Saturday, January 29, 2011
Our nation's monetary policy is part of this event. It's complicated but we drive the price of food globally. If our dollar is worth less, it means that it costs more for any Egyptian. Unintended consequences.
This is an actual Al-Qaeda magazine published in The Arabian peninsula but distributed in the USA. It instructs Muslims in American to Rob, Kill and Destroy the Infidel (That is YOU). Does that sound familiar? You can read more here. http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/a
I'm not sure I agree, but I respect Walid Shoebat. I think it may be too late, the genie is out of the bottle.
I am becoming convinced that Islam as a system is at it's core insanity. Justice, mercy and reason are absent from any observation. I don't know the details of this other than what DW says. But look around the world, where ever Islamic theocracies rule there is cultural insanity.
This is NOT a good idea. That nasty old First Amendment and all....
Iranian Theocratic Islamic Fundamentalist Government sees the Revolt in Tunisia, Egypt, Albania and Yemen as a positive thing. BUT, not a word is support to those who rose up AGAINST the Islamic Theocracy in Iran, the Green Revolution. I guess there's a difference...RIGHT? If the Iranian Oppressors are for this, I'm against it. Call it Knee Jerk if you like.
People who have not self governed leave a vacuum that Islamic Fundamentalism will try to fill. There will be a vacuum when Mubarak steps down, and Tunisia and Yemen. I don't like dictators but I remember the aftermath of the fall of the Shah of Iran under Carter that we are still living with.
My best thought is that the success in Iraq helped lead to justice.
My best thought is that the success in Iraq helped lead to justice.
We are running out of friends in the Middle East. For all of the talk of supporting freedom in the Middle East, the U.S. has usually backed its depots. Given our dependency on Middle East oil, we have had very little choice. That’s what happens when you don’t allow drilling in Alaska’s ANWR, anywhere off our coastlines or domestically where billions of barrels are estimated to exist.
Now, however, we have a President who is VERY different from any that came before him going all the way back to Truman and Eisenhower.
This is the Egyptian street in the strictest sense of the word… the silent majority no longer silent.
Despite the number of tear gas canisters fired at protesters and the number of those who have been beaten and detained, there is a feeling among many Egyptians that a long dormant patriotism and pride has been finally awakened.
Ironically perhaps, the notion of Arab unity, long a running joke in the region, is being felt for the first time as many Arabs pledge solidarity and support for the people of Tunisia and Egypt.
Egypt is the most populous and influential Arab country, a socio-political stalwart. What happens there will resonate in the region and produce a ripple effect much more powerful in magnitude and impact than Tunisia’s. Over the past few days, protests in Yemen have grown in strength and gusto.
For years, Western nations have used the lack of democratic reforms in the Middle East and North Africa as leverage to pressure and manipulate ruling dictatorships to bend to foreign interests.
Now that the Arab street is alive with the power of the people for the people and by the people, will policies in Washington, London and Paris accommodate their pursuit of democratic reform?
It can tempting to look at an uprising against an oppressive government and automatically take the side of the protesters — the students in Tiananmen Square or the pro-democracy marchers in Iran for example — but in Egypt, the nature of the uprising is a little different.
Here’s John Bolton on the Muslim Brotherhood that is behind the uprising in Egypt:
I don’t think we have evidence yet that these demonstrations are necessarily about democracy. You know the old saying, “one person, one vote, one time.” The Muslim Brotherhood doesn’t care about democracy, if they get into power you’re not going to have free and fair elections either.
And I think there is substantial reason, for example, to worry the minority Coptic Christian population, about 10% of the population will be very worried if the Muslim Brotherhood came to power.
Let’s be clear what the stakes are for the United States. We have an authoritarian regime in power that has been our ally. We don’t know at this point what the real alternatives are.
In a democracy and freedom sense, that says “the enemy you’re allies with is better than the enemy you don’t know.”
I think there is some good news in that people are questioning the oppression they have lived under. People who have not self governed leave a vacuum that Islamic Fundamentalism will try to fill. There will be a vacuum when Mubarak steps down, and Tunisia and Yemen. I don't like dictators but I remember the aftermath of the fall of the Shah of Iran under Carter that we are still living with.
My best thought is that the success in Iraq helped lead to justice.
I wish the Body of Christ were strong on the ground in Egypt, Tunisia and Yemen to be the light that fills the empty places that will result.
I'm not sanguine about all this. On balance this is not great news. I'm no fan of the corrupt Egyptian government, but I'm less of a fan of Iran Ayatollah types on the southern border of Israel. That's the net result of what will happen if things go south. This COULD BE the king of the South in Prophecy.
I knew this would happen. Those who stayed on unemployment for two years are now seen as lazy and not employable. This will be difficult to overcome. If you were an employer and were presented with two people equal qualification who lost a job two years ago, one who hustled and did SOMETHING and one who coasted, who would YOU hire?
If you are out of work, this is good. In Chicagoland we have a saying in hiring, "We don't hire nobody nobody sent". I think it's true more than we think. Networking is everything. Tell Everyone you know anywhere you are looking. Be bold. Network. Network. Network. Till someone sends you. Forget monster. Craigslist is good. But people hire people who are recommended. Be recommended.
This is happening in too many places. What does this mean to the Body of Christ, to Church as we knew it? Church giving is off from 30-60%. When it gets to 50% that seems to be critical mass. Churches that made it at $500,000 a year don't at $250,000. If a tithe is about to walk out the door, what compromise is made? I know what I would say to this pastor. He needs a prophet he will hear for the future.
I don't know if this is true; but it's instructive
" No Man Knows the Day nor Hour " is illustrated in this dramatic video. YOU or I could be walking along, doing your business, on your way to the beach, or just passing thru and suddenly, in an eye's twinkling... Be careful then HOW you walk. I was struck by the sudden instantaneous death of so many without any warning.
If you want to begin to understand the 12,000 dow today, this is a 5 wave.
We are at a place in history where despite all the happy talk in the market, there is NOTHING holding this balloon aloft. My good friend John Garfield believes I have lost my mind, but I would ask anyone to show me 3 economic reasons for the stock market run up other then the fact that it ran up. It's speculative blowoff. http://www.themarketfinancial.
com/the-kubler-ross-model-deni al-acceptance-and-renewal-in-a merica/124215
Even the Devil has Prophetic. Be wary of the witch of endor.
How do we apply this principle to church, home, school, work and play? I think there may be a lesson here somewhere.
It makes me sad that these outright lies got so much traction over the years. Finally truth is trumping hysteria. . Truth will set you free. I heard that NYC got 19" of fresh climate change this morning. YIKES
This is a police state tactic. Accountability for everyone but the cops.
I understand that there are signs in New York City like this. We got a couple inches of unassembled snowmen this morning.
If you wonder why there is no money to educate students...... Please let's abolish public education today. I could run a Christian School for 35 kids for two years on that kind of money... waste and child abuse is what this is
The President ordered the cabinet to cut a whopping $100 million from
the $3.5 trillion federal budget!
I'm so impressed by this sacrifice that I have decided to do the same
thing with my . I spend about $4000 a month on
groceries, medicine, bills, etc, but it's time to get out the budget
cutting ax, go line by line through my expenses, and go to work SLASHING my budget!
I'm going to cut my spending at exactly the same ratio -1/35,000 of my
total budget. After doing the math, it looks like instead of spending
$4000 a month; I'm going to have to cut that number by twelve cents!
Yes, I'm going to have to get by with $3999.88, but that's what
sacrifice is all about. I'll just have to do without some things, that
are, frankly, luxuries.
Thursday, January 27, 2011
I got this information from a source I was referred to. I can't vouch for it. But it seems to clear some things up:
THE BATTLE BETWEEN ISRAEL AND ISLAM IS BETWEEN THE G-D OF ISRAEL & BAAL
According to the Encyclopedia of Religion, (Ibid., p. 48): "Allah is a pre-Islamic name, which corresponds to the Babylonian Bel." In the Tanach, the Hebrew Bible, this same pagan god is referred to as Baal! Thus the ancient battle lines between the G-d of Israel and Baal or Baalpeor have not changed, just as king Solomon used to say:
"That which has been is what will be, That which is done is what will be done, and THERE IS NOTHING NEW UNDER THE SUN. Is there anything of which it may be said, 'See, this is new!' It has already been in ancient times before us." (Ecclesiastes 1: 9-10).
ELIJAH VERSUS THE PROPHETS OF BAAL
Without a doubt the most dramatic contest between the G-d of Israel and Baal was when Elijah challenged the prophets of Baal to produce fire from heaven to burn the sacrifice dedicated to their god. Despite the concerted efforts of some four hundred and fifty prophets of Baal interceding with their god for no less than nine solid hours, Baal proved to be an impotent god who was not able to respond to the prayers of his followers. When it was Elijah's turn to beseech his G-d, the fire fell from heaven after a mere 30 seconds of prayer by the great prophet, and thus the G-d of Israel vindicated His prophet in the sight of the nation. Elijah then commanded for the prophets of Baal to be seized and he had them all executed without exception. Islam is certain to meet with a similar fate in the not to distant future, and when this occurs all the sons of Ishmael, who are kept in the prison house of Islam will finally be set free. Islam?s current doctrine demands the execution of any Muslim who dare leave Islam for another religion. Without question the world will be a better place when this evil pagan death cult of Islam is vanquished and destroyed.
Most of ancient Israel's enemies were Baal worshippers. So, what's new? Just as Solomon has already so eloquently stated:- "There is nothing new under the sun!" It should not come as any surprise therefore that the old battle lines between the one and only true G-d, the G-d of Israel and the false god Baal, the god of rebellion and witchcraft, still continue to be drawn to this day. Allah, the god of Islam, is the modern day manifestation of that same Baal, and he has infested his Muslim followers with the spirit of Jihad. It is this evil Jihad spirit which calls for holy war. This wicked spirit will not find rest until it has snuffed out the life of every Jew!
The greatest book of Muslim Tradition, "The Hadith" speaks more eloquently about the utter hatred of Islam for the Jews than any other book I know, apart perhaps from the Koran itself. The Hadith states:-
"The one sent by Allah has already said the great hour will not come until the Muslims make war upon the Jews and kill so many of them that when a Jew would hide behind a tree or rock these objects will speak and say: 'O MUSLIM, SERVANT OF GOD, THERE IS A JEW BEHIND ME. COME AND KILL HIM!'"
Another Source says:
Adherents to Islam (Muslims) worship Allah. Allah is not simply another name for God. In his book Islam Unveiled (The Scholars Press, Shermans Dale, PA,1991), Dr. Robert A. Morey addresses the origin and meaning of the term Allah.
Hastings’ Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics states, “Allah” is a proper name, applicable only to their (i.e. Arab) peculiar God.
According to the Encyclopedia of Religion, “Allah” is a pre-Islamic name…corresponding to the Babylonian Bel.
According to Middle East scholar E. M. Wherry, Allah-worship, as well as Baal-worship, were both astral religions and they involved worship of the sun, the moon and the stars.
Morey himself says, …the moon god was called by various names, one of which was Allah… The name Allah was used as the personal name of the moon god…
The symbol of the worship of the moon god in Arabian culture and elsewhere throughout the Middle East was the crescent moon. Archeologists have dug up numerous statues and hieroglyphic inscriptions in which a crescent moon was seated on top of the head of the deity to symbolize the worship of the moon god.
Morey also points out that Ubu’l-Kassim (Muhammad) was born in to the Quraysh tribe which was devoted to Allah, the moon god.
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
LOSING THE FUTURE VERSUS WINNING THE FUTURE: Reflections on President Obama’s 2011 State of the Union
I sympathized with Speaker John Boehner as he sat behind President Obama last night.
I had been in the same position with President Clinton back in January, 1995.
On the one hand the Republican Speaker is the leader of the opposition party and deeply disagrees with much of the speech he is being forced to listen to.
On the other hand as Speaker of the House you are the host to the President and both institutional history and common courtesy require a positive and pleasant demeanor.
From the experience of sitting through 16 State of the Unions from the floor and four from the perspective of the Speaker’s chair, let me offer a few observations about last night’s speech.
Winning the Future...couldn’t have said it better myself!
I started with my first State of the Union as Speaker when I sat behind President Clinton because there has been a lot of speculation about whether President Obama will move to the center as President Clinton did after the 1994 Republican revolution.
Of course, President Clinton’s flight to the center is credited for saving his presidency after a devastating defeat just two years into his first term.
So after an even greater Republican landslide in 2010, and as President Obama eyes a tough reelection with an economy in much worse shape, the question is whether President Obama will make a similar move to the center and try to co-opt much of the Republican agenda as his own.
Well, it certainly felt like "déjà vu all over again" this weekend when people started emailing me asking how I felt about the President picking the theme winning the future" for his State of the Union address.
I wrote a book in 2005 called Winning the Future: A 21st Century Contract with America.
Was President Obama setting the stage to adopt elements of my 21st Century Contract with America, just as President Clinton embraced the original Contract with America?
Winning the Future...for big government
What we heard last night did echo some themes from Winning the Future.
The basic plot was expressed – the need to compete with China and India, reform our tax code, stand up for human rights across the globe, defeat the terrorists, solve the challenge of illegal immigration, and improve math and science learning.
But it was clear that when it came down to hard policy proposals (with a few exceptions), the President’s vision was still big government dressed up in moderate clothing.
The most obvious example was in the President’s disingenuous suggestion of a 5 year discretionary spending freeze as a way to deal with our huge deficit. This after two years of a spending binge unlike this country has ever seen.
Imagine if your son or daughter came home from college after racking up a huge debt on your credit card and said, "I’ve got great news! I’m going to freeze the amount I’m spending every month at the absurdly high level I have established already!"
The President is trying to protect the big government he has created, not bring it back within its proper constitutional limits.
President Obama evoked the memory of JFK by talking about a new "Sputnik moment" in the context of competing with China and India.
But JFK understood that the best way of winning the future was to get big government out of the way to unleash the creativity of the American people, not "freeze" it.
The only proposals we heard from President Obama to cut taxes were on the condition that other taxes were raised. Reshuffling our corporate tax code is not going to create jobs.
Compare President Obama to JFK, who said in 1962:
"Our true choice is not between tax reduction, on the one hand, and the avoidance of large Federal deficits on the other. It is increasingly clear that no matter what party is in power, so long as our national security needs keep rising, an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenues to balance our budget just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits... In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now."
The truth is, what we heard last night from President Obama was not the pro free enterprise talk of JFK. It was the big government of LBJ.
Lessons from 1995-96
President Obama used yet another clever euphemism for even more big government spending.
Now that the American taxpayer understands that stimulus" means more spending and more debt, Obama is now calling even more spending and even more debt "investment."
But ask yourself a simple question.
After seeing the failure of the stimulus spending with all those so-called "shovel ready" projects, would you now want to pay higher taxes and incur more debt for those same shovel ready projects just as long as they are now calling them "investments"?
If stimulus and investment are both about more spending and more debt, can we really say the President moved to the center last night, or instead doubled down on big government?
This brings us back to my first State of the Union as Speaker in 1995.
It is important to remember that President Clinton did not immediately move to the center. His famous declaration that "the era of big government is over" did not occur in the 1995 State of the Union. It was in 1996.
In fact, President Clinton fought us for months. He vetoed welfare reform twice. It wasn’t until he realized that he would lose reelection that he eventually relented, signed welfare reform, and adopted many other items in the Contract with America, including balancing the budget, tax cuts, and entitlement reform.
We didn’t do everything perfectly during our battles with President Clinton, but we won on the issues by being principled and tough – a lesson House Republicans should keep in mind in the days ahead.
President Obama is scheduled to present his budget to Congress on February 13th, ostensibly with this proposed spending freeze to try and create the impression he is serious about the deficit.
If Republicans calmly explain to the American people why a simple freeze won’t do the job, the vast majority of Americans will immediately understand and side with them in their desire to oppose big government spending and restore limited government.
We can win on the issues today like we did in 1995.
Remember the 1996 Republicans were the first reelected House GOP majority since 1928. If you win for the first time in 68 years you are doing something right. Standing by our principles and standing up to a liberal President were the keys to that success.
P.S. Callista and I, along with Dave Bossie, are proud to release our new photo book, Ronald Reagan: Rendezvous with Destiny, inspired by the life and legacy of Ronald Reagan and our documentary of the same name. In honor of Ronald Reagan’s 100th birthday on February 6th, we’ll have more to say about Ronald Reagan in next week’s newsletter.P.P.S. Callista and I are also very proud that our documentary, Nine Days that Changed the World, has been nominated for The People’s Choice Festival Award on February 26th
The American people certainly don't need any more empty promises. Millions of American families have been pushed to the edge of desperation by this economy.
President Obama declared our present economic climate our sputnik moment then proceeded to ignore NASA in his speech while defunding our space program. Nevermind that he did not identify an enemy hell bent on destroying us. He just wanted to use the metaphor without regard for its historic meaning — something this President all too often does.
Barack Obama’s bold leadership will not lead to a new race to space. Rather, in his own words, Barack Obama’s “sputnik moment” is . . . wait for it . . . no seriously, wait for it . . . “solar shingles that are being sold all across the country.”
Not exactly a John F. Kennedy oratory moment. But wait, it gets even better as Barack Obama announces his intention to return us to the 1950’s.
READ The whole THING
OBAMA: Tackling the deficit “means further reducing health care costs, including programs like Medicare and Medicaid, which are the single biggest contributor to our long-term deficit. Health insurance reform will slow these rising costs, which is part of why nonpartisan economists have said that repealing the health care law would add a quarter of a trillion dollars to our deficit.”
THE FACTS: The idea that Obama’s health care law saves money for the government is based on some arguable assumptions.
To be sure, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has estimated the law will slightly reduce red ink over 10 years. But the office’s analysis assumes that steep cuts in Medicare spending, as called for in the law, will actually take place. Others in the government have concluded it is unrealistic to expect such savings from Medicare.
OBAMA: “I’m willing to look at other ideas to bring down costs, including one that Republicans suggested last year: medical malpractice reform to rein in frivolous lawsuits.”
THE FACTS: Republicans may be forgiven if this offer makes them feel like Charlie Brown running up to kick the football, only to have it pulled away, again.
Fact-checking the State of the Union - Chicago Sun-Times
Here’s the spin and the facts from the White House – and from Republicans – on the spending freeze in President Obama’s State of the Union address.
Spin: Obama is announcing a five-year freeze on a portion of government spending.
Fact: In fact it’s only partially new. He proposed a three-year freeze during last year’s State of the Union, and put it into place. So this extends last year’s proposal by two years.
“It is true that we already had a three-year freeze, so there were already significant savings in the budget. But we’ve extended that by two years,” Gene Sperling, a top economic adviser to Obama, said Tuesday afternoon.
Spin: The White House is selling the freeze, as Sperling put it, as “one of the deepest and toughest spending restraint budgets that has been seen by a president.”
Fact: They are freezing less than one half of one fourth of the budget. The current budget is $3.8 trillion, but for general purposes, consider the budget to be roughly $3.5 trillion each year over the last few years. Of that amount, about $2.5 trillion is mandatory spending, much of that being entitlement programs such as Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. Of the $1 trillion that is left over in discretionary spending, only about $400 billion in annual spending fits into the category that Obama is freezing.
Another way to look at this is that the total budget is just under 24 percent of the economy, or gross domestic product, which is roughly $15 trillion. Obama is freezing a portion of the budget that is only two percent of GDP.
Obama does admit in his speech that he is freezing “a little more than 12% of our budget.”
“To make further progress, we have to stop pretending that cutting this kind of spending alone will be enough. It won’t,” he says, according to his prepared remarks.