Mike Corthell

Mike Corthell
Editor & Publisher at Fryeburg Free Press MEDIA

Friday, August 31, 2012

If it Should Be




If it should be that I grow weak
And pain should keep me from my sleep,
Then you must do what must be done,
For this last battle cannot be won.

You will be sad, I understand.
Don't let your grief then stay your hand.
For this day, more than all the rest,
Your love for me must stand the test.

We've had so many happy years.
What is to come can hold no fears.
You'd not want me to suffer so;
The time has come -- please let me go.

Take me where my need they'll tend,
And please stay with me till the end.
Hold me firm and speak to me,
Until my eyes no longer see.

I know in time that you will see
The kindness that you did for me.
Although my tail its last has waved,
From pain and suffering I've been saved.

Please do not grieve -- it must be you
Who had this painful thing to do.
We've been so close, we two, these years;
Don't let your heart hold back its tears.

--- Anonymous ---

The Light is Here

''We can be a great people, and for the most part, deep down inside we all wish to be. We only lack the light to show the way. The Light is here - it is free- just take it.''

Mike Corthell
August 31, 2012








Photo Credit: Harrison Corthell

Associated Press Associated with Obama 2012


The AP-Fouhy review is the latest in a series of examples of how the major media have refused to address the facts, known by them for more than four years, about how Obama was influenced by a key member of the Communist Party member in Hawaii, and how Obama and his campaign tried to cover it up.

Beth Fouhy of the Associated Press (AP) has reviewed Dinesh D’Souza’s popular conservative film, “2016: Obama’s America,” attacking its central claim that Obama’s alleged philosophy of anti-colonialism stems from the influence of the Kenyan Obama who was mostly absent from the President’s life.
The AP is one of the most influential news organizations in the world. Her article is running in literally hundreds of papers here and abroad and conveys the impression that D’Souza, a popular conservative author and scholar, and president of a Christian college, is deliberately misleading the public and distorting the facts about Obama’s background and history.
However, Fouhy completely ignores the part of the film that features an interview with Professor Paul Kengor, an accomplished author who discusses Obama’s mentor in Hawaii, Communist Party member and writer Frank Marshall Davis. This is the relationship that the media continue to regard as taboo. The failure to talk truthfully about Davis, identified merely as “Frank” in Obama’s memoir, constitutes one of the most important and insidious cover-ups in presidential history.
Exhibiting her service to the Obama campaign, Fouhy doesn’t want to blow the lid off this scandal and clearly prefers that the cover-up continue. Her movie “review,” as such, appears to be designed to warn people not to take any critics of Obama seriously when they raise questions about his foreign connections.
However, she knows that the truth is available because it was in the film that she supposedly saw. She cannot refute it. Obama was heavily influenced by a member of a Communist Party controlled and funded by Moscow. Frank Marshall Davis was even a supporter of mass murderer Joseph Stalin.
As AIM has documented, D’Souza in his film and book claims that “anti-colonialism” is behind Obama’s beliefs and policies. But anti-colonialism was a tactic of the international communist movement, which attempted to create the Soviet Union’s own colonial empire.
AIM has argued that Obama’s Marxist connection is far more newsworthy and significant than whatever “anti-colonial” views he may have had. Communist parties that engage in subversion and espionage against the United States, and use agents of influence to manipulate U.S. policy, still exist and operate against the United States, sometimes in collaboration with Islamist movements.
A communist writer by the name of Frank Chapman once referred to Obama himself as a revolutionary mole, while Marxist historian Gerald Horne spoke of Obama being influenced by Frank Marshall Davis during an event at the Tamiment Library in New York where the archives of the Communist Party were put on display. These remarks were delivered on March 23, 2007, and published on April 6, 2007—more than five years ago.
Fouhy, an AP political reporter covering the 2012 presidential campaign, has written her review, “Fact Check: ‘Anti-colonial’ Obama not plausible,” in a way that suggests she has ascertained the ultimate truth about the film and Obama. This is laughable. She blatantly ignores the facts about Davis mentioned in the film.
Focusing on the movie’s faulty claims of Obama’s anti-colonialism, Fouhy writes, “…it’s difficult to see how Obama’s political leanings could have been so directly shaped by his father, as D’Souza claims. The elder Obama left his wife and young son, the future president, when Obama was 2 and visited his son only once, when Obama was 10. But D’Souza portrays that loss as an event that reinforced rather than weakened the president’s ties to his father, who died in an automobile accident when Obama was in college.”
She is correct that there is no hard evidence the Kenyan, who may not in fact have been Obama’s real father, had any significant influence over Obama.
However, Fouhy ignores the fact that D’Souza attempts to make up for this deficiency in his film by including the interview with Cold War historian Paul Kengor, who had access to Davis’s 600-page FBI file and his writings for Communist Party papers. His new book is THE COMMUNIST Frank Marshall Davis: The Untold Story of Barack Obama’s Mentor. Davis guided Obama’s thinking for about eight years in Hawaii, before Obama went off to Occidental College. Obama’s classmate John Drew says Obama was a Marxist at that time.
Kengor makes the well-documented assertion that it was Davis who most heavily influenced Obama as he was growing up in Hawaii. The interview with Kengor in the D’Souza film, which is showing in hundreds of theaters, gets on the record many of the long-neglected facts about Obama’s relationship with a communist.
While D’Souza’s film is flawed in terms of the anti-colonialism angle, Fouhy’s strange omission of the Davis matter makes her review even more questionable. D’Souza at least included the Kengor interview, which seems to represent his awareness that there is an alternative view of how Obama turned out that is more consistent with the facts as we have come to know and appreciate them. 
The Fouhy review is the latest in a series of examples of how the major media have refused to address the facts, known by them for more than four years, about how Obama was influenced by a key member of the Communist Party member in Hawaii, and how Obama and his campaign tried to cover it up. 
Fouhy could have set the record straight, by citing the Kengor interview in the D’Souza film, and she could have written about the 600-page FBI file on Davis. But she decided not to. Perhaps she realized that the facts about Davis and Obama are not in dispute and that her best approach was simply to ignore them. This is not real “fact-checking,” but dishonest journalism designed to guarantee a second term for Obama.Four years ago, AP ran a story about Davis without mentioning the smoking-gun evidence that Davis was a Communist Party member. AP then called Davis a “left-leaning black journalist and poet” known for “leftist politics” and someone who might be accused by some of having “allegedly anti-American views.”

To School with Ya!

Joe Heller - Green Bay Press-Gazette - Back to College - English - Back to College, education, university, tuition

Thursday, August 30, 2012

Yes Women, It is your body!


YES!!! It is YOUR BODY and YOUR BODY is NOT MY RESPONSIBILITY to pay for the CHOICES YOU MAKE ABOUT IT.

This is MY BODY. I have taken care of it all my life, and have not TOLD YOU THAT it is YOUR responsibility to PAY for the CHOICES I have made! If it is YOUR BODY then YOU take care of YOUR body and do not expect OTHERS to be FINANCIALLY RESPONSIBLE for YOUR PERSONAL DECISIONS.

Purchase your own birth control as all of us who have come before you have done. It is YOUR BODY. If YOU do not want a child prepare yourself BEFORE you have sex. It is YOUR BODY and YOUR RESPONSIBILITY... NOT MINE. IF you are gay. Be gay. It is none of my business what you choose to do in your sex life. If you want marriage with a permanent partner in a church, then YOU CHOOSE a CHURCH that accepts YOUR BELIEFS. DO NOT FORCE MY CHURCH to CHANGE DOCTRINE for YOU! 

Breast cancer is NOT available at Planned Parenthood, I have been there for screening in 3 different states it was NOT AVAILABLE to ME. Your birth control pills ARE available at Planned Parenthood and have been since the 1980's. Don't be TOO LAZY to go there and get them or too lazy to take then as instructed. ABORTION is NOT BIRTH CONTROL, and if YOU ARE RAPED or FORGET YOUR BC PILLS the MORNING AFTER PILL IS AVAILABLE TO YOU! Don't be too LAZY or IRRESPONSIBLE to TAKE IT. TAKE RESPONSIBILITY for YOUR BODY! Your PERSONAL DECISIONS that YOU MAKE are not MY RESPONSIBILITY when it EFFECTS YOUR BODY! 

Silly women with silly arguments to shirk from the personal responsibility of YOUR BODY.

-Eve Twigger

Think About It



I Think


I think, therefore, I believe...



I believe, therefore I am Saved.



I think?

 I know...



- Mike Corthell
August 30, 2012

Built by Moroni?

Christopher Weyant - The Hill - We Built the Romneytron - English - Romney, We Built It, GOP, Republican, convention, robot, stiff, character, platform, Barack Obama, nomination, slogan

The Creature Challenging the Creator


creature


I think writers are often surprised at what shows up in their writing. In fact, it’s the rule in fiction – where the writer has characters determined to have their say – and in the best books plot their own course.
But the same thing happens in columns and essays. It even happens in political speeches.
“And the working moms who love their jobs but would like to work just a little less to spend more time with the kids, but that’s just out of the question with this economy. Or that couple who would like to have another child, but wonder how will they afford it.” [Transcript]Ann Romney did it in her convention speech; I’m quite certain. Early on in the speech, she was establishing a bond with her listeners, speaking to working women, wives and mothers. And the last sentence in one paragraph popped out at me:
That last sentence inadvertently exposed the 800-pound gorilla bouncing around America’s political landscape. And you would never have heard it at a Democratic political convention.
In the early days, children were a form of wealth. More kids meant more help on the farm. After industrialization, more kids meant more laborers to work in the factory. Both translated to more income for the household.
Today the same is true – for the Democrats’ constituency. More kids down at the welfare office equates to a bigger check each month. More food stamps. More government goodies.
The Republican constituency, which Ann Romney was addressing, isn’t financially enriched by more children. Quite the opposite. They ask if they can afford to have another child.
The reason they have to ask that question is quite simple: They are paying for their own children, plus all the other children dragged down to the welfare office by the Democrats’ constituents. They pay for the housing. They pay for the welfare check. They pay for the food stamps. They pay for the teachers and administrator in the public schools. They pay for the doctors and dentists the kids see. And when things go bad, as they so often do with one parent trying to do a two-person job, they pay for the police, the courts and the prisons.
Yeah. The parents worried about the cost of another child live inside a different paradigm than those at the welfare office, where “uncle” takes care of them.
Do welfare mothers love their kids? I’m sure the vast majority do. Is it likely that their children are going to grow up, get married and share a door propped up on two sawhorses as a desk while they go through college together? Perhaps it happens.
There is an old commodity-trader story about the investor who watched the carloads of eggs and wheat scroll by on his computer screen, and had no company beyond a tiny flea.
The trader, however, had mythical powers. One day the flea was chased by a mouse and complained bitterly to the trader. He promptly changed it into a cat. The cat in turn was chased by a dog, and the trader responded with oneupsmanship through several more species.
Finally he tired of the former flea’s constant complaining and changed it into a lion. The lion turned on the trader and devoured him.
Those who have received public benefits for generations have undergone the same development as that trader’s flea. They have now turned on the hand that fed them and demand to become its master.
Elections determine when this will happen. The middle class is where the money is, so far as the taxman is concerned. The poor contribute nothing, the rich have attorneys to hide their treasure, but the middle class pays and pays and pays. In this respect the taxman is much like Willie Sutton, who when asked why he robbed banks, responded, “Because that’s where the money is.”
The elites live in their cloistered communities, have their affairs handled by accountants and lawyers, listen to NPR and wonder how the world ever came to such a state. They push the same old, same old: higher taxes, more benefits and “education,” which in our age is indoctrination in “correct” political thinking.
The story of the creature challenging the creator predates history. Compassion needs to be carefully administered, lest it be mistaken for entitlement, and end in destruction for all.

Wednesday, August 29, 2012

And Prohibition Worked So Well!


Forty years ago, the United States locked up fewer than 200 of every 100,000 Americans. Then President Nixon declared war on drugs. Now we lock up more of our people than any other country – more even than the authoritarian regimes in Russia and China.
A war on drugs – on people, that is – is unworthy of a country that claims to be free.
The media (including Fox News) run frightening stories about Mexican cocaine cartels and marijuana gangs. Few of my colleagues stop to think that this is a consequence of the war, that decriminalization would end the violence. There are no wine “cartels” or beer “gangs.” No one “smuggles” liquor. Liquor dealers are called “businesses,” not gangs, and they “ship” products instead of “smuggling” them. They settle disputes with lawyers rather than guns.Unfortunately, this outrage probably won’t be discussed in Tampa or Charlotte.
Everything can be abused, but that doesn’t mean government can stop it. Government runs amok when it tries to protect us from ourselves.
Drug-related crime occurs because the drugs are available only through the artificially expensive black market. Drug users steal not because drugs drive them to steal. Our government says heroin and nicotine are similarly addictive, but no one robs convenience stores to get Marlboros. (That could change with confiscatory tobacco taxes.)
Are defenders of the drug war aware of the consequences? I don’t think so.
John McWhorter, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, indicts the drug war for “destroying black America.” McWhorter, by the way, is black.
McWhorter sees prohibition as the saboteur of black families. “Enduring prison time is seen as a badge of strength. It’s regarded (with some justification) as an unjust punishment for selling people something they want. The ex-con is a hero rather than someone who went the wrong way.”
He enumerates the positive results from ending prohibition. “No more gang wars over turf, no more kids shooting each other. … Men get jobs, as they did in the old days, even in the worst ghettos, because they have to.”
Would cheaper and freely available drugs bring their own catastrophe? “Our discomfort with the idea of heroin available at drugstores is similar to that of a Prohibitionist shuddering at the thought of bourbon at the corner store. We’ll get over it.”
The media tell us that some drugs are so powerful that one “hit” or “snort” will hook the user forever. But the government’s own statistics disprove that. The National Institutes of Health found that 36 million Americans have tried crack. But only 12 percent have used it in the previous year, and fewer than 6 percent have used it in the previous month. If crack is so addictive, how did 88 percent of the users quit?
If drugs were legal, I suppose that at first more people would try them. But most would give them up. Eventually, drug use would diminish, as it has in Portugal, which decriminalized all drugs, and the Netherlands, which allows legal marijuana. More young men would find real jobs; police could focus on real crime.
As I write in “No, They Can’t: Why Government Fails – but Individuals Succeed,” when the public is this divided about an issue, it’s best left to voluntary social pressure instead of legal enforcement. That’s how most Americans decide whether to drink alcohol or go to church every week. Private voluntary social networks have their own ways of punishing bad behavior and send more nuanced messages about what’s unacceptable. Government’s one-size-fits-all rules don’t improve on that.
“Once the principle is admitted that it is the duty of the government to protect the individual against his own foolishness,” economist Ludwig von Mises wrote, “why not prevent him from reading bad books and bad plays …? The mischief done by bad ideologies is more pernicious … than that done by narcotic drugs.”
If we adults own our own bodies, we ought to get to control what we put in them. It’s legitimate for government to protect me from reckless drivers and drunken airline pilots – but not to protect me from myself.

Tuesday, August 28, 2012

Simply Life








Simply Life

Better than money, better than fame,
Better than rank and titles -pride and shame,
It's a healthy body and a mind at ease,
And simple pleasures that always please.

A heart that can feel for the other's woe,
And share their joys with a happy glow;
With empathy large enough to enfold
All men as brothers, is better than gold.

Better than money is a conscience clear,
Though working for bread in an humble sphere,
Doubly blessed with contentment and health,
Untried by the lusts and cares of wealth, 

Lowly living and soaring thought
Dress and ennoble a poor man's cot;
For mind and morals in God's plan
Are the genuine tests of a steadfast man.

Better than money is a peaceful home
Where all the fireside members come,
The picture of love, the haven of life,
Completed by mother, brother, or sister, or wife. 

However humble the home may be,
Or tried with heartache by heaven's decree,
The blessings that never were bought or sold,
And live there, are better than gold. 

Michael
August 28, 2012

Atheists (like Vampires) Hate the Cross (and for the Same Reason)


The cross of Christ is offensive and a symbol of death to those who are perishing, but it is a symbol of resurrection and life to those of us who have accepted Jesus as our Savior. There is no clearer example of this biblical truth than the outrage expressed by David Silverman of American Atheists over a girder in the shape of a cross from the vicious Islamist jihad attack on America of Sept. 11, 2001.
American Atheists has sued the memorial, claiming that the display of this cross, formed from molten steel as the World Trade Center buildings collapsed killing thousands, offends atheists and violates the “separation of church and state.” Such a claim is nonsense, of course, but it shows the depth of hatred that atheists have toward any public expression of Judeo-Christian symbols.
Many of my mother’s lawsuits were more than outrageous; they were ludicrous, such as the one filed to bar astronauts from praying while in orbit in outer space. David Silverman has followed her example of extremism with the current lawsuit against the National September 11 Memorial & Museum.American Atheists’ hatred of the cross and Christianity is long standing from the days of the organization’s founding by my Marxist mother, Madalyn Murray O’Hair, who for decades proudly billed herself as the “most hated woman in America.” Her anger against God and the free-enterprise system at one point led her to attempt to defect to the Soviet Union. This hatred for God eventually led her to file one of the lawsuits leading to the removal of prayer from this nation’s public schools.
The steel beam cross Silverman and his group find so offensive is but one of more than 1,000 other artifacts on display in the Museum from the 9/11 Islamist attack, and it is not even on display yet. In 2011, this same group expressed outrage over a New York City street sign that honored seven firefighters who died trying to save lives on that horrific day of the jihadist attack. The sign said “Seven In Heaven Way.”
American Atheist leader David Silverman opposed the street sign then because it “implies that heaven actually exists. … Heaven is a specifically Christian place. For the city to come up and say all those heroes are in heaven now, it’s not appropriate.” Apparently certain words such as “heaven” are now off limits in public usage even as a street name.
The American Atheists in 2005 filed a lawsuit that ultimately forced the state of Utah to remove from along its highways the memorials to fallen state troopers. Beside removing the memorials to the officers, the courts ordered the state of Utah to give American Atheists $338,000 for being “offended” by the sight of the crosses marking where the troopers had died!
The atheists’ offense at the cross continues unabated.
Never deterred by logic or the Judeo-Christian heritage of our nation, the American Atheists are now claiming that the display of the 9/11 memorial cross is causing them physical and emotional trauma. They have actually claimed in their lawsuit that the existence of the cross has caused them headaches, indigestion and mental pain. They demand that the museum build them a 17-foot high “A” to honor atheists, or else remove the cross – despite the fact that the museum is a private, not a public, entity.
Lawyers for the 9/11 memorial say that the cross “comprises a key component of the retelling of the story of 9/11, in particular the role of faith in the events of the day and, particularly, during the recovery efforts. … [the 9/11 Memorial Museum] is “not in the business of providing equal time for faiths, we are in the business of telling the story of 9/11 and the victims of 9/11.” The museum has asked the Court to dismiss the case brought by the cross-hating atheists.
The atheists’ claims of being damaged because of being offended may be ridiculous but they are also a serious concern, because courts have astonishingly in the past found in our Constitution the “right not to be offended,” although it appears nowhere in that document. In some cases, displays honoring Christian faith have been removed from public view because atheists found them “offensive.” The danger with any court or other legal entity agreeing with this argument granting the right “not to be offended” is that free speech is eliminated.
The right “not to be offended” and free speech are not compatible. There can be no free speech in a nation where it is against the law to be of offense to anyone. This is clearly demonstrated in Europe, where even well-known individuals have been threatened with jail or actually imprisoned for offending groups such as Muslims or homosexuals.
Silverman and his American Atheists’ attack on the cross at the 9/11 museum represents more than a war against Christianity; it is a war against religious freedom and free speech. The war against Christianity and free speech continues unabated, with American Atheists being just one of many organizations that want to rob Americans of their “first liberty.”

No Murder

No Murder


(Starting from one extreme, some radical feminists appear to believe that most if not all sex involving a man and a woman is a rape. The man is always the perpetrator, and the woman, a victim. Clearly, there are activities that are not forcible rape and do not involve the same emotional reaction, but are still not legitimate. These would include statutory rape, “date rape” and seduction. To suggest that a woman ‘s dress or behavior might in some cases have contributed is, of course, unacceptable. At the other extreme, radical Muslims appear to believe that rape rarely if ever occurs, and that all non-marital contact between a man and a woman is illegitimate and the fault of the temptress. From the fury directed at Akin, you’d think he had advocated Shariah law and “honor” killings.)

Monday, August 27, 2012

RIP Neil Armstrong


Silent Moon

['He said he actually said, That's one small step for 'a' man']

Earth's Ideological Virus


In 1963 Buckminster Fuller, a philosopher, systems engineer and inventor of the Geodesic Dome, wrote a book called, “Operating Manual for Spaceship Earth.” The idea caught on that the earth was like a spaceship with a limited amount of resources that we must manage. Later on scientists came up with the phrase, “Extinction Level Event,” of “Mass Extinction Level Event,” which describes an event like asteroid impact, thermonuclear war or biological warfare that could make mankind extinct. I believe every human being alive on Spaceship Earth, is about to experience a “Mass Extinction Level Event” in the near future. Unless, immediate changes are made, life as we know it on Space Ship earth will cease to exist.
The greatest threat to mankind is something similar to a powerful virus, manufactured in a biological warfare laboratory. This kind of virus is as contagious, as the plague in the movie, “Contagion.” However, this kind of virus can only be described as an ideological virus that infects the human mind and kills most of its victims, without them realizing it. The passengers of Space Ship earth have been exposed to an ideological virus. This deadly ideological virus is called Communism, humanism and atheism, they genetically bond together. But, there is an even more deadly pathogen behind this virus and it the ideological virus of an occult-based elite, which uses Communism as a tool to enslave mankind. Unless you are aware of the primary pathogen, which is the ideological plague of an occult-based elite, you cannot destroy the ideological virus. It is not an accident that the international bankers, who are spreading this virus, are not Communists themselves. They simply use Communism because they can control the masses in a totalitarian state, promising the lies of wealth redistribution and social justice.
Karl Marx, the author of the “Communist Manifesto,” was not an atheist! Marx was a practicing Satanist, who attended a Satanic church regularly. Adolph Hitler, although called a fascist, was the head of the National Socialist Party. Hitler and all of his top leaders were deeply involved in the occult and Satanism. The Third Reich was a front for secret occult societies like the Thule Society and the Vril Society. Again, this is not an accident!
The uneducated masses, as well as the intellectuals can be brainwashed into accepting these ideological viruses. The famous Communist leader, Lenin called the intellectuals “useful idiots.” Like most of the top Communist leaders, he understood that the illusion of Communism was a tool for revolution and establishment of a totalitarian government. Lenin understood that the real power behind Communism came from the Illuminati, the secretive occult society of the world’s most powerful families. In fact, the “Communist Manifesto,” is taken word for word for word, from the Illuminati Manifesto, which was written by the Illuminati, an occult and Satanic group.
If you want to understand what is really going on with global economic and crisis, you must understand the Illuminati motto, “Order out of Chaos.” The strategy for Communist revolution simply gives it a new name, “manufactured crisis.”
After World War II, the U.S is in competition with Nazi, scientists who are experts in rocketry and scientific mind control. Project Paperclip is initiated. The U.S. State Department, Army intelligence, and the CIA recruit Nazi scientists and offer them immunity and secret identities in exchange for work on top secret government projects in the United States. However, many of these Nazi, scientists brought their occult beliefs with them.
In reaction, to highly aggressive mind control developments by the Soviet Union, the CIA begins to start research projects into in mind control programs. "The MK ULTRA program was a covert behavior modification program run by the CIA in the early 1950s - with the purpose of finding ways to make men more suggestible - and involving the use of pain, drugs and hypnosis on unsuspecting human guinea pigs.
I am not an advocate of L. Ron Hubbard, the founder of Scientology. However, In 1951 before he started the religion of Scientology, he wrote a book called, “The Science of Survival,” where he accused the CIA of using the Nazi brainwashing formula of “pain-drug-hypnosis.” This technique was being used by Communist countries and eventually North Korea, on U.S. prisoners of war.
The primitive brainwashing techniques developed by the Nazi scientists and used by many nations, have evolved into the science of highly sophisticated mass mind control. The Illuminati uses more seductive mass mind control techniques. Aldous Huxley began talking about this before Hubbard. Using a combination manufactured crises, drugs, various media and subliminal programming. Many nations around the world control their citizens with these techniques.
This is the deadliest component of all in spreading an ideological virus. The victim does not know that he or she is under mind control. In the United States and many other nations, the overwhelming majority of citizens are under the influence of scientific mind control. They are living in a trance state. Without knowing it, they can no longer think logically or independently. Also, they have been dumbed down so that they do not know history or many other subjects that would help them think independently.
In America, we are facing one of the most important elections in our nation’s history. The choice is not between two candidates, but two entirely different world views. However, this election is just a small part of a bigger problem. The passengers of Space Ship earth have been infected with a deadly ideological virus, which will eventually kill off everyone, including the elite. There are various ways to cure this virus and strengthen the immune system. One way is to have a truly Biblical world view and there are other ways. But, these antidotes are hard to find. For example the Christianity we see in America and other nations, have already been infected with the ideological virus, but they have bonded their DNA to it. The same problem exists for the other ways. We are moving towards a Mass Extinction Level Event. Will we wake up in time?

Sunday, August 26, 2012

Silent Moon


Silent Moon




One night as little Neil lay strong asleep,
Into his drowsy eyes
A great still light began to creep
From out of silent skies.

It was the harvest moon's, for when
He raised his dreaming head,
It's surge of silver filled the pane
And streamed across his bed.

So, for a while, each gazed at each-
Young Neil and the solemn moon-
Till, climbing slowly on it's way,
It vanished, and was gone.

Michael
August 26, 2012

Neil Armstrong, Dead at 82



Neil Armstrong, the astronaut who marked an epochal achievement in exploration with “one small step” from the Apollo 11 lunar module on July 20, 1969, becoming the first person to walk on the moon, died Aug. 25 in the Cincinnati area. He was 82.
His family announced the death in a statement and attributed it to “complications resulting from cardiovascular procedures.”
A taciturn engineer and test pilot who was never at ease with his fame, Mr. Armstrong was among the most heroized Americans of the 1960s Cold War space race. “That’s one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind,” he is famous for saying as he stepped on the moon, an indelible quotation beamed to a worldwide audience in the hundreds of millions.
Twelve years after the Soviet satellite Sputnik reached space first, deeply alarming U.S. officials, and after President John F. Kennedy in 1961 declared it a national priority to land an American on the moon “before this decade is out,” Mr. Armstrong, a former Navy fighter pilot, commanded the NASA crew that finished the job.
His trip to the moon — particularly the hair-raising final descent from lunar orbit to the treacherous surface — was history’s boldest feat of aviation. Yet what the experience meant to him, what he thought of it all on an emotional level, he mostly kept to himself.
Like his boyhood idol, transatlantic aviator Charles A. Lindbergh, Mr. Armstrong learned how uncomfortable the intrusion of global acclaim can be. And just as Lindbergh had done, he eventually shied away from the public and avoided the popular media.
In time, he became almost mythical.
Mr. Armstrong was “exceedingly circumspect” from a young age, and the glare of international attention “just deepened a personality trait that he already had in spades,” said his authorized biographer, James R. Hansen, a former NASA historian.
In an interview, Hansen, author of “First Man: The Life of Neil A. Armstrong,” cited another “special sensitivity” that made the first man on the moon a stranger on Earth.
“I think Neil knew that this glorious thing he helped achieve for the country back in the summer of 1969 — glorious for the entire planet, really — would inexorably be diminished by the blatant commercialism of the modern world,” Hansen said.
“And I think it’s a nobility of his character that he just would not take part in that.”
A love of flying
The perilous, 195-hour journey that defined Mr. Armstrong’s place in history — from the liftoff of Apollo 11 on July 16, 1969, to the capsule’s splashdown in the Pacific eight days later — riveted the world’s attention, transcending cultural, political and generational divides in an era of profound social tumult and change in the United States.
As Mr. Armstrong, a civilian, and his crewmates, Air Force pilots Edwin E. “Buzz” Aldrin Jr. and Michael Collins, hurtled through space, television viewers around the globe witnessed a drama of spellbinding technology and daring. About a half-billion people listened to the climactic landing and watched a flickering video feed of the moonwalk.

Moon Man


Neil Alden Armstrong
August 5, 1930 - August 25, 2012

Saturday, August 25, 2012

A Nuclear Iran Will Destroy America


Early this morning, I was sitting in a Jewish delicatessen sipping on a cup of coffee and in the booth next to me were three elderly Jewish men, all pontificating about Israel.
One in particular was expressing the view that the “religious right” in Israel has too many “rights” and needed to be forced – given their previous military exemption and the Israeli Supreme Court’s recent decision removing this exemption – to serve in the Israel Defense Forces, or IDF. This is a major issue these days in the Jewish state – tearing apart the thinly held, and at one time unanimous, government coalition of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at a time that complete solidarity is important – particularly over the Iranian nuclear threat. So, given the interest of these morning “kibitzers” toward Israel’s defense, I thought that I would interject and take one of my informal polls. As both a Jew and a Christian, and, yes, as a proud Zionist, I take a special interest in the wellbeing and defense of Israel, the place – the cradle of civilization – where Moses, King David and Jesus was born and carried out the will of the Lord.
Hearing this, I chuckled and added, “This means nothing. Hitler, for instance was part Jewish from his father’s family. And what about Karl Marx and Leon Trotsky? They were all self-hating Jews and severely harmed our people.” This ended the brief conversation, as all three liberal gentlemen turned red and then tersely told me to shut up. Wanting to have the last word, I concluded: “Well, in my view Obama sees himself as Muslim, and he is no friend to the Jewish people, but sympathizes with and supports their Muslim adversaries, Iran in particular. Do you want another Holocaust? Think about it.” I then got up and left.Politely, I turned my attention to these gentlemen and said in a friendly tone, “I see you are concerned about Israel. I am, too. And like you, I am also Jewish. Tell, me how do you feel about the way that Obama has treated Israel.” In response, the younger of the kosher trio shot back, “I think Obama has been a great friend of Israel! And what about Rahm Emmanuel having been his chief of staff!”
Indeed, and ironically, self-hating Jews, in addition to anti-Semites from other walks of life, have throughout history been among the worst enemies of the Jewish people. Just yesterday, for instance, it was reported by a number of news sources, including WND, that President Barack Hussein Obama and his anti-Semitic and anti-Christian minions have cleverly fashioned a coalition of “Rabbis for Obama,” led by rabbi Lynn Gottlieb, as obvious cover for his not too latent anti-Semitism, hostile actions toward Israel and the political fallout among those concerned Jews who previously voted for Obama. In response, the Republican Jewish Coalition, or RJC, predictably issued a press release titled, “Obama Campaign Embraces Radical Rabbi: She Meets with Ahmadinejad, Travels to Iran, Serves on the Board of Organization ADL Calls A ‘Top Ten Anti-Israel Group.’”
The RJC then went on to underscore, in relatively mild and weak prose, that “(b)y promoting and showcasing Rabbi Gottlieb as one as one of President Obama’s supporters, the Obama campaign lends legitimacy and credibility to a rabbi whose extreme views are well beyond the mainstream of the Jewish community and the mainstream of America. … (T)here can only be two explanations for her inclusion in the list: 1.) the Obama campaign failed to properly vet the rabbis on their official list, or 2) they did properly vet the rabbis and chose to ignore Rabbi Gottlieb’s radical views.”
This overly mild if not disingenuous reaction to Obama’s embrace of persons like self-hating, anti-Semitic Rabbi Gottlieb underscores the lack of fortitude in the Republican Party, even among its own Jews, and helps explain why the “mullah in chief” has been given virtual free political reign by the so-called opposition party to subvert the interests of the Jewish state and run interference instead for Tehran. The bottom line is (and the RJC should have proclaimed it straight up): “By the selection of Rabbi Gottlieb and these other leftist rabbis, President Obama has again revealed that he is no friend of and in fact a foe of the Jewish people, Christians, people of true faith and others who stand with Israel’s right to exist. That is the only explanation, given Obama’s other conduct toward and against Israel during his presidency!”
And as for the presumptive nominees of the Republican Party for the offices of the president and vice president, Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan, neither will unequivocally state – even when asked point blank by political conservative commentators like Sean Hannity on Fox News – whether they, if elected, will order the United States military to join with the IDF to destroy the Iranian nuclear facilities.
But Republicans have not only been weak in opposing Obama on Israel and Iran and blunting his anti-Semitic and anti-Christian actions in general, they also furthered the interests of Iran during the presidency of George W. Bush. Just last Sunday, it was reported by the New York Times and others that the Shiite government of Iraq, through Iraqi banks and other institutions, has been aiding and abetting Iran to evade U.S. and U.N. sanctions
By sacrificing the lives of the American military – more than 4,000 have been killed and well over 45,000 severely wounded and maimed to create a so-called democracy in Iraq, one that is controlled by Shiite Muslims loyal not to us but to their Shiite brothers in Tehran – George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and their brain-dead advisers like Condoleezza Rice created a monster. Not even dead Iraqi strongman Saddam Hussein, who was Sunni, would have helped the mullahs in Tehran by providing financial and other support to Iran, in which aid is obviously furthering the Islamic terrorist state’s nuclear bomb capability.
It, therefore, has become clear to all: Not only Israel, but American Jews, Christians and even our brave servicemen have been sold out by the establishments of both political parties. And now all of us are on the verge of even paying a greater price for their actions and inactions.
A nuclear Iran is a dagger in our side and more than a threat to our survival. God save the United States and Israel!

MicroShit Powered


Bill Gates Helps
Reinvent the Toilet

Friday, August 24, 2012

1492: Native Americans Discover Europe


Key Note


Obama is an Antichrist (by definition)


Is it critical that the president be a Christian? As a Christian myself, I will be honest with you and say I would prefer it. But I am also aware of the fact that we have had non-Christian presidents in the past – probably some great ones.
Last week I wrote about Dinesh D’Souza’s remarkable story about helping Barack Obama’s alleged half-brother, George.


But there’s something else about the story that reaffirms a point I have made previously – a point few others are willing to make publicly.
I’m not just referring to his utter lack of compassion for someone he claims is his brother. I’m talking more specifically about the very words Obama has used years ago in a campaign appearance to explain his “conversion.”Barack Obama is simply not a Christian, as he claims.
First a little background.
George Obama called D’Souza for financial help when his son needed emergency surgery. He had met the author and scholar while D’Souza was filming his movie “2016.” After assuring George Obama he would send him the $1,000 he desperately needed, D’Souza asked, “Why are you coming to me?” His response, “I have no one else to ask.” D’Souza writes: “Then he said something that astounded me, ‘Dinesh, you are like a brother to me.’”
D’Souza, of course, found this statement astonishing – especially since Barack Obama claims George as his brother. D’Souza points out in his column that one of Obama’s favorite campaign phrases is, “We are our brother’s keeper.”
Yet, the context of Obama’s use of this phrase is never mentioned.
Here’s the way Obama used it most famously, explaining his claimed conversion to Christianity: “I’m a Christian by choice. My family didn’t – frankly, they weren’t folks who went to church every week. And my mother was one of the most spiritual people I knew, but she didn’t raise me in the church. So I came to my Christian faith later in life, and it was because the precepts of Jesus Christ spoke to me in terms of the kind of life that I would want to lead – being my brothers’ and sisters’ keeper, treating others as they would treat me.”
So what’s my problem with that statement?
For starters, Jesus never used the phrase about being my brother’s keeper. Even a third-grade Sunday school child would recognize it from the Bible. But the words never came out of Jesus’ mouth. The only person who ever said anything like that in the Bible, of course, was Cain, after murdering his brother, Abel.
Genesis 4:9: “And the LORD said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy brother? And he said, I know not: Am I my brother’s keeper?”
Obama is not his brother’s keeper any more than Cain was – as he has proved by his lack of compassion for those he claims as family members.
Is this one of the key biblical phrases that inspired Barack Obama’s alleged conversion to Christianity?
Is this the Bible education he got sitting at the feet of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright for 20 years – a man who also preached that his infamous phrase, “G-d d— America,” is in the Bible?
More to the point, after four years of watching Obama’s governance, is there a Bible-believing Christian in America who accepts his sincerity about his beliefs?
To that last rhetorical question, I can only say, I sincerely hope not.
Why is this important?
Is it critical that the president be a Christian? As a Christian myself, I will be honest with you and say I would prefer it. But I am also aware of the fact that we have had non-Christian presidents in the past – probably some great ones.
But Obama is not one of them – not by a long shot. He will say anything and do anything to attain his radical, transformative objectives.
He is the proverbial wolf in sheep’s clothing. And his phony, insincere pretenses to Christianity are an insult to the faith of millions and to the Lord and Savior we serve.
Bottom line? If one see's himself as God, there is simply no room for God.