Friday, January 29, 2010

Shadow Government Movie Trailer

http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8y8CXRT-qg

Shadow Government DVD
Your every move is being watched, but who’s watching the watchers?
Video Preview

In Shadow Government, leading researchers and authors Grant Jeffrey (best-selling author, renowned Biblical scholar and host of Bible Prophecy Revealed) and DR. Katherine Albrecht(syndicated radio talk-show host and privacy rights expert and speaker on RFID, Human microchips, Verichips and Spychips) reveal the hidden world of surveillance and its connection to global government and Biblical prophecy. Through interviews and commentary with notable scholars, experts and authors such as Edward G. Griffin, Daniel Estulin, Gary Kah, Chuck Missler, Joan Veon, Brad O'Leary and many others, Shadow Government provides proof that the newest technologies are being used by hidden and dangerous forces that could one day lead to ultimate control over every person on the planet."The information in Shadow Government is like a headline news story every few minutes, it's simply overwhelming to learn what is happening behind the closed doors of technology and government." Recent advances in communication technology have exponentially increased the government's ability to monitor, and control, every aspect of our lives. The connection between Biblical prophecy and what we are currently seeing is profound and undeniable."

.
Format: DVD (Region 1 - May not work outside of North America)

Source: http://www.prophecynewswatch.com/featureditem.html

.

The State of the Nation: I am afraid




Posted on 27 January 2010

By John W. White­head
Pres­i­dent, The Ruther­ford Institute

“As I look at America today, I am not afraid to say that I am afraid.” – Bertram Gross, Friendly Fas­cism: The New Face of Power in
America


Omi­nous devel­op­ments in America have been a long time coming, in part pre­cip­i­tated by “we the people” – a cit­i­zenry that has been asleep at the wheel for too long. And while there have been wake-up calls, we have failed to heed the warnings.

Just con­sider the state of our nation:

We’re encased in what some are calling an elec­tronic con­cen­tra­tion camp. The gov­ern­ment con­tinues to amass data files on more and more Amer­i­cans. Every­where we go, we are watched: at the banks, at the gro­cery store, at the mall, crossing the street. This loss of pri­vacy is symp­to­matic of the growing sur­veil­lance being car­ried out on average Amer­i­cans. Such sur­veil­lance grad­u­ally poi­sons the soul of a nation, trans­forming us from one in which we’re pre­sumed inno­cent until proven guilty to one in which everyone is a sus­pect and pre­sumed guilty. Thus, the ques­tion that must be asked is: can freedom in the United States flourish in an age when the phys­ical move­ments, indi­vidual pur­chases, con­ver­sa­tions and meet­ings of every cit­izen are under con­stant sur­veil­lance by pri­vate com­pa­nies and gov­ern­ment agencies?

We are meta­mor­phosing into a police state. Gov­ern­mental ten­ta­cles now invade vir­tu­ally every facet of our lives, with agents of the gov­ern­ment lis­tening in on our tele­phone calls and reading our emails. Tech­nology, which has devel­oped at a rapid pace, offers those in power more inva­sive, awe­some tools than ever before. Fusion cen­ters – data col­lecting agen­cies spread throughout the country, aided by the National Secu­rity Agency – con­stantly mon­itor our com­mu­ni­ca­tions, every­thing from our internet activity and web searches to text mes­sages, phone calls and emails. This data is then fed to gov­ern­ment agen­cies, which are now inter­con­nected – the CIA to the FBI, the FBI to local police – a rela­tion­ship which will make a tran­si­tion to mar­tial law that much easier. We may very well be one ter­rorist attack away from seeing armed forces on our streets – and the Amer­ican people may not put up much resis­tance. According to a recent study, a greater per­centage of Amer­i­cans are now willing to sac­ri­fice their civil lib­er­ties in order to feel safer in the wake of the failed crotch bomber’s attack on Christmas Day.

We are plagued by a fal­tering economy and a mon­strous finan­cial deficit that threatens to bank­rupt us. Our national debt is more than $12 tril­lion (which trans­lates to more than $110,000 per tax­payer), and is expected to nearly double to $20 tril­lion by 2015. The unem­ploy­ment rate is over 10% and growing, with more than 15 mil­lion Amer­i­cans out of work and many more forced to sub­sist on low-paying or part-time jobs. The number of U.S. house­holds on the verge of losing their homes soared by nearly 15% in the first half of last year alone. The number of chil­dren living in poverty is on the rise (18% in 2007). As his­tory illus­trates, author­i­tarian regimes assume more and more power in trou­bled finan­cial times.

Our rep­re­sen­ta­tives in the White House and Con­gress bear little resem­blance to those they have been elected to rep­re­sent. Many of our politi­cians live like kings. Chauf­feured around in lim­ou­sines, flying in pri­vate jets and eating gourmet meals, all paid for by the Amer­ican tax­payer, they are far removed from those they rep­re­sent. What’s more, they con­tinue to spend money we don’t have on pork-laden stim­ulus pack­ages while run­ning up a huge deficit and leaving the Amer­ican tax­payers to foot the bill. And while our rep­re­sen­ta­tives may engage in a show of par­tisan bick­ering, the Wash­ington elite – that is, the Pres­i­dent and Con­gress – moves for­ward with what­ever it wants, paying little heed to the will of the people.

We are embroiled in global wars against ene­mies that seem to attack from nowhere. Our armed forces are pushed to their limit, spread around the globe and under con­stant fire. The amount of money spent on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq is nearing $1 tril­lion and is esti­mated to total some­where in the vicinity of $3 tril­lion before it’s all over. That does not take into account the rav­aged coun­tries that we occupy, the thou­sands of inno­cent civil­ians killed (including women and chil­dren), or the thou­sands of Amer­ican sol­diers who have been killed or irreparably injured or who are com­mit­ting sui­cide at an alarming rate. Nor does it take into account the fam­i­lies of the 1.8 mil­lion Amer­i­cans who have served or are cur­rently serving tours of duty in Iraq and Afghanistan.

America’s place in the world is also under­going a drastic shift, with China slated to emerge as the top economy over the next decade. Given the extent to which we are finan­cially beholden to China, their influ­ence over how our gov­ern­ment car­ries out its affairs, as well as how it deals with its cit­i­zens, cannot be dis­counted. As of July 2009, China owned $800.5 bil­lion of our debt – that’s 45% of our total (for­eign) debt – making them the largest for­eign holder of U.S. for­eign debt. Little wonder, then, that the Obama admin­is­tra­tion has kow­towed to China, hes­i­tant to overtly chal­lenge them on crit­ical issues such as human rights. The most recent example of this can be seen in the Obama administration’s ini­tial reluc­tance to con­front the Chi­nese gov­ern­ment over its reported cyber­at­tacks on Google and other Amer­ican tech­nology companies.

As national bor­ders dis­solve in the face of spreading glob­al­iza­tion, the like­li­hood increases that our Con­sti­tu­tion, which is the supreme law of America, will be sub­verted in favor of inter­na­tional laws. What that means is that our Con­sti­tu­tion will come increas­ingly under attack.

The cor­po­rate media, increas­ingly acting as a mouth­piece for gov­ern­mental pro­pa­ganda, no longer serves a pri­mary func­tion as watch­dogs, guarding against encroach­ments of our rights. Instead, much of the main­stream media has given itself over to mind­less, celebrity-driven news, which bodes ill for our country. It doesn’t matter whether you’re talking about tabloid news, enter­tain­ment news or legit­i­mate news shows, there’s very little dif­fer­ence between them any­more. Unfor­tu­nately, most Amer­i­cans have bought into the notion that what­ever the media hap­pens to report is impor­tant and rel­e­vant. In the process, Amer­i­cans have largely lost the ability to ask ques­tions and think ana­lyt­i­cally. Indeed, most cit­i­zens have little, if any, knowl­edge about their rights or how their gov­ern­ment even works. For example, a national poll found that less than one per­cent of adults could name the five free­doms pro­tected in the First Amendment.

Finally, I have never seen a country more spir­i­tu­ally beaten down than the United States. We have lost our moral com­pass. A growing number of our young people now see no meaning or pur­pose in life. And we no longer have a sense of right and wrong or a way to hold the gov­ern­ment account­able. We have for­gotten that the essen­tial premise of the Amer­ican gov­ern­mental scheme, as set forth in the Dec­la­ra­tion of Inde­pen­dence, is that if the gov­ern­ment will not be account­able to the people, then it must cer­tainly be account­able to the “Creator.”

But what if the gov­ern­ment is not account­able to the people or the Creator?

As Thomas Jef­ferson writes in the Dec­la­ra­tion, it is then the right of “the People to alter or abolish it” and form a new government.


Con­sti­tu­tional attorney and author John W. White­head is founderand pres­i­dent of The Ruther­ford Insti­tute. He can be con­tacted atjohnw@rutherford.org. Infor­ma­tion about the Insti­tute is avail­ableat http://www.rutherford.org/.
.

.

America's Shadow Government: Part One

http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1S2CzgjRm4

RutherfordInstitute
October 06, 2008

On Target with John Whitehead
.

Catholic Bishops Lobby for ObamaCare, Amnesty for Illegals


Photo (Courtesy)
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjym6WeC5mGqxAcJEe1_q9F_Kxe8WRbv10O-5HxaM6Gg4nYTkXDTcd7gqmg3RaAWm7NF5Qa4khj2f8xzaF0e9AnIpRJXJB7OXSYs-BjpbXQT_QIH7tRJBI0puSFGRVwon7tT8oSIQ/s1600/capt.675f816030cc462799476aa7ddde503d.catholic_bishops_mdrc102.jpg


AIM Column By Cliff Kincaid January 27, 2010

The religious left, led by the Catholic Bishops, may represent the only way that liberals in Congress can ultimately succeed in passing ObamaCare.

Calling health care a "right" to be guaranteed by the federal government, America's Catholic Bishops are trying to save ObamaCare at a time when the legislation has been pronounced in limbo, dying or dead by most of the media.

The evidence of intensive Catholic Bishop lobbying activity suggests that liberal Congressional leaders are going to give the legislation a temporary respite so that liberal Catholics can be persuaded to pressure Congress to pass both national health care legislation and "comprehensive immigration reform" in the form of H.R. 4321, the "Comprehensive Immigration Reform for America's Security and Prosperity" Act.

As AIM has documented, lobbying by the Catholic Bishops and their representatives, who worked closely with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, guaranteed passage of the health care bill in the House.

In a January 13 conference call and briefing, Kevin Appleby, a representative of the U.S. Catholic Bishops, explained in frank language why the Bishops are so desperate to pass the health care and immigration bills. He said that the Bishops want a federal health plan to absorb the costs being borne by the nation's 600 Catholic hospitals to cover illegal aliens.

Appleby said, "We have Catholic hospitals throughout the country that experience the same things that Alan was describing and we serve undocumented immigrants in our emergency rooms and community clinics, etc. So we have a stake in this in that the burden will fall not just on our providers but as Alan described, taxpayers throughout the country."

This was one of the clearest indications yet that support for national health care legislation is a means by which the Bishops can dump some of the costs of operating Catholic hospitals on the American taxpayers.

The reference to "Alan" was to Alan Aviles, president of the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation, another person on the telephone conference call.

Just four days after the annual January 22 March for Life, which featured many Catholic Bishops standing shoulder-to-shoulder with conservative members of Congress against President Obama's pro-abortion policies, the Bishops have returned to their liberal ways, firing off a letter to Congress complaining that national health care bills pending in the House and Senate aren't far-reaching enough. While the Bishops want the ultimate legislation to include "prohibitions on abortion funding," they also want it expanded to include millions of more people, including illegal aliens.

Indeed, the Bishops say in their January 26 letter that the House and Senate bills should be expanded because they "leave between 18 and 23 million people in our nation without health insurance."

In addition, the Bishops openly state in their letter that they want "undocumented persons"--illegal aliens--to be able to purchase insurance in the new health care exchange established by the federal government.

Gabino Zavala, an auxiliary bishop in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles for the San Gabriel region, has written an article noting that the religious left, which he describes as "religious leaders and faith-based organizations," have been pushing for a national health care system "for decades." He adds, "Catholic bishops have been leading advocates for universal health care as a fundamental human right, not simply a luxury for the privileged few."

The religious left, led by the Catholic Bishops, may represent the only way that liberals in Congress can ultimately succeed in passing ObamaCare. But that assumes that conservative Catholics will not resist the push to use church resources to give amnesty and federal benefits to illegal aliens as a way to take Catholic hospitals off the hook for many of their health care costs.

Left-wing Huffington Post blogger John Gehring notes with pride and pleasure that the Catholic bishops have "signaled they will play a leading role in pushing for comprehensive immigration reform this year by using the power of their pulpits and bipartisan political influence on Capitol Hill" and that the recent briefing was designed "to outline plans for persuading the public and wavering members of Congress that fixing a broken immigration system is a moral and practical priority."

Gehring is Communications Director and Senior Writer for Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, an organization funded by atheist George Soros. He is also a regular contributor to the God's Politics blog run by Jim Wallis of Sojourners, which received $100,000 from the Soros Open Society Institute to support the "Christians for Immigration Reform" campaign.

That briefing in question was the January 13 "Turning a New Leaf in Health Care Reform" conference call that included a lot of discussion about how to revive and save health care legislation in Congress and pass immigration legislation as well. The call featured Jennifer Ng'andu, Deputy Director of the Health Policy Project at the National Council of La Raza; Sonal Ambegaokar, a health policy attorney at the National Immigration Law Center; Alan Aviles; and Kevin Appleby, whose official title is Director of Migration and Policy Services at the U.S. Catholic Conference of Bishops.

An audio recording and transcript of the conference call are available at the La Raza website.

The Huffington Post's Gehring said that Bishop John C. Wester of Salt Lake City and Bishop Howard Hubbard of Albany, New York, who are respective chairmen of the U.S. bishops' committees on migration and international policy, have announced that over a million postcards "touting the need for immigration reform have been ordered by dioceses and parishes across the country" and that the cards will be sent to congressional offices.

The campaign is being run by the Justice for Immigrants campaign, an official project of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

The pre-written postcards say, "I am a concerned constituent and agree with the U.S. Catholic bishops that the U.S. immigration system is broken and is in need of repair. I ask that this year you support immigration reform legislation that keeps immigrant families together, adopts smart and humane enforcement policies, and ensures that immigrants without legal status register with the government and begin a path toward citizenship. Our families and communities cannot wait!"

The phrase "without legal status" means, of course, being illegal. It means they broke the law to enter the United States.

But the Bishops don't seem to want members of their flock to understand this critical fact.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Cliff Kincaid is the Editor of the AIM Report and can be reached at cliff.kincaid@aim.org




Source: http://www.aim.org/aim-column/catholic-bishops-lobby-for-obamacare-amnesty-for-illegals/
.

For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost


Matthew 18

1At the same time came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?

2And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them,

3And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

4Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

5And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me.

6But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.

7Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!

8Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire.

9And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire.

10Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven.

11For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.

12How think ye? if a man have an hundred sheep, and one of them be gone astray, doth he not leave the ninety and nine, and goeth into the mountains, and seeketh that which is gone astray?

13And if so be that he find it, verily I say unto you, he rejoiceth more of that sheep, than of the ninety and nine which went not astray.

14Even so it is not the will of your Father which is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish.

15Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.

16But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.

17And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

18Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

19Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven.

20For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.


21Then came Peter to him, and said, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times?

22Jesus saith unto him,
I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, Until seventy times seven.

23Therefore is the kingdom of heaven likened unto a certain king, which would take account of his servants.

24And when he had begun to reckon, one was brought unto him, which owed him ten thousand talents.

25But forasmuch as he had not to pay, his lord commanded him to be sold, and his wife, and children, and all that he had, and payment to be made.

26The servant therefore fell down, and worshipped him, saying, Lord, have patience with me, and I will pay thee all.

27Then the lord of that servant was moved with compassion, and loosed him, and forgave him the debt.

28But the same servant went out, and found one of his fellowservants, which owed him an hundred pence: and he laid hands on him, and took him by the throat, saying, Pay me that thou owest.

29And his fellowservant fell down at his feet, and besought him, saying, Have patience with me, and I will pay thee all.

30And he would not: but went and cast him into prison, till he should pay the debt.

31So when his fellowservants saw what was done, they were very sorry, and came and told unto their lord all that was done.

32Then his lord, after that he had called him, said unto him, O thou wicked servant, I forgave thee all that debt, because thou desiredst me:

33Shouldest not thou also have had compassion on thy fellowservant, even as I had pity on thee?

34And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors, till he should pay all that was due unto him.

35So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you, if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespasses.


.

Note:


Matthew 18:11 is one of the reasons why I choose to read only the King James version; Another reason is because it's the Protestant Bible, my persuasion. The King James version was translated from the ancient Greek Text or Textus Receptus(http://www.chick.com/reading/books/158/158_48.asp) which were not corrupted by the synagogue of satan.

What does your version say in Matthew 18:11?

.Okay.

Thursday, January 28, 2010

Ice, snow chill southern Plains amid power outages

By TIM TALLEY Associated Press Writer © 2010 The Associated Press
Jan. 28, 2010, 9:22PM

Ben Woloszyn AP
A Stillwater, Okla. Firefighter walks around a rolled over Chevy pickup truck on the southbound side of Interstate 35 at the Oklahoma Highway 51 interchange on Thursday, Jan. 28, 2010. No injuries were reported in the accident. (AP Photo/Stillwater NewsPress, Ben Woloszyn)



OKLAHOMA CITY — A powerful storm dumped snow, sleet and freezing rain on the southern Plains Thursday, disrupting power to thousands of homes and businesses, canceling flights and shutting down major highways across three states.

The National Weather Service issued winter storm warnings through Friday for much of Oklahoma and the Texas Panhandle.

Ice accumulations of more than one-half inch and high winds snapped electrical lines across Oklahoma, knocking out electrical power to tens of thousands of customers.

"In some places, as far you can see there are hundreds of utility poles on the ground," said Andrea Chancellor, spokeswoman for Public Service Company of Oklahoma.

"It could be five days for all customers who can take power to get power restored," she said.

Airlines canceled more than 100 flights at Will Rogers World Airport in Oklahoma City over concerns about icing on aircraft, spokeswoman Karen Carney said. She said additional flights will likely be canceled Friday morning.

Another 35 flights were canceled at Tulsa International Airport, said Alexis Higgins of the Tulsa Airport Authority.

Many flights in and out of Lubbock, Amarillo and Wichita Falls airports in Texas were canceled.

The Oklahoma Highway Patrol said a 50-mile stretch of Interstate 44 southwest of Oklahoma City was closed due to downed power lines in the roadway. Toppled power lines also forced the closure of a portion of Interstate 40 in far western Oklahoma.

In New Mexico, eastbound I-40 was closed from Tucumcari 40 miles east to the Texas state line because of snowpacked, icy conditions. Difficult driving conditions also were reported in the Santa Rosa area 60 miles west of Tucumcari, and snow was accumulating on I-40 east of Albuquerque.

The Texas Department of Transportation closed I-40 Thursday night from the New Mexico state line to the Texas-Oklahoma border. It also closed U.S. 87 and U.S. 287 from Amarillo north and U.S. 54 from the Texas-Oklahoma border to the New Mexico line after about 13 inches of snow accumulated in the northern Panhandle by nightfall.

In parts of West Texas, heavy snow and freezing precipitation downed tree limbs and power lines.

National Weather Service meteorologist Justin Weaver said the storm could generate up to 8 inches of snow in counties northwest of Lubbock.

The Oklahoma Department of Emergency Management said up to 12 inches of snow is likely in northwestern Oklahoma and the Oklahoma Panhandle. Freezing rain and sleet was forecast to turn to snow in central Oklahoma.

_____

Associated Press reporters Betsy Blaney in Lubbock, Texas, and Heather Clark in Albuquerque, N.M., contributed to this report.
.
.
.

A Self-Reverential State of the Union Address


Peter Wehner
Columnist


A Self-Reverential State of the Union Address

Posted: 01/28/10


President Obama's State of the Union address should unnerve Democrats in Congress and throughout the country. It was one of the worst State of the Union addresses in modern times – a stunning thing for a man who won the presidency in large measure based on the power and uplift of his rhetoric.

For those who hoped the president would use this speech as a pivot to the center, a la Bill Clinton in the aftermath of the 1994 mid-term elections, the speech was a major letdown. Much of what he offered up last night was symbolic. His budget freeze on a subset of domestic discretionary spending – which might amount to $15 billion – will hardly put a dent into our $1.35 trillion deficit. His budget commission, which will have no real power or authority, is worthless. His proposal to cut the capital gains tax for small business investment is a step in the right direction – but it will fall far short of what is needed to generate jobs and economic growth. One sensed there was no urgency or passion behind his effort to help small businesses and the private sector.

At the same time, Obama did not back away from his commitment to pass health care legislation that is incoherent, wildly expensive, unpopular, and which would do enormous damage to our economy. Obama also stuck to his guns on cap-and-trade legislation, which would be a job killer.

And even as he castigated Washington for being "unable or unwilling to solve any of our problems," he continued to champion an agenda that would concentrate unprecedented power there.

If substance was the main take-away of this address, it would have been merely mediocre. But what made it downright harmful for Obama and Democrats was its tone. The speech was defensive and petulant, backward-looking and condescending, petty and graceless. He didn't persuade people; he lectured them. What was on display last night was a man of unsurpassed self-righteousness engaged in constant self-justification. His first year in office has been, by almost every measure, a failure – and it is perceived as a failure by much of the public. Mr. Obama cannot stand this fact; it is clearly eating away at him. So he decided to use his first State of the Union to press his case. What he did was to set back his cause.

What made the speech a bit bizarre, and somewhat alarming, is how detached from reality the president is. After having spent much of his time blaming his predecessor for his own failures, he said he was "not interested in re-litigating the past." Barack Obama lamented waging a "perpetual campaign" – even though that is what the president, David Axelrod, Rahm Emanuel, Robert Gibbs and others in his employ do on a daily basis. He said, "Washington may think that saying anything about the other side, no matter how false, is just part of the game" – yet his White House has played that very game with zest and delight.

Having gone on a spending spree that is unprecedented in American history, the president castigated the political class for "leaving a mountain of debt" to future generations. Having helped to create the worst fiscal situation in our lifetime, he says he will "refuse to pass the problems on to another generation of Americans." He says, "If we do not take meaningful steps to rein in our debt, it could damage our markets, increase the cost of borrowing, and jeopardize our recovery" – despite the fact that future generations will have to work to undo the deficit and debt he had done so much to increase.

It was as if we were being lectured on marital fidelity by John Edwards or Mark Sanford.

The president criticized the "outsized influence of lobbyists in Washington" – as though he had no memory of the squalid backroom deals that were cut in order to try to secure passage of health care legislation but that helped lead to its demise. He spoke of the need to "do our work openly," even though Obama broke his promise to allow health care negotiations to appear on C-SPAN and he worked with the House and Senate leadership behind closed doors. He called on Congress to "continue down the path of earmark reform" – even though he eagerly signed legislation that contained around 8,500 earmarks. He claimed he is ending American involvement in the Iraq war – even though the Status of Forces Agreement that will end American involvement in the Iraq war was signed by President Bush. He said the United States must "always stand on the side of freedom and human dignity" – even as he and his secretary of state have consciously downplayed our commitment to both, whether in our dealings with Iran or China or any of a number of other nations.

On and on this game went, late into the night.

Perhaps the most striking aspect of last night's speech, though, was that Obama spoke as if the last year hadn't happened; as if he had not been president; and as if Congress had not been controlled by Democrats. He sought to portray himself as an outsider and a reformer, an antidote to cynicism, and a post-partisan, unifying force. He wanted to cast himself as an idealist, an inspirational figure, Mr. Hope & Change.

Barack Obama was, in short, trying to recapture the magic from his presidential campaign.

But that moment is gone with the wind. The charm and aesthetic appeal have all but disappeared. And so his words came across as not only stale but surreal. It is as if Obama was speaking in a parallel universe.

What we are seeing play out on a very large stage, it seems, is a man of extraordinary self-regard having to deal with punishing political set-backs, with the fact that his high hopes have come crashing down around him. The nation has turned against his agenda. They are turning against his party. And they are tiring of him as well. This is something he cannot seem to process. So the president marches ahead, pretending up is down and east is west, embracing an agenda the country has rejected and that is doing terrible damage to his own party.

It was quite a thing to witness.
.
.
.

Rush Limbaugh's Letter to President Obama

http://

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08rx3Jm
EIBNetRocks
January 28, 2010
(

From the January 28, 2010 edition of the Rush Limbaugh Show: Rush reads his letter to President Obama. pnI





Snippets:

"This must be what it feels like to live in a monarchy when some little kid becomes king due to a premature death."




...

We found out what it's like last night to sit through a speech by Hugo Chavez or Fidel Castro. And if you didn't see it, and if you want to know what sitting through a speech by Castro or Chavez is like find a way to watch a little bit of it and you'll get a grand idea. It was disjointed. I thought it was pathetic.


And Nancy Pelosi, she missed her calling. She's up and down, a Jack in the Box. She should have been a trained seal at Sea World the way she was behaving last night. She and Biden and everybody color coordinated in purple.


This guy is going to have to learn the Founding Fathers of this country were not Saul Alinsky and Karl Marx. Banana republic, to sit there and attack the Supreme Court for protecting the First Amendment, the least accomplished man in the room, folks, lectured everyone as if they were freshmen in their first last year of college.


Now, that is petulant. That is unpresidential, and it's immature. "Not my fault! Not my fault!" It's like Bart Simpson, "You can't prove it, nobody saw me do it, you can't prove it, I didn't do anything. It's unseemly, it's embarrassing, folks, to have a president talking this sarcastically.


Awe. By the way, he used the word "I" 96 times in 70 minutes. That's more than one time a minute. Okay, so remember this: I never suggested it would be easy or that I could do it alone.


"Whoa, that last five minutes, I have never seen anything like it."


"The last five minutes of that downer was strange to the point of needing psychological analysis. It's above my pay grade, but the best spin I can put on it would be to say an elitist professor was speaking to a freshman class. The worst case is I found his final comments to be disturbing, meaning I don't know anybody who speaks that way to adults, as if Congress has no idea why it's even there, as if his stupid little pep talk was inspirational. It was a failed attempt at wisdom. He came off as immature, out of his league who bounced --"


But I don't think I heard him say that because it was not the State of the Union. It might have been the state of the "unions," or more appropriately, it was the state of Obama.





http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_012810/content/01125106.guest.html

Florida needs a 'Bullet Train' like Europe and Japan?


Who needs a Bullet Train in the XXI Century?


There are those that say that Europe has Super Sonic High-Speed trains. Why can't we?

Others say that Japan has Bullet Trains for its commuters. Why can't we?

How can you compare the United States with Europe (27 countries none bigger than Montana), or Japan? It's like comparing apples to oranges? It would be more accurate to compare grapefruits to grapes.

Mr. Barack Obama and VP Joe Biden are in Tampa, Florida to hold a Town Meeting to promote the construction of a "Bullet Train" from Orlando to Tampa. The president is promising billions to build this fantastic means of mass transit which will generate thousands of jobs.

Where is this money coming from?

This will mean spending more money that we don't presently have; The money will have to be borrowed (on credit) therefore delaying the payment of this expenditure indefinitely: Borrowing from Visa to pay MasterCard.

Remember Am track? Remember the subsidies?

There are no guarantees that this enthusiastic capital improvement project will be profitable or cost effective.
.
This is not about jobs, congested roads, or the environment; It's about being hearded as cattle...
.
If you wanted the Long Island Rail Road near your house; You'd move to Long Island, Right?
..
P.S. Commodore Perry brought the first steam locomotive to the Emperor of Japan in 1853, as a gift.
Arsenio.
.
.

The Temporal Goods Of The Church


Can. 1254 §1 The catholic Church has the inherent right, independently of any secular power, to acquire, retain, administer and alienate temporal goods, in pursuit of its proper objectives.

§2 These proper objectives are principally the regulation of divine worship, the provision of fitting support for the clergy and other ministers, and the carrying out of works of the sacred apostolate and of charity, especially for the needy.

Can. 1255 The universal Church, as well as the Apostolic See, particular Churches and all other public and private juridical persons are capable of acquiring, retaining, administering and alienating temporal goods, in accordance with the law.

Can. 1256 Under the supreme authority of the Roman Pontiff, ownership of goods belongs to that juridical person which has lawfully acquired them.

Can. 1257 §1 All temporal goods belonging to the universal Church, to the Apostolic See or to other public juridical persons in the Church, are ecclesiastical goods and are regulated by the canons which follow, as well as by their own statutes.

§2 Unless it is otherwise expressly provided, temporal goods belonging to a private juridical person are regulated by its own statutes, not by these canons.

Can. 1258 In the canons which follow, the term Church signifies not only the universal Church or the Apostolic See, but also any public juridical person in the Church, unless the contrary is clear from the context or from the nature of the matter.
.http://www.ourcatholicfaith.org/canonlaw/CANON1254-1258.html

.

The government's secret prayers


A centuries-old ritual still takes place in the Houses of Parliament, behind closed doors – praying


Leo Hickman

guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 12 January 2010 18.00 GMT


There's a ritual that takes place every day at the Houses of Parliament which is said to have been common practice since 1567. Not that many outsiders would know about it, though, because it is conducted behind closed doors out of view of the public.

Before every session in both the Lords and the Commons, members stand, turn to face the wall behind them, and pray. Attendance is voluntary, but only Christian prayers are ever read out. This is the form of the Commons's main prayer, as read aloud by the speaker's chaplain:

Lord, the God of righteousness and truth, grant to our Queen and her government, to Members of Parliament and all in positions of responsibility, the guidance of your Spirit. May they never lead the nation wrongly through love of power, desire to please, or unworthy ideals but laying aside all private interests and prejudices keep in mind their responsibility to seek to improve the condition of all mankind; so may your kingdom come and your name be hallowed. Amen.

The Houses of Parliament even has its very own, specially adapted Lord's Prayer. In particular, it asks that the royal family be blessed with "heavenly goods":

O Lord our heavenly Father, high and mighty, King of kings, Lord of lords, the only Ruler of princes, who dost from thy throne behold all the dwellers upon earth; most heartily we beseech thee with thy favour to behold our most Gracious Sovereign Lady Queen Elizabeth; and so replenish her with the grace of thy Holy Spirit, that she may always incline to thy will, and walk in thy way: Endue her plenteously with heavenly gifts; grant her in health and wealth long to live; strengthen her that she may vanquish and overcome all her enemies; and finally after this life she may attain everlasting joy and felicity, through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.
Almighty God, the Fountain of all Goodness, We humbly beseech thee to bless Philip Duke of Edinburgh, Charles Prince of Wales and all the Royal Family: Endue them with thy Holy Spirit; enrich them with thy Heavenly Grace; prosper them with all happiness; and bring them to thine everlasting kingdom, through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

Comment is Free readers who see themselves both as republicans (the "down with monarchy" sort, rather than those who adore Sarah Palin) and atheists are probably beginning to feel pretty uncomfortable right now. In this day and age, do our parliamentarians really still need to perform this ritual? Personally, it's not my cup of tea either, but I see it as nothing more than a rather quaint bit of living history. In my view, the fact that it's voluntary and not conducted in sight of the public completely dissipates the need to take any possible offence that religion is still being intertwined with our state apparatus.

But things become a little harder to ignore when you examine the role religious rituals can still play in local government. A controversy is currently afoot at Helston town council in Cornwall because Pat Woodhouse, a member of public who says she's considering standing for a seat, has criticised the town council for holding "Christian-only" prayers at the beginning of each public meeting. The distinction between this situation and what happens at the Houses of Parliament seems to be that the prayers are conducted when members of the public are in attendance. Woodhouse is arguing that if prayers must take place then they should at least reflect other religions, too.

"Let's face it, we are supposed to be politically correct now," she is reported as saying in the West Briton, the local paper. "If anyone really took offence they could criticise the council. It isn't right … With respect to the reverend who opens the meeting with a prayer, is it politically correct to only have Christian prayers at the beginning of the meeting?"

Paul Phillips, the former mayor of Helston, isn't best pleased by her remarks and has hit back: "I don't know if Helston councillors have any other beliefs [than Christianity]. I think [her comment] is disgraceful. This country fought two world wars on Christian principles. It is up to the mayor to choose their chaplain and if the mayor is of a Christian background then it is natural he or she will choose a Christian chaplain."

The current mayor Niall Devenish has also chipped in, too: "As far as I was aware the UK is a Christian country so I was therefore surprised at this comment."

The National Association of Local Councils, which represents town and parish councils, says that because local councils are "independent, democratically accountable and free-standing bodies", they are free to make their own decisions about whether prayers are conducted at the beginning of public meetings. It added that there are "no specific guidelines on this matter".

In the US, there have been a number of cases over the years whereby judges have been asked to rule on whether religious prayers should be banned from being heard at council meetings. More often than not, judges rule that only nondenominational prayers should be tolerated. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is often behind efforts to strip prayers from state or federal institutions or events.

"The right to practice religion, or no religion at all, is among the most fundamental of the freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. The ACLU works to ensure that this essential freedom is protected by keeping the government out of religion."

On this point, I wholeheartedly agree with the ACLU. However, I would slightly twist that final sentence around and expressly say that religion should, wherever possible, be kept out of all forms of government – even in a constitutional monarchy such as the United Kingdom, whereby, for right or wrong, the Queen currently acts as both head of state and the "supreme governor" of the Church of England.

.
.

Christians Rally to Defend Prayers in Jesus’ Name



Wednesday, 05 August 2009 07:07 PM EDT
Adrienne S. Gaines


A former military chaplain who battled the U.S. Navy over the right to pray in Jesus' name is waging a similar fight in Lodi, Calif., where the City Council in May temporarily banned sectarian prayers before meetings.

Chaplain Gordon James Klingenschmitt expects several hundred people-some from out of state-to join him tonight at 6 p.m. for a "Stand Up for Jesus" prayer rally protesting a city policy requiring all prayers to be "non-sectarian and non-denominational."
"Jesus is not an illegal word, the Bible is not a banned book, and evangelistic speech is not a crime," Klingenschmitt wrote in an online petition that collected more than 5,000 signatures, half of them from Californians. The charismatic chaplain plans to present the petition at tonight's rally.

Although based in Colorado, Klingenschmitt has led similar rallies in Virginia and Pennsylvania through his national Pray in Jesus Name Project. He founded the organization after he was court-martialed in 2006 for appearing in uniform at an event outside the White House to protest a Navy prohibition against publicly praying in Jesus' name. Congress later overturned that regulation, and in 2007 he was honorably discharged.

Klingenschmitt said the situation in Lodi is bigger than one city. "This is a national issue because what happens in Lodi will happen across California, and what happens in California will happen across the U.S," he told Charisma.

For years the Lodi City Council opened its meetings with prayer that invoked the name of Jesus. But in May, representatives from the Freedom From Religion Foundation sent the council a letter complaining about the practice, saying the prayers "lead a reasonable observer to believe that the Council is endorsing not only religion over nonreligion but also Christianity over other faiths."

The council and Lodi Mayor Larry Hansen now are considering discontinuing the prayers, limiting them or offering a moment of silence, the Sacramento Bee reported.

Although the Madison, Wis.-based Freedom From Religion Foundation has not filed suit, Klingenschmitt has pledged to raise $10,000 to help the City Council defend itself against any legal action. He said the Alliance Defense Fund is willing to represent the council pro bono, but the money would be available to pay for damages if the foundation prevailed in a lawsuit.

Klingenschmitt argues that praying in Jesus' name is constitutional, and he supports allowing Muslims, Buddhists and people of other faiths to also pray sectarian prayers at City Council meetings.

"We advocate for 100 percent inclusion," Klingenschmitt said. "Let the Muslims pray to Allah. Let the Buddhists pray to a false God."

Klingenschmitt's petition calls on the Lodi City Council to adopt a policy that declares the pre-meeting prayers to be private and not government speech, or allows them to be said during optionally attended time.

"Please do not cave-in to atheist intimidation by the enemies of religious liberty, including Americans United and the Freedom From Religion Foundation, who are threatening to sue to silence all prayers," the petition states. "Please conform your decision to First Amendment precedent which allows Jesus prayers among other rotating diverse prayers."

Klingenschmitt has led similar campaigns in Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon and Pennsylvania, where last week the state House agreed to no longer review the content of prayers given before legislative sessions. Previously, Klingenschmitt led 1,000 people to rally outside the Virginia Governor's Mansion, to protest a state policy barring police chaplains from praying in Jesus' name.

"Many cities are threatened with lawsuits, but they're empty threats and they lose in court," Klingenschmitt said. "We encourage pastors to publicize these threats because when the name of Jesus is stamped out in one place, He spreads like wildfire everywhere else. And this causes revival among the people. The governments will vote the right way if people speak out."

A group of atheists will be hosting a counter-demonstration tonight beginning at 5:15 p.m. Lodi resident David Diskin, who is organized the opposing demonstration, told The Record newspaper he believes invocations "should be omitted from the agenda, or there should be a moment of silence, allowing everybody to pray to their own personal god or to no god at all."

The prayer policy is not scheduled to be discussed at tonight's council meeting, but Klingenschmitt hopes to address the subject when the council opens the floor to public comments.

.
Source:http://www.charismamag.com/index.php/news/22834-christians-rally-tonight-to-defend-prayers-in-jesus-name-
.

P.S.
  1. Highlights added.
  2. Now why can't so-called Christian Seventh-day Adventist Chaplains follow this faithful man of God's example?

.

Freedom in Christ - Life by the Spirit


Galatians 5


1Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.

2Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.

3For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.

4Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.

5For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith.

6For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.

7Ye did run well; who did hinder you that ye should not obey the truth?

8This persuasion cometh not of him that calleth you.

9A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.

10I have confidence in you through the Lord, that ye will be none otherwise minded: but he that troubleth you shall bear his judgment, whosoever he be.

11And I, brethren, if I yet preach circumcision, why do I yet suffer persecution? then is the offence of the cross ceased.

12I would they were even cut off which trouble you.

13For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.

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

15But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another.

16This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.

17For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.

18But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.

19Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,

20Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,

21Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

22But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,

23Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.

24And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.

25If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.

26Let us not be desirous of vain glory, provoking one another, envying one another.
.

Wednesday, January 27, 2010

Republicans Fault Obama on Transparency

January 27, 2010, 8:23 pm — Updated: 8:41 pm -->
Republicans Fault Obama on Transparency
By DAVID M. HERSZENHORN


Not even two hours before President Obama was to arrive at the Capitol to give his State of the Union speech, House Republicans were not letting up the pressure one bit. In a letter to the president, they accused him of carrying out secretive negotiations on health care legislation (PDF) and urged him to renounce any further backroom deals.



Jose Luis Magana/Associated Press
Representative John Boehner of Ohio, the House minority leader.





In a news release, the Republicans accused Mr. Obama of repeatedly breaking a campaign pledge to let C-Span film talks on the health care legislation and of turning the White House into a “hub of backroom deals.”

“If the deals cut at the White House and on Capitol Hill are signed into law, millions of seniors will see their Medicare benefits cuts, while countless other Americans will see their premiums increase, their taxes increase, and even lose their current health insurance,” Representative Dave Camp of Michigan, the senior Republican on the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee, said in a statement.

A dozen senior Republicans signed the letter, including Mr. Camp and the House Republican leader, Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio.

“During the campaign you repeatedly promised to hold care negotiations on C-SPAN. Monday, however, in an interview with ABC News’ Diane Sawyer you admitted that: ‘There is a legislative process that is taking place in Congress and I am happy to own up to the fact that I have not changed Congress and how it operates the way I would have like,’” the Republicans wrote.

“In light of your admission, and ongoing secret health care negotiations among Democrats in Congress, we ask you to again make clear to Speaker Pelosi and Leader Reid that you will not sign a health care bill crafted in a backroom deal,” they wrote, adding: “Republicans firmly support changing the way Congress works and giving the American people the access to the health care debate you promised and that they deserve.”

Republicans have opposed the Democrats’ efforts to overhaul the nation’s health care system from the moment Mr. Obama identified it as his top domestic priority last year, and the bill is now stalled mainly because Republicans have vowed to filibuster it in the Senate.
.
.
Source:http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/27/republicans-fault-obama-on-transparency/
.
Note: Highlights added.
.

Green Jobs on the Horizon


iPad - More Weapons of Mass Distraction


A Plan to Fix the Budget Process


Washington Matters
A Plan to Fix the Budget Process


The current process doesn't work. Here's a plan to fix it.
By Richard Sammon, Senior Associate Editor, The Kiplinger Letter

January 8, 2010


Early next month, President Obama will release a massive budget document proposing all types of federal spending for the 2011 fiscal year beginning Oct 1. It will be some 2,000 pages long and cover nearly $4 trillion in planned spending. That’s trillion with a t.

Release of the budget is the start of the federal budget process, probably the easiest step in a long, byzantine and largely busted routine that consumes months of Congress’ time each year, with most of the work conducted outside of the public view. The annual budget tends to be in the news only when some examples of outrageous pork projects bubble up to the surface. And annual earmarked funding for pet projects is barely newsworthy as all of the pork combined amounts to less than a half of one percent of the budget. Truly a smidgen.

This year will be no different. The modern budget process began with the Budget Reform Act of 1974, which was aimed at bringing some sense and light to a then very secretive annual budget operation that had almost no brakes on spending. It didn’t work. Instead, the process has gotten steadily worse, especially in recent years. Congress almost never finishes its budget work on time, having to rely to Band-Aid measures each year to keep the government from shutting down.

Maybe the strangest thing is how the budget process creates multilayered and duplicative debates. Many of the same budget issues are fought over at great lengths. The first time is in the annual congressional budget resolution that serves as a general spending blueprint. Many of the same budget issues return in full force in authorization bills that essentially say it’s OK for money to be spent by all the various federal agencies, sub-agencies and programs. Then the very same debates are rejoined a third time in the annual appropriations bills and supplemental budget bills that unleash the real money.

The budget resolution -- the spending guide -- is supposed to pass by April 15, a deadline so routinely missed it might as well be removed from the books altogether. Sometimes a budget resolution is not even agreed to at all because of partisan showdowns or because the votes are not there to pass it. It’s nonbinding anyhow -- no power of law. It has limited ultimate affect, except in proposing spending limits in general areas, such as defense, science research and social welfare.

The 12 regular spending bills covering the entire federal bureaucracy and federal programs in every state are all supposed to be signed into law by Oct. 1, just weeks after Congress’ monthlong August recess. Usually only a handful of appropriation bills -- often the easies ones -- make it past the finish line on time.

Other stuck spending bills are then rolled into giant omnibus or catchall measures, often several thousand pages and containing hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of spending. No one really reads omnibuses before they vote on them. They check for a few provisions they care about and then vote without knowing the vast majority of details. Sometimes the omnibuses are not approved until four, five and even six months into the very same fiscal year they are supposed to apply. That leaves federal agencies in limbo, not knowing how much they have to spend. Invariably they spend less the first half of the year, then rush more money out the door in haste to catch up.

Here’s two simple changes to the budget process that could do a world of good. One would be to change the date of the fiscal year, making it the same as the calendar year. Instead of Oct. 1, it would be Jan. 1. Three months of additional time could give members a little more opportunity to understand the trillions of dollars they are approving. But couple this with an ban on the stop-gap measures used to keep the government going when Congress misses the deadline. Require that the government be shut down unless all the bills are passed before Congress goes home for Christmas.

A second would be to change the whole authorization and appropriation process. Congress could easily agree to make most authorization bills multiyear bills and to make the appropriations bills cover more years than only the next fiscal year. That would free up congressional committees to do more pressing work before the nation. If special circumstances require more money after a two-year spending bill is passed, Congress could pass an addendum or a supplemental. No big deal.

Retired Sen. Pete V. Domenici, R-N.M., a longtime Budget Committee chairman respected for his knowledge of all types of budget arcana, once urged Congress to adopt biennial budgets to help unclog the budget process and allow committees to tackle other work.

He was almost laughed at by his colleagues.

A two year system would mean less leverage, power and influence for chairmen and members of the powerful appropriations committee – the people who hold the purse strings. They rather like hauling agency heads and others before their panels each and every year to let them know who’s boss.

The same is found in the truly bizarre way Congress goes about authorizing funding for the Homeland Security Department, which was created by merging nearly two dozen distinct federal programs and offices. A mind-boggling 88 committees and subcommittees have jurisdiction over some part or other of the department that was created after the 2001 terrorist attacks.

There was an early effort by House and Senate leaders to have just one panel in charge of overseeing the department. That went over in lead balloon fashion. It made eminent sense to have one committee handle the new department, but that would have meant all those other panel chairmen and panel members would be stripped of some of their power. That’s a good way to put a chairman in a foul mood.

It’s too bad Domenici’s idea for two-year budgets went nowhere. It would have eased the entire process and given federal agencies some time to plan and execute programs, no doubt improving performance. It seems a bit selfish and self-important and overly territorial for lawmakers to have to hang on to every bit of power they have, even if it is on a small subcommittee. Then again, this is Washington. Clear, logical and straightforward solutions to vexing problems can quickly be killed off in Congress if it means power would be taken away from someone. .


.

The 1 Eye Worship Religion (cao dai)

http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpE0j8_jLZo

TheKilluminati786
September 13, 2009(more info)
less info)
The resemblance was not a coincidence: French-educated Vietnamese officials like Ngo Minh Chieu knew a great deal about Freemasonry, which was widespread in Indochina. The Masons were attractive to the Caodaists for two reasons: they could influence the French government, and they were historically opposed to the Catholic Church, which meant that they were, at least theoretically, in favor of religious freedom.
.
Religion is called Cao dai from the BBC Documentary Around the world in 80 faiths
.

Americans elected a visionary, not a fighter



By Kathleen Parker
Wednesday, January 27, 2010

In the run-up to Barack Obama's State of the Union address, the so-called narrative question is whether the president will be -- pick a curtain -- party leader, president, conciliator or fighter.

Depending on whose head is talking, the president's problem is that he's been: (a) playing party politics and not leading the nation; (b) stuck in community-organizer mode, seeking consensus rather than fighting.

So agitated have SOTU speculators become that some have resorted to counting the number of times Obama uses the word "fight," or some variation thereof, in recent gatherings and speeches.

At a Monday morning meeting of his Middle Class Task Force, Obama said: "We're going to keep fighting to renew the American dream." Later, he said, "Joe [Biden] and I are going to keep on fighting for what matters to middle-class families." By one reporter's count, Obama used the word "fight" or "fighting" four times in a seven-minute speech.

In Ohio last week, according to another tabulator, the president used fighting words more than 20 times: "I won't stop fighting to open up government," he said. "I won't stop fighting to bring back jobs here." And, "I'll never stop fighting."

By Monday morning, Politico's Mike Allen was quoting a White House official who said key themes of the SOTU would include "creating good jobs, addressing the deficit, changing Washington, and fighting for middle-class families."

Not to leap to conclusions, but it would seem that Obama intends to fight. Like The Narrator in "Fight Club," he has tired of hugging victims and wants to punch the daylights out of . . . somebody. But didn't Obama run on just the opposite?

We're not a nation of red states or blue states, he told us. We are the United States of America. Except we're not -- and that's the problem Obama faces Wednesday night. The emergence of Obama's heretofore-absent pugilist merely adds another layer to the real challenge before him. Is he trustworthy?

For a year now, Obama's visionary, unifying words haven't matched the results. It isn't entirely his fault, but his leftward agenda took him far from center field where he was when optimistic Americans watched his pregame warmup. Since last January, watching him has been like watching a movie where the soundtrack hasn't been synchronized with the actors' lips.

Meanwhile, we have become not a purple, but a Brown nation. As in Scott. Like Obama himself, Brown -- an imperfect candidate under any other circumstances -- was the right man in the right place at the right time.

Brown's unlikely Senate election hinged most likely as much on the X-factor of trust as on his promise to be the 41st vote against health-care reform. Voters may not have known the finer points of his résumé, but they "knew" him. They recognized him from the sandlot. They'd seen his truck. They trusted his regular-guyness.

The Obama administration has taken note, and so the new war whoop is populism. Having noticed that Americans are most concerned about jobs and out-of-control government spending, the president is suddenly riveted by middle-class despair. And, of course, the anger.

Everybody's ticked, if for different reasons. Tea-party activists are enraged by expanding government, higher taxes (even though many of those in the throng received tax cuts as part of the stimulus package) and health-care reform that, though comprehensive, managed to leave out tort reform. The left is angry because Obama wasn't tough enough to push through legislation despite Democratic majorities in both houses.

Even Obama, the usually imperturbable sphinx -- the man with the straight face and the light-switch smile -- is getting hot under the collar. He doesn't mind a good fight, he says. Perchance, to bring 'em on?

It is traditional for presidents to paint a rosier picture of circumstances than reality warrants, and Obama isn't likely to veer from that script. The hope-and-change agent can hardly wear a sad face as he appraises his first year. But neither can he portray himself as a slugger in chief.

Americans didn't elect a fighter; they elected a visionary who promised a new spirit of cohesion, cooperation and community. While some now may view their romance with hope as a one-night stand, voters are reliably fickle. They can be courted and persuaded, but first they have to trust.

Regaining trust is Obama's real challenge, and being true to his own character is fundamental to that end. Americans know a faux fighter when they see one. If Obama comes out swinging, he is likely to lose.

kathleenparker@washpost.com


.


.

He's no Dr. Pepper!


As the president prepares to give his first State of the Union address, the news media is chock full of anticipation on what he will say. Will he say this or that? Meanwhile, on the radio ( a peak from the administration), the following sound byte gives us a hint:

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said expect to see the president at times “feisty” within his speech this evening.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/01/from-sunlen-millerpresident-obama-will-spend-his-day-today-behind-closed-doors-preparing-for-tonights-state-of-the-union-a.html .

President Obama recently has sounded belligerent, bellicose and sometimes obnoxious. I think that he might think that he's the president of a banana republic. His "exigente" demeanor is more fitting for Juan Valdez. He sometimes sounds condescending as he lectures Americans on what he will do, and what needs to be changed.
I think Obama's getting his advice on how to be president reading Canon Law.
..
What's this now, the Fight Club?

He's beginning to sound more like Muhammad Ali, or Macho Camacho, rather than the chief executive of last bastion of freedom in the world. We see a change alright, from a eloquent lawyer, to a brawler.

Where's all the anger coming from? "You can't always get what you want"...as the song says...
Down boy, Down boy!

President Obama vows to continue fight against economic woes at ...
New York Daily News -
Kenneth R. Bazinet - ‎Jan 23, 2010‎
"I'm not going to win every round," Obama told the audience in Elyria, Ohio. "I can promise you there will be more fights in the days ahead. ...


I think that the president forgets that he was the lesser of two evils.
He may think that he won a popularity contest which entitles him to do whatever he wants; But, he is forgetting that what took place in November, 2008 was something similar to the Cola Taste Test.
Coke vs Pepsi...
.
Obama is not Tab, or the un-Cola - 7Up. No, he's not Royal Crown Cola, either.
Again, he's not Minute Maid, or Sunny De lite. He forgets we could have had a V8!

Dr. Pepper may have originally been one of those concoctions that snake oil salesmen sold as a cure-all, a panacea. No, the president is not Dr. Pepper or Doctore Papa.
If there is an American papa? That title and office probably belongs to Cardinal William Joseph Levada, the prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith (previously the Office of the Holy Inquisition).

Let's get ready to stumble: And in this corner...Not Marvin "the Brawler" Haggler, or
Dwight Braxton AKA Muhammad Qawi.
.
You call this "change"?

In this corner.......in the smoke gray Armani suit, at 6'3", weighing 150 pounds: Yoohoo!

No substance, no nutritional value:

Just water, bubbles and dyes...

Arsenio.
.

Media Execs Predict End Of Free Internet Content


Posted on: Sunday, 26 July 2009, 07:32 CDT

IAC/InteractiveCorp chairman and CEO Barry Diller said the era of free Internet content is coming to an end.

Speaking at the Fortune Brainstorm conference in Pasadena, California, Diller challenged traditional Internet business models in which consumers pay for Internet access while content is provided free of charge.

In the future, he said revenue will be generated from advertising, subscriptions and transactions.

“It is not free, and is not going to be,” said Diller, adding that Web users will have to pay for the content they watch and use.

The transition will not be smooth, he said, and the years ahead will not be easy for content providers.

"We are transitioning from an old form to a new form and those things are always bloody," said the media and technology executive, who also serves as chairman of Expedia Inc. and Ticketmaster Entertainment Inc.

The Internet is still in its infancy, and while content was initially provided at no charge to the user, the goal was always to find a way in time to generate revenue, he said.

Diller’s comments echo those of other media moguls, such as Liberty Media Corp.’s John Malone and Walt Disney Co. CEO Robert Iger, who say that Web users will have to pay for the content they watch and use.

Diller, 67, whose IAC/Interactive runs the Ask.com search engine and the Match.com dating service, called the view of the Internet as a system of free communications a “mythology”.

He said his own news Web site, “The Daily Beast”, has "done a very good early job" creating compelling content.

The site is not difficult to finance, but "it's going to have to earn its way,” he said.

Burbank, California-based Disney is working on a subscription-based Internet product that the company believes will expand its opportunities in Web sales, Iger said. The product will allow improvements in online advertising by allowing marketers to target consumers by tracking their activities and interests.

“We have ample evidence both in traditional and new media that people are willing to pay for quality, to pay for choice and to pay for convenience,” said Iger, speaking at the conference on July 22.

“And they are willing to pay for what they perceive as value.”

News Corp., publisher of the Wall Street Journal and owner of the Fox TV and film studios, is also looking to generate revenue through its Internet businesses by charging customers for news and entertainment, according to a Bloomberg report citing remarks from Jonathan Miller, chief executive officer of News Corp.’s Digital Media Group and News Corp.’s chief digital officer.

The Wall Street Journal already charges customers for online subscriptions.

In the future, some companies will offer content that users are willing to pay for, while others won’t, said Miller, and online journalism will increasingly transition to a “paid model”.

News Corp.’s interactive revenue fell 11 percent to $187 million during the first quarter of this year, led by a 16 percent drop in advertising at sites such as MySpace.

---


.