2013-06-22
Things Aren't Always As They Seem
June 22, 1633
I, Galileo, son of the late Vincenzo Galilei, Florentine, aged seventy years, arraigned personally before this tribunal, and kneeling before you, Most Eminent and Reverend Lord Cardinals, Inquisitors-General against heretical depravity throughout the entire Christian commonwealth, having before my eyes and touching with my hands, the Holy Gospels, swear that I have always believed, do believe, and by God’s help will in the future believe, all that is held, preached, and taught by the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. But whereas — after an injunction had been judicially intimated to me by this Holy Office, to the effect that I must altogether abandon the false opinion that the sun is the center of the world and immovable, and that the earth is not the center of the world, and moves, and that I must not hold, defend, or teach in any way whatsoever, verbally or in writing, the said false doctrine, and after it had been notified to me that the said doctrine was contrary to Holy Scripture — I wrote and printed a book in which I discuss this new doctrine already condemned, and adduce arguments of great cogency in its favor, without presenting any solution of these, and for this reason I have been pronounced by the Holy Office to be vehemently suspected of heresy, that is to say, of having held and believed that the Sun is the center of the world and immovable, and that the earth is not the center and moves:
Therefore, desiring to remove from the minds of your Eminences, and of all faithful Christians, this vehement suspicion, justly conceived against me, with sincere heart and unfeigned faith I abjure, curse, and detest the aforesaid errors and heresies, and generally every other error, heresy, and sect whatsoever contrary to the said Holy Church, and I swear that in the future I will never again say or assert, verbally or in writing, anything that might furnish occasion for a similar suspicion regarding me; but that should I know any heretic, or person suspected of heresy, I will denounce him to this Holy Office, or to the Inquisitor or Ordinary of the place where I may be. Further, I swear and promise to fulfill and observe in their integrity all penances that have been, or that shall be, imposed upon me by this Holy Office. And, in the event of my contravening, (which God forbid) any of these my promises and oaths, I submit myself to all the pains and penalties imposed and promulgated in the sacred canons and other constitutions, general and particular, against such delinquents. So help me God, and these His Holy Gospels, which I touch with my hands.
I, the said Galileo Galilei, have abjured, sworn, promised, and bound myself as above; and in witness of the truth thereof I have with my own hand subscribed the present document of my abjuration, and recited it word for word at Rome, in the Convent of Minerva, this twenty-second day of June, 1633.
I, Galileo Galilei, have abjured as above with my own hand.
2013-05-30
Big Fat Useless Worthless Trade Unions
Here is yet another reason that all trade unions should be abolished. They do far more harm — and in many cases, evil — than they ever do good. This is outrageous!
USELESS IMMORAL EVIL TRADE UNIONS SHOULD BE ABOLISHED
2013-05-19
How It Is With Islam
WHAT'S AN INFIDEL ?
The author, Rick Mathes, is a well-known leader in prison ministry. The man who walks with God always gets to his destination. If you have a pulse you have a purpose.
The Muslim religion is the fastest growing religion per capita in the United States , especially in the minority races.
Last month I attended my annual training session that's required for maintaining my state prison security clearance. During the training session there was a presentation by three speakers representing the Roman Catholic, Protestant and Muslim faiths, who each explained their beliefs.
I was particularly interested in what the Islamic Imam had to say. The Muslim gave a great presentation of the basics of Islam, complete with a video.
After the presentations, time was provided for questions and answers. When it was my turn, I directed my question to the Muslim and asked: 'Please, correct me if I'm wrong, but I understand that most Imams and clerics of Islam have declared a holy jihad [Holy war] against the infidels of the world and, that by killing an infidel, (which is a command to all Muslims) they are assured of a place in heaven. If that's the case, can you give me the definition of an infidel?'
There was no disagreement with my statements and, without hesitation, he replied,
'Non-believers!'
I responded, 'So, let me make sure I have this straight. All followers of Allah have been commanded to kill everyone who is not of your faith so they can have a place in heaven. Is that correct?'
The expression on his face changed from one of authority and command to that
of a little boy who had just been caught with his hand in the cookie jar.'
He sheepishly replied, 'Yes.'
I then stated, 'Well, sir, I have a real problem trying to imagine The Pope commanding all Catholics to kill those of your faith or Dr. Stanley ordering all Protestants to do the same in order to guarantee them a place in heaven!'
The Muslim was speechless.
I continued, 'I also have a problem with being your friend when you and your brother clerics are telling your followers to kill me! Let me ask you a question:
Would you rather have your Allah, who tells you to kill me in order for you to go to heaven, or my Jesus who tells me to love you because I am going to heaven and He wants you to be there with me?'
You could have heard a pin drop.
Needless to say, the organizers and/or promoters of the 'Diversification' training seminar were not happy with my way of dealing with the Islamic Imam, and exposing the truth about the Muslims' beliefs.
In twenty years there will be enough Muslim voters in the U.S. to elect the President.
I think everyone in the U.S. should be required to read this, but with the ACLU — and the corrupt news media, there is no way this will be widely publicized, unless each of us sends it on! This is your chance to make a difference.
FOR CHRIST'S SAKE....SEND THIS ON
2013-03-27
Obama Is Robbing You Blind!
How's this for Big Government!
|
2013-02-19
Obama Clearly Has An Agenda For The Defense Department
SPECIAL EDITORIAL: There’s No Case for Hagel
William Kristol
January 4, 2013 10:20 AMIn the three weeks since Chuck Hagel’s name emerged as President Barack Obama’s likely choice as the next secretary of defense, there's been a lively, if lopsided, debate about his qualifications for the job. The debate’s been lopsided because the arguments for Hagel have been so startlingly weak.
It’s not just that those arguing for Hagel form an unusually motley crew, even by the standards of the anti-Israel swamp in which many of them frolic. What's striking about the case for Hagel is its absence. His backers can cite no significant legislation for which Hagel was responsible in his two terms in the Senate. They can quote no memorable speeches that Hagel delivered and can cite no profound passages from the book he authored. They can summarize no perceptive Hagelian analysis of defense or foreign policy, and can appeal to no acts of management or leadership by the man they'd have as our next secretary of defense.
The fact is that those legislative achievements, intellectual insights, or management triumphs don't exist. A long and comprehensive history of the Senate during Chuck Hagel's tenure there could be written that would barely mention him. A long and comprehensive account of American foreign and defense policy in the last thirty years would hardly note his existence.
So even if one left aside Chuck Hagel's dangerous views on Iran and his unpleasant distaste for Israel and Jews, a dispassionate analyst would have to conclude that the case for Hagel is extraordinarily weak. A host of individuals who've served in the Pentagon during President Obama's first term—like Deputy Secretary Ashton Carter, Navy Secretary Ray Mabus, and former Undersecretary for Policy Michèle Flournoy—are more qualified than Chuck Hagel to serve as the next secretary of defense. So are Clinton administration Defense Department veterans like Richard Danzig, John Hamre, and Joseph Nye. So are former legislators like Olympia Snowe, Sam Nunn, Dick Gephardt, and Bill Bradley.
So are others from the private and public sector.
Or look at it this way. Over the last four decades, the following dozen men have served as the United States Secretary of Defense: Elliot Richardson, James Schlesinger, Donald Rumsfeld (twice), Harold Brown, Cap Weinberger, Frank Carlucci, Dick Cheney, Les Aspin, Bill Perry, Bill Cohen, Bob Gates, and Leon Panetta. They were all impressive public servants. Chuck Hagel clearly falls short of all of them in stature and distinction.
So why Hagel? Well, if you read the oeuvre of Hagel's defenders, you'll see that Hagel must be appointed in order to spite many of his critics, whom they deeply dislike. Hagel’s defenders are welcome to their dislikes. But dislike of hawks, neocons, or friends of Israel isn't really a good reason to select Chuck Hagel. And there's something comical about many of the defenses of Hagel. His defenders rise up in high dudgeon to condemn Hagel's critics as smear merchants for criticizing Hagel as anti-Israel and soft on Iran—and then, if they're among the honest Hagel defenders, they praise Hagel for being anti-Israel and soft on Iran.
The fact is, criticism of Hagel has been substantive—focused on his out of the mainstream votes and his distasteful quotations, as well as his general lack of distinction. And the critics have also focused on the fact that the position being discussed is that of secretary of defense. No one would care if the president wanted to send Hagel off to openly and aggressively make the case for Obama's foreign policy as ambassador to Luxembourg. But the secretary of defense has real responsibilities.
Even his nomination has real consequences. In fact, nominating a person who is clearly soft on Iran would send exactly the wrong message to Tehran. Which is why President Obama should prevail in not nominating Hagel in the first place, and why members of Congress of both parties who have been engaged in the attempt to deter Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons should be particularly alarmed at a Hagel nomination.
It looks, though, as if President Obama may be determined to nominate Chuck Hagel. If he does, he will be doing himself and the nation a disservice. The next secretary of defense should be a well-respected mainstream national security leader, not an out-of-the-mainstream mediocrity. So if the president nominates Chuck Hagel, we would expect a vigorous examination of the Hagel record by senators of both parties, followed by the United States Senate withholding its consent to his selection as secretary of defense. This would give the president another chance to select a man or woman of distinction for this high office, one who would command widespread support and would be confirmed easily. And this would be a better outcome for our military, the Defense Department, and the nation.
2013-01-29
Economic Armageddon
AS THELMA SAID TO LOUISE, "THERE IS A POINT BEYOND WHICH WE CANNOT RETURN."
AHEAD OF THE CURVE
Last Update: 29-Jan-13 08:58 ET
The Real Battle In Washington
The real battle in Washington is not the debate over the debt ceiling. Everyone knows that it will be raised eventually. The real battle is whether the deficit is important – or not.
If The Debt Ceiling Is Not An Issue
The debt ceiling seems like it would be an important issue, but only if you embrace the idea that deficit spending is both dangerous, at excessive levels, and should be minimized, at least over time.
If, for example, a core belief is that deficit spending can continue indefinitely, then the debt ceiling is simply a matter of paperwork.
This seems to be the negotiating position of President Obama currently, on the deficit ceiling.
The Republicans have been trying to use the impending debt ceiling as a negotiating bargaining chip.
However, President Obama has realized that the Republicans have virtually no negotiation leverage with the debt ceiling.
After all, if President Obama refuses to negotiate spending issues as part of raising the debt ceiling, it is virtually certain that the Republicans would be blamed for any default that the US might incur on unpaid debt.
President Obama, with the help of the media, would be able to position any default as one that would be the Republicans fault. He might even be willing to let the US default if it could be clearly blamed on the Republicans. After all, the default would likely be temporary.
If so, President Obama might be able to use this as leverage against Republicans in the 2014 elections.
In fact, President Obama has little to lose in refusing to make spending reduction an issue in Washington.
The Republicans have been slow to realize this, but that is because President Obama, who was once critical of the Bush administration’s deficit spending, actually does not seem to feel that deficit spending is a problem to be addressed.
If Deficit Spending Is Not A Problem
Who believes that deficit spending is not an issue?
The leading public advocate of the benefits of deficit spending is Paul Krugman, Nobel Prize winning economist and a devote supporter of the Obama administration.
Mr. Krugman has argued for a long time that the solution to the slow economy is even more deficit spending than has been done before. His main criticism of the stimulus spending of 2009 and 2010 has been that it was far too small.
The question of how such spending is necessary to actually produce economic growth never seems to be brought up, but Mr. Krugman is adamant that the stimulus spending to date has not been enough.
President Obama’s View
The real question in the deficit spending debate is whether President Obama views the deficit as a problem.
In the past, he was a vocal critic of the Bush administration’s deficit spending.
In 2006, then Senator Obama made the following statement, when a vote on raising the debt ceiling:
“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.”
However, today, President Obama has been encouraging increased investment in education, infrastructure, without any reductions in spending for persons who receive government aid.
This essentially could be interpreted to mean that President Obama does not really care about deficit spending, but without any recent clear statements on whether he views deficit spending as an issue or not it is hard to speculate.
We tend to think that President Obama is now more concerned with leaving his own personal lasting imprint upon the Presidency – and America – than he is with bring financial disciplines to Washington.
If anything, President Obama probably believes that increased taxes are enough to keep deficit issues at bay.
This was certainly his rallying call during the election process, when he repeatedly stressed the idea that the “rich should pay their fair share.”
While such a viewpoint was a powerful campaign issue, as it aroused emotions, from a financial perspective, it was relatively minor.
As we pointed out in an Ahead of the Curve column dated December 5, 2012 “The Absurdity Of The Fiscal Cliff Debate”, the argument over taxation of incomes over $250,000 only amounted to $42 billion worth of revenue in 2013 (assuming no change in behavior by taxpayers due to the new rates).
What this meant is that the issues of deficit spending got swept under the rug of financially insignificant emotional issues during the campaign.
This leaves the question of President Obama’s view on deficit spending largely unknown right now.
It certainly doesn’t seem to be of the same importance as it is to Republicans.
What this all means for the budget negotiations in the upcoming year is unpredictability.
Does It Matter?
So far, the markets have seemed to tolerate unpredictability in Washington’s fiscal direction, but we wonder how long such a patience will last.
It is beyond the scope of this single article to discuss why deficit spending is an issue that must be addressed somehow.
We have long argued that both new revenues and spending cuts must be addressed in order to avoid a runaway financial situation.
The real problem is that deficit spending becomes an important issue when the purchasers of US debt begin to make demands on the social structure of the US.
This is what has caused the turmoil in Greece in recent years.
There is an argument that the US could never become Greece, but if purchasers of US debt began to demand 7% interest rates, as purchasers of Greek debt did several years ago, the US might well lose control of the financial future.
To rescue Greece, the European Union began to make demands on Greece to bring the annual deficit spending to a “realistic” level of 3% of GDP.
The US currently has run a deficit spending of almost 10% of GDP for four years.
The long term future of the US depends upon the credibility of the US dollar in the rest of the world.
Extensive deficit spending slowly weakens that position over time. While we haven’t reached the critical point were confidence collapses, and a shift to some other global currency as the standard occurs, we are headed in that direction.
How far away from the point we are, is unknown.
The problem, of course, is that once the critical point of confidence in the US dollar is breached, it cannot be easily recovered. We can only hope that the political divisiveness in Washington doesn't bring us so close that we slip over the edge without intention from either side of the political argument.
Comments may be emailed to the author, Robert V. Green, at aheadofthecurve@briefing.com
Read more: http://www.briefing.com/Investor/PopupPages/ArticlePopup.aspx?ArticleId=NS20130129085836AheadOfTheCurve#ixzz2JNRLdIya
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
Follow us: @Briefingcom on Twitter | Briefingcom on Facebook
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)