Saturday, January 26, 2008

Politics

Reagan Speech Writer: BUSH Destroyed the Republican Party!

by Robert R Barney

As I first declared in 2004 when I predicted a Bush win, Peggy Noonan is now saying that George Bush has destroyed the Republican party. I warned of this for 4 years now because I saw the George Bush was no Reaganite --- In fact, he isn't a conservative. There is more in common between the Bush's and the Clinton's than Bush ever had with any true conservative. When you listen to Rush or Hannity praise George Bush as a conservative beware! They themselves are not conservatives at all. They are apologists for BIG BUSINESS!

Here is what Noonan said:

On the pundit civil wars, Rush Limbaugh declared on the radio this week, "I'm here to tell you, if either of these two guys [Mr. McCain or Mike Huckabee] get the nomination, it's going to destroy the Republican Party. It's going to change it forever, be the end of it!"

This is absurd. George W. Bush destroyed the Republican Party, by which I mean he sundered it, broke its constituent pieces apart and set them against each other. He did this on spending, the size of government, war, the ability to prosecute war, immigration and other issues.

Were there other causes? Yes, of course. But there was an immediate and essential cause.

And this needs saying, because if you don't know what broke the elephant you can't put it together again. The party cannot re-find itself if it can't trace back the moment at which it became lost. It cannot heal an illness whose origin is kept obscure.

I believe that some of the ferocity of the pundit wars is due to a certain amount of self-censorship. It's not in human nature to enjoy self-censorship. The truth will out, like steam from a kettle. It hurts to say something you supported didn't work. I would know. But I would say of these men (why, in the continuing age of Bill Clinton, does the emotingcome from the men?) who are fighting one another as they resist naming the cause for the fight: Sack up, get serious, define. That's the way to help.

I think we must seriously consider did the Bush family and the Clinton family plan for all of this? Well if Jeb Bush ends up in Hillary's cabinet, then we will know for sure!

The Beast rising in Europe

Italy opens Benito Mussolini museum

A museum dedicated to Benito Mussolini has been opened in response to requests by German tourists.

Wednesday, January 23, 2008

Economics

The worst market crisis in 60 years

By George Soros

Published: January 22 2008 19:57 | Last updated: January 22 2008 19:57

The current financial crisis was precipitated by a bubble in the US housing market. In some ways it resembles other crises that have occurred since the end of the second world war at intervals ranging from four to 10 years.

However, there is a profound difference: the current crisis marks the end of an era of credit expansion based on the dollar as the international reserve currency. The periodic crises were part of a larger boom-bust process. The current crisis is the culmination of a super-boom that has lasted for more than 60 years.

Boom-bust processes usually revolve around credit and always involve a bias or misconception. This is usually a failure to recognise a reflexive, circular connection between the willingness to lend and the value of the collateral. Ease of credit generates demand that pushes up the value of property, which in turn increases the amount of credit available. A bubble starts when people buy houses in the expectation that they can refinance their mortgages at a profit. The recent US housing boom is a case in point. The 60-year super-boom is a more complicated case.

Every time the credit expansion ran into trouble the financial authorities intervened, injecting liquidity and finding other ways to stimulate the economy. That created a system of asymmetric incentives also known as moral hazard, which encouraged ever greater credit expansion. The system was so successful that people came to believe in what former US president Ronald Reagan called the magic of the marketplace and I call market fundamentalism. Fundamentalists believe that markets tend towards equilibrium and the common interest is best served by allowing participants to pursue their self-interest. It is an obvious misconception, because it was the intervention of the authorities that prevented financial markets from breaking down, not the markets themselves. Nevertheless, market fundamentalism emerged as the dominant ideology in the 1980s, when financial markets started to become globalised and the US started to run a current account deficit.

Globalisation allowed the US to suck up the savings of the rest of the world and consume more than it produced. The US current account deficit reached 6.2 per cent of gross national product in 2006. The financial markets encouraged consumers to borrow by introducing ever more sophisticated instruments and more generous terms. The authorities aided and abetted the process by intervening whenever the global financial system was at risk. Since 1980, regulations have been progressively relaxed until they have practically disappeared.

The super-boom got out of hand when the new products became so complicated that the authorities could no longer calculate the risks and started relying on the risk management methods of the banks themselves. Similarly, the rating agencies relied on the information provided by the originators of synthetic products. It was a shocking abdication of responsibility.

Everything that could go wrong did. What started with subprime mortgages spread to all collateralised debt obligations, endangered municipal and mortgage insurance and reinsurance companies and threatened to unravel the multi-trillion-dollar credit default swap market. Investment banks’ commitments to leveraged buyouts became liabilities. Market-neutral hedge funds turned out not to be market-neutral and had to be unwound. The asset-backed commercial paper market came to a standstill and the special investment vehicles set up by banks to get mortgages off their balance sheets could no longer get outside financing. The final blow came when interbank lending, which is at the heart of the financial system, was disrupted because banks had to husband their resources and could not trust their counterparties. The central banks had to inject an unprecedented amount of money and extend credit on an unprecedented range of securities to a broader range of institutions than ever before. That made the crisis more severe than any since the second world war.

Credit expansion must now be followed by a period of contraction, because some of the new credit instruments and practices are unsound and unsustainable. The ability of the financial authorities to stimulate the economy is constrained by the unwillingness of the rest of the world to accumulate additional dollar reserves. Until recently, investors were hoping that the US Federal Reserve would do whatever it takes to avoid a recession, because that is what it did on previous occasions. Now they will have to realise that the Fed may no longer be in a position to do so. With oil, food and other commodities firm, and the renminbi appreciating somewhat faster, the Fed also has to worry about inflation. If federal funds were lowered beyond a certain point, the dollar would come under renewed pressure and long-term bonds would actually go up in yield. Where that point is, is impossible to determine. When it is reached, the ability of the Fed to stimulate the economy comes to an end.

Although a recession in the developed world is now more or less inevitable, China, India and some of the oil-producing countries are in a very strong countertrend. So, the current financial crisis is less likely to cause a global recession than a radical realignment of the global economy, with a relative decline of the US and the rise of China and other countries in the developing world.

The danger is that the resulting political tensions, including US protectionism, may disrupt the global economy and plunge the world into recession or worse.

The writer is chairman of Soros Fund Management

 

NOTE: Soros is a major contributor to MOVEON.ORG and the Democratic Party..

Tuesday, January 22, 2008

Wars and Rumors of War

Why Russia Is Not Real Threat In The Long Run

.by Robert R. Barney

Russia is rearing it's ugly head. Russia is the Gog and MaGog in your Bible and will play a role in the future, but Russia is never going to become the threat to the world that many fear. Both the King of the North and the King of the South found in Daniel are the key to understanding future world events. This is not to say that Russia or China or even other nations will not go to war and be a menace to the world, but in the total scheme of things, we must watch events in Europe, and the Middle East. One man, Herbert W. Armstrong, repeatedly dared to declare—years ahead of the Soviet Union’s fall—that the USSR was not the power to fear. The real power to watch, according to him, would be another force: a ten-nation “United States of Europe” that would form in the years ahead. He said that Russia would remain a threat to the world—just not in the way most Westerners thought. Russia would combine economically and militarily with China, he predicted, to eventually create a gargantuan new Asian superpower such as the world has never seen.

We must not lose sight of what is happen in the Arab world and Europe, especially Italy and Germany. World War II was only a foreshadow of the world that is yet to come. Eventually, England will be booted out of the EU and I think will probably join into another economic group comprised of Great Britain, Canada, Australia, South Africa and the USA! France, The Netherlands, Denmark and Scandinavia may also be in this economic union (read What Modern Nations Makeup the LOST TEN TRIBES of ISRAEL. There are some mistakes in this, but the basic principal is correct)

I will have some other eye-opening stories in the coming months about general trends that we should be watching for. Unlike the scam preachers out there, I don't have any idea when the Kingdom of God is coming to Earth. I do know with certainty that it will happen in the future. Our jobs are not to predict when, but to be watching for the signs....

Other Armstrong predictions that came true:

Armstrong made these predictions in 1959 when I was only 4 years old!

CHINA is mentioned in end time prophecies as these “kings of the east”?

In April 1952, even while West Germany was rebuilding after being bombed to ashes in World War II, Armstrong predicted “Russia may give EastGermany back to the Germans and will be forced to relinquish her control over Hungary, Czechoslovakia and parts of Austria to complete the ten-nation union.” in 1955—over 41/2 decades before Eastern Europe split from the USSR: “Some of the Balkan nations are going to tear away from behind the Iron Curtain. Russia has lost already, to all appearances, Tito’s Yugoslavia. Russia probably will lose still more of her Eastern European satellites.” In May, 1968—seven years before the unconditional surrender of South Vietnam to communism he stated, “Bible prophecy reveals that not even America, with all of her nuclear muscle, can prevent Southeast Asia from eventually being overrun by communism.” source

Economic Woes

Today's Economic Woes - Depression Ahead?

Bank of America, Wachovia Profits Plunge

Stocks Plunge on Recession Fears

Fed Cuts Interest Rate 3/4 of a Point

Asia Stocks Fall, Extending Global Slump as Bear Market Spreads

Japan's Worse Crash in Stock 17 Years!

Asian Markets Extend Losses Amid Worries That US Is Headed for Recession

Friday, January 18, 2008

Ahmadinejad: Zionists are enemies of mankind

  Ahmadinejad: Zionists are enemies of mankind

AhmadinejadIran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Thursday said that Israel does not have the courage to launch any strike against Iran. The Iranian leader made this remark in an exclusive interview with Al-Jazeera news channel in response to a question on Israeli threats especially after test firing a missile Thursday.

 

He stressed that the "Zionist regime" would not acquire legitimacy through its threats. Ahmadinejad said this would not save it from the doomed collapse.

This illegitimate regime is doomed to rapid collapse, said Ahmadinejad. The Iranian nation would respond them and make them regret it, and they know this, he said.

 

The president said that the Zionists are a handful of criminals who are enemies of mankind.

Wednesday, January 16, 2008

7-year plan aligns U.S. with Europe's economy

7-year plan aligns U.S. with Europe's economy

Six U.S. senators and 49 House members are advisers for a group working toward a Transatlantic Common Market between the U.S. and the European Union by 2015.

"United States of Europe"

"United States of Europe" When?

Robert R. Barney

The above story comes as no surprise to me. As long as 30 years ago I realized that World War II was just the beginning of Europe's eventual idenity to be revealed. I was a listener to Garner Ted Armstrong, who together with his father Herbert W. Armstrong was predicting a United States of Europe in 1935! Then again right after WWII in 1945. They were scoffed at in 1965 when they said that the Soviet Union would not be the endtime beast government, and probably would collapse! They were right.

The following is an article from 1989 that was even at the time the same message as he gave in 1955, the year I was born. Read this and understand just what does Europe, the EU and Germany have to do with the Bible. It is fascinating!

Click on the link Below for the surprising facts about The EU and what it means to YOU!

Since the 1950s, I have been proclaiming that America will one day be stunned by the emergence of a new power bloc in Europe; that America and the Soviet Union would not go to war; that a reunited Germany would be pivotal to a future United States of Europe! Now, suddenly, the walls come tumbling down in Europe; governments topple in but days; the global news media begins frantically writing about the reunification of Germany; and from the White House to London, urgent meetings behind the scenes discuss the destabilization of Europe, the power vacuum in East Germany, the nightmarish economic, sociological and political problems for which no immediate solutions are evident. And everyone was so SURPRISED! But for me

Saturday, January 12, 2008

Oprah is Not What She Claims To Be

By Robert R. Barney

 

 

I made this prediction on RaceRap.Com, our sister site several weeks ago, as well as to my family and friends. I don't think many believed me because of the subject matter. The subject Oprah and her support of Barak Obama. I predicted that her endorsement would backfire and that voters would see this move for what it was. A black person supporting a black candidate only because he is black. That is the Plain Truth folks, and many angry e-mails being sent to Oprah agree with my contention. Even blacks are angered at Oprah in these e-mails and some are suggesting that Obama lost the New Hampshire because of the Oprah endorsement! I stated that this would happen the day after her endorsement on RaceRap!

Oprah Winfrey has made billions convincing WHITE America that she is color blind. She has the major media helping her make this imagine as a black woman, who cares about everyone regardless of color. It is just a fairy tale and most are just too afraid to expose it. Unlike Bill Cosby or Morgan Freeman who are "the real deal" Oprah is a carefully marketed "brand" invented with a bunch of hype and a dash of lies. Here are some exerpts from Salon.Com:
 By continuing to hawk "The Secret," a mishmash of offensive self-help cliches, Oprah Winfrey is squandering her goodwill and influence, and preaching to the world that mammon is queen.
 
 By Peter Birkenhead Salon.Com
 
 Why "venality"? Because, with survivors of Auschwitz still alive, Oprah writes this about "The Secret" on her Web site, "the energy you put into the world -- both good and bad -- is exactly what comes back to you. This means you create the circumstances of your life with the choices you make every day." "Venality," because Oprah, in the age of AIDS, is advertising a book that says, "You cannot 'catch' anything unless you think you can, and thinking you can is inviting it to you with your thought." "Venality," because Oprah, from a studio within walking distance of Chicago's notorious Cabrini Green Projects, pitches a book that says, "The only reason any person does not have enough money is because they are blocking money from coming to them with their thoughts."
 
 Here is some more quotes from the story:
 
 
 Oprah has areputation for doing good -- she probably has more perceived moral authority than anyone in this country -- and she has done a lot of good. But in light of her zealous support of a book that says, in this time of entrenched, systemic, institutionalized poverty, this time of no-bid contracts for war profiteers and heckuva-job governance, that "you can have, be, or do anything," isn't it reasonable to ask about why she does what she does, and the way she does it?  
http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2007/03/05/the_secret/
 
It is clear to me and any other honest person that Oprah Winfrey is the loser with her endoresement of Barak Obama, and she should be. She is not the person the media has made her out to be. She is Al Sharpton-but smarter

On the other hand black stars like Bill Cosby and Morgan Freeman are doing more to help sooth racial tensions in American than a thousand Oprah's could every do. They are geniune. They understand to rid America of bigotry all races must stop their "hiddden agenda's" and become just people. Morgan Freeman summed this up the best when he said, "I don't want to be thought of as the best black actor in America, I want to be thought of as a great actor." Color has nothing to do with it. Shamefully, Oprah is not what she claims to be.

 

YOUR HEALTH TODAY!

The Truth About Vaccines By World Renowned Scientist! SHOCKING VIDEO!! Merck Confesses that Cancer Virus is found in Vaccines

Friday, January 11, 2008

The Shocking Plain Truth About Mohammed and the Dome of the Rock?

The Shocking Plain Truth About Mohammed and the Dome of the Rock?

 

CBS won't tell you, ABC won't tell you, not even Fox News will tell you but the Plain Truth about "The Third Holiest Site in Islam" for Muslims is a 20th century HOAX! According to historians, Jerusalem's role as "The Third Holiest Site in Islam" in mainstream Islamic writings does not precede the 1930s. In fact the word Jerusalem NEVER appears in the Koran! Never! Mohammed was never there. Ther isn't one account of him being there until 1930! Why 1930? Well we all know that is about the time when many Jews fleeing Nazi Germany was starting to move back to the land of Israel and a move went out to try and prevent this from happening by inventing the story. Yes, the Muslims invaded Jerusalem and conquered it, built the Dome of the Rock, but they did so to commerate the story of Abraham and not Mohammed....


In the days of the Prophet Mohammed, who died in 632 of the Common Era, Jerusalem was a Christian city within the Byzantine Empire. Jerusalem was captured by Khalif Omar only in 638, six years after the Prophet Mohammed's death. Throughout all this time there were only churches in Jerusalem, and a church stood on the Temple Mount, called the Church of Saint Mary of Justinian, built in the Byzantine architectural style. And the Prophet Mohammed probably didn't ascend to heaven from the roof of a Christian Church!


Muslims in the 1930s knew that nationalist slogans alone would not succeed in uniting the masses against arriving Jewish refugees. They turned the struggle into a religious conflict. Muslims began calling  for a holy war. The battle cry was simple and comprehensive: "Down with the Infidels!" From the time Herbert Samuel appointed Haj Amin to the position of Mufti, Haj Amin worked vigorously to raise Jerusalem's status as an Islamic holy center. He renovated the mosques on the Temple Mount, while conducting an unceasing campaign regarding the imminent Jewish "threat" to Moslem holy sites.


The Moslem "claim" to Jerusalem is based on what is written in the Koran, which although Jerusalem is not mentioned even once, nevertheless talks (in Sura 17:1) of the "Furthest Mosque": "Glory be unto Allah who did take his servant for a journey at night from the Sacred Mosque to the Furthest Mosque." But is there any foundation to the Moslem argument that this "Furthest Mosque" (Al-Masujidi al-Aksa) refers to what is today called the Aksa Mosque in Jerusalem? The answer is, none whatsoever.


The Aksa Mosque was built 20 years after the Dome of the Rock, which was built in 691-692 by Khalif Abd El Malik. The name "Omar Mosque" is therefore a misnomer. In or around 711, or about 80 years after the Prophet Mohammed died, Malik's son, Abd El-Wahd - who ruled from 705-715 - reconstructed the destroyed Christian-Byzantine Church of St. Mary and converted it into a mosque. He left the structure as it was, a typical Byzantine "basilica" structure with a row of pillars on either side of the rectangular "ship" in the center. All he added was an onion-like dome on top of the building to make it look like a mosque. He then named it El-Aksa, so it would sound like the one mentioned in the Koran.

  
Therefore it is historically clear that Prophet Mohammed could never have had this mosque in mind when he compiled the Koran, since it did not exist for another three generations after his death. Rather, as many scholars long ago established, Mohammed intended the mosque in Medina as El Aksa, the "Furthest Mosque." This is another instance where religious reproof and instruction is being twisted for political gains. It is also clear that our modern day media will never tell you this!

Irony Can Be Ironic. Bill #666 to Outlaw Church!

Irony Can Be Ironic. Bill #666 to Outlaw Church!

LONDON - The beast of the Book of Revelation intruded into the banter of the House of Commons on Thursday when a motion calling for the disestablishment of the Church of England was numbered 666

Thursday, January 10, 2008

Kerry Snubs Edwards - HIS OWN VEEP Partner from 2004

By Robert R. Barney

     Is it just me, or does anyone else have a problem with John Kerry endorsing Barak Obama over his own Vice President nominee! As far as I am concerned this shows to me that John Kerry has absolutely no character and maybe those swift boat guys were honest after all. How can someone run for the Presidency of the United States with a running mate that he obviously didn't believe in? Or is it that he supported John Edwards before he didn't support him. I see why he is flip flop Kerry and should never be taken seriously. Most pundits considerate Edwards the better part of the ticket in 2004 and that Kerry himself was the problem.

     It galls me to see that a man who wanted to be President was willing to STICK to the American people a man who at a heartbeat away could have been our next President! Now we see that he didn't really believe in the man all along. That makes him nothing more than a liar in my eyes and I am even more thankful today that he wasn't elected President.

     This opinion has NOTHING to do with Barak Obama. I don't think he would be any worse than John Edwards --- BOTH ARE TERRIBLE socialist snake oil salesman. My problem lies with Kerry and Kerry alone. Until Democrats can start running reputable and ethical candidates, they will continue to be a party of liars and not worthy of any votes.

    Nancy Pelosi ran on a ticket of getting our troops home and this lie helped Democrats win both houses. They have never delivered on this promise. LIES LIES LIES.....

FOR MORE ON THIS VISIT:

http://news.aol.com/elections/story/_a/kerry-snubs-edwards-endorses-obama/20080110095609990001

Wednesday, January 9, 2008

Humor

Why did the chicken cross the road?
submitted by Frank Ruscus


DR. PHIL:
The problem we have here is that this chicken won't realize that he must first deal with the problem on 'THIS' side of the road before it goes after the problem on the 'OTHER SIDE' of the road. What we need to do is help him realize how stupid he's acting by not taking on his 'CURRENT' problems before adding 'NEW' problems.




OPRAH :
Well, I understand that the chicken is having problems, which is why he wants to cross this road so bad. So instead of having the chicken learn from his mistakes and take falls, which is a part of life, I'm going to give this chicken a car so that he can just drive across the road and not live his life like the rest of the chickens.




GEORGE W. BUSH:
We don't really care why the chicken crossed the road. We just want to know if the chicken is on our side of the road, or not. The chicken is either against us, or for us. There is no middle ground here.




COLIN POWELL:
Now to the left of the screen, you can clearly see the satellite image of the chicken crossing the road...



ANDERSON COOPER- CNN:
We have reason to believe there is a chicken, but we have not yet been allowed to have access to the other side of the road. And No, I am not Gay!



JOHN KERRY:
Although I voted to let the chicken cross the road, I am now against it! It was the wrong road to cross, and I was misled about the chicken's intentions. I am not for it now, and will remain against it.


NANCY GRACE:
That chicken crossed the road because he's GUILTY! You can see it in his eyes and the way he walks.



PAT BUCHANAN:
To steal the job of a decent, hardworking American.



MARTHA STEWART:
No one called me to warn me which way that chicken was going. I had a standing order at the Farmer's Market to sell my eggs when the price dropped to a certain level. No little bird gave me any insider information.


DR SEUSS:
Did the chicken cross the road? Did he cross it with a toad? Yes, the chicken crossed the road, but why it crossed I've not been told.




ERNEST HEMINGWAY:
To die in the rain. Alone, impotent



JERRY FALWELL:
Because the chicken was gay! Can't you people see the plain truth?' That's why they call it the 'other side.' Yes, my friends, that chicken is gay. And if you eat that chicken, you will become gay too. I say we boycott all chickens until we sort out this abomination that the liberal media white washes with seemingly harmless phrases like 'the other side. That chicken should not be crossing the road. It's as plain and as simple as that.
No this is not Bob Barney. Bob looks much older

GRANDPA :
In my day we didn't ask why the chicken crossed the road. Somebody told us the chicken crossed the road, and that was good enough.



BARBARA WALTERS:
Isn't that interesting? In a few moments, we will be listening to the chicken tell, for the first time, the heart warming story of how it experienced a serious case of molting, and went on to accomplish its life long dream of crossing the road.



JOHN LENNON:
Imagine all the chickens in the world crossing roads together, in peace.


[]
ARISTOTLE :
It is the nature of chickens to cross the road.

[]
BILL GATES:
I have just released eChicken2007, which will not only cross roads, but will lay eggs, file your important documents, and balance your check book. Internet Explorer is an integral part of eChicken This new platform is much more stable and will never cra...#@&&^(C% ........ reboot.




ALBERT EINSTEIN:
Did the chicken really cross the road, or did the road move beneath the chicken? C=M where C is Chicken. Therefore E=CC2????????????????????




BILL CLINTON:
I did not cross the road with THAT chicken. What is your definition of chicken?





AL GORE:
I invented the chicken!


COLONEL SANDERS:
Did I miss one?


DICK CHENEY:
Where's my gun?

AL SHARPTON:
Why are all the chickens white? We need some black chickens.

Sunday, January 6, 2008

BREAKING NEWS STORY

HYPOCRISY, THE PRESS and BARAK!

by Robert R. Barney

Once again it seems we have stumbled across some more hypocrisy in media land. Can you imagine John McCain, or even John Kerry for that matter belonging to an all White Church dedicated to the advancement of white people and the European continent? Doing a Google search I found what purports to be Barrack Obama's Church. Snopes.Com agrees that it is his church and here is some of the beliefs that his church holds. The website starts off with "We are a congregation which is Unashamedly Black and Unapologetically Christian... Our roots in the Black religious experience and tradition are deep, lasting and permanent. We are an African people, and remain "true to our native land," Other tenants that the website promotes about itself are:
A congregation with a non-negotiable COMMITMENT TO AFRICA.
A congregation committed to the HISTORICAL EDUCATION OF AFRICAN PEOPLE IN DIASPORA. (making themselves out to be like Jews)
A congregation committed to LIBERATION.
A congregation committed to RESTORATION.
The church has some commendable themes as well. For example they are Unapologetically Christian committed to Salvation (hopefully for non-blacks as well) but my mine theme here is that no White person, not even Hillary or Al Gore could belong to a church that preached "white" values.

Again, our news media has dropped the ball in exposing just what some people believe. They have no problem ridiculing what Mike Huckabee believes in, so theology is on the table! It is only Obama's faith that isn't questioned. I think that membership in this Church is not proper for a US Senator, not to mention a US President. Recently, we exposed what Mormons really believe in a story about Mitt Romney, it is only fair to do the same for Barak Obama

Here is the link, read it for yourself!


http://www.tucc.org/about.htm

Bhutto victim of Rice policy? -- This is what I told You 2 weeks ago!

Bhutto victim of Rice policy? -- This is what I told You 2 weeks ago!

by Robert R. Barney

Below is the link to a WorldNetDaily story blaming Secretary of State Rice and the Bush administration for Bhutto's death. This is exactly what I wrote about over two weeks ago now. (My former story is below the link). The number one reason why Bhutto was killed was American Foreign policy, or lack thereof. President Bush has been almost as bad as Jimmy Carter when it comes to understanding diplomacy and how America must react in the world today. He doesn't have a clue, and his EOE Secretary of Stae doesn't either!

http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59544

 

Subject: What Recent Events in Pakiston Really Mean
Date: December 27, 2007
Author:   Robert R. Barney 


By Robert R. Barney

One of the first articles I posted on the Plain Truth was entitled "Why Is The Middle East Always Going To Be In YOUR Future?" (see older stories below). If you take anything away from this web site, I hope it will be that war in the middle east will always be in our future, until the return of Jesus Christ. Mainstream media just will not report what the Bible says, but if we are wise we should understand that the Bible is the source for much of the news headlines that you will read in the entirety of your lifetime. The assassination of Bhutto today is just another example.

The question now is what does this mean? My family well remembers the rants that I was doing at the dinner table several weeks ago when President Bush condemned Pakistan for putting Bhutto in jail. I said at the dinner table that she would never live to see any election. I was right, not because I am some prophet but because I guess I still have an ounce of brain matter left-- something this administration either lost or never had. When our government condemned the Musharraf government it gave the green light to Arab terrorist to kill Bhutto in an effort to cause a civil war in Pakistan and bring Islamic rule to the ONLY MUSLIM NATION WITH THE A-BOMB!  Bush went to war to stop terrorist for gaining weapons of mass destruction, cost trillions of dollars and thousands of lives only to potentially hand the bomb over to the same terrorist in Pakistan.

When will we learn that "strong men" like Musharraf or Marcos in the Philippines or even Hussein in Iraq are sometimes the best allies we have! We gave Marcos the boot and today we have Islamic terrorist running all over the place after 35 years of peace under "strong man" Marcos. The same fate is probably the future for Pakistan. Time will tell if I am right, but if Musharraf is killed or forced to flee, Pakistan will become a terrorist Islamic ruled state with the BOMB helped immensely by our inept government. Unless we are willing to wage total war, as we did against Germany and Japan and then willing to put in millions of troops to keep the peace and place a Mac Arthur in to run that peace with a strong hand, we should never expect to "democratize" a people. It will not work. Will we ever learn from history?

World War III will happen. If it will happen in our day or not, I have no idea. I do know that the last World War will happen IN THE MIDDLE EAST and an end time World Government (called Kingdom of the North)  will clash with the King of the South (a Muslim controlled empire of Arab and surrounding nations). The seat and power of this world government will probably be Europe and not America. Russia and China will not be a part of the of the North or the South kingdoms but will play a vital role in the last war on Earth.

America needs to learn the lesson that George Washington tried to teach our young nation back at our nation's founding. We must stay clear of foreign entanglements and be self sufficient as much as possible. There will be no end to the violence in the middle east in any of our lifetime. We are at war with muslim fundlementalist and we must fight them whenever and wherever we can and stop them from trying to kill us. At the same time, we must learn from our past mistakes and fight a total righteous war against terror and seal our borders until this threat is lessened. I pray this will happen, but I fear it will not. America will someday become a former empire and will be broken up and scattered (lev 26) and be a nation no more.

THE MOST IGNORED STORIES OF 2007

THE MOST IGNORED STORIES OF 2007

Friday, January 4, 2008

Does Sharia Libel Law Now Apply in the U.S.?

Does Sharia Libel Law Now Apply in the U.S.?

Unless the U.S. Congress and New York legislatures act immediately to stop them, foreign terror financiers and libel tourists now can essentially impose sharia (Islamic) law on American writers and publishers...more....

Forget oil, the new global crisis is food

Forget oil, the new global crisis is food

A new crisis is emerging, a global food catastrophe that will reach further and be more crippling than anything the world has ever seen. The credit crunch and the reverberations of soaring oil prices around the world will pale in comparison to what is about to transpire, Donald Coxe, global portfolio strategist at BMO Financial Group said at the Empire Club's 14th annual investment outlook in Toronto on Thursday...more.....

Will Smith Was Right about Hitler

Will Smith Was Right about Hitler

Jack Engelhard

 

Sometimes it is not good to be the king.

 

Will Smith, the world's leading man at the box office, currently starring in I Am Legend, was all over the blogosphere, and not in a good way, after stating that "Hitler set out to do what he thought was good." Gossipmongers have tarred him as being sympathetic to Hitler, which teaches us, and certainly Smith, that fame is both a blessing and a curse.

 

Let's get to Smith's short but flammable quote, as it appeared in Scotland's Daily Record, before we get added to the list of his defamers: "Even Hitler didn't wake up going, 'let me do the most evil thing I can do today.' I think he woke up in the morning and using a twisted, backward logic, he set out to do what he thought was good."

 

That's what happens when actors go forth unscripted – but was Smith wrong? No, he was right.Name the tyrants and there they are, doing not evil but "good."

 

Adolph Hitler intended to blitz and burn every man and woman on this earth for the "good" of Nazism and racial purity, Aryan-style. Ditto Joseph Stalin for the good of communism – and the numbers are still coming in for China's Mao Zedong, Cambodia's Pol Pot and Cuba's Fidel Castro for the millions murdered in the name of the glorious Revolution.

 

Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is another advocate for peace in our time. (First, though, kill the Christians and the Jews.)

 

The assassin of Benazir Bhutto was surely a “Shahid With A Cause.” Bhutto's mourners decided against dignified remembrance (that is so old hat) and instead took to a spree of burning and killing throughout Pakistan as a means to express their love for their fallen leader. (That line from Cool Hand Luke keeps coming back: "Some men you just can't reach.")

 

Duck, for love like this does make the world go round – even closer to home.

 

Homegrown malcontents who profess universal love seldom testify at their weekly meetings, "My name is Bob and I'm an America hater." Rather, they proclaim their self-loathing sideways, by injecting subliminal codes such as Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo and waterboarding. Those key words do the selling.

 

(Memo to self-appointed moralists: We should be better than our enemies? Maybe we should be worse once in a while and then they'd leave us alone.)

 

Isaiah prophesied against the day when bitter will be called sweet and evil will be called good. Welcome. That day has arrived, and it is global. Orwell (as I've said before) only got the date wrong. The words "peace" and "love" now serve as antonyms. I run and hide when someone is introduced as a "humanitarian." In 1949, Chairman Mao established his "people's democratic dictatorship," a wonderful play upon words, and people.

 

Yasser Arafat, the founding father of modern up-to-the-minute terrorism, the media darling who inspired a generation of fanatics, was invited to the Clinton White House and awarded the Nobel Prize for Peace AFTER Leon Klinghoffer and the Munich Olympics. Arafat's fingerprints are on virtually everything that goes boom. When he died, the UN ran its flag at half-staff for the world's pioneering suicide bomber Mon Amour. (How useful are those 72 virgins when you're gay?)

 

Obviously, he must have been a "good man.”

 

Hitler's lieutenants meeting at the Wannssee Conference, January 20, 1942, were also “good men.” After all, they were only seeking "a final solution to the Jewish question." To their way of thinking, where's the harm in that? In fact, the minutes of that meeting reveal hardly any anti-Semitic outbursts, and the word genocide cannot be found. (Not on my search.)

 

No, it was all about TRAIN SCHEDULES. They weren't doing evil. They were doing BUSINESS.

 

Hannah Arendt, on Eichmann, already told us about the "banality of evil." I am sure that this is exactly what Smith had in mind. Smith later clarified himself for being so misrepresented: "Hitler was a vile, heinous killer responsible for one of the greatest acts of evil committed on this planet."

 

Consider, then, his original remarks as a forgivable first draft.

 

Thursday, January 3, 2008

How Supermarket Purchases Violate Your Privacy and Increase the Cost of Insurance

How Supermarket Purchases Violate Your Privacy and Increase the Cost of Insurance

Every Patient's Advocate Thursday, January 03, 2008

Every Patient's Advocate Thursday, January 03, 2008

It’s cold and wintery. Time to hunker down with plenty of comfort food and a toddy or two… and while we’re at the store, let’s pick up a bottle of aspirin, some stomach acid medicine, and maybe even plenty of dog food for the rottweiler…. A swipe of both your store’s loyalty card (gotta get those discounts!) and of course, your debit card to pay for your goods — and home you go to lay in for the weekend, read a good book, and max out on all that junk food and alcohol.

 Come Monday, your purchases, aligned with your identity, will be sold to a health insurer, or life insurance company, perhaps an auto insurance group…. and they will have that information to review should you contact them to make an insurance purchase. This, according to the Harvard Review.

Who’s selling the information? Either the supermarket or other store where you used your card, or the company that administers the program for that card. It’s one of their income streams. They make money from you AND whoever they sell information to. For the 50 cents off on that gallon of milk or can of chicken soup, you give away your privacy. How will it affect you? Well — suppose you purchase wine from the supermarket, then drink it at home that night. The next day you drive to work and someone broadsides your car. Later, in court, the defense brings up that fact that YOU purchased alcohol the day before the accident, so perhaps it was your fault? Or maybe you want to purchase life insurance.

The insurance company pulls up your records, finds out you have an affinity for doughnuts (even though you really bought them to take to work every Friday, how do they know you weren’t the one who ate all of them?), you’ve got a problem with acid reflux, plus the fact that you have a large dog (because you buy so much dog food so often) AND they notice that you never buy condoms (will they make a leap to STDs too?) — bottom line — they’d be glad to sell you life insurance, but the price will be higher than it might have been if they weren’t concerned by those unhealthy purchases you make….

What can a patient do to prevent this kind of big-brother approach to insurance? Stop using that loyalty card –at supermarkets, or any other store that issues them. And use cash, too. Gives new meaning to “follow the money” doesn’t it?

Wednesday, January 2, 2008

Oil Futures Rise to $100 a Barrel

Crude Futures Hit Record $100 a Barrel on Supply Concerns After Violence Breaks Out in Nigeria   CLICK HERE 

 

Commentary

Robert R. Barney

What does this mean?  It means that eventually, everything you buy is going to go up in price. Shipping costs are skyrocketing out of site. Some experts claim that a gallon of milk will be $7-8 by spring. Unless our government opens up American oil fields and break up the monopolic oil industry, we are going to see $5.00 gas by summer. Recession will follow. Here is my take. 2008 is an election year so don't be surprised if you see much more government involvement to get the price of crude under control... We will see soon!

Blog Archive