Saturday, May 23, 2009
It’s mass robbery and those being robbed are becoming restless.
What event, a swine flu outbreak, an attack like 9-11 or some other event would initiate martial law? How easily would we go into that dark night?
When I see some of the absolute insanity from the left, from Obama,from the democrat socialists, I shudder to think what this might look like.
We are inching toward open armed resistance while the Bolsheviks are at the doors of our Mass Media, at the door taking away our rights, at the door destroying our national economy, seizing power under the guise of every ruse imagined or real.
This is what it felt like in 1933 in Nazi Germany as Hitler seized control. It was not a bloodless coup. How many will go quietly when it all comes down?
Here’s what you need to know WHEN Marital law is imposed.
Friday, May 22, 2009
It is absurd to be anxiously watching every moment exhausting ourselves trying to be Spirit-filled. The promise is that “the joy of the Lord is your strength” (Neh 8:10). Living in the Spirit we walk with God with a confident bearing, live more easily, and pray more easily. “Keep in step with the Spirit” is the advice found in Galatians 5:25. Remember, the Holy Spirit is a gift, not a goal.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
I posted before about tips for knowing if you're boring someone and tips to avoid being a bore. But while it might be fairly easy to avoid topics that are likely to bore someone, it's much harder to figure out what to say if you want to be interesting. Making polite conversation can be tough.
“So where do you live?”
“Really. I live on the upper east side.”
Here are some strategies to try when your mind is a blank:
1. Comment on a topic common to both of you at the moment: the food, the room, the occasion, the weather. “How do you know our host?” “What brings you to this event?” But keep it on the positive side! Unless you can be hilariously funny, the first time you come in contact with a person isn’t a good time to complain.
2. Comment on a topic of general interest. A friend scans Google News right before he goes anywhere where he needs to make small talk, so he can say, “Did you hear that Justice Souter is stepping down from the bench?” or whatever might be happening.
3. Ask open questions that can’t be answered with a single word. “What’s keeping you busy these days?” This is a good question if you’re talking to a person who doesn’t have an office job. It’s also helpful because it allows people to choose their focus (work, volunteer, family, hobby) — preferable to the inevitable question (well, inevitable at least in New York City): “What do you do?”
A variant: “What are you working on these days?” This is a useful dodge if you ought to know what the person does for a living, but can’t remember.
4. If you do ask a question that can be answered in a single word, instead of just supplying your own information in response, ask a follow-up question. For example, if you ask, “Where are you from?” an interesting follow-up question might be, “What would your life be like if you still lived there?” If you ask, “Do you have children?” you might ask, “How are you a different kind of parent from your own parents?” or “Have you decided to do anything very differently from the way you were raised?”
5. Ask getting-to-know-you questions. “What newspapers and magazines do you subscribe to? What internet sites do you visit regularly?” These questions often reveal a hidden passion, which can make for great conversation.
6. React to what a person says in the spirit in which that that comment was offered. If he makes a joke, even if it’s not very funny, try to laugh. If she offers some surprising information (“Did you know that one out of every seven books sold last year was written by Stephanie Meyer?”), react with surprise. Recently, I’ve had a few conversations where the person I was talking to just never reacted to what I said. I was trying to be all insightful and interesting, and these two people reacted as though everything I said was completely obvious and dull. It was unsatisfying.
Now, what to do if a conversation is just not working, and there’s no way to use the “Excuse me, I need to go get something to drink” line? Recently, at a dinner party, the guy sitting on my right side was clearly very bored by me. He explained to me at length about how happiness didn’t really exist, but after setting me straight on that question didn’t want to talk about it anymore, and after a few failed attempts at other topics, after an awkward pause in the conversation (my fault as much as his), he said, “Um, so where are you from?” It was such a listless, uninspired effort that I leaned over, put my hand on his arm, and said meanly, “Now, Paul, surely we can do better than that!” and changed the conversation. (It is moments like that that make me happy that I basically gave up drinking.)
So what can you do when the conversation is such a struggle?
7. A friend argues that you should admit it! “We’re really working hard, aren’t we?” or “It’s frustrating—I’m sure we have interests in common, but we’re having a difficult time finding them.” Clearly this is a desperate measure, but my friend insists that it works. I’ve never had the gumption to try it, I have to admit.
What are some other strategies for starting an interesting conversation with a stranger? What have I overlooked? On a related note, here are some tips if you can't remember someone's name.
By: Dan Weil
After surging to a record high of $147 last July, oil prices plunged to $37 near year-end, thanks to the economic slump.
Now they are back above $60, and experts say the rally has only just begun.
The same factors that drove prices up last year could return quickly, Prof. James Hamilton of the University of California, San Diego told Congress this week. He cites slumping global production and explosive Chinese demand.
“If demand from China and elsewhere returns to its previous rate of growth, it will not be too long before the same calculus that produced the oil price spike of 2007-08 will be back to haunt us again," Hamilton told the Congress.
Daniel Yergin, the dean of oil economists, pointed out in his testimony that global demand has now fallen back to 2005 levels.
"Demand shock has completely given way to recession shock," he says. "What had seemed unthinkable to many—declines in global demand—have become reality."
But that can change in a hurry, Yergin explains.
"As the economy picks up, spare capacity will start to erode, and the oil market could tighten again in the first half of the next decade," he says.
"The result could be another adverse shock to the U.S. economy and global energy security."
Legendary oil man T. Boone Pickens agrees. He told Fox News last week, “You're going to be back to $75 oil by the end of the year — and $200 per barrel within five years.”
Pickens is half right, oil will go to 200 bucks, six dollars a gallon, it will crush the economy. Oil in today's dollars will collapse to 10 dollars. That might in nominal terms be 400 dollars.
By: Dan Weil
Don’t let the stock market’s 30 percent-plus rally over the last six weeks fool you, says superstar investor Jim Rogers.
Equity prices are overvalued, he says.
“I’m not buying shares,” Rogers told CNBC. “The bottom will probably come later this year, next year, who knows when.”
And why should stocks drop? Because governments have "flooded the world with money," he says.
In the United States and other countries, the problem is too much consumption and too much debt, Rogers explains. But governments and central banks are trying to solve that problem with more the same.
This “defies belief" and won’t work, he says.
"I mean … you give me five or six trillion dollars, I'll show you a very good time, there's no question about that."
And what should you buy if not stocks? Commodities, Rogers says.
"Fundamentals for General Motors are not getting better. Fundamentals for Citibank are not getting better,” he points out.
“I can think of very few industries in the world where the fundamentals are getting better. But the fundamentals of commodities are getting better, full stop."
Rogers’ favorite commodities include the agriculture sector and silver.
Rogers isn’t alone in his views on stocks and commodities. As for stocks, hedge fund manager Doug Kass tells CNBC a “vicious correction is in store.”
On the commodities front, Bill O’Neill, former head of commodity research at Merrill Lynch, tells Moneynews.com, “With all the uncertainty around the globe, commodities as an alternative asset will be attractive.”
As you prepare to watch the Obama administration destroy what is left of the once-mighty U.S. automobile industry, you might wish to ponder this little history lesson, complete with a fun quiz, that a friend sent me.
First, a few facts:
Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social Security (FICA) Program. He promised:
1.) That participation in the Program would be completely voluntary,
2.) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual incomes into the Program,
3.) That the money the participants elected to put into the Program would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year,
4.) That the money the participants put into the independent “Trust Fund” rather than into the General operating fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other Government program, and,
5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income.
Which of these promises was kept? While you ponder that, here’s the quiz:
Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the independent “Trust” fund and put it into the General fund so that Congress could spend it?
A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the democratically controlled House and Senate.
Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?
A: The Democratic Party.
Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social Security annuities?
A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the “tie-breaking” deciding vote as President of the Senate, while he was Vice President of the U.S.
Q: Which Political Party decided to start giving annuity payments to immigrants who had not paid into the Social Security system?
A: Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party.
Have a nice day.
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
This is no longer just politics, everything that made this country great is being dismantled and destroyed. If we don’t act it will be too late. From the article:
But sometimes—quite often, actually—revolutions aren’t military conflicts, and the good guys are the ones trying to keep the revolution from happening. In January 1933, Adolf Hitler was appointed chancellor of Germany by its elected president; he would spend the next two years consolidating his power with the legislative connivance of his political allies in the Reichstag. In October 1917, Lenin and his Bolsheviks took control of Russia from Kerensky and his Social Democrats—who had overthrown the Czar earlier that year—entirely through parliamentary maneuvering in Russia’s fledgling Duma.
What defines a revolution—and this is the crucial point to grasp—is that when it’s over a country has changed not merely its leaders and its laws, but its operating system.
While conservatives have been working to improve our democracy and our free-market economy, liberals have been working to replace our democracy with a dictatorship, and our free-market economy with a command economy controlled by the government. The liberals couldn’t say this aloud, because if they did the American people would have tossed them out of office on their ears. So the liberals worked covertly, feigning support for democracy and for the free market while working diligently to undermine both.
This is why our politics has been so partisan, so vicious, and so deadlocked. This is why words have lost their meaning in Washington, why we can never get to the bottom of anything, why we lurch from one manufactured scandal to another. It’s all been part of a decades-long effort by the liberals to throw sand in our eyes—to keep us from seeing clearly where they really want to take us. (And this explains why, when we question their judgment on some issue, they go berserk and accuse us of questioning their patriotism. They’re afraid we’re on the verge of catching on. If you want to have some fun, the next time you’re chatting with a liberal and he goes nuts when you call him a socialist, say to him: “I’m so sorry you’re offended. Please tell me, what is there about socialism you don’t like?” You won’t get a coherent answer; he’ll just accuse you of a hate crime.)
This revolution won’t be stopped, and our country won’t be rescued, by the Republicans in Washington. This isn’t because they lack the votes. It’s because most of them are careerist hacks who’ve been playing footsie with the Democrats for too long; with very few exceptions they lack the intellectual firepower to articulate the present danger, and the political courage to stand up to this Administration and really fight. But for the absence of frock coats and pince-nez glasses, these Republicans in Washington remind me of those bumbling Weimar Republic politicians in Berlin who never grasped where Hitler and the Nazis were going until it was too late to stop them, or of those hapless Mensheviks in Moscow’s Duma who let themselves be tossed into history’s dustbin by Lenin and his Bolsheviks. (Yes, of course I realize it’s explosive to keep bringing up the Nazis and the Bolsheviks in an essay about the Democrats. I’m not doing this to be incendiary; I’m doing this to be accurate.)
We need to launch a counter-offensive, so to speak, and the place to start is at the local level. Working with our county and state political parties when we can—or working around them when we must—our objective will be to elect as many people as we can to public office who understand what a democracy is and how the free market works. This will include city council members, county commissioners, school board members, judges, sheriffs and even members of the local parks commission. With the strength and political momentum their elections will provide, we can surge to the state level and then—before it’s too late—take back the power in Washington DC.
The alternative to launching this kind of peaceful and political counter-attack is horrific. Right now sales of guns and ammunition are rising sharply. This reflects an intuitive grasp by grass-roots Americans of what history teaches may lie ahead. It was only after the Nazis had secured their grip on power in Germany, and only after the Bolsheviks had seized control of Russia, that they set out to disarm and destroy the vast numbers of ordinary citizens who - to the astonishment and fury of the revolutionaries—just wouldn’t go along.
That’s when the real shooting started, and when blood began flowing in the streets.
You need to read this whole thing...
This is what psychosis looks like....When you believe you are the light of the world because of your goodness
Appearing in the Rose Garden today to announce his plan to cap auto emissions, President Obama opened by saying, “What an extraordinary day. The sun is out, because good things are happening.”
Only Magical thinking would explain the idea that by proclamation we will be able to create cars that get 44 MPG and not be stupid. Obama has gone far off the deep end. IS HE CRAZY?
You are happy in a strange kind of way. Nancy Pelosi is a bad person. She needs to go away.
If you don't know why, I won't tell you.
But, at least CNN's Anderson Cooper admits to his mistake. I wish others would.
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
by John Hawkins
1) You really didn’t learn everything you needed to know in kindergarten: Liberals love to think of themselves as sophisticated, nuanced intellectuals, but the truth is they have a kindergartner’s view of the world.
2) “Liberals hate religion because politics is a religion substitute for liberals and they can’t stand the competition.”—Ann Coulter: Somewhat ironically, given the hostile relationship that has developed between the Left and Christianity, liberal beliefs have more in common with religious doctrine than a political agenda. There is no significant debate on the Left about the aims of their agenda—and the only “sins” believers can commit against their religion are no longer being politically useful, deviating from doctrine, or worst of all, cooperating with conservatives in some fashion. No matter how much evidence piles up that big government doesn’t work, that welfare destroys families, and that socialism doesn’t bring prosperity, it makes no impact on liberals because their dogma is based on faith, not logic.
3) “It is not human nature we should accuse but the despicable conventions that pervert it.”—Denis Diderot: There is no dream more eternal in the liberal heart than completely remaking human nature. If we could all just care about the person across the world as much as we do our families, we could live in a utopia!
4) “Oh what a tangled web we weave, when at first we practice to deceive.”—Sir Walter Scott: Like freaky religious cults, liberals have become adept at hiding their more abhorrent views from the public until it’s too late. It’s common to see liberals adamantly deny that they hold a position over and over again only to completely switch sides the moment they have one more vote than they need to pass legislation. Whether it’s lying about their opponents or what they believe, honesty is certainly not considered to be the best policy on the Left.
5) “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye.”—Matthew 7:3-5: Despite the fact that liberals love few things better than to cry “hypocrisy,” there is a rather bizarre disconnect between what modern liberals seem to believe about themselves and how they behave. Liberals believe that they’re compassionate, but only with other people’s money. They tie themselves in knots trying to come up with valid reasons why terrorists hate the United States, but they never give a moment’s thought to whether the people who dislike them might have a point. They pat themselves on the back for helping minorities, but never stop to consider that liberal policies have done more damage to black Americans in the last fifty years than the KKK could have done in a millennium. Somehow, stunning hypocrisies of this sort, which are too numerous to recount without doing a whole other column, never seem to be bother anyone on the Left.
6) “Trust yourself. You know more than you think you do.”—Benjamin Spock: It’s great to have a healthy self-image, but there’s not much to be said for thinking you’re smarter than the collective wisdom and traditions passed down through human history just because you happen to read the Daily Kos.
Monday, May 18, 2009
Get in on the ground floor. You should invest in this because you can trust me, I'm a brother in Christ, in fact I'm a prophet of God and he wants you to invest in this. You will prosper beyond your wildest expectations.
This is a parody and if you are foolish you will invest in this or some other MLM. Particularly if a minister of the Gospel is selling it.
Barack Obama can’t seem to get his story straight when it comes to what he thinks will jeopardize the safety and security of our country and our troops, and what will prove most fruitful when it comes to political expedience. Just weeks ago Obama sanctioned the release of classified memos that provided graphic detail on how CIA interrogations were conducted despite repeatedly insisting that “we should be looking forward and not backwards.” (Loosely translated: we’ll look back as often when we need to deflect political heat away from me and onto my predecessor).
Read the whole thing, It's really good.......
Charles Krauthammer knows a little about pain (permanently set in a wheelchair) writes pretty well about the whole debate.
I don't like torture, wish it never happened, but if you put my family in a circumstance where I believe that to save them from certain death I have to torture you, you are in big trouble.
To do othewise is unhuman and savage, like eating your own young. I know that's harsh, but I don't think we really understand until we have been there. All the pontificating and theories will go right out the window when any of you or I am faced with the choice between inflicting bodily harm to save my family or not. I don't have to think about it. The choice is clear for those who think clearly.
Sunday, May 17, 2009
- "In times like these, it's important to remember there have always been times like these."
- "The only people who get hurt on a roller coaster are the ones who jump off."
- "Like Mark Twain reportedly said about the music of Richard Wagner, 'It's not nearly as bad as it sounds.'"
- "Be careful … when a government is mocked by its own citizens, that laughter is often the death rattle with which empires die."
- "It's OK to be worried – that means there is still hope! Let's just worry about the right and important things."
- "In the history of the world, God often chooses the simple ones to confound the wise."
George W. Bush must be smiling. He’s not talking in public about the Obama administration, but he can’t be displeased: his harshest critic is adopting most of his national security policies, albeit grudgingly and with a whole lot of spin. But not even the White House spinners can conceal what has happened.
The New York Times has figured it out:
Faced with the choice of signaling an unambiguous break with the policies of the Bush era, or maintaining some continuity with its practices, the president has begun to come down on the side of taking fewer risks with security, even though he is clearly angering the liberal elements of his political base. . . But the bottom line is that Mr. Obama’s course corrections have real-life consequences. Mr. Bush kept saying that he wanted to close Guantánamo Bay but could not find an effective replacement for it. So he never acted. Mr. Obama began with that action, and now discovers it is more difficult to accomplish than it seemed a few months ago.
The Obama team is loathe to admit this. So they dress up the decision to utilize military tribunals as a entirely different sort of approach than Bush. Rubbish. Like most observers who bother to look at the details and compare, the Wall Street Journal editors aren’t buying Obama’s tale that his are any different than Bush’s. Nevertheless the editors conclude:
Mr. Obama deserves credit for accepting that the civilian courts are largely unsuited for the realities of the war on terror. He has now decided to preserve a tribunal process that will be identical in every material way to the one favored by Dick Cheney — and which, contrary to the narrative that Democrats promulgated for years, will be the fairest and most open war-crimes trials in U.S. history. Meanwhile, friends should keep certain newspaper editors away from sharp objects. Their champion has repudiated them once again.
Perhaps the key test will be when that deadline on closing Guantanamo comes along and there is still no adequate alternative. ”Can’t close Guantanamo” is going to be pretty hard to spin as anything but confirmation of Bush’s detention policy.
The Left is apoplectic about all this. And conservatives are conflicted. (Does Obama get “credit”? Is this a change of heart or political convenience?) But it doesn’t really matter what Obama’s motives are. The reality is that on one national security decision after another he has come to conclusions strikingly similar to his predecessor. That likely makes George Bush happy. But more importantly, it makes us all safer.