicks and Barker Reservoirs must be released (emphases mine below):

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Galveston District announced today, water from Addicks and Barker dams extends beyond government-owned reservoir land …

“Based on the range of uncertainty of rainfall rates and totals, overflow of the northern Addicks spillway has potential to occur in the early morning hours tomorrow, Aug. 29, with flows migrating toward Buffalo Bayou along the Beltway 8 corridor and crossing I-10,” said Edmond Russo, Galveston District deputy engineer …

Dam releases are expected to occur for several months following this storm event.

With rainfall still occurring in downstream reaches of Buffalo Bayou and tributaries, as well as with the discharge of water from Addicks and Barker, the elevation of the bayou is holding fairly steady and may take several days to recede.

Radio show host Hal Turner explains what this means:

Aerial views of Houston reservoirs and all surrounding areas are very bad. The reservoirs are over-topping and will continue to over-top in areas above and below the reservoirs …

USACE says this area now a “flood pool” because nothing’s draining. There is nowhere for the water to go because the ground is totally saturated and all streams, rivers and ponds where normal storm drainage would take place, are all full.

Even worse, lakes are also backing up into the area and flowing over their banks. At least 48 hours before any drainage will start to occur because culverts are washing — out roads are washing out.

Also (emphases in the original):

The amount of rainfall is well past all engineering and flooding forecast models.  No developed society has ever dealt with this much rainfall — in such a short time — in all of recorded history.

The only option remaining is for everyone who has not evacuated, to BE EVACUATED.  The entire city and much of its surrounding area should be EVACUATED.

Trouble is, all the roads for evacuation are flooded closed.

The National Weather Service is saying they “have no idea what is going to happen now because what has taken place is unprecedented; everything from this point on is an unknown.”

And, Turner’s article states that — regardless of what other people are saying — the level of water has exceeded 50 inches in Cedar Bayou, Texas, which recorded a level of 51.88 inches from Harveya new record for the contiguous 48 states.

The death toll from Harvey is likely to be staggering.

The radical Left’s violence and cry against historical statues continues apace.

Incredibly, the Washington Post finally acknowledged Antifa’s violence in a report on rallies in Berkeley that took place on August 27, 2017:

Their faces hidden behind black bandannas and hoodies, about a 100 anarchists and antifa — “anti-fascist” — barreled into a protest Sunday afternoon in Berkeley’s Martin Luther King Jr. Civic Center Park.

Jumping over plastic and concrete barriers, the group melted into a larger crowd of around 2,000 that had marched peacefully throughout the sunny afternoon for a “Rally Against Hate” gathering.

Shortly after, violence began to flare. A pepper-spray wielding Trump supporter was smacked to the ground with homemade shields. Another was attacked by five black-clad antifas, each windmilling kicks and punches into a man desperately trying to protect himself. A conservative group leader retreated for safety behind a line of riot police as marchers chucked water bottles, shot off pepper spray and screamed “fascist go home!”

All told, the Associated Press reported at least five individuals were attacked. An AP reporter witnessed the assaults. Berkeley Police’s Lt. Joe Okies told The Washington Post the rally resulted in “13 arrests on a range of charges including assault with a deadly weapon, obstructing a police officer, and various Berkeley municipal code violations.”

Oh, the irony — violence at a rally against hate:

“We’re just puzzled as to why people consider violence a valid tactic,” Berkeley resident Kristin Leiumkuhler, 60, told SFGATE. She, like others had turned out with neighbors for a peaceful rally but left when things got ugly. “We felt disappointed and surprised by how many people were not in any way discreet about being with antifa — in fact being very bold and prepared to be violent.”

Indeed.

As for the statues, particularly Confederate ones, frothing at the mouth continues. The Washington Times thinks it could be a problem of ignorance, as schools are no longer teaching proper history or civics. Cheryl K Chumley wrote an excellent, informative editorial, ‘Monument mayhem, history hysteria, rooted in poor public education’. Excerpts follow:

It’s the education, stupid.

That, in a nutshell, is a major reason why America’s monuments and national symbols are being torn down, removed, relocated and otherwise blotted from the public square.

If students in America’s public schools were properly taught the foundation of this country — the roots that made it great, the causes that both divided and united, the struggles of the nation to achieve even infancy, never mind maturity — then the leftist and anarchist calls to destroy would fall on deaf ears.

There would have been no Durham, North Carolina, toppling of the Confederate soldier monument.

There would be no fear of black-hearted antifa crowds coming to a community near you.

ESPN’s ridiculous removal of Asian Robert Lee from broadcasting duties at the University of Virginia’s home opener football game out of concerns for the politically correct crowd would not have happened. New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio’s equally ridiculous consideration of a proposal to remove a Christopher Columbus statue from public view would die a quick political death.

She points out the hypocrisy that comes from ignorance, which she says started as school curriculum began to change in the late 1960s. If students had the facts and critical thinking skills:

they would see the double standard of pressing for the tear-down of Robert E. Lee statues, while turning blind eyes to the many West Virginia facilities named after the former Democratic Ku Klux Klansman, Sen. Robert Byrd.

They would see clearly the feminist hypocrisy of condemning President Donald Trump as a misogynist while adopting more nuanced views to praise the likes of churlish but progressive Franklin Delano Roosevelt, serial adulterer but left-leaning John F. Kennedy, and hound dog Democrat Bill Clinton as solid politicians for their side.

They would realize that tearing down Thomas Jefferson and George Washington for racism common to the era is not one and the same as condemning today’s neo-Nazis or KKKers …

They’d instead be placing flowers on veterans’ graves.

Exactly.

Richard H Black, a senator in Virginia’s state senate, wrote an excellent explanation of the state’s protection of Confederate statues. ‘Understanding the purpose of Confederate memorials’ has a lot of information for a relatively short article. I, a Northerner, learned a lot.

The statues went up in the early part of the 20th century, when many Confederate (and Union) veterans were in, or nearing, their dotage:

Localities erected monuments to those who fought in the War Between the States several decades after the war, while millions of those veterans were still living. The Confederate soldier monument, at the Old Courthouse in Leesburg, was erected in 1908, roughly 43 years after the war ended. Most Confederate veterans would have been in their 60s by then, and many had befriended old adversaries.

Black cites one such friendship:

In Northern Virginia, John Mosby, the famed “Gray Ghost,” had bedeviled the Union armies with hit-and-run cavalry tactics that earned him a prominent place in Civil War history. After the war, he befriended his old nemesis, Gen. Ulysses S. Grant. Their friendship began in 1866, when Grant issued him a handwritten safe-conduct pass. Later, Mosby became President Grant’s Republican campaign manager for Virginia, and he was fondly remembered in Grant’s memoirs. In such ways did our nation gradually bind the terrible wounds of our most tragic war.

President Abraham Lincoln wanted the nation to unite after the Civil War:

Millions of good people, North and South, endured great suffering. In Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address, he set forth his postwar goals: “With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation’s wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan — to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves, and with all nations.”

Black explains the statue in Charlottesville:

When the Courthouse Statue was erected, it was “to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan.” The statue is a quiet, reflective image of the men who fought that war. One can imagine those who attended when it was erected in 1908. No doubt they included veterans, widows, and those for whom the statue was a solemn memorial to long-lost friends; to fathers, husbands or brothers. It was not a political statement any more than the Vietnam War Memorial is a political statement about that war.

He concludes:

I have no doubt that statue removal would eventually invite removal of headstones from Confederate gravesites; there is always some new tool to perpetuate division and hatred. We should have the wisdom to respect our history and draw lessons from it.

I oppose weakening the Virginia statute protecting war memorials. If bills attacking war monuments are introduced in the Senate, I will vote against them.

In another editorial by Cheryl K Chumley, ‘Monument madness a leftist cover to crumble America from within’, the dangerous rabidness of the Left was the topic for discussion:

The clashes in Charlottesville, disgusting as they were — fatal as they proved — were quickly seized upon by a committed far-left that wants nothing more than to A) remove this president from office and B) change the constitutional nature of America’s society for one that’s ruled by whim and mob voice, rather than law and order.

She lists all the madness that occurred after August 12, the day of the Charlottesville violence. Do read her article, as this is only a portion of what happened:

Those who dared suggest the statue should stay for historical reasons became cast as white supremacists themselves. Those who pointed to the First Amendment rights of protesters of all walks, from far left to far right and all points in between, were slammed as neo-Nazi sympathizers.

Nancy Pelosi called for the National Parks Service to yank an already-approved permit for white supremacists to protest at a spot in California. The mayor of Charlottesville, the Democratic activist and anti-President Donald Trumper Michael Signer took to national television to draw a direct line between the White House and the city’s violence, saying most shamefully and unfairly, “Look at the campaign he ran,” while pointing blaming fingers squarely at the president.

The progressive, Asian, black and Hispanic caucuses in Congress penned quick letters to the White House, demanding the immediate removal of aides Steve Bannon, Stephen Miller and Sebastian Gorka because of their so-deemed, yet entirely unsubstantiated, white supremacist views.

Baltimore in the middle of the night removed its Confederate-tied monuments. North Carolina thugs in Durham tore down a Confederate soldier statue and kicked and spat on it. A pastor — a man of Christ — called for the renaming of Washington Park in Chicago, as well as the removal of its George Washington statue and the renaming of Jackson Park. Why? The names conjures images of slavery, he said.

Ultimately:

The journey’s not over. Next stop: The documents of these so-dubbed racist Founding Fathers. The Declaration of Independence. The U.S. Constitution. And the question that looms — the question that’s to be posed by the left: How can these documents represent the freedoms of all, when they were penned by those with racist mindsets? …

This is the left’s logic: If America’s founders were racist, then the documents the founders wrote were racist — and since these are the documents that still guide our governance today, then America’s entire political system is inherently racist.

This is what the left is after; this is the end goal — a complete upheaval of America’s republic and uprooting of law and order. The quest is dark. It would mean the end of America’s greatest asset — the fact that our country is built upon the foundation that individual rights come from God, not government. It would leave a nation at moral and political drift, a society in chaos, a wide open door for those with selfish desires to take the reigns of political power.

She concludes that people need to get involved:

Our job, our responsibility, as a nation of patriotic, evangelical, constitutional, civic-minded, law-and-order-loving people, is to root out the evil without killing the dream.

Nancy Pelosi (D-California), mentioned above, has been a poster woman for the post-Charlottesville hysteria.

Yet, her father helped to dedicate a Confederate statue in Maryland!

Chumley tells us:

The Baltimore Sun reported that on May 2, 1948, then-Governor William Preston Lane Jr. and Pelosi’s father, Thomas D’Alesandro Jr., delivered remarks during the dedication ceremony for a monument of Robert E. Lee and Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson.

As Fox News noted: This is the same Pelosi family blood that just found several statues in Congress — statues that have stood for years and years and years — “reprehensible” in nature, needful of removal …

This is what D’Alesandro said during the dedication, Fox reported: “Today, with our nation beset by subversive groups and propaganda which seeks to destroy our national unity, we can look for inspiration to the lives of Lee and Jackson to remind us to be resolute and determined in preserving our sacred institutions. We must remain steadfast in our determination to preserve freedom, not only for ourselves, but for the other liberty-loving nations who are striving to preserve their national unity as free nations.”

But wait, there’s more.

He also said this, of Jackson: “In these days of uncertainty and turmoil, Americans must emulate Jackson’s example and stand like a stone wall against aggression in any form that would seek to destroy the liberty of the world.”

What a difference between father and daughter.

In closing, Victor Davis Hanson wrote an excellent article for the Washington Times, which I recommend to everyone for its historical content:

He gives us facts a lot of us did not know. A few are below. Okay, most of us knew about Margaret Sanger, but there are more:

The wide liberal search for more enemies of the past may soon take progressives down hypocritical pathways they would prefer not to walk.

In the present climate of auditing the past, it is inevitable that Margaret Sanger’s Planned Parenthood will have to be disassociated from its founder. Sanger was an unapologetic racist and eugenicist who pushed abortion to reduce the non-white population.

Should we ask that Ruth Bader Ginsburg resign from the Supreme Court? Even with the benefit of 21st-century moral sensitivity, Justice Ginsburg still managed to echo Sanger in a racist reference to abortion (“growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of”) …

President Woodrow Wilson ensured that the armed forces were not integrated. He also segregated civil service agencies. Why, then, does Princeton University still cling to its Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs? To honor a progressive who did a great deal of harm to African-American causes?

Wilson’s progressive racism, dressed up in pseudo-scientific theories, was perhaps more pernicious than that of the old tribal racists of the South, given that it was not regionally centered and was professed to be fact-based and ecumenical, with the power of the presidency behind it …

Why is 20th century Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black, once a Klansman, still honored as a progressive hero? …

Farm-labor icon Cesar Chavez once sent union thugs to the border to physically bar U.S. entry to undocumented Mexican immigrants, whom he derided as “wetbacks” in a fashion that would today surely earn Chavez progressive ostracism as a xenophobe.

Hanson ends his article with a series of questions as to the point of all of these clamours for statue removal and monument defunding, among them:

Does toppling the statue of a Confederate general — without a referendum or a majority vote of an elected council — improve racial relations? Does renaming a bridge or building reduce unemployment in the inner city? …

Does selectively warring against the illiberal past make us feel better about doing something symbolic when we cannot do something substantive? Or is it a sign of raw power and ego when activists force authorities to cave to their threats and remove images and names in the dead of night?

Leftists — especially Antifa and their fellow travellers — really do need to a) get properly educated and b) do some critical self-examination.

Hurricane Harvey and the unprecedented rain in parts of Texas have wreaked havoc.

Unfortunately, last week, Houston’s mayor Sylvester Turner told the city’s citizens not to evacuate:

Texas governor Greg Abbott was right in encouraging people to get out of Dodge before the destruction:

This what happened:

This was the weather forecast for Sunday, August 27, 2017:

As you can see from that forecast, the rain is moving northeast to Louisiana.

These short videos give an idea of the devastation of Hurricane Harvey elsewhere in Texas:

The White House has been monitoring the situation for much of the past week:

A team from New York’s bravest and finest left for Texas:

Americans — local and out of state — are making journeys in by boat to help people:

Prayers are needed now. It is hard to imagine the heartbreak and hassle involved once this is over. Pest control and disease, including Zika, will also be lingering issues.

For the latest videos and reports, follow #Harvey and #HoustonFloods.

More information, photos and updates can be found in the comments below.

This short video, despite the robotic voice, explains that First Lady Melania Trump is concerned about opioid abuse and brought the issue to prominence in her husband’s administration:

Thank you, Mrs Trump, for your interest in families and in children’s health.

Bible readingThe three-year Lectionary that many Catholics and Protestants hear in public worship gives us a great variety of Holy Scripture.

Yet, it doesn’t tell the whole story.

My series Forbidden Bible Verses — ones the Lectionary editors and their clergy omit — examines the passages we do not hear in church. These missing verses are also Essential Bible Verses, ones we should study with care and attention. Often, we find that they carry difficult messages and warnings.

Today’s reading is from the English Standard Version with commentary by Matthew Henry and John MacArthur.

Acts 10:1-8

Peter and Cornelius

10 At Caesarea there was a man named Cornelius, a centurion of what was known as the Italian Cohort, a devout man who feared God with all his household, gave alms generously to the people, and prayed continually to God. 3 About the ninth hour of the day[a] he saw clearly in a vision an angel of God come in and say to him, “Cornelius.” And he stared at him in terror and said, “What is it, Lord?” And he said to him, “Your prayers and your alms have ascended as a memorial before God. And now send men to Joppa and bring one Simon who is called Peter. He is lodging with one Simon, a tanner, whose house is by the sea.” When the angel who spoke to him had departed, he called two of his servants and a devout soldier from among those who attended him, and having related everything to them, he sent them to Joppa.

—————————————————————————————————-

We are entering another exciting chapter in Acts. This book is a tremendous documentation of the explosive expansion of the early Church.

The previous chapters recounted the countless number of Jewish converts to Christianity. We also read about the growth of the Church among the Samaritans, who were half Jew, half Gentile because they intermarried with Assyrians. St Luke, the author of Acts, then documented the conversion of the Gentiles, the first of whom is Cornelius.

Cornelius was a Roman centurion of the Italian cohort — regiment, literally ‘band’ — who was stationed in Caesarea (verse 1). John MacArthur tells us:

Josephus, I think it is, tells us that there were five cohorts stationed in Caesarea, so they had a lotta Roman soldiers in that place…Make it a little study. It’s interesting. Sometime study centurions in the New Testament. You’ll find that they always appear to be good men. In fact, Jesus had some most interesting conversations with centurions.

Matthew Henry gives us more information (emphases mine below):

We are here told that he was a great man and a good man–two characters that seldom meet, but here they did; and where they do meet they put a lustre upon each other: goodness makes greatness truly valuable, and greatness makes goodness much more serviceable. 1. Cornelius was an officer of the army, Acts 10:1. He was at present quartered in Cesarea, a strong city, lately re-edified and fortified by Herod the Great, and called Cesarea in honour of Augustus Cæsar. It lay upon the sea-shore, very convenient for the keeping up of a correspondence between Rome and its conquests in those parts. The Roman governor or proconsul ordinarily resided here, Acts 23:23,24,25:6. Here there was a band, or cohort, or regiment, of the Roman army, which probably was the governor’s life-guard, and is here called the Italian band, because, that they might be the more sure of their fidelity, they were all native Romans, or Italians. Cornelius had a command in this part of the army. His name, Cornelius was much used among the Romans, among some of the most ancient and noble families. He was an officer of considerable rank and figure, a centurion. We read of one of that rank in our Saviour’s time, of whom he gave a great commendation, Matthew 8:10.

It is also interesting that the Lord chose a centurion rather than a philosopher or, as in the case of some of the Apostles, a fisherman.

Matthew Henry explains. The first sentence is well worth remembering. The last sentence is particularly important to note, as it would appear this was a sort of judgement on the Jews for rejecting Christ:

Fishermen, unlearned and ignorant men, were the first of the Jewish converts, but not so of the Gentiles; for the world shall know that the gospel has that in it which may recommend it to men of polite learning and a liberal education, as we have reason to think this centurion was. Let not soldiers and officers of the army plead that their employment frees them from the restraints which some others are under, and, giving them an opportunity of living more at large, may excuse them if they be not religious; for here was an officer of the army that embraced Christianity, and yet was neither turned out of his place nor turned himself out. And, lastly, it was a mortification to the Jews that not only the Gentiles were taken into the church, but that the first who was taken in was an officer of the Roman army, which was to them the abomination of desolation.

Verse 2 tells us that Cornelius was a ‘devout’ man. He and his household ‘feared God’. He gave alms generously and prayed ‘continually’. He was a Gentile following Jewish beliefs and customs, although not circumcision, in his case. No doubt he followed the Jewish laws about charity and adhered to their frequent prayer schedule.

MacArthur describes the three different types of Gentiles, some of whom believed in the God of Israel. It is no accident that the words ‘feared God’ are in verse 2, because the God-fearer was one of these three types:

Now, the term feared God became a technical term for Gentiles. There were three kinds of Gentiles in the mind of a Jew. One kind was just the plain, old, run-of-the-mill Gentile. The other kind, and this is getting better on the scale, the other kind was a God-fearer quote. This was a Gentile who had been sick of his own religion, the immoralities and the idolatries of his own faith, and he was sick of the whole polytheistic thing, and he had come to the conclusion in his mind that the God of Israel was the true God. He actually began to pray to that God. He perhaps become involved in the worship in certain synagogues or temple, or the temple itself. Much like, you remember, the eunuch, chapter 8, whom Philip met. But he was…he was involved in the Jewish ethic. He believed in the ethics of the Old Testament, but he had never been circumcised. He was not then a full proselyte. He was what they called a God-fearer.

The third level of Gentile would be the proselyte who had come all the way to Judaism, actually gone through the act of circumcision, and fully identified himself with Israel and was considered to be a Jew in a spiritual sense. Now you have all three. Well, Cornelius is the guy in the middle. He’s the God-fearer. He is not a full Jew, so he is to be considered a Gentile…but he did fear God. He was sick of the immorality and the emptiness of his own religion. He had attached himself to the Jewish religion. He didn’t accept the ceremonial laws, perhaps, and the circumcision, etc., but he often attended worship, no doubt. He believed in one God and in the ethics of the Old Testament.

At the ‘ninth hour of the day’, Cornelius received a vision from an angel of the Lord (verse 3). The ninth hour of the day was three o’clock in the afternoon. It is significant, because that was the time of the ritual sacrifice in the temple. Devout Jews prayed at that time of day, and, in Acts 10:30, Cornelius said that is what he was doing.

The angel addressed Cornelius by name. Henry explains:

he called him by his name, Cornelius, to intimate the particular notice God took of him.

Not surprisingly, Cornelius was terrified and asked what the matter was (verse 4). No doubt he thought the Lord was going to reprimand him in some way. Henry tells us:

The wisest and best men have been struck with fear upon the appearance of any extra-ordinary messenger from heaven; and justly, for sinful man knows that he has no reason to expect any good tidings thence. And therefore Cornelius cries, “What is it, Lord? What is the matter?” This he speaks as one afraid of something amiss, and longing to be eased of that fear, by knowing the truth; or as one desirous to know the mind of God, and ready to comply with it, as Joshua: What saith my Lord unto his servant? And Samuel: Speak, for thy servant heareth.

The angel reassures Cornelius that his prayers and alms have ascended to God. That is from the Old Testament and one of the reasons that incense was used, the fragrant smoke being a visible symbol of prayers and sacrifices rising to God.

Henry cites Leviticus:

Cornelius prayed, and gave alms, not as the Pharisees, to be seen of men, but in sincerity, as unto God; and he is here told that they were come up for a memorial before God. They were upon record in heaven, in the book of remembrance that is written there for all that fear God, and shall be remembered to his advantage: “Thy prayers shall be answered, and thine alms recompensed.” The sacrifices under the law are said to be for a memorial. See Leviticus 2:9,16,5:12,6:15. And prayers and alms are our spiritual offerings, which God is pleased to take cognizance of, and have regard to.

Some people consider themselves Christians, yet they do not pray daily. Prayer is worship. Prayer is our active acknowledgement of God the Father and God the Son. It’s essential to the Christian life. Furthermore, God hears our prayers and blesses us accordingly.

MacArthur points out:

You know, it seems to me that as I study the Bible, great things always happen when people are in prayer. God moved on Cornelius when he was in prayer. You’re gonna see in a minute that it was Peter, when he was praying, that God moved on, as well. Prayer’s a great place to be, on your knees before God, for God to speak, and here it happens.

God moves in response to prayer. You say, “What was Cornelius praying about?” I don’t know what he was praying about, but I can take a good guess. I think he was saying, “God, I wanna know more about You. I want the fullness.” He was searching for more light and God was about to invade him with light, and here came the angel, the angelic appearance.

The angel told Cornelius to send men to Joppa and to bring Peter to his house (verse 5). Note that the angel did not tell Cornelius to go himself, but to send his men instead.

Two things are striking about this verse. The first is that there was an action to be performed in obedience to the Lord. The second is that Cornelius was not to meet Peter himself in Joppa.

MacArthur takes this further. This is really important:

God not only chooses the receiver and responds to the searching heart of the receiver and prepares the receiver, but God gives the receiver the opportunity to respond actively. Now God could’ve said through this angel, “Cornelius, all you have to do is these steps. Do you know that God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life or whatever?” And he could’ve gone through the Gospel, see. He could’ve simply gone right to the Gospel, said, “Cornelius, do you believe.” ________ “I believe.” “It’s over, Cornelius, great.” But, no, He didn’t do that.

No, you see, Paul said that we were sent to the world for the obedience of faith, Romans 1. You see, God always wants to tie with faith an act of obedience, because that’s what the Christian life is all about. You might as well learn it at the beginning. That’s why the Bible says, “If you believe in your heartRomans 10:9 and 10, and do what else?...confess with your mouth, the Lord Jesus Christ, you’ll be saved.” God wants some kind of act of obedience tied in with that salvation. So He gives to…to Cornelius the opportunity to be obedient; and isn’t it interesting that if I were Cornelius, here would’ve been my reaction. “Uh, can I go myself? Why do I have to send guys? That means they’ll go there, and they’ll get him, and he’ll have to come here, and that’s a lot of time. I wanna get there.”

I don’t read that in the text. Praise the Lord, he was obedient. He was believing God, and he was obedient. You say, “Well, why would God take this time?” I think there’s two reasons. No. 1, I think was the fact that God wanted Peter also to act on faith, ’cause Peter was gonna have to pack up and head for Cornelius’ house strictly on faith. I mean to have a bunch of Roman soldiers arrive at his door and say, “Come on, we’re taking you to a man who wants to see ya.” That’s a little scary. Roman soldiers.

Secondly, I think, in order to break the barriers down, that the Lord wanted Peter to lead Cornelius to Christ in Cornelius’ own house, which no Jew would ever enter, and so God had the plan laid out, and Cornelius didn’t hassle God. He believed and obeyed.

The angel told Cornelius that Peter was lodging at Simon the tanner’s house by the sea in Joppa (verse 6).

Last week’s entry explained the Jewish opprobrium towards tanners. Their profession was unclean, therefore, they, too were unclean. Tanning also smells, even today. Yet, Peter stayed with Simon for a long time, probably two years. From this, we see the inclusivity of Christianity, which the Apostle himself displayed.

MacArthur tells us why tanners lived by the sea:

Tanners had their house by the seaside, because they needed the salt water for the tanning processes.

After the angel left him, Cornelius called two of his servants and a devout soldier (verse 7). He explained the vision to them and sent them to Joppa (verse 8). Last week’s entry also discussed Joppa, more about which can be found at BiblePlaces.com.

MacArthur ties this vision and obedience together for us:

Cornelius is getting prepared. What have we seen in the preparation of the receiver over here? We’ve seen 1) God chose him. 2) God responded to his open heart. 3) God prepared the soil with the proper information and instruction. 4) God promises more light. “He shall tell thee what thou oughtest to do.” 5) God asks for the obedience of faith. Meanwhile, He prepares the messenger, Peter, down in Joppa.

Peter’s preparation — also a vision — is the subject of next week’s post. Peter learned another great lesson in his life which further aided his powerful ministry.

Next time — Acts 10:9-16

Enough bad news for one week.

Let’s look at the solar eclipse as seen at the White House.

The day before, First Lady Melania Trump wore a dress suggesting the sun’s rays:

On Monday, August 21, 2017, she wore black:

President Donald Trump dared to look at the sun — momentarily:

The First Couple then donned appropriate eyewear:

First Son Barron, 11, joined his parents:

Vice President Mike Pence was at the Naval Observatory:

Attorney General Jeff Sessions marvelled at the sight of the eclipse:

Here’s a dramatic photo:

The solar eclipse had one detractor. What on earth is wrong with these people?

Someone said this was the best eclipse ever. Clever.

The eclipse was visible from coast to coast, from Madras, Oregon to Columbia, South Carolina. Melissa Chan wrote about more about the event for Time:

The rare celestial spectacle on Aug. 21 has a trajectory exclusive to the U.S. for the first time since the nation’s birth in 1776. It’s also the first total eclipse of the sun that will be visible from the contiguous U.S. since 1979.

For those who do not know, 1776 was the year of American independence.

The Atlantic examined the biblical significance of eclipses as signs of judgement in both the Old and the New Testament, notably at the Crucifixion.

Eclipses are far from being rare occurrences. The Atlantic article says they take place every year and a half. What makes them rare is that they occur in different places, so one is likely to see only one or two in a lifetime. The eclipse of 2010 was visible in the South Pacific. Perhaps some of my readers saw it.

The Atlantic points out that eclipses provoke powerful reactions:

Eclipse viewers are susceptible to emotional responses to solar eclipses, whether they view them as natural phenomena or heavenly wonders. Feelings of fear and awe fall along the same spectrum, and the splendor of astronomical events can sometimes blur the lines.

An Infowars reporter, Millie Weaver, has been crossing the United States doing reports on Flyover Country. She was in Spring City, Tennessee for the eclipse. This is a wonderful video which explores the beauty — and unity — that she and people from the South experienced:

Afterwards, she interviewed two university students from Alabama (near the end of the video). One quipped about the sun being returned to them because Trump negotiated a deal. It turns out that, centuries ago, rulers would tell their people that they could have the sun back after an eclipse if they did what they were told to do.

Americans who missed this eclipse don’t have long to wait for the next one. It will be on April 8, 2024 and will be visible from Maine to Texas, via the industrial heartland states of New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Indiana.

It is quite possible that Trump will be the first American president to be in office during two solar eclipses in the US.

You can read more about the 2017 eclipse at Time and at the NASA site.

Fallout from President Donald Trump’s Phoenix rally and Charlottesville continues.

Katie Pavlich of Townhall.com told a Fox News panel after the August 22 rally that Trump thought it was important to defend his statements about Charlottesville and to express his disgust at the media and others on the Left who are smearing his supporters. Start at the 2:40 mark:

On August 23, the Washington Post had a reply to Trump and his supporters in the form of an editorial from a satanist. The Revd Franklin Graham rightly called the events of Charlottesville on August 12 ‘satanic’. The satanist’s editorial takes issue with that — of course — and puts the blame on Christians.

The Daily Wire has a good analysis of the story and says that WaPo is attempting to create an anti-Christian narrative. That is probably true. It is dangerous:

Every time you start to believe The Washington Post cannot go any further off the leftwing rails, along comes another sweetheart of lunacy. Seven days ago, WaPo published an editorial justifying violence against Trump supporters. If you thought that was some pretty far out stuff, a few days later we were served up with an editorial that openly called for banning conservative speech on campus.

Crazy, right?

Nutso, right?

What is going on here? Why is one of the leading establishment news outlets in the country offering its imprimatur to dangerous lunatics advocating in favor of political violence and fascistic speech-killing policies?

Come on. Don’t be cute. We all know why. This is WaPo’s way of slowly but surely legitimizing these ideas, and both of these un-American ideas, silencing the Right through the use of force, are ideas the mainstream Left have secretly longed for for decades. When you boil the Left down to its essence, what you get are violent tyrants all-too eager to control and organize society at the point of a gun.

The truth is, as the Daily Wire points out, that Christians abolished the slave trade in the UK and the US:

Although it is simply a fact that Christians practicing Christian beliefs, that Christians who properly interpreted scripture became the heart and soul of the American abolitionist movement, it is also true that it was through the words and actions of devout Christian William Wilberforce that, after thousands and thousands of years of slavery, civilization’s eyes were finally opened to the basic idea that slavery is an evil, a concept no one had ever considered previously.

When a prominent national newspaper like the Washington Post gives space to a satanist to smear Christians, you know something is very wrong with American intelligentsia. Because of WaPo‘s influence, this narrative could run and run among ignorant, albeit well educated, people. What a sad moment.

Someone should try to get space in WaPo to write about where slavery still exists today and under what faith. It certainly isn’t Christianity.

Last week, supporters of President Donald Trump had to endure much negativity.

There were the melées in Charlottesville and Boston, the media and others on the Left denouncing him, continued calls for his removal from office and so on.

Then there are the conversations that we have with people — friends and acquaintances. For my circle, Trump isn’t sophisticated enough. One Englishman actually said to me just a few days ago:

Trump isn’t very bright. He appeals only to the unsophisticated — like people in Boise, Idaho.

He was refuted pretty quickly on that one, let me tell you.

Anyway, with all of this rubbish going on, Trump’s (previously) scheduled rally in Phoenix, Arizona on Tuesday, August 22, 2017 came at the perfect time.

The videos

Those interested can view everything — from supporters’ interviews to the guest speakers to Trump’s speech — below. Thank you, RSBN:

The following video from Fox 10 in Phoenix is of Trump’s one hour and seventeen minute speech:

If you have never seen a Trump rally, it’s worth watching. They’re all good — and all on YouTube.

Arizona Republicans spoke as did Alveda King, Martin Luther King’s niece who is very much pro-life.

The Rev Franklin Graham — Billy’s son — opened proceedings with a prayer. (Alveda King is on the right in black and purple.) This really is an amazing prayer on so many levels. RSBN also pans the crowd so you can see how many thousands are there:

Speaking of crowds, someone did a great time lapse video of the queue of people waiting to get in to the Phoenix Convention Center. It was a hot day, with temps over 100° F (40°+ C). People get to Trump’s evening rallies early in the morning and are outdoors all day long:

Trump tweeted that there were 15,000.

They were probably in line before Trump left Washington DC. Upon arrival in Arizona, Trump visited the US Border Protection and ICE teams in Yuma:

They told him about their daily work and the dangers they face. Trump discussed the visit in his speech.

Speech highlights

Although the teleprompter was up and running, Trump diverged from it with his trusty Sharpie-written notes and quotes. Trump is nearly always better without a teleprompter.

Trump began by thanking his supporters in Arizona and reminding them that he did his first ever rally there, during the Republican candidate debate season. He also thanked the speakers who preceded him.

He spent several minutes recapping his three statements about Charlottesville, which I covered here last week. N.B.: Although Trump did not say it, Charlottesville was a paid-for, false flag event on both sides.

Trump was amazed that the media did not mention he has ‘a home there’. It is where Trump Winery is located.

He said that the media were to blame for stirring up division in America. He said they reported only parts of stories, particularly those related to him. They take selective quotes from his statements. He wondered if the media even liked America because they seem to be so against the interests of the American people.

He did give credit to Fox News, namely Fox and Friends (morning show) and Sean Hannity (late night show). He watches both:

He also said he did not like it when the media smeared his supporters:

He also said that there was a lot of news they never cover, such as America’s failing education system and gang violence:

Between 32 and 35 minutes in, CNN and MSNBC shut off their cameras. Trump could see this, because their red camera lights went on. He mentioned it.

This is what happened at MSNBC. Notice the test pattern. (Surely, being a ‘Trash Man’ is a good thing. The trash man — dustman in the UK — removes rubbish.) Rachel Maddow wasn’t sure yet what was going on:

Trump talked about his 1m+ new jobs which would help to unify the nation and end the current division. He said that he wanted prosperity for all:

Trump went on to review his many achievements during the first seven months of his presidency, which I’ve also written about.

Although his infrastructure project has started, some CEOs from his advisory panel resigned after Charlottesville, because they did not think his statements went far enough. He disbanded the group:

He criticised Congress (and the Senate) for failing to pass legislation to repeal Obamacare. He said he had not given up and also pledged the largest tax reform ‘in 30 years’:

The tweets below are reactions from the elitist neo-con never-Trumper Bill Kristol (Trump complimented General Kelly, moved from Homeland Security to Chief of Staff) and conservative pundit, the pro-Trump Laura Ingraham:

Trump rightly had a go at local governments and universities bowing to pressure from Antifa to have Confederate and other statues of past American leaders removed. He told them not to touch those of George Washington. Removal takes place in the middle of the night, incidentally:

Around this time:

Trump spoke about renegotiating NAFTA. The first round of talks took place at the end of last week and ran through the weekend:

He signalled that he was sick and tired of the advice from outsiders:

He had a few closing soundbites, including:

Trump then concluded his speech:

Reactions

As ever, Trump pleased his supporters.

A Canadian had a righteous blast at CNN’s Jim Acosta. Thank you:

CNN responded with a programme about impeaching Trump featuring their usual leftist experts, Deep Staters and Democrats.

A New York City radio show host measured Trump’s speech by noting the Left’s hysteria. Responses mentioned the CNN feature about impeachment:

There was also this scandalous CNN commentary on black Trump supporters, including the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, retired brain surgeon Dr Ben Carson:

Terrible. Now that is racist, even if Mr Boykin is himself black. That‘s CNN, folks.

Indeed it is.

NBC’s White House reporter tweeted:

People at home were blown away:

You bet.

In closing, here’s the verdict of Trump’s longtime supporter, Pastor Mark Burns:

Amen, Pastor Burns. MAGA!

John F MacArthurIn this final instalment on St Peter‘s spiritual journey, what follows are excerpts from the other two blog posts from John MacArthur on this great Apostle.

My other two in this series, based on MacArthur’s posts, are ‘John MacArthur on Peter’ and ‘John MacArthur on Peter’s leadership qualities’.

MacArthur tells us that Jesus taught Peter a number of lessons, all of which helped his spiritual and apostolic development. He outlined these in ‘Peter: Learning from Life Experience’, excerpts from which follow. Emphases mine below.

Previous entries covered Peter’s denial of Jesus early on Good Friday. However, there were other episodes which were also learning experiences for him. Highs were followed by lows:

… the experiences—even the difficult ones—were all necessary to shape Peter into the man he needed to become.

He learned, for example, that crushing defeat and deep humiliation often follow hard on the heels of our greatest victories. Just after Christ commended him for his great confession in Matthew 16:16 (“You are the Christ, the Son of the living God”), Peter suffered the harshest rebuke ever recorded of a disciple in the New Testament. One moment Christ called Peter blessed, promising him the keys of the kingdom (Matthew 16:17–19). In the next paragraph, Christ addressed Peter as Satan and said, “Get behind me!” (Matthew 16:23)—meaning, “Don’t stand in My way!”

That incident occurred shortly after Peter’s triumphant confession. Jesus announced to the disciples that He was going to Jerusalem, where He would be turned over to the chief priests and scribes and be killed. Upon hearing that, “Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him, saying, ‘God forbid it Lord! This shall never happen to You!’” (Matthew 16:22). Peter’s sentiment is perfectly understandable. But he was thinking only from a human standpoint. He did not know the plan of God. Without realizing it, he was trying to dissuade Christ from the very thing He came to earth to do. As usual, he was speaking when he ought to have been listening. Jesus’ words to Peter were as stern as anything He ever spoke to any individual: “He turned and said to Peter, ‘Get behind Me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to Me; for you are not setting your mind on God’s interests, but man’s’” (Matthew 16:23).

Ultimately:

Peter had just learned that God would reveal truth to him and guide his speech as he submitted his mind to the truth. He wasn’t dependent upon a human message. The message he was to proclaim was given to him by God (Matthew 16:17). He would also be given the keys to the kingdom—meaning that his life and message would be the unlocking of the kingdom of God for the salvation of many (Matthew 16:19).

But now, through the painful experience of being rebuked by the Lord, Peter also learned that he was vulnerable to Satan. Satan could fill his mouth just as surely as the Lord could fill it. If Peter minded the things of men rather than the things of God, or if he did not do the will of God, he could be an instrument of the enemy.

He backslid only once — and briefly — but the Apostle Paul sharply corrected him. The incident is in Galatians 2, discussed here.

MacArthur says that, whatever Peter’s experiences with Jesus, he learned to truly be a fisher of men:

Sometimes the experiences were bitter, distressing, humiliating, and painful. Other times they were encouraging, uplifting, and perfectly glorious—such as when Peter saw Christ’s divine brilliance on the Mount of Transfiguration. Either way, Peter made the most of his experiences, gleaning from them lessons that helped make him the great leader he became.

There is one more illustrative exchange between Jesus and Peter, which taught the Apostle about obeying earthly law. MacArthur discusses it in ‘Peter: The Submissive Leader’. It is the story of the temple tax in Matthew 17:

This account comes at a time when Jesus was returning with the twelve to Capernaum, their home base, after a period of itinerant ministry. A tax collector was in town making the rounds to collect the annual two-drachma tax from each person twenty years old or older. This was not a tax paid to Rome, but a tax paid for the upkeep of the temple. It was prescribed in Exodus 30:11–16 (cf. 2 Chronicles 24:9). The tax was equal to two days’ wages, so it was no small amount.

Matthew writes, “Those who collected the two-drachma tax came to Peter and said, ‘Does your teacher not pay the two-drachma tax?’” (Matthew 17:24). Peter assured him that Jesus did pay His taxes.

But this particular tax apparently posed a bit of a problem in Peter’s mind. Was Jesus morally obliged, as the incarnate Son of God, to pay for the upkeep of the temple like any mere man? The sons of earthly kings don’t pay taxes in their fathers’ kingdoms; why should Jesus? Jesus knew what Peter was thinking, so “when he came into the house, Jesus spoke to him first, saying, ‘What do you think, Simon? From whom do the kings of the earth collect customs or poll-tax, from their sons or from strangers?’” (Matthew 17:25).

Peter answered, “From strangers.” Kings don’t tax their own children.

Jesus drew the logical conclusion for Peter: “Then the sons are exempt” (Matthew 17:26). In other words, Jesus had absolute heavenly authority, if He desired, to opt out of the temple tax.

But if He did that, it would send the wrong message as far as earthly authority is concerned. Better to submit, pay the tax, and avoid a situation most people would not understand. So although Jesus was not technically obligated to pay the temple tax, he said, “However, so that we do not offend them, go to the sea and throw in a hook, and take the first fish that comes up; and when you open its mouth, you will find a shekel. Take that and give it to them for you and Me” (Matthew 17:27).

As Christ’s example is the ultimate of all time, from it Peter learned to submit to earthly authority in his own ministry. He also encouraged his converts to do so, too, thereby following Christ’s example:

… in 1 Peter 2:13–18, he would write,

Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority, or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right. For such is the will of God that by doing right you may silence the ignorance of foolish men. Act as free men, and do not use your freedom as a covering for evil, but use it as bondslaves of God. Honor all people, love the brotherhood, fear God, honor the king. Servants, be submissive to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and gentle, but also to those who are unreasonable.

That is a tall order to fulfil, especially when governments are tyrannical and employers unreasonable.

MacArthur reminds us:

Remember, the man who wrote that epistle was the same man who when he was young and brash slashed off the ear of the high priest’s servant. He is the same man who once struggled over the idea of Jesus’ paying taxes. But he learned to submit—not an easy lesson for a natural leader. Peter especially was inclined to be dominant, forceful, aggressive, and resistant to the idea of submission. But Jesus taught him to submit willingly, even when he thought he had a good argument for refusing to submit.

MacArthur’s posts came at a serendipitous time, just as Peter’s great works and miracles are the subject of where I am in Acts (most recently here and here). Peter will be the dominant Apostle for the next few weeks.

Let us remember MacArthur’s words of wisdom as we read more about this great saint in the weeks ahead.

End of series

© Churchmouse and Churchmouse Campanologist, 2009-2021. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Churchmouse and Churchmouse Campanologist with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.
WHAT DOES THIS MEAN? If you wish to borrow, 1) please use the link from the post, 2) give credit to Churchmouse and Churchmouse Campanologist, 3) copy only selected paragraphs from the post — not all of it.
PLAGIARISERS will be named and shamed.
First case: June 2-3, 2011 — resolved

Creative Commons License
Churchmouse Campanologist by Churchmouse is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 UK: England & Wales License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at https://churchmousec.wordpress.com/.

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,537 other followers

Archive

Calendar of posts

http://martinscriblerus.com/

Bloglisting.net - The internets fastest growing blog directory
Powered by WebRing.
This site is a member of WebRing.
To browse visit Here.

Blog Stats

  • 1,664,711 hits