Friday, July 18, 2008

SIgns of the (End) Times?: Gannett Stock Tanking

Thursday, Jul 17

Sign of the (End) Times?: Gannett Stock Tanking

150px-Gannett_Logo.jpgA reader suggested that we take a look at the Gannett Co. stock and it's not looking good. Gannett is the largest U.S. newspaper publisher (as measured by total daily circulation), and its assets include USA Today, the Arizona Republic and the Des Moines Register among others. We've pointed out before that Wall St. is not our strongest suit, but a quick glance at the Gannett Blog tells us that following a bad quarterly report (its 2nd quarter net income fell 36%) the company's market value has dropped to $3.8 billion down from nearly $9 billion six months ago. Also, its stock has fallen 7.8% since Tuesday.

The specifics of how this all dovetails into what currently feels like an industry meltdown are unclear to us, (though should you have thoughts and are able to navigate our comments system, please feel free to share), but as with most things we write about these days, it doesn't sound promising.


My Problem with Bush by Eileen Fleming

My Problem with Bush

When George was just a candidate, he claimed his favorite philosopher was Jesus Crist.

As President, W has NOT much in common with The Prince of Peace-the other name for Jesus- who promised it is the Peacemakers who are the children of God-NOT those that bomb, torture or occupy others.

JC called poiliticians foxes-meaning they only care about themselves.

A little history:

In 1968 Chicago Abbie Hoffman spoke to the children of the '60's who had planned on spending the night in a city park after their long day of 'lobbying' at the Democratic Convention.

Mayor Daly sent word to Abbie that the multitudes were not welcome in his park and the cops were on the way in.

Before the
Chicago mob with badges clobbered the heads of the children of the '60's, Abbie stood at a microphone and quoted Christ:

"I send you out like little lambs into a wolves den. Remain as harmless as doves and cunning as snakes."


If the doves had consulted Webster's, they first would have had a laugh at the two words cunning is sandwiched between.

Then they would have learned that cunning means one must be skillful, clever, sly, crafty, and do things with skill and ingenuity.

To be cunning is to be attractive; cute and cleverly proficient.

The doves lacked cunning and thus got there heads clobbered and many hippies were transformed into yippies which requires a baptism via billy-clubs.

One reason the '60's Peace and Justice movement failed is because it lacked SPIRITUAL DEPTH!

Not much has changed since 1968, for power continues to resort to violence and nonviolent resistance takes cunning.

Not much has changed in many western churches which cling to the traditions of man and refuse to EVOLVE into a transformation of heart and mind to WAKE UP and see that God already indwells EVERYONE, which was the message Jesus was all about.

2,000 years ago The Cross had NO symbolic religious meaning and was not a piece of jewelry.



When JC said: "Pick up your cross and follow me" everyone back then understood he was issuing a POLITICAL statement, for the main roads in
Jerusalem were lined with crucified agitators, rebels, dissidents and any who disturbed the status quo of the Roman Occupying Forces.





The term 'Christian' was not even coined until the days of Paul, about 3 decades after Jesus walked the earth a man.


Jesus, while never a Christian, was a social, justice, radical revolutionary Palestinian devout Jewish road warrior who rose up against the corrupt Temple authorities and challenged their job security by teaching the people they did NOT need to pay the priests for ritual baths or sacrificing livestock to be OK with God; for God LOVED them just as they were:

Sinners, poor, diseased, outcasts, widows, orphans, refugees and prisoners all living under Roman Military Occupation.



What got JC crucified was disturbing the status quo of the Roman Occupying Forces by teaching the subversive concept that Caesar only had power because God allowed it and that God preferred the humble sinner, the poor, diseased, outcasts, widows, orphans, refugees and prisoners all living under Roman Occupation above the elite and arrogant.



It has been said that as in
Israel, Iran, or America: the people of the land are much better than the leadership they currently live under.


Humor and Nonviolent resistance is anathema to Big Brother for Big Brother only understands violent force.

"Our society is run by insane people for insane objectives. I think we're being run by maniacs for maniacal ends...I believe that as soon as people want peace in the world they can have it. The only trouble is they are not aware they can get it...You're just left with yourself all the time, whatever you do anyway. You've got to get down to your own God in your own temple. It's all down to you, mate …All we are saying is give peace a chance…All you need is love…Imagine all the people living life in peace. You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one. I hope someday you'll join us, and the world will be as one."-John Lennon

by Eileen Fleming (134 articles, 45 quicklinks, 258 diaries, 573 comments) on Thursday, July 17, 2008 at 3:20:47 PM

Source: http://www.opednews.com/articles/Dalai-Lama---Bush-Lacks-Un-by-Rob-Kall-080717-554.html


Eileen Fleming


Eileen is the Reporter and Editor of
wearewideawake.org

Producer of "30 Minutes with Vanunu" and "13 Minutes with Vanunu" Author of "Keep Hope Alive" and "Memoirs of a Nice Irish American 'Girl's' Life in Occupied Territory"

She has been to Israel Palestine five times since June 2005.

She is currently working on "The Boom Boom Benny Story"

OpEdNews Member for 118 week(s) and 3 day(s)

134 Articles, 45 Quick Links, 567 Comments, 258 Diaries, 0 Polls

Note: The above article was a comment to an article by the Dalai Lama:

Dalai Lama: "I Love President Bush... but... Lack(s) Understanding of Reality"


Frederick Douglass on the Security of the Nation

"The life of the nation is secure only while the nation is honest, truthful, and virtuous."
-- Frederick Douglass

[Frederick Baily] (1818-1895), Escaped slave, abolitionist, author, editor of the North Star and later the New National Era

Promises of the Lord: Visions of the Temple

Haggai 2

1In the seventh month, in the one and twentieth day of the month, came the word of the LORD by the prophet Haggai, saying,

2Speak now to Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, governor of Judah, and to Joshua the son of Josedech, the high priest, and to the residue of the people, saying,

3Who is left among you that saw this house in her first glory? and how do ye see it now? is it not in your eyes in comparison of it as nothing?

4Yet now be strong, O Zerubbabel, saith the LORD; and be strong, O Joshua, son of Josedech, the high priest; and be strong, all ye people of the land, saith the LORD, and work: for I am with you, saith the LORD of hosts:

5According to the word that I covenanted with you when ye came out of Egypt, so my spirit remaineth among you: fear ye not.

6For thus saith the LORD of hosts; Yet once, it is a little while, and I will shake the heavens, and the earth, and the sea, and the dry land;

7And I will shake all nations, and the desire of all nations shall come: and I will fill this house with glory, saith the LORD of hosts.

8The silver is mine, and the gold is mine, saith the LORD of hosts.

9The glory of this latter house shall be greater than of the former, saith the LORD of hosts: and in this place will I give peace, saith the LORD of hosts.

10In the four and twentieth day of the ninth month, in the second year of Darius, came the word of the LORD by Haggai the prophet, saying,

11Thus saith the LORD of hosts; Ask now the priests concerning the law, saying,

12If one bear holy flesh in the skirt of his garment, and with his skirt do touch bread, or pottage, or wine, or oil, or any meat, shall it be holy? And the priests answered and said, No.

13Then said Haggai, If one that is unclean by a dead body touch any of these, shall it be unclean? And the priests answered and said, It shall be unclean.

14Then answered Haggai, and said, So is this people, and so is this nation before me, saith the LORD; and so is every work of their hands; and that which they offer there is unclean.

15And now, I pray you, consider from this day and upward, from before a stone was laid upon a stone in the temple of the LORD:

16Since those days were, when one came to an heap of twenty measures, there were but ten: when one came to the pressfat for to draw out fifty vessels out of the press, there were but twenty.

17I smote you with blasting and with mildew and with hail in all the labours of your hands; yet ye turned not to me, saith the LORD.

18Consider now from this day and upward, from the four and twentieth day of the ninth month, even from the day that the foundation of the LORD's temple was laid, consider it.

19Is the seed yet in the barn? yea, as yet the vine, and the fig tree, and the pomegranate, and the olive tree, hath not brought forth: from this day will I bless you.

20And again the word of the LORD came unto Haggai in the four and twentieth day of the month, saying,

21Speak to Zerubbabel, governor of Judah, saying, I will shake the heavens and the earth;

22And I will overthrow the throne of kingdoms, and I will destroy the strength of the kingdoms of the heathen; and I will overthrow the chariots, and those that ride in them; and the horses and their riders shall come down, every one by the sword of his brother.

23In that day, saith the LORD of hosts, will I take thee, O Zerubbabel, my servant, the son of Shealtiel, saith the LORD, and will make thee as a signet: for I have chosen thee, saith the LORD of hosts.

Thursday, July 17, 2008

Roman Catholic Church Anti-Christ Cocaine Prohibition

Vin Mariani- Mariani's Coca Wine and Pope Leo XIII





It contained extract of Coca leaves, with 6 milligrams of the alkaloid cocaine per fluid ounce.

It was found to be an effective and safe product, endorsed by prestigious medical doctors for a variety of uses, starting as a vocal aid for opera performers. Its uses included that as a treatment for addictions to Opium, alcohol and even Tobacco. In Paris, Mesureur, the French Ex-Minister of Commerce, and the current (in 1910) Director of Hygiene and Public Health, who approved and signed the French government's radical poster campaign against alcoholism, would state that:
http://freedomofmedicineanddiet.blogspot.com/2008/03/coca-to-combat-opiate-alcohol-and.html

“The dangers of alcoholism would be avoided if no other stimulant were taken for mental or physical trials than that offered by the generous."

“I have also employed it in cases, happily rare in our army, of chronic alcoholism resulting from the abuse of brandy, absinthe or strong liquors. The produced all the excitement sought by drinkers, but had at the same time a sedative influence on their nervous systems. I have frequently seen hardened drinkers renounce their fatal habit and return to a healthy condition." "I have also used to save smokers of exaggerated habits, from nicotinism. A few glasses of taken in small doses, either pure or mixed with water, acted as a substitute for pipes and cigars, because the smokers found in it the cerebral excitement which they sought in tobacco, wholly preserving their intellectual faculties."
The amount of cocaine was absorbed slowly, resulting in a relatively long lasting effect that ebbed away gently without depressive rebound or craving- as seen with cocaine in concentrated doses- hence it did not produce addictive toxic-mania behavior. Furthermore, because cocaine is a powerful anesthetic, its consumption in this oral dilute form discouraged excessive consumption as this anesthetic action would numb one’s stomach, reducing one’s appetite for more.

The negative effects of concentrated cocaine were observed shortly after its commercial introduction about 1884, particularly with its administration via subcutaneous injection.

http://freedomofmedicineanddiet.blogspot.com/2008/03/drug-warriors-ignore-pharmacokinetics.html

http://freedomofmedicineanddiet.blogspot.com/2008/03/crystalline-gleam-in-eyes-of-fathers-of.html

After three and half decades of Vin Mariani sale and use, its creator Angelo Mariani was summoned to the Vatican- ultimately twice. In January 1898, Pope Leo XIII issued Mariani a gold papal medal awarding him as a benefactor of humanity. In January 1904, Leo XIII’s successor Pope Pius X issued Mariani another such medal. It is not publicly known what exactly transpired between Mariani and the Vatican.

Yet within a few months, the political scene turned against Mariani and Coca with an apparent vengeance. In 1904, members of Roman Catholic orders as the Knights of Columbus Harvey Washington Wiley, an important figure in the American Medical Association, the American Pharmaceutical Association, the Chief of the Bureau of Chemistry at the USDA, and Knights of Malta member, publisher William Randolph Hearst began a crusade against cocaine in any form regardless of the concentration factor.

This crusade included denouncing Vin Mariani and Coca (and unpatentable herbs in general) as ineffective through the AMA, and in various newspaper articles published via Hearst via collaboration between Wiley, Hearst and a newspaper/magazine writer Samuel Adams Hopkins. It included an AMA/APhA campaign for “model” legislation through the various State legislatures to ban Coca products, and via Federal legislation as the so called Pure Food and Drugs Act of June 30, 1906 which did not necessarily ban Coca products, and provided a seemingly innocuous labeling requirement for cocaine and opiates, but which gave the USDA dictatorial powers to declare a substance “deleterious” and hence its inclusion in food products as “adulteration.”

With cocaine being so defined as deleterious – without regard to the amount or concentration – and with other such stimulants not included in the labeling requirement, placed Coca at a serious market disadvantage to Coffee and Tobacco- the latter which was excluded from such regulation by the 1906 Act’s definition of USDA authority over substances included in the US Pharmacopeia, from which Tobacco had been conveniently dropped during the preceding year- 1905! Though Coca/cocaine was still permitted in products marketed as drugs, the prescription requirement and the propaganda against it only further discouraged its commerce- all perhaps to the greatest benefit of the growing industry in Tobacco cigarettes.

Indeed, USDA documents throughout the following years would stress the concern of Coca’s use as a Tobacco habit cure, which zero mention of the relative health effects- e.g. Coca being non physically addictive and non carcinogenic, while Tobacco was more physically addictive then heroin and carcinogenic.

Notably the USDA had experimented with the commercial feasibility of growing Coca within the US cir 1904, and though I have not been able to locate any report, only a newspaper article, they would have found that it would require hothouses as Coca is a perennial shrub that can’t survive frost, while Tobacco is such a major US agricultural; commodity dating back to the 1600s, that its likeness with that of Corn adorns the tops of the columns of the US Capitol building in Washington, D.C.

The powerful interests that run the US government would lobby successfully to have Coca outright banned via a prescription requirement making it into today’s “controlled substance” by 1914 with the Harrison “Narcotic” Tax Act.

Although of dubious constitutionality – note that the US government had to pass a constitutional amendment to ban the manufacturer, transport and sale of alcoholic beverages – the Harrison Act’s prohibition via taxation was upheld by a compliant US Supreme Court , and acquiesced by a compliant population fed a William Randolph Hearst media campaign of double standards and lies- with its perversion of the market to concentrated cocaine the natural result of a prohibition banning herbal Coca and pure cocaine without regard to potency/concentration- promoting drug abuse and crime used to continually further the problem.

Such laws would be pushed worldwide via various US pushed “Opium” conferences/conventions, eventually repealing the various nation’s allowances for dilute Coca preparations through the 1920s, and later through the U.N.

The health results of this have been a disaster, particularly when we include the market protection for Tobacco/cigarettes, yet the Roman Catholic Church or any of the so-called “Protestant” churches apparently never lifted a finger to stop any of this madness.

The Drug War Promotes Drug Abuse

How The Narcs Created Crack
Freedom of Medicine and Diet- Coca Forgotten Medicine


The Pope is the Antichrist

The Pope is the Antichrist
A Demonstration from Scripture, history, and his own lips.
Being a Precis of Dr. J. A. Wylie's Classic, "The Papacy is the Antichrist"
By Ian R. K. Paisley M.P., M.E.P.


'The same line of proof which establishes that Christ is the promised Messiah, conversely applied, establishes that the Roman system is the predicted Apostasy. In the life of Christ we behold the CONVERSE of what Antichrist must be; and in the prophecy of the Antichrist we are shown the CONVERSE of what Christ must be and was. And when we place the Papacy between the two, and compare it with each, we find on the one hand, that it is the perfect CONVERSE of Christ as seen in His life; and on the other, that it is the perfect image of the Antichrist, as shown in the prophecy of him. WE CONCLUDE, THEREFORE, THAT IF JESUS OF NAZARETH BE THE CHRIST, THE ROMAN PAPACY IS THE ANTICHRIST.'
— Dr. J. A. Wylie



Introduction
The Church of Rome portrays herself as the Mother and Mistress of all Christian Churches, and behold the Protestants have a new name -- they are no longer 'heretics' but 'separated brethren.'
Scripture Prophecy Itself, Supplies The Key To Its Interpretation
It is the purpose of this book to demonstrate that the preaching of the Great Cloud of Witnesses of all Ages in the Church is true and that the little horn is none other than the Dynasty of Rome's Popes and that therefore THE POPE IS THE ANTICHRIST.
A Great Cloud of Witnesses
These faithful witnesses all held the doctrine that the Church of Rome is the Babylon of Revelation chapter seventeen and the Pope is the Antichrist prophesied in Scripture.
The Faith Of The Historic Christian Churches
This doctrine is written into the Historic Creeds and Confessions of all those Churches which held, in their earliest days, the Bible to be the Sole Rule of Faith and Practice.
The Term 'Antichrist'
Of all the religions on the earth Romanism is the only one which meets all the requirements of Biblical prophecy, as we shall see. Popery alone exhibits all the features of the Antichrist.
Antichrist Portrayed Before His Birth
No wonder that greatest of all English preachers, Charles Haddon Spurgeon, exclaimed when he read this Scripture passage, 'ARREST THE POPE ON SUSPICION OF BEING THE ANTICHRIST!'
Antichrist An Enemy Of Christ Under A Mask
But the definition of Antichrist is stated by John thus, 'He is antichrist that denieth the Father and the Son.' I John 2:22.
Antichrist No Atheist Or Communist
When we eliminate those false Antichrists who cannot measure up to the prophetic standards set forth so clearly in the Scriptures, we come more and more to within sight of the real Antichrist.
The Two Mysteries Of The Bible
What is 'the mystery of iniquity'? It is none other than the parallel and counterfeit of 'the mystery of Godliness.' It is the revelation of the Great Lie which has its full manifestation in the Person of the Antichrist.
The Unfolding of the Two Mysteries
When the fulness of the time came and the day of Antichrist’s appearance had arrived, the great reality appeared, 'The Man of Sin and Son of Perdition.' He had found his seat on the Seven Hills, but not as yet his full stature.
The Pastor Becomes Monarch – Ten Centuries of Climbing
He claimed to be the world’s one monarch and bishop, the Representative of Christ on earth.
The King with Three Crowns – The Vicar
The career both of Christ and Antichrist was to end on a throne but each was to reach their respective thrones by a very different road.
The "All Power" of Christ and Antichrist
Christ does miracles. The Antichrist does counterfeit miracles. Paul highlights these when he states that Antichrist’s coming ‘is after the manner of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders.’ II Thess. 2:9.
‘Signs and Wonders’ of Christ and of Antichrist
Baptismal Regeneration is a lying wonder. Sacramental grace is a lying wonder. The Absolution of the Confessional is a lying wonder. Transubstantiation, the mass, is the biggest wonder and greatest lie of all, and extreme unction is the last and fatal lie.
Antichrist’s ‘Signs and Wonders’ of Terror
It should be emphasised that Vatican Council Two reaffirmed no departure by the church from the decrees of the Council of Trent. Rome’s curses stand! The Infallible Antichrist has decreed them!
The All Deceivableness of Unrighteousness
Paul emphasizes this special mark of the Antichrist. It is a most remarkable one. Nowhere else is it used in the Bible. It is not applied to any other system – ‘all deceivableness of unrighteousness.’
The Culmination of the Parallelism and Enthronization
The enthronization of ‘the mystery of Godliness’ and the enthronization of ‘the mystery of iniquity’ run parallel yet are immeasurably and eternally separated.
Antichrist’s Usurpation Over Kings and Nations
Antichrist makes a double usurpation. He vaults over the thrones of kings into the very throne of God.
Antichrist Exalts Himself Above God
Sitting in the temple of God speaking ex-cathedra the Pope claims to have the infallibility of God Himself. This is the daring pitch and blasphemy of Antichrist in keeping with Paul’s prophecy, ‘Shewing himself to be God.’
Man of Sin and Son of Perdition
The apostle Paul completes the portrait of the Antichrist by styling him the ‘Man of Sin and Son of Perdition.’
Christ Predicted the Papacy as the Antichrist
Christ predicts the dynasty of the Antichrist and the False Prophet. Note carefully His language. He warns in Matthew chapter twenty-four against the deception of antichrist but never uses the singular in His references.
Antichrist: His Doom
As Son of Perdition, the Antichrist is the heir of perdition. It was written of him before he arose, 'he goeth unto perdition.'
Does Not The Likeness Fit?
The numerical value of the Pope's title on his golden crown at his public coronation, namely 'VICARIVS FILII DEI is that remarkable number 666.
What Think Ye of the Antichrist – Whose Son Is He?
Cardinal Manning says: “The Catholic Church is either the masterpiece of Satan or the Kingdom of the Son of God.” Cardinal Newman says: “A sacerdotal order is historically the essence of the Church of Rome; if not divinely appointed, it is doctrinally the essence of antichrist.”

Spurgeon on Antichrist
"It is the bounden duty of every Christian to pray against Antichrist, and as to what Antichrist is no sane man ought to raise a question. If it be not the popery in the Church of Rome there is nothing in the world that can be called by that name. If there were to be issued a hue and cry for Antichrist, we should certainly take up this church on suspicion, and it would certainly not be let loose again, for it so exactly answers the description."

Source: http://www.ianpaisley.org/antichrist.asp

In some parts of the country, seeing Obama "celebrated in Europe might seem to be an implicit criticism of America"

Thu, Jul 17, 2008 5:09pm ET



NBC's Mitchell: In some parts of the country, seeing Obama "celebrated in Europe might seem to be an implicit criticism of America"

Summary: While discussing Sen. Barack Obama's upcoming trip to the Middle East and Europe, NBC News' Andrea Mitchell claimed that in some "parts of the Midwest and Appalachia, and other parts of key battleground states," seeing Obama "celebrated in Europe might seem to be an implicit criticism of America."


On the July 17 edition of MSNBC Live, during a discussion of Sen. Barack Obama's upcoming trip to the Middle East and Europe, NBC News chief foreign affairs correspondent Andrea Mitchell said to anchor Mika Brzezinski: "Some senior Democrats, Mika, have even said to me that they think it might be a mistake for him to go to Europe, where the Barack Obama campaign thinks he's going to be celebrated. They see parallels with John F. Kennedy, the young president going in 1963." Mitchell added: "But what if he is so celebrated in Europe, Mika, that there is criticism back home? That it doesn't play well in parts of the country that are, you know, a little bit more jingoistic, and a little bit more isolationist, which includes, perhaps, parts of the Midwest and Appalachia, and other parts of key battleground states, where seeing him celebrated in Europe might seem to be an implicit criticism of America."

From the 1 p.m. ET hour of the July 17 edition of MSNBC Live:

BRZEZINSKI: Now let's talk about Senator Obama's trip abroad. You are in Amman right now, lots of different details still to be released at another time. How are Senator Obama's colleagues in Congress responding to word of this overseas trip, which is receiving some criticism from the McCain campaign?

MITCHELL: Well, some criticism from the McCain campaign, but they have a little bit of a problem there because they of course were putting up a clock on the Republican National Committee website, talking about how many days it had been since his 2006 trip to Iraq. The official part of the trip, the trip that we're talking about, will start here in Amman and then go on through the Middle East. He is going to Israel, which is a very important stop -- and we can talk a little bit more about that later -- also going to the Palestinian territories, then on to Europe.

Some senior Democrats, Mika, have even said to me that they think it might be a mistake for him to go to Europe, where the Barack Obama campaign thinks he's going to be celebrated. They see parallels with John F. Kennedy, the young president going in 1963. Obama will give a speech in Berlin and will be doing interviews, in fact, with Brian Williams that night in Berlin, a very big deal, with Nightly News coming out of Berlin. So we've got a lot to look forward to.

But what if he is so celebrated in Europe, Mika, that there is criticism back home? That it doesn't play well in parts of the country that are, you know, a little bit more jingoistic, and a little bit more isolationist, which includes, perhaps, parts of the Midwest and Appalachia, and other parts of key battleground states, where seeing him celebrated in Europe might seem to be an implicit criticism of America.

—L.K.A.

Source: http://mediamatters.org/items/200807170007?f=h_latest

Scarborough repeats McCain's falsehood...

July 17, 2008


Scarborough repeats McCain's falsehood that he called for Rumsfeld's resignation, despite MSNBC's previous correction



Summary: On MSNBC's Morning Joe, Joe Scarborough repeated the falsehood that Sen. John McCain called for Donald Rumsfeld's resignation, saying, "I think he [McCain] was saying that Rumsfeld should be fired." Although MSNBC previously corrected this falsehood, and a McCain spokesman reportedly acknowledged that McCain "did not call for his resignation," MSNBC hosts have repeatedly failed to correct guests' assertions that he did so.



On the July 17 broadcast of MSNBC's Morning Joe, host Joe Scarborough repeated the falsehood that Sen. John McCain called for the resignation of former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, saying, "I think he [McCain] was saying that Rumsfeld should be fired." Scarborough made his comments after airing a clip from the July 16 edition of MSNBC Live, during which Mika Brzezinski failed to correct former Republican presidential candidate and Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney's false assertion that McCain "said that Rumsfeld needed to go." In fact, as Media Matters for America has repeatedly documented, McCain did not call for Rumsfeld's resignation. Moreover, MSNBC chief Washington correspondent Norah O'Donnell issued a "clarification" after falsely claiming in March that McCain "called for Don Rumsfeld's resignation."


While McCain expressed "no confidence" in Rumsfeld in 2004, the Associated Press reported at the time that McCain "said his comments were not a call for Rumsfeld's resignation." Further, when Fox News host Shepard Smith specifically asked McCain, "Does Donald Rumsfeld need to step down?" on November 8, 2006 -- hours before President Bush announced Rumsfeld's resignation -- McCain responded that it was "a decision to be made by the president."


According to a February 16 Washington Post article, "[D]uring a debate at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, Calif., aired on CNN, McCain said, 'I'm the only one that said that Rumsfeld had to go.' A McCain spokesman acknowledged this week that that was not correct. 'He did not call for his resignation,' said the campaign's Brian Rogers. 'He always said that's the president's prerogative.' " The article also noted that "McCain's false account has been unwittingly incorporated into the narrative he is selling by some news organizations, including The Washington Post."


Nevertheless, despite O'Donnell's correction and the Post's report, MSNBC hosts have repeatedly failed to correct guests' assertions that McCain called for Rumsfeld to be fired.


From the July 17 broadcast of MSNBC's Morning Joe:



BRZEZINSKI: But the surge -- the surge has definitely had an impact that changes the conversation a bit. I mean --


SCARBOROUGH: It does. And why did it -- why did it work? It's because Bush finally got rid of Rumsfeld, brought in a great new secretary of Defense, General Petraeus. They -- he finally --


BRZEZINSKI: Oh, that wasn't John McCain?


SCARBOROUGH: He finally put the right team together. Now, let's --


BRZEZINSKI: What? Are you sure?


SCARBOROUGH: -- let's talk about the what the McCain camp --


BRZEZINSKI: It was John McCain.


SCARBOROUGH: -- were saying yesterday that was wrong, Willie.


BRZEZINSKI: He did it.


GEIST: Well, the irony also is that John McCain yesterday was tying Barack Obama to George Bush, saying, as you said --


BRZEZINSKI: Oh, no. I'm confused.


GEIST: -- you said Barack Obama's feet are in cement, and --


SCARBOROUGH: Right.


GEIST: -- and John McCain said that's exactly right, much like this past administration.


SCARBOROUGH: Really?


BRZEZINSKI: Oh.


GEIST: Hasn't America seen enough?


SCARBOROUGH: You are kidding me?


GEIST: Their policy is not flexible. They won't change given conditions on the ground. So, sort of a creative way of --


SCARBOROUGH: Bush?


BRZEZINSKI: Yeah.


SCARBOROUGH: He compared Bush and Obama?


GEIST: Bush -- he tied -- he did. He tied them together.


SCARBOROUGH: Are you serious?


GEIST: He did it on a conference call and --


SCARBOROUGH: I'm dizzy.


GEIST: and then -- yeah, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Mitt Romney, though, out yesterday --


SCARBOROUGH: Uh-huh.


GEIST: -- looking very vice-presidential --


SCARBOROUGH: Yeah.


GEIST: -- talking about the fact that the surge -- John McCain's idea.


SCARBOROUGH: Really?


BRZEZINSKI: Yeah.


ROMNEY [video clip]: John McCain understands military strategy. He, after all, was the person who authored some time ago the philosophy that said a surge would work in Iraq. He said that Rumsfeld needed to go, and you know what? He ended up being right, and Barack Obama said the surge would not work. Guess who was wrong on that one?


BRZEZINSKI: Oh. Yes.


SCARBOROUGH: All right. So, there -- that's fine. But, I mean, it was George Bush's surge. I will say John McCain was the one man in Washington who supported that, it seemed at the time, but I wouldn't go around saying that was McCain's idea.


BRZEZINSKI: I --


GEIST: Yeah.


BRZEZINSKI: I'm thinking, yeah.


GEIST: Or that -- or that he was the one who wanted Rumsfeld out, either.


BRZEZINSKI: Umm --


SCARBOROUGH: Well --


BRZEZINSKI: Well --


SCARBOROUGH: He did not like Rumsfeld.


GEIST: No.


BRZEZINSKI: He did. We gave him the credit for not liking Rumsfeld.


SCARBOROUGH: He did that. He was after Rumsfeld.


BRZEZINSKI: There was a little friction there. I think.


SCARBOROUGH: Actually, I think he was saying Rumsfeld should be fired, but --


BRZEZINSKI: Yeah, no, I think there was legitimate friction there.


TIKI BARBER (NBC News correspondent): So did a host of other people.


BRZEZINSKI: Yeah.


SCARBOROUGH: Well, OK. Everybody in America, but George Bush. Talk about your feet in cement.


—C.S.


Source: http://mediamatters.org/items/200807170008?f=h_latest

The Silencing of Mika Brzezinski

The Silencing of Mika Brzezinski

Early in the launch of the MSNBC's morning television show "Morning Joe", the network assembled a cross-section of commentators if you might recall: Joe, Mika, Willie, John Ridley, and David Shuster. After the Imus debacle and the network choosing to cancel the show, the replacement with the above lineup drew new audiences with intelligent dialog regarding predominantly, politics, officially in September, 2007.

Joe Scarborough is known for his nightly MSNBC news show, "Scarborough Country", providing viewers with political analysis with a right, if not, Republican slant. Scarborough is a former Republican congressman from Florida. The show's ratings were dismal at best, and it seemed that the morning slot suited him for the better.

The early success of "Morning Joe", from this writer, was the appearance of balanced conversation of the daily events unfolding in the political sphere. The strongest counterpoint of Scarborough's conservative view was Mika Brzezinski. The sometimes, contentious banter provided the show with a center core that drew viewers in from all sides of the political spectrum. Mika, in her honesty, often prefaced her views stating that members of her family were involved in the campaigns of Senator McCain and Senator Obama. The show began to attract a wide variety of "power" guests, opinion writers, and the attention of the campaign strategists. They were hitting their stride and getting notice.

At some point in late November, early December, one of the prominent commentators slipped away - John Ridley. He is understandably a very busy and in-demand well written author of opinion pieces, but his absence began the shift of the careful balance of the show. With that, Brzezinski had to step up her presence as the counterpoint to Scarborough. She received rave reviews for her refusal to report on the Paris Hilton story. The result was electrifying, captivating and provocative. Her popularity began to soar and Scarborough often noted of it on air. Her elevated side-kick status served to satisfy both sides of the aisle, ever catapulting the show's ratings and respect.

What was the tipping point that ended and silenced Mika's astute point of view? Was it Scarborough's unseemly attack on her father? Did Mika have a seismic change in her political position? Did she choose to shift towards "reporter" vs. "commentator"? I have another option to consider.

In all business environments, and social structures, there is the "pecking order". After all, it is Joe's name on the moniker and it would be apropos to give him homage. Mika's popularity on the show somehow violated that pecking order, whether it be in the ego of Scarborough, the network programming executives, or her own foresight. The unfortunate result has been the silencing of her counter-analysis. The result has been the programming backtrack to the "Scarborough Country" format with co-anchors touching on the "other" stories in the news headlines with an occasional counterpoint to Scarborough.

This unfortunate choice in direction of the show is disappointing to many, once excited, viewers. Here's a comment from viewers in response to the glowing review back in January by TV Guide, with an interesting bit of advice:

"...I am now hooked as long as Joe Scarborough stays the Joe Scarborough of Morning Joe and not the Joe Scarborough of Scarborough Country. That show was way too partisan. And believe you me I want a show that is non-partisan towards both major parties as these days I am starting to think of myself as an Independent instead of a lifelong Democrat. Interesting!!!!"
"Also, I think Joe has gotten to "caught up" in himself. His head is becoming quite inflated and I am sure your CHEER will make it even bigger. Gee, I wonder if anyone wonders where I stand. For me, it is just the negativity on some of these programs --- he went from a decent guy to a guy who has to slam others (negative) for ratings."

That article was posted at the end of January, 2008, and a lot has changed since. Today, is it that Mika is suffering from a really bad case of laryngitis or has office politics made an unfortunate programming decision. Tuned out...for now.

Source: http://carolh11.newsvine.com/_news/2008/04/28/1457036-the-silencing-of-mika-brzezinski

Less bang for your 4 Bucks


Yesterday, I heard a news segment on a Morning TV News program that stated that gasoline blended with
Ethanol provided less fuel mileage per gallon. Then, it occurred to me that since last year I've filled up at stations around town where I have noticed that the pump had stickers showing: This fuel contains 10% Ethanol;
I never paid it any mind until I heard the report. In retrospective, I have noticed that when I fill up the tank with this Ethanol 10% gas blend, my 4 cylinder car consumes it as it it had a V8 engine. I have watched the fuel gauge drop as the mercury in a thermometer drops in winter when the sun goes down; As I step on the gas the gauge moves closer to empty in what seems like seconds. Wow! Less bang for my 4 Bucks! What a losing proposition; Gas is up, and the mileage is down because it's been arbitrarily diluted with Corn-a-Ahol. It makes me wonder who is behind these madcap schemes? Up with the price of petroleum, and at the very same time arrange for that expensive gasoline to provide less energy. I guess that's what they call 'fuzzy' math. That reminds me of another phenomenally insane concept of the Auto Industry back in the 1970's: Planned Obsolescence.
Well, I looked around for more info and here's an article I found on the web:


P.S. Where's Jeb?
*********************************

Drivers may pay more per mile for ethanol blended gas

11:49 AM PDT on Tuesday, March 25, 2008

By WILSON CHOW, NWCN Staff


PORTLAND – Just about any driver who has filled up recently at any gas station has felt the pain at the pump.

AP photo

A gas station attendant pumps gasoline in Oregon.

“It was $75,” said Nancy Kretzschmar as she held out her credit card receipt to show how much she just spent. “It’s not right.”

With gas prices quickly approaching $4 a gallon, drivers like Kretzschmar look to get every mile possible out of a tank of gas. However, NorthWest Cable News learned a type of fuel sold at many gas stations in Portland area makes it more difficult to get maximum fuel mileage.

The fuel is a blended mix of 10 percent ethanol, a fuel that can be made from corn, and 90 percent gasoline.

Ethanol is less efficient

Because ethanol does not combust as hot as gasoline, it takes more ethanol to create the same amount of energy, according to Earl Baker, AAA Auto Repair. “You can get anywhere from one to four miles less per gallon with an ethanol blended fuel.”

According to a NorthWest Cable News analysis, a car that averages 30 miles per gallon would spend $11.66 on a 100 mile trip if gas costs $3.50 a gallon. The same trip using the ethanol, or E10 blend, could cost up to $13.46. Over an average driving year, about 12,000 miles, a motorist could pay up to $215 more for using E10 gasoline when compared to regular fuel.

“It’s not a bad fuel,” said Baker as he defended ethanol. “It’s getting a bad rap and it’s really not a bad fuel.”

Baker added fuel economy not only depends on the type of fuel but how well a vehicle is maintained. Factors such as tire pressures, oil changes, and the efficiency of the engine all contribute to fuel economy.

Benefits to using ethanol

There are also some benefits to using E10. “It helps scour the fuel system, it cleans fuel tanks, fuel lines, fuel injectors, carburetors,” said Baker.

The ethanol blend is becoming more popular since it is cleaner burning and uses less oil to make.

Recently Oregon began a mandate to sell ethanol year round, instead of just during the winter months, in a nine county region surrounding the Portland metro area. The same mandate is scheduled to expand to all Oregon counties this fall.

Neighboring Washington and California also sell E10 at its gas stations.

Despite its cleaner burning and cleansing properties, many drivers care little about E10 and just want better fuel economy.

“It’s outrageous,” said Kretzschmar, who is looking for a more fuel efficient car.

Source: http://www.kgw.com/business/money/stories/kgw_032508_business_ethanol_less_efficient_032508.259fc9cc.html

"In the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage".


23The same day came to him the Sadducees, which say that there is no resurrection, and asked him,

24Saying, Master, Moses said, If a man die, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother.

25Now there were with us seven brethren: and the first, when he had married a wife, deceased, and, having no issue, left his wife unto his brother:

26Likewise the second also, and the third, unto the seventh.

27And last of all the woman died also.

28Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her.

29Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.

30For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

31But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying,

32I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.

33And when the multitude heard this, they were astonished at his doctrine.

Matthew 22:23-33.

Wednesday, July 16, 2008

Major U.S. city officially condemns Catholic Church

WND

FAITH UNDER FIRE
Major U.S. city officially condemns Catholic Church
Instructs members to defy 'Holy Office of Inquisition'
Posted: July 15, 2008
8:48 pm Eastern

© 2008 WorldNetDaily


San Francisco's Golden Gate Bridge

A San Francisco city and county board resolution that officially labeled the Catholic church's moral teachings on homosexuality as "insulting to all San Franciscans," "hateful," "defamatory," "insensitive" and "ignorant" will be challenged tomorrow in court for violating the Constitution's prohibition of government hostility toward religion.

Resolution 168-08, passed unanimously by the City and County of San Francisco Board of Supervisors two years ago, also accused the Vatican of being a "foreign country" meddling with and attempting to "negatively influence (San Francisco's) existing and established customs."

It said of the church's teaching on homosexuality, "Such hateful and discriminatory rhetoric is both insulting and callous, and shows a level of insensitivity and ignorance which has seldom been encountered by this Board of Supervisors."

As WND reported, Resolution 168-08 was an official response to the Catholic Church's ban on adoption placements into homosexual couple households, issued by Cardinal William Levada of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith at the Vatican.

The board's resolution urged the city's local archbishop and the Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of San Francisco to defy the Vatican's instructions, concluding with a spiteful reminder that the church authority that issued the ban was known 100 years ago as "The Holy Office of the Inquisition."

The resolution also took a shot at Levada, the former archbishop of San Francisco, saying, "Cardinal Levada is a decidedly unqualified representative of his former home city, and of the people of San Francisco and the values they hold dear."



She wrote in her decision, "The Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith provoked this debate, indeed may have invited entanglement" for instructing Catholic politicians on how to vote. This court does not find that our case law requires political bodies to remain silent in the face of provocation."

She ruled that the city's proclamation was not entangling the government in church affairs, since the resolution was a non-binding, non-regulatory announcement.

Since no law was enacted, she ruled, city officials – even in their official capacity as representatives of the government – can say what they want.

"It is merely the exercise of free speech rights by duly elected office holders," she wrote.

Richard Thompson, president and chief counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, which is appealing the District Court decision on behalf of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights and two Catholic residents of San Francisco, disagrees with Patel's decision.

"Sadly, the ruling itself clearly exhibited hostility toward the Catholic Church," he said in a statement. "The judge in her written decision held that the Church 'provoked the debate' by publicly expressing its moral teaching, and that by passing the resolution the City responded 'responsibly' to all of the 'terrible' things the Church was saying."

Thomas More attorney Robert Muise will present oral arguments in the case tomorrow morning in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

"Our Constitution plainly forbids hostility toward any religion, including the Catholic faith," he said.

"In total disregard for the Constitution, homosexual activists in positions of authority in San Francisco have abused their authority as government officials and misused the instruments of the government to attack the Catholic Church. Their egregious abuse of power has now the backing of a lower federal court. … Unfortunately, all too often we see a double standard being applied in Establishment Clause cases," Muise said.

Thomas More attorneys argued in the District Court case that the "anti-Catholic resolution sends a clear message" that Catholics are "outsiders, not full members of the political community."

The cultural, and now political, straight-arm to adherents of the Christian faith in San Francisco has been increasingly public in the last two years. Just one week after the anti-Catholic resolution was passed, the San Francisco Board issued a similar resolution against a mostly evangelical group.

Following a gathering of 25,000 teens at San Francisco's AT&T Park as part of Ron Luce's Teen Mania "Battle Cry for a Generation" rally against the sexualization of America's youth culture by advertisers and media, the board spoke out formally again.

According to the San Francisco Chronicle, the Board of Supervisors unanimously passed a resolution condemning the "act of provocation" by what it termed an "anti-gay," "anti-choice" organization that aimed to "negatively influence the politics of America's most tolerant and progressive city."

Openly homosexual California Assemblyman Mark Leno told protesters of the teen rally that though such religious people may be few, "they're loud, they're obnoxious, they're disgusting, and they should get out of San Francisco."

The Chronicle also reported a San Francisco protester against the evangelical youth rally carried a sign that may sum up the sentiment: "I moved here to get away from people like you."

The Thomas More Law Center hopes the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals will decide in the case of Resolution 1680-08 that even if a large portion of the community is at odds with a religion's views on homosexuality, the government cannot be used as a weapon to condemn religious faith.

Currently, as WND has reported, Colorado and Michigan are tackling the question of whether the Bible itself can be vilified as "hate speech" for it's condemnation of homosexuality, and Canada has developed human rights commissions, which have decided people cannot express opposition to homosexuality without fear of government reprisal.

Source: http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=69693

My Comments:

P.S. It's ironic (hypocritical) that the Catholic Church should squabble with the Gay community about adoption of children, when they (RCC) recently settled a suit that cost the California Catholic's $660, 000, 000, 000 for the molestation of children by catholic priests in the California. That's, 660 Billion Dollars!

Notice above: The Thomas More Law Center; Who was Thomas More? Was he a saint?

Portrait by Hans Holbein the Younger (1527).

As Lord Chancellor, More had six Lutherans burned at the stake and imprisoned as many as forty others[citation needed][4] . His chief concern in this matter was to wipe out collaborators of William Tyndale, the exiled Lutheran who in 1525 had published a Protestant translation of the Bible in English which was circulating clandestinely in England (Tyndale had also written The Practyse of Prelates (1530), opposing Henry VIII's divorce on the grounds that it was unscriptural and was a plot by Cardinal Wolsey to get Henry entangled in the papal courts).

In June 1530 it was decreed that offenders were to be brought before the King's Council, rather than being examined by their bishops, the practice hitherto. Actions taken by the Council became ever more severe. In 1531, Richard Bayfield, a graduate of the University of Cambridge and former Benedictine monk was burned at Smithfield for distributing copies of the New Testament [5]. Further burnings followed. In The Confutation of Tyndale's Answer, yet another polemic, More took particular interest[citation needed] in the execution of Sir Thomas Hitton, describing him as "the devil's stinking martyr." [6] Rumors circulated during and after More's lifetime concerning his treatment of "heretics", with some, such as John Foxe (who "placed Protestant sufferings against the background of ... the Antichrist" [7]) in his Book of Martyrs, claiming that he had often used violence or torture while interrogating them. More strongly denied these allegations, swearing "As help me God," that heretics had never been given, "so much as a flyppe on the forehead."[8]. However, Michael Farris in his book "From Tyndale to Madison" claims that in April 1529 a "heretic", John Tewkesbury, was taken by Thomas More to his house in Chelsea, and so badly tortured on the rack that he was almost unable to walk. Tewkesbury was subsequently burned at the stake. [9]

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_More

Poll Finds Obama Isn’t Closing Divide on Race

Published: July 16, 2008

Americans are sharply divided by race heading into the first election in which an African-American will be a major-party presidential nominee, with blacks and whites holding vastly different views of Senator Barack Obama, the state of race relations and how black Americans are treated by society, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.

The results of the poll, conducted against the backdrop of a campaign in which race has been a constant if not always overt issue, suggested that Mr. Obama’s candidacy, while generating high levels of enthusiasm among black voters, is not seen by them as evidence of significant improvement in race relations.

After years of growing political polarization, much of the divide in American politics is partisan. But Americans’ perceptions of the fall presidential election between Mr. Obama, Democrat of Illinois, and Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, also underlined the racial discord that the poll found. More than 80 percent of black voters said they had a favorable opinion of Mr. Obama; about 30 percent of white voters said they had a favorable opinion of him.

Nearly 60 percent of black respondents said race relations were generally bad, compared with 34 percent of whites. Four in 10 blacks say that there has been no progress in recent years in eliminating racial discrimination; fewer than 2 in 10 whites say the same thing. And about one-quarter of white respondents said they thought that too much had been made of racial barriers facing black people, while one-half of black respondents said not enough had been made of racial impediments faced by blacks.

The survey suggests that even as the nation crosses a racial threshold when it comes to politics — Mr. Obama, a Democrat, is the son of a black father from Kenya and a white mother from Kansas — many of the racial patterns in society remain unchanged in recent years.

Indeed, the poll showed markedly little change in the racial components of people’s daily lives since 2000, when The Times examined race relations in an extensive series of articles called “How Race Is Lived in America.”

As it was eight years ago, few Americans have regular contact with people of other races, and few say their own workplaces or their own neighborhoods are integrated. In this latest poll, over 40 percent of blacks said they believed they had been stopped by the police because of their race, the same figure as eight years ago; 7 percent of whites said the same thing.

Nearly 70 percent of blacks said they had encountered a specific instance of discrimination based on their race, compared with 62 percent in 2000; 26 percent of whites said they had been the victim of racial discrimination. (Over 50 percent of Hispanics said they had been the victim of racial discrimination.)

And when asked whether blacks or whites had a better chance of getting ahead in today’s society, 64 percent of black respondents said that whites did. That figure was slightly higher even than the 57 percent of blacks who said so in a 2000 poll by The Times. And the number of blacks who described racial conditions as generally bad in this survey was almost identical to poll responses in 2000 and 1990.

“Basically it’s the same old problem, the desire for power,” Macie Mitchell, a Pennsylvania Democrat from Erie County, who is black, said in a follow-up interview after participating in the poll. “People get so obsessed with power and don’t want to share it. There are people who are not used to blacks being on top.”

White perceptions, by contrast, improved markedly from 1990 to 2000, but have remained steady since. This month’s poll found that 55 percent of whites said race relations were good, almost double the figure for blacks.

The nationwide telephone poll was conducted July 7-14 with 1,796 adults, and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points. In an effort to measure views of different races, the survey included larger-than-usual minority samples — 297 blacks and 246 Hispanics — with a margin of sampling error of six percentage points for each subgroup.

Black and white Americans agree that America is ready to elect a black president, but disagree on almost every other question about race in the poll.

Black voters were far more likely than whites to say that Mr. Obama cares about the needs and problems of people like them, and more likely to describe him as patriotic. Whites were more likely than blacks to say that Mr. Obama says what he thinks people want to hear, rather than what he truly believes. And about half of black voters said race relations would improve in an Obama administration, compared with 29 percent of whites.

About 40 percent of blacks said that Mr. McCain, if elected president, would favor whites over blacks should he win the election.

There was even racial dissension over Mr. Obama’s wife, Michelle: She was viewed favorably by 58 percent of black voters, compared with 24 percent of white voters.

Kevin Sack, Dalia Sussman and Marina Stefan contributed reporting.

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/16/us/politics/16poll.html?th&emc=th