Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Rudolph Giuliani? What were we talking about?
Selwyn Duke February 26, 2007
Okay, I've had enough. I know the empty-vessel Shill Media struggle for something, anything to talk about, this being the lot of those intellectually and philosophically bankrupt. But Rudolph Giuliani for president? Please. There's more chance I'll simultaneously be made head of NOW and the NAACP and be invited to George Soros' next soiree.
I know a little something about Giuliani. Although my politics, faith, appearance, gun case and, well, most everything about me say otherwise, I was raised in New York City. And one of my last acts before departing the Den of Iniquity for suburbia was to cast a vote for America's Mayor. Don't hold it against me; he was running against David Dinkins, a man who made Forrest Gump look smart.
Unlike the piece I wrote about the now listing U.S.S. Mitt Romney, I'm not herein trying to sound the alarm. Rather, I simply point out that Giuliani is a ship that only floats in New York Harbor. He is far too liberal to get the Republican nomination.
I've never witnessed a more laughable game of collective "Let's pretend" than the media's Giuliani coverage. Even Dick Morris, the erstwhile Clinton propaganda minister who fancies himself the Niccolo Machiavelli of the third millennium, has called Giuliani the man to beat.
He's more like the man who will be beaten — and by more than one candidate, mind you.
The media love to point out how Giuliani is the poll-leader for the Republican nomination, a fact which means absolutely nothing. All many people in middle America know about him is that he didn't pull a Ray Nagin on 9/11 — he stoically shepherded his city through that dark hour — and that he rendered a captivating, earthy speech at the 2004 Republican National Convention. And on his list of credits I'll add that after ferociously battling the mafia as a United States Attorney, he followed suit as mayor and cleaned up NYC, reducing crime and improving quality of life.
This is all well and good but, unfortunately, Giuliani only looks palatable when viewed through the narrow prism of these few events. And sometime very soon the average Republican voter will learn something: Liberal NY Republicans are different from liberal NY Democrats. They have an "R" next to their names.
As mayor, Giuliani never missed a chance to march in the "Gay Pride" parade. He actively supported "gay rights" and said he was "proud" of his domestic partnership initiative (a step toward anti-marriage). Most egregiously, he once opined that homosexuality is "good and normal."
Giuliani also favored government funding for abortion and said that the type of infanticide known as "partial-birth abortion" should not be outlawed in NY. And while he now says he is "personally opposed to abortion," he also once asserted, "I'd give my daughter the money for it [an abortion]." I guess he thinks his kids should have the right to choose and receive Big Daddy funding.
Giuliani has also been an advocate of abridging Second Amendment rights and, more odious still, showed his end-justifies-the-means lawyer colors, exercising his mayoral power to the end of filing suit against the gun industry. He has supported the type of invidious discrimination known as affirmative action and has opposed school prayer and tuition tax credits. He at one time said he endeavors to resurrect the spirit of Rockefeller Republicanism and that he would consider endorsing Bill Clinton, stating "most of Clinton's policies are very similar to most of mine." Then, he did in fact endorse ultra-liberal NY governor Mario Cuomo in 1994. And, as damnable as anything else, Giuliani upheld policies that make NYC a sanctuary city for illegal aliens. Anyway, enough about that. You get the idea.
My point is that Giuliani's golfer son, Andrew, has more of a chance of winning the Masters (he is a phenomenal player) than father does of capturing the Republican nomination. Allow me to lend this some perspective.
The hate-America-first crowd likes to say, perhaps when pondering the political prospects of Lady Macbeth and Brokeback Obama, that no woman or black person could be elected president. And given the nature of these two individuals, it may be lamentable that this is not so. But now let's talk about something unprecedented that actually is impossible.
To the best of my knowledge:
No pro-abortion candidate has ever won the Republican nomination.
Nobody who has been in bed with the homosexual lobby has ever won the Republican nomination.
Nobody who has opposed Second Amendment rights has ever won the Republican nomination. And some think a man saddled with all three negatives will do so in 2008?
What I find truly amazing is that this reality escapes Giuliani. What is this man thinking? Does he fancy that the average Republican voter is a Times Echo? Talk about believing your own press clippings.
The only interesting aspect of the Giuliani coverage is why the media would press forward, seemingly oblivious to the man's inviability. The obvious answer is that it's an alluring story, as Giuliani has a marquee name and a scintillating, romantic persona. It's also possible some in the Shill Media wish to secure a Hillary versus Rudy match-up, thereby ensuring that a liberal will take the oath of office in 2009. Then there's the fact that press lunkheads live such an insular existence, surrounded by so many fellow travelers, that they start to view themselves as the true center. They then come to believe they represent a fair cross-section of America. My guess, though, is that the coverage is probably attributable to all of the above.
Anyway, I don't know what Giuliani's presidential "exploratory committee" told him a while back, but I could have provided the truth at a tenth the cost. Mr. Mayor, you'd stand a better chance running as an independent; then you might at least be able to make a respectable showing. But, really, you'd be best off devoting your resources to any PGA Tour ambitions your son may be nursing. You miss left far too much to be a contender.
Rudolph Giuliani? What were we talking about?
Selwyn Duke
February 26, 2007
Okay, I've had enough. I know the empty-vessel Shill Media struggle for something, anything to talk about, this being the lot of those intellectually and philosophically bankrupt. But Rudolph Giuliani for president? Please. There's more chance I'll simultaneously be made head of NOW and the NAACP and be invited to George Soros' next soiree.
I know a little something about Giuliani. Although my politics, faith, appearance, gun case and, well, most everything about me say otherwise, I was raised in New York City. And one of my last acts before departing the Den of Iniquity for suburbia was to cast a vote for America's Mayor. Don't hold it against me; he was running against David Dinkins, a man who made Forrest Gump look smart.
Unlike the piece I wrote about the now listing U.S.S. Mitt Romney, I'm not herein trying to sound the alarm. Rather, I simply point out that Giuliani is a ship that only floats in New York Harbor. He is far too liberal to get the Republican nomination.
I've never witnessed a more laughable game of collective "Let's pretend" than the media's Giuliani coverage. Even Dick Morris, the erstwhile Clinton propaganda minister who fancies himself the Niccolo Machiavelli of the third millennium, has called Giuliani the man to beat.
He's more like the man who will be beaten — and by more than one candidate, mind you.
The media love to point out how Giuliani is the poll-leader for the Republican nomination, a fact which means absolutely nothing. All many people in middle America know about him is that he didn't pull a Ray Nagin on 9/11 — he stoically shepherded his city through that dark hour — and that he rendered a captivating, earthy speech at the 2004 Republican National Convention. And on his list of credits I'll add that after ferociously battling the mafia as a United States Attorney, he followed suit as mayor and cleaned up NYC, reducing crime and improving quality of life.
This is all well and good but, unfortunately, Giuliani only looks palatable when viewed through the narrow prism of these few events. And sometime very soon the average Republican voter will learn something: Liberal NY Republicans are different from liberal NY Democrats. They have an "R" next to their names.
As mayor, Giuliani never missed a chance to march in the "Gay Pride" parade. He actively supported "gay rights" and said he was "proud" of his domestic partnership initiative (a step toward anti-marriage). Most egregiously, he once opined that homosexuality is "good and normal."
Giuliani also favored government funding for abortion and said that the type of infanticide known as "partial-birth abortion" should not be outlawed in NY. And while he now says he is "personally opposed to abortion," he also once asserted, "I'd give my daughter the money for it [an abortion]." I guess he thinks his kids should have the right to choose and receive Big Daddy funding.
Giuliani has also been an advocate of abridging Second Amendment rights and, more odious still, showed his end-justifies-the-means lawyer colors, exercising his mayoral power to the end of filing suit against the gun industry. He has supported the type of invidious discrimination known as affirmative action and has opposed school prayer and tuition tax credits. He at one time said he endeavors to resurrect the spirit of Rockefeller Republicanism and that he would consider endorsing Bill Clinton, stating "most of Clinton's policies are very similar to most of mine." Then, he did in fact endorse ultra-liberal NY governor Mario Cuomo in 1994. And, as damnable as anything else, Giuliani upheld policies that make NYC a sanctuary city for illegal aliens. Anyway, enough about that. You get the idea.
My point is that Giuliani's golfer son, Andrew, has more of a chance of winning the Masters (he is a phenomenal player) than father does of capturing the Republican nomination. Allow me to lend this some perspective.
The hate-America-first crowd likes to say, perhaps when pondering the political prospects of Lady Macbeth and Brokeback Obama, that no woman or black person could be elected president. And given the nature of these two individuals, it may be lamentable that this is not so. But now let's talk about something unprecedented that actually is impossible.
To the best of my knowledge:
No pro-abortion candidate has ever won the Republican nomination.
Nobody who has been in bed with the homosexual lobby has ever won the Republican nomination.
Nobody who has opposed Second Amendment rights has ever won the Republican nomination. And some think a man saddled with all three negatives will do so in 2008?
What I find truly amazing is that this reality escapes Giuliani. What is this man thinking? Does he fancy that the average Republican voter is a Times Echo? Talk about believing your own press clippings.
The only interesting aspect of the Giuliani coverage is why the media would press forward, seemingly oblivious to the man's inviability. The obvious answer is that it's an alluring story, as Giuliani has a marquee name and a scintillating, romantic persona. It's also possible some in the Shill Media wish to secure a Hillary versus Rudy match-up, thereby ensuring that a liberal will take the oath of office in 2009. Then there's the fact that press lunkheads live such an insular existence, surrounded by so many fellow travelers, that they start to view themselves as the true center. They then come to believe they represent a fair cross-section of America. My guess, though, is that the coverage is probably attributable to all of the above.
Anyway, I don't know what Giuliani's presidential "exploratory committee" told him a while back, but I could have provided the truth at a tenth the cost. Mr. Mayor, you'd stand a better chance running as an independent; then you might at least be able to make a respectable showing. But, really, you'd be best off devoting your resources to any PGA Tour ambitions your son may be nursing. You miss left far too much to be a contender.
Toward a more Savage Nation
Selwyn Duke
February 23, 2007
The Shill Media are offering up the usual pabulum about presidential contenders, disgorging reportage about the vapid and venal that's more soap opera than scoop. With mock surprise they speak of the presidential aspirations of Rudy, Lady Macbeth and Brokeback Obama, as they treat platitudes and political sloganeering as if they were less empty than the minds that regurgitate them. But amidst the din of this much-ado — about-nothing quest for copy, the media have missed — perhaps quite conveniently — the only truly scintillating story of the 2008 election. Radio talk show host Michael Savage is mulling a run for the White House.
I'm sure many would say I was wasting words on wishes, as Savage is the darkest of horses. But there's a very good reason to welcome his entrance into the race, and I'll discuss this in a moment. First, though, let's take a peek into the life of the effervescent commentator.
Although Michael Savage has achieved fame through his exploits on radio and his four best-selling political books, this presidential dark horse is no one-trick pony, as he has lived a storied life and worn many hats. The son of an immigrant, he was raised in Queens, NY, in a home of most modest means. Savage attended public school and, applying himself to academics, vigorously pursued higher education, eventually earning a Ph.D. in Epidemiology and Nutrition Sciences from UC Berkeley.
Dr. Savage went on to become an innovator in the field of nutrition, authoring seventeen books on the subject, became a director of nutrition for a major corporation and spent years as a botanical Indiana Jones, exploring the south pacific in a search for plants with medicinal qualities.
It was only later in life that Savage plunged into talk radio, an effort that gave birth to his show, The Savage Nation, which boasts more than eight million listeners weekly. And on that show one gets a glimpse of what Michael Savage would bring to the presidential race.
The Savage Nation is a land where political correctness finds no safe harbor. Savage unabashedly waxes patriotic, as he fights the culture war with a battle cry of "Borders, language and culture." He rightly sounds the alarm about radical Islam, the invasion by illegal aliens, the ACLU, feminism and the homosexual mafia, enduring the slings and arrows of those who would tarnish the tellers of truth. He rails against the moral decay represented by pop tarts, Howard Stern, gangsta rappers and the prevalence of pornography.
Yet, despite Savage's impressive credentials as a traditionalist, he is no blind flag-waver or party loyalist. An independent thinker, he casts the discerning eye within as well as without, exposing America's true characteristic faults, as opposed to the imaginary ones of leftist conjurers. And his ire is no respecter of party lines, as he has often roasted George W. Bush on the same spit that has impaled the president's most ardent foes.
Lastly, although Savage is certainly versed in the hyperbole and acid-tongued rhetoric that are staples of talk radio, any honest listener is quickly struck by how his presentation is more sophistication than savagery. He not only nimbly segues from the emotional to the dialectical, from the earthly to the ethereal, and from satire to sober analysis, but is also equal parts philosopher, preacher and poet. He is unafraid to invoke biblical passages when providing insight on today's woes and demonstrates a grasp of history impressive enough to convince one that he has not forgotten the mistakes of the past. Simply put, he talks about everything the major presidential contenders should but never will.
And this brings me to why I would encourage Savage to don yet one more hat and then throw it into the ring. All the current high profile presidential contenders are pretenders, people who, for lack of either wisdom or will, will never broach the real issues or speak hard truths. They'll never talk honestly about immigration, Islam, the destruction of our culture and sovereignty or anything else that really matters, and, damnably, the Shill Media won't ask them the tough questions.
Michael Savage would, in the least, stand a chance of taking these soporific candidates and a slumbering people out of their comfort zone and bringing real issues and outside-the-box thinking to the forefront. Barring this, the politicians will just go through the motions and keep people in the Matrix, a controlled faux reality in which lies can masquerade as truth and liars can carry the day. The end result would be another general election with a socialist on the left and a garden-variety statist on the right, another choice between the lesser of two evils.
So it's not really about whether Michael Savage can win but, rather, the opportunity to force politicking sentient programs in a virus-ridden system to deal with relevant data. It's a task that may be impossible, as even Neo might be trumped by the neo-cons. But maybe, just perhaps, Dr. Savage can help administer that red pill.
Toward a more Savage Nation
Selwyn Duke
February 23, 2007
The Shill Media are offering up the usual pabulum about presidential contenders, disgorging reportage about the vapid and venal that's more soap opera than scoop. With mock surprise they speak of the presidential aspirations of Rudy, Lady Macbeth and Brokeback Obama, as they treat platitudes and political sloganeering as if they were less empty than the minds that regurgitate them. But amidst the din of this much-ado — about-nothing quest for copy, the media have missed — perhaps quite conveniently — the only truly scintillating story of the 2008 election. Radio talk show host Michael Savage is mulling a run for the White House.
I'm sure many would say I was wasting words on wishes, as Savage is the darkest of horses. But there's a very good reason to welcome his entrance into the race, and I'll discuss this in a moment. First, though, let's take a peek into the life of the effervescent commentator.
Although Michael Savage has achieved fame through his exploits on radio and his four best-selling political books, this presidential dark horse is no one-trick pony, as he has lived a storied life and worn many hats. The son of an immigrant, he was raised in Queens, NY, in a home of most modest means. Savage attended public school and, applying himself to academics, vigorously pursued higher education, eventually earning a Ph.D. in Epidemiology and Nutrition Sciences from UC Berkeley.
Dr. Savage went on to become an innovator in the field of nutrition, authoring seventeen books on the subject, became a director of nutrition for a major corporation and spent years as a botanical Indiana Jones, exploring the south pacific in a search for plants with medicinal qualities.
It was only later in life that Savage plunged into talk radio, an effort that gave birth to his show, The Savage Nation, which boasts more than eight million listeners weekly. And on that show one gets a glimpse of what Michael Savage would bring to the presidential race.
The Savage Nation is a land where political correctness finds no safe harbor. Savage unabashedly waxes patriotic, as he fights the culture war with a battle cry of "Borders, language and culture." He rightly sounds the alarm about radical Islam, the invasion by illegal aliens, the ACLU, feminism and the homosexual mafia, enduring the slings and arrows of those who would tarnish the tellers of truth. He rails against the moral decay represented by pop tarts, Howard Stern, gangsta rappers and the prevalence of pornography.
Yet, despite Savage's impressive credentials as a traditionalist, he is no blind flag-waver or party loyalist. An independent thinker, he casts the discerning eye within as well as without, exposing America's true characteristic faults, as opposed to the imaginary ones of leftist conjurers. And his ire is no respecter of party lines, as he has often roasted George W. Bush on the same spit that has impaled the president's most ardent foes.
Lastly, although Savage is certainly versed in the hyperbole and acid-tongued rhetoric that are staples of talk radio, any honest listener is quickly struck by how his presentation is more sophistication than savagery. He not only nimbly segues from the emotional to the dialectical, from the earthly to the ethereal, and from satire to sober analysis, but is also equal parts philosopher, preacher and poet. He is unafraid to invoke biblical passages when providing insight on today's woes and demonstrates a grasp of history impressive enough to convince one that he has not forgotten the mistakes of the past. Simply put, he talks about everything the major presidential contenders should but never will.
And this brings me to why I would encourage Savage to don yet one more hat and then throw it into the ring. All the current high profile presidential contenders are pretenders, people who, for lack of either wisdom or will, will never broach the real issues or speak hard truths. They'll never talk honestly about immigration, Islam, the destruction of our culture and sovereignty or anything else that really matters, and, damnably, the Shill Media won't ask them the tough questions.
Michael Savage would, in the least, stand a chance of taking these soporific candidates and a slumbering people out of their comfort zone and bringing real issues and outside-the-box thinking to the forefront. Barring this, the politicians will just go through the motions and keep people in the Matrix, a controlled faux reality in which lies can masquerade as truth and liars can carry the day. The end result would be another general election with a socialist on the left and a garden-variety statist on the right, another choice between the lesser of two evils.
So it's not really about whether Michael Savage can win but, rather, the opportunity to force politicking sentient programs in a virus-ridden system to deal with relevant data. It's a task that may be impossible, as even Neo might be trumped by the neo-cons. But maybe, just perhaps, Dr. Savage can help administer that red pill.
This is Bobby Flays recipe...
http://www.foodnetwork.com/food/recipes/recipe/0,1977,FOOD_9936_35973,00.html
Wow, and I was patting myselfg on the back for closing two jobs for a total 12k today. And I'll be lucky(feeling good) to net 14%.
Good Job!
Anyway the recipe:
Chicken Cacciatore
New York City firefighter Keith Young is not some rookie in the firehouse kitchen. He’s a seasoned veteran with a culinary-school degree and a chicken cacciatore recipe with five-alarm flavor. Now the self-proclaimed "Firehouse Chef" is getting some face time on the Food Network. Of course, he doesn’t know that his star turn at New York’s Fire Museum is really a Throwdown against Bobby Flay. Plus, this challenge has a catch: both Keith and Bobby have to prepare their meals on a firehouse budget. In this Throwdown, cacciatore glory belongs to the man who can shop on the cheap but deliver gourmet.
http://www.foodnetwork.com/food/recipes/recipe/0,1977,FOOD_9936_35976,00.html
Enjoy!
Saturday night’s menu....
Firehouse Chicken Cacciatore on white rice. The wife and I watched an episode of Throwdown with Bobby Flay, in which the challenge was against a fireman whose cacciatore had won 1st place in some contest, national recognition etcetera....So after watching the fireman thoroughly beat Bobby Flay, we thought we'd get on line and give the recipe a try.
It was the best I had ever tasted. Instead of red, you use a white wine in the sauce. A little saffron and wow! We used a 2002 Drake Hudsen chardonnay. A cheap wine; perfect for cooking in a sauce.
Wine: Robert Mondovi Private selection 2001 Merlot I bought from Costco in a 4 bottle variety pack for $30 about three years ago.
Both the food and wine were absolutely DELICIOUS! I suggest you go online get the recipe and try both.
Here's one for all ya....
http://www.addictinggames.com/interactivebuddy.html
Go to Items and choose the manner in which you'd like to show your respect for John Kerry.
I like the flamethrower myself.
Sunday night my wife made a nice rolled spinach lasagna with a white gorgonzola sauce topped with steamed asparagus. She copied a recipe from Rachel Ray. It was fantastic.
Our wine was a Quail Ridge Merlot 2003 from our wine club, a very good bottle that went well with the food. We only had enough for two glasses so we had to open another bottle. Unfortunately instead of sticking with the same, we tried another wine, A Fairview Grenache 2005 from Cali.
Neither of us had tried a Grenache before and didn't know if it would fare well with the food. It didn't...
I guess the problem I have now is... was the wine bad, or was the combo bad? What foods do you eat with a Grenache? We used to be Merlot fans until we explored Cabs. Now only the very best Merlots interest us. Is a Grenache a step up or down?
Please help me understand the Grenache.
Upwards of 3-500 yards. The ranch is only 640 square acres but is surrounded by ranches of the same size. It's right out of Brownwood in Texas. My friends grandpa owns a few cows and guess the coyotes are starting to be a problem. They also, for the first time ever have wild pigs. Orders are to shoot on sight.
Sniper, I had to go home and look,
It's the Bushmaster mod:xm15-e2s
on the barrel: BMP 5.56 NATO 1/9
My Texas friend told me that it was the same gun used in the first gulf war. Cept the military used Colt.
I prefer the .454 Use it for wild boar in Kalifornia and here in Oregon. My wife has a Taurus .357 snub nose loaded with .38 specials. I use a Walther P99 .40 cal myself. Although it does have the interchangeable .357 sig barrel I was never a fan of that caliber.
Until I started hunting again, I have always preferred the bigger bang type gun. I started with my Weatherby 300 mag and downsized to a .270 and have since had much better results.
When I go turkey hunting down in Texas, my friend carries a .45 auto while he gives me a .22 for my side arm...Both do a fine job on the Turtles, armadillos, coons and possums.
Next year we are looking at coyote hunting on his property and I'm looking for a good varmint gun...Anybody have any suggestions? I was thinking Hoya .223 with the thumbhole stock.
Paule's new baby.....
Bushmaster ar-15 m4a3 conversion.
http://www.biggerhammer.net/ar15/m4.gif
Go Colts!
Don't behave like a jack ass and I'm sure Gary would let you back.
Please stop. You are disrespecting your friend.
I'm sorry. I guess in my few days absence I've missed quite a bit. I-hub drama...
Um, yeah.....Maybe there is more to the story than you think????
Obviously so. I don't know why but I guess you had a reason.
Follow the link back. You responded to a deleted message. My post to you, in which you responded to, was deleted. Why.
I just checked, you've been reinstated. I didn't think your post deserved that response.
BTW I just realized someone removed the original message. Can somebody tell me why this was done. It was not offensive in any way???????????????
Gary didn't ban you. Nova did.
Oh I'm sorry you've been banned. Good!
Doesn't this graph show higher poverty under Clinton than Bush?
I was listening to Hillary's 2002 speech on invading Iraq...
She fully supported Bush not based upon his intelligence but based upon "her own research"... In her own words.
So did all those who voted for it before they voted against it. Just listen to their speeches on the floor and still try and tell me Bush did not have their support. Selective memory I bet.
mnfats, A friend of mine asked me to try...
Joel Gott 2004 cab at $18 per bottle. Have you tried this one before?
"Only Trader Joes sells it. We have one store here."
We used to only have one, now I think we have four as well as two World market outlets. I found some good wine at the World Market.
Lugan,
I heard that story a couple years ago and thought it was simply a marketing ploy to sell some cheap table wines. Hmm.
Probably should have looked into it, before repeating it...:o(
mnfats,
The only Internet references on these two that I can find are ratings on an obscure website. I actually bought these from a wine broker who would call me up once a month to push the latest find...
I won't give you the wine broker’s # because you'd soon hate me. Ever talk to one of those sales people who won’t take insults for an answer? I would have to yell at this lady “NO what part of that do you not understand?” and hang up her. She’d call me back in two weeks like nothing ever happened, and start talking to me as if I was her best friend..
I save my corks and have been casually looking through them to see if they have an internet address or phone number for ya. The bottles simply say out of Ukiah California.
I think I pulled that off the Savage website.
I forgot to mention Blessing water only $22 a bottle.
In case you forgot...
How do I Choose an Essence that is right for me?
If you are having difficultly choosing an essence, remember . . . use your HEART to decide . . . not your head. Find that small quiet voice within to assist you in selecting the right bottle or bottles. Some people get confirmation through muscle testing, pendulums, or tingling in hands. While others just act on an inner knowing. Whether you choose an essence for the particular affirmation, or just because it calls to you, remember that essences help you connect to the greater whole of all life and spirit through I AM Master teachings.
How do I use the I AM BLESSING WATER?
Because THE I AM BLESSING WATER is made like a flower essence, only a few drops are needed to shift an entire bottle of water. They are powerfully concentrated with positive I AM statements, the Sun's powerful rays, and the clarity and magnification of a Sedona Vortex. The essences come in an easy-to-use, one ounce dropper bottle and are best used for at least a 20 day cycle to allow the energy to fully integrate into your body's energy. Once vibrating at this higher level, you will notice when you forget to take them! Disclaimer: Please listen to your inner guidance. Essences are not a substitution for medical treatment or medical help in an emergency. Essences focus on whole body, mind and spirit awareness, accelerate all spiritual paths, and are great additions with most healing modalities. Use 2-3 drops orally 2-4 times a day, or anytime you feel low energy, want clarity during meditation, etc…. Always follow your inner guidance as to how much and how often to take an essence. You can't take too much, and remember . . . a few drops are all you need. Use these waters any way and anywhere your imagination can go! Put them in your drinking water to charge the whole glass with love, peace or abundance, etc…. Essence drops can also be added to your food, or bath water. Put them in a spray bottle and mist your skin, plants, home, office space, etc…. Mist sacred statues and jewelry. Essences heighten the energy in surrounding areas in which they are placed. So altars, prayer tables, statues, or bedside tables are wonderful locations.
Oh have a drink of your Myan blessing water..
http://www.iamblessingwater.com/bottles-sm-soft.jpg
WELCOME TO I AM BLESSING WATER ESSENCES!
The Alchemy of the Future
Offering you Positive Messages for Your WATER, Your LIFE, and Your PLANET. Each time you use an I AM ESSENCE, or an ARCHANGEL ESSENCE, you are virtually awakening positive affirmations and angelic realms in your being.
Drink a Blessing!
Do you feel like your personal destiny is just out in front of you… but you can't quite get there?
Are you tired of the same old loop of issues that haunt your present moment and hamper you from moving forward?
Are you ready to break the monotonous, boring repeating cycles in your life ?
Did you know that the way you THINK creates your life? It is SIMPLE . . . IF YOU SHIFT YOUR CONSCIOUSNESS - YOU SHIFT YOUR LIFE!
THE I AM BLESSING WATER ESSENCES are inspired by a critical and timely message from the Star Elders through Aluna Joy Yaxk'in called AWAKENING ELEMENTAL CONSCIOUSNESS
Jan 25, 2:51 PM EST
Censor Removes `God' From 'The Queen'
By GIOVANNA DELL'ORTO
Associated Press Writer
ATLANTA (AP) -- So much for God and country, at least during some in-flight showings of the Oscar-nominated movie "The Queen." All mentions of God are bleeped out of a version of the film distributed to Delta and some other airlines.
Jeff Klein, president of Jaguar Distribution, the Studio City, Calif., company that supplied the movie to the airlines earlier this month, said it was a mistake, committed by an overzealous and inexperienced employee who had been told to edit out all profanities and blasphemies.
"A reference to God is not taboo in any culture that I know of," Klein said. "We excise foul language, excessive violence and nudity."
Airline passengers watching the movie hear "(Bleep) bless you, ma'am," as one character speaks to the queen. In all, the word "God" is bleeped seven times. (At no time in the original movie is "God save the queen" uttered.)
Klein said he discovered the mistake after a London-bound Air New Zealand passenger complained. Jaguar has been sending out new, unedited copies to the airlines.
Airlines routinely show movies from which graphic scenes and strong profanities are edited out.
"The Queen" is about Queen Elizabeth II and Prime Minister Tony Blair in the week following Princess Diana's death in 1997.
A spokesman for Miramax, which produced the movie, had no comment on the episode.
The editor responsible for the mistake is still working in the Jaguar editing lab, Klein said.
© 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. Learn more about our Privacy Policy.
Report: Global Warming's Smoking Gun is on the Table
By Seth Borenstein
Associated Press
posted: 23 January 2007
08:13 am ET
WASHINGTON (AP)—Human-caused global warming is here, visible in the air, water and melting ice, and is destined to get much worse in the future, an authoritative global scientific report will warn next week.
"The smoking gun is definitely lying on the table as we speak,'' said top U.S. climate scientist Jerry Mahlman, who reviewed all 1,600 pages of the first segment of a giant four-part report. "The evidence ... is compelling.''
Andrew Weaver, a Canadian climate scientist and study co-author, went even further: "This isn't a smoking gun; climate is a batallion of intergalactic smoking missiles.''
The first phase of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is being released in Paris next week. This segment, written by more than 600 scientists and reviewed by another 600 experts and edited by bureaucrats from 154 countries, includes "a significantly expanded discussion of observation on the climate,'' said co-chair Susan Solomon, a senior scientist for the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. She and other scientists held a telephone briefing on the report Monday.
That report will feature an "explosion of new data'' on observations of current global warming, Solomon said.
Solomon and others wouldn't go into specifics about what the report says. They said that the 12-page summary for policymakers will be edited in secret word-by-word by governments officials for several days next week and released to the public on Feb. 2. The rest of that first report from scientists will come out months later.
The full report will be issued in four phases over the year, as was the case with the last IPCC report, issued in 2001.
Global warming is "happening now, it's very obvious,'' said Mahlman, a former director of NOAA's Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Lab who lives in Boulder, Colo. "When you look at the temperature of the Earth, it's pretty much a no-brainer.''
Look for an "iconic statement''—a simple but strong and unequivocal summary—on how global warming is now occurring, said one of the authors, Kevin Trenberth, director of climate analysis at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, also in Boulder.
The February report will have "much stronger evidence now of human actions on the change in climate that's taken place,'' Rajendra K. Pachauri told the AP in November. Pachauri, an Indian climatologist, is the head of the international climate change panel.
An early version of the ever-changing draft report said "observations of coherent warming in the global atmosphere, in the ocean, and in snow and ice now provide stronger joint evidence of warming.''
And the early draft adds: "An increasing body of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on other aspects of climate including sea ice, heat waves and other extremes, circulation, storm tracks and precipitation.''
The world's global average temperature has risen about 1.2 degrees Fahrenheit from 1901 to 2005. The two warmest years on record for the world were 2005 and 1998. Last year was the hottest year on record for the United States.
The report will draw on already published peer-review science. Some recent scientific studies show that temperatures are the hottest in thousands of years, especially during the last 30 years; ice sheets in Greenland in the past couple years have shown a dramatic melting; and sea levels are rising and doing so at a faster rate in the past decade.
Also, the second part of the international climate panel's report—to be released in April—will for the first time feature a blockbuster chapter on how global warming is already changing health, species, engineering and food production, said NASA scientist Cynthia Rosenzweig, author of that chapter.
As confident as scientists are about the global warming effects that they've already documented, they are as gloomy about the future and even hotter weather and higher sea level rises. Predictions for the future of global warming in the report are based on 19 computer models, about twice as many as in the past, Solomon said.
In 2001, the panel said the world's average temperature would increase somewhere between 2.5 and 10.4 degrees Fahrenheit and the sea level would rise between 4 and 35 inches by the year 2100. The 2007 report will likely have a smaller range of numbers for both predictions, Pachauri and other scientists said.
The future is bleak, scientists said.
"We have barely started down this path,'' said chapter co-author Richard Alley of Penn State University.
AP Special Correspondent Charles J. Hanley contributed to this report.
This is good,
http://www.stophillarypac.com/
Well well well Mr. Religion,
Participate in any ritual sacrifices to your gods lately?
Hurray! We're Capitulating!" (3)
By Henryk M. Broder
At least one of the Berliner Zeitung's assumptions wasn't entirely made up. Hamas had expressed a willingness to accept two Palestinian states, one in the territory occupied by Israel since 1967 and one on Israeli territory within the 1967 borders. But the prisoners' document did not even suggest a "recognition" of the Zionist state, no matter how "indirect." It existed solely in the minds of commentators. Fortunately various Hamas spokespeople quickly provided much-needed clarity, assuring the world that Hamas had absolutely no intention of recognizing Israel, directly or indirectly, and in fact was determined to continue its armed struggle to liberate Palestine.
The Europeans' wishful thinking stems from their need to avoid conflicts, coupled with a strong survival instinct. They may perceive reality, but they do so selectively.
The Berlin office of the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War has published a paper describing the consequences of an American nuclear strike against Iran. According to its scenario, more than 2 million people would die within the first 48 hours, and another million would suffer serious injuries. Ten million would be exposed to high levels of radiation. But one question the paper neither poses nor answers is this: What would be the consequential damage of an Iranian nuclear attack once the country is capable of producing and using a nuclear bomb?
No one wants to address this question, and for good reason: No one knows how to prevent an Iranian nuclear attack, or even how to influence the Iranians' policies. In contrast, there is a very small but real possibility that public pressure can be used to influence the American government to move in one direction or another. The proponents of peace whose protests are directed against America's plans to attack Iran and not against the mullahs' nuclear policies are well aware of this difference. They are not blind in one eye, as they are often accused of being, but instead have a clear view of everything that is happening. And they are as delighted as children discovering a surprise. "Peace Signals from Tehran," the Berliner Zeitung wrote ecstatically in early July, when Iran did not for once flatly reject one of the European Union's many proposed compromises, but instead declared that it would "give it serious consideration."
"We capitulate"
For those facing a hopeless situation and powerless to change it, self-deception offers at least some succor.
Another option is "change through ingratiation." Oskar Lafontaine, a one-time chairman of the Social Democratic Party and German chancellor candidate, sees "commonalities between leftist policies and the Islamic religion." In an interview with Neues Deutschland, he says: "Islam depends on community, which places it in opposition to extreme individualism, which threatens to fail in the West. The second similarity is that the devout Muslim is required to share his wealth with others. The leftist also wants to see the strong help the weak. Finally, the prohibition of interest still plays a role in Islam, much as it once did in Christianity. At a time when entire economies are plunging into crisis because their expectations of returns on investment have become totally absurd, there is a basis for a dialogue to be conducted between the left and the Islamic world."
Lafontaine called upon the West to exercise self-criticism ("We must constantly ask ourselves through which eyes the Muslims see us") and expressed sympathy for the "indignation" of Muslims. According to Lafontaine, "people in Muslim countries have experienced many indignities, one of the most recent being the Iraq war. What we are seeing here is resource imperialism."
In examining similarities between Islam and the European left, though, Lafontaine ignored an important point: how long he would survive without his beloved Sancerre Sauvignon Blanc if a union between leftist politics and the Islamic religion truly came about. His dialogue with the Muslim world would have to be conducted while sipping fruit juice and mineral water. "If you can't beat them, join them!"
All the events of last spring are only a foretaste of something much bigger, something still unnamed. And when it ends, those who have managed to escape will ask themselves: Why didn't we see the handwriting on the wall when there was still time? If Muslim protests against a few harmless cartoons can cause the free world to capitulate in the face of violence, how will this free world react to something that is truly relevant? It is already difficult enough to see that Israel is not merely battling a few militants, but is facing a serious threat to its very existence from Iran. All too often it is ignored that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has already taken the first step by calling for "a world without Zionism" -- a call that pro-Israel Europeans only managed to condemn with a mild, "unacceptable." How would they react if Iran were in a position to back up its threats with nuclear weapons?
In 1972, more than three decades ago, Danish lawyer and part-time politician Mogens Glistrup had an idea that brought him instant fame. To save taxes, he proposed that the Danish army be disbanded and an answering machine be set up in the defense ministry that would play the following message: "We capitulate!" Not only would it save money, Glistrup argued, but it would also save lives in an emergency. On the strength of this "program," Glistrup's Progress Party managed to become the second-most powerful political party in the Danish parliament in the 1973 elections.
Glistrup had the right idea, but he was a number of years premature. Now would be the right time to set up his answering machine.
Have we capitulated?