09 October, 2013
So JESUS takes his time going back to Bethany. By the time HE gets there Lazarus has been dead 4 days. Martha hears HE is coming and comes out to meet HIM, they have this conversation in verses 21-27 "Now Martha said to Jesus, “Lord, if You had been here, my brother would not have died. “But even now I know that whatever You ask of God, God will give You.” Jesus said to her, “Your brother will rise again.” Martha said to Him, “I know that he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day.” Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live. “And whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die. Do you believe this?” She said to Him, “Yes, Lord, I believe that You are the Christ, the Son of God, who is to come into the world.”" So Martha still has a little hope that everything will be OK, but even after JESUS tells her what he is going to do she isn't sure she understands him, it doesn't fit her understanding of the world.
So now JESUS and Martha are walking to the tomb, Mary hears that JESUS has come and runs to meet him. Verses 32, 33, 35-37 "Then, when Mary came where Jesus was, and saw Him, she fell down at His feet, saying to Him, “Lord, if You had been here, my brother would not have died.” Therefore, when Jesus saw her weeping, and the Jews who came with her weeping, He groaned in the spirit and was troubled. Jesus wept. Then the Jews said, “See how He loved him!”And some of them said, “Could not this Man, who opened the eyes of the blind, also have kept this man from dying?”" So JESUS didn't get in a hurry when they called him. Now, he is on his way to the tomb. HE has already told Martha what HE is going to do. But HE stops on the way to weep for someone HE knows will be alive in a few minutes. HE shared their grief right before HE ended their grief. Other people believed JESUS could have healed Lazarus but thought it was too late now.
When HE gets to the tomb HE asks Martha to have them remove the stone, Martha objects; but then obeys because she knows she can trust HIM even though HE came too late, after her brother died. HE then calls Lazarus out and he walks out alive.
Several things stick out to me in this story.
1. HIS time schedule not the same as ours. HE intentionally waited two days for Lazarus to die and start decomposing. That didn't make sense to them and still really doesn't make sense to me, but I know it was done on purpose and not accidentally.
2. It is only too late when HE says it is too late. They had seem HIM heal hundreds of people; but no one expected HIM to raise a dead man, that had never been done before.
3. When it seems like he is coming too late that doesn't mean he doesn't care.
4. HE cares and will weep with us when it is time to weep, then take away the need to weep. I would much rather HE prevent my weeping, or at least fix it first. But that is not always the way HE does things.
5. When you are in a bad spot and things look hopeless, know that HE cares and wants to fix it. Even when we can't see a way, HE can see things that we can't.
6. We can trust HIM even when we don't understand, or don't see anything changing.
25 January, 2013
Ever since Adam and Eve chose to reject GOD and his ways and follow satan's suggestions the world has been awash in sin. The price has been paid; but most reject the one who paid the price(JESUS), and even those of us who have decided to follow HIM sometimes choose to do things that are sin. This is an area that no government or any other entity can ever solve. The only solution is for HIS people to preach HIS gospel and for the people that hear it to choose to follow HIM. This is really 100% of the cause, the rest is just explaining some of the natural causes.
2. Psychotropic Drugs
In every virtually every instance that we have information on the killers have been on psychotropic drugs(ADHD, anti depressant, etc). These are serious mind altering(by intent) drugs. These drugs have supposedly been tested(by the drug companies), proven safe and effective, and approved by the FDA(a government agency that is hugely influenced by the drug companies). There are no third party, large scale, double blind tests on any of these drugs. There is lots of anecdotal evidence of serious issues, as well as warnings on the labels of the problems they can cause. Yet they are prescribed to thousands of children every day, and our "leaders" seem to think this is a good thing.
3. Family Breakdown
There are many studies on the breakdown of families in our culture(see 1 above). Our culture and government used to support families and now actively work to destroy them. When a child grows up in an intact home with a father and a mother the chances of them becoming a mass murderer are minuscule. When the father is missing by death, the odds go up but not by a whole lot. When the father is missing by choice(divorce, abandonment, mother's choice, welfare incentives, etc) the odds go way up. And the odds also increase with every generation of fatherlessness.
For 40 years now people have grown up knowing that killing children is a government approved activity, at least until shortly after birth. Do we really think that this does not impact the value that people place on human life? It has to have an effect.
5. Government Education camps
When we take large numbers of young people and put them under the authority of government schools for years there are lots of potential problems. First, you have a target rich environment for someone who wants to commit mass murder. Second, the system has a way of creating misfits and people who are ostracized by the various groups and need someway to express themselves, somewhere to fit in. Someway to make a splash.
6. Media Attention
When there is a mass murder and it gets 24/7 media attention for weeks with the perpetrator's name and picture featured prominently, do we really think this doesn't inspire certain people who want attention to do something to get their name in lights and draw attention to themselves? Does this mean it shouldn't be covered? No, but the coverage should be cautious about giving glory to the perpetrator. Do you realize that there are around 100 people killed on an average day in car accidents with no news coverage outside of a small area.
7. Video and TV violence
This has been frequently cited and I think it is certainly part of the problem. There is no way a young man can spends hours watching violent acts on TV and acting them out on video games without it having some effect on the way he sees the world.
Yes, if there were no guns in the world there would be less of these crimes. In the recent case in Massachusetts, if his mother did not own guns and had not shown him how to use them he would have had more difficulty in completing the murders. The flip side of course is that if there had been an armed good guy there, he MIGHT have been stopped much earlier.
Almost all of the media of the recent events has focused on guns and how to eliminate them. That is clearly impossible. And if my order of causes is even close to correct the availability of guns is a small part of the problem. If you look at gun deaths vs auto deaths it is very interesting. The total numbers are about the same on an annual basis, but there is no talk of car control. There are intentionally no good statistics of moral(self defense, home invasion, etc) vs immoral(murder, gang fights, etc) gun deaths. But since we know there are at least some deaths in which the bad guy dies and the good guy lives we absolutely know that cars are more deadly than guns. We can only guess at the rates of moral to immoral uses, or how many good guys and bad guys die from guns each year. So gun control won't stop the problem and has possibly already made it worse(disarming good guys).
Even more importantly if you look at gun deaths is that for every good guy killed by a gun, there have been thousands killed by government tyrants(Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc) over the years because the people were defenseless against them. For anyone to say that the 2nd Amendment(written by leaders of a nation that had just fought the world's greatest military power for their own independence using privately owned weapons) isn't about military type weapons is ridiculous at face value. That is clearly the reason for the Amendment. The good news is that many Americans understand this and are fighting back against more restrictions on gun ownership. As Vox Day said on his blog "The American people have made it eminently clear that even if 100 kindergartens are machine-gunned tomorrow, they'll pull their kids out of school and take them shopping at the gun store rather than disarm." I see that as a positive, you don't save the kids in the short or long term by giving up your GOD given right to protect yourself and your children.
The second purpose for the 2nd Amendment is for self defense against smaller scale thugs(robbery, murder, rape, etc). In this case statistics are clear. The states with the tightest gun control laws(Connecticut, Illinois, Michigan, New York, New Jersey, California) have the highest rates of violent crime. And more importantly as many states have introduced Concealed Handgun carry in one form or another their crime rates have gone down, while at the same time the states with more gun control have gone up.
So, what is the solution. The solution is the same as it has been for every problem since Adam and Eve. JESUS. Sin(rebellion against GOD) must be paid for, "the wages of sin is death(eternal damnation)." I have sinned and fallen short of the glory of GOD, so have you. I deserved eternal damnation, I owed the debt. JESUS came to earth to pay the price for me, and you. But you have a choice, you can accept that HIS death paid the price for your sin, choose to follow HIM and your sins are erased and you will spend eternity in heaven(and are very unlikely to ever be a mass murderer). Or you can reject his offer of forgiveness and try to get into heaven on your own good works(you will be rejected, you are guilty). Or you can actively choose to go to eternal damnation(bad idea).
04 December, 2012
Simply put the right to Secession is a GOD given right, as Jefferson put it in the Declaration of Independence (go ahead and read it, I will wait) governments exist to secure our GOD given rights. Government didn't give them and government can't take them away. None of our GOD given rights can be taken away by government, any law that takes them away is illegitimate because it violates a higher law.
Many people say that the secession issue was decided at Appomattox when Lee surrendered after the War for Southern Independence. Not true, losing the war did not take away the right to secede(the right comes from a higher source). Losing the war only proved that the north was willing to fight and destroy to keep their subjects in control. They may still be willing to do that. So, even if secession is not legal(that is not really decided) it is our GOD given right that we can exercise if we so desire.
So is secession a good idea? Maybe. We can look and see that there are drastic differences between states and regions in the way we think and believe. If we separate into smaller groups we would get the opportunity to see how well each way of governing works. The US is going down a road of borrowing and spending that cannot continue indefinitely. If Texas(which requires a balanced budget) left, we could avoid some(much?) of the consequences of the coming collapse. On the other hand, how many Texicans(or other groups of states considering secession) really are committed to the principles enshrined in the US and Confederate constitutions. If Texas one day had no(government forced) welfare system, unemployment benefits, etc; how would the people who lost those benefits respond? Would the peacefully accept the new standard, or would they fight to keep getting something for nothing? I think secession could extend the life as we know if for a while(maybe another 50 years). But I certainly don't think it would immediately solve the problems created by 236 years of growing intrusive government.
So what is the solution? Secession seems to me to be part of the solution. I think it would give us more time to put into place a true solution. The US was founded upon GODly principles. GOD's law works because he set up the world to work that way. If you follow HIS ways, you get his results. It is just like a car; if you operate it according to the owners manual, it will last longer and function better. GOD doesn't punish people who break his laws, HE warns you of the consequences of breaking them and then lets you make your own decision. As John Adams said " The change must occur in people's heart and minds or it won't work. People must understand that if you take something from someone by force and give it to another, that is stealing. People must understand that you cannot pass laws and make someone do the right thing, it must come from their heart. If we want to change our country we must first preach the gospel to those who think they know it but don't. When people have accepted JESUS as their Lord, they must learn to follow his ways. The founding fathers had studied history and knew that freedom under GOD was the only form of government that would work. If we want a government that works, it must start in people's hearts and flow out through their lives into their government and the world around them.
08 October, 2012
What exactly does conservative mean? What do we want to conserve? Typically most people take it to mean people that want limited consitutional government and nothing more. But is that really what it means? If the want to conserve constitutional freedoms in america they are about 230 years too late. Freedom immediately started being taken away as soon as the US constitional government was established. It has continued to be taken away step by step ever since. Sure there have been a few steps toward freedom in those 230 years, but very very few.
Think about what the word conservative means.
09 September, 2011
03 August, 2011
11 July, 2011
10 June, 2011
1. Is it going to just one person? (If yes, jump to #10)
2. Since it's going to a group, have I thought about who is on my list?
3. Are they blind copied?
4. Did every person on the list really and truly opt in? Not like sort of, but really ask for it?
5. So that means that if I didn't send it to them, they'd complain about not getting it?
6. See #5. If they wouldn't complain, take them off!
7. That means, for example, that sending bulk email to a list of bloggers just cause they have blogs is not okay.
8. Aside: the definition of permission marketing: Anticipated, personal and relevant messages delivered to people who actually want to get them. Nowhere does it say anything about you and your needs as a sender. Probably none of my business, but I'm just letting you know how I feel. (And how your prospects feel).
9. Is the email from a real person? If it is, will hitting reply get a note back to that person? (if not, change it please).
10. Have I corresponded with this person before?
11. Really? They've written back? (if no, reconsider email).
12. If it is a cold-call email, and I'm sure it's welcome, and I'm sure it's not spam, then don't apologize. If I need to apologize, then yes, it's spam, and I'll get the brand-hurt I deserve.
13. Am I angry? (If so, save as draft and come back to the note in one hour).
14. Could I do this note better with a phone call?
15. Am I blind-ccing my boss? If so, what will happen if the recipient finds out?
16. Is there anything in this email I don't want the attorney general, the media or my boss seeing? (If so, hit delete).
17. Is any portion of the email in all caps? (If so, consider changing it.)
18. Is it in black type at a normal size?
19. Do I have my contact info at the bottom? (If not, consider adding it).
20. Have I included the line, "Please save the planet. Don't print this email"? (If so, please delete the line and consider a job as a forest ranger or flight attendant).
21. Could this email be shorter?
22. Is there anyone copied on this email who could be left off the list?http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif
23. Have I attached any files that are very big? (If so, google something like 'send big files' and consider your options.)
24. Have I attached any files that would work better in PDF format?
25. Are there any :-) or other emoticons involved? (If so, reconsider).
26. Am I forwarding someone else's mail? (If so, will they be happy when they find out?)
27. Am I forwarding something about religion (mine or someone else's)? (If so, delete).
28. Am I forwarding something about a virus or worldwide charity effort or other potential hoax? (If so, visit snopes and check to see if it's 'actually true).
29. Did I hit 'reply all'? If so, am I glad I did? Does every person on the list need to see it?
30. Am I quoting back the original text in a helpful way? (Sending an email that says, in its entirety, "yes," is not helpful).
31. If this email is to someone like Seth, did I check to make sure I know the difference between its and it's? Just wondering.
32. If this is a press release, am I really sure that the recipient is going to be delighted to get it? Or am I taking advantage of the asymmetrical nature of email--free to send, expensive investment of time to read or delete?
33. Are there any little animated creatures in the footer of this email? Adorable kittens? Endangered species of any kind?
34. Bonus: Is there a long legal disclaimer at the bottom of my email? Why?
35. Bonus: Does the subject line make it easy to understand what's to come and likely it will get filed properly?
36. If I had to pay 42 cents to send this email, would I?
Chris Anderson has come up with his own list as well.
12 June, 2010
26 May, 2010
Another time I am proud of Texas. I think the metal detectors for the general public are a waste of time and money, but at least they are allowing CHL holders around the detectors.
Now if the KGB would allow this on airplanes we could have a little more real security and a little less pretend security.
04 May, 2010
28 April, 2010
Click the title to read the whole article.
26 March, 2010
I think we must resist tyranny by all available means, but we must realize that our battles may or may not change the end result. We must fight these battles for our times to fulfill our role in the short term. GOD may have called us to such a time as this to fight things that he has ordained will eventually happen.
22 March, 2010
1. Submit. Most people will say this law was passed by congress and it is our duty to submit. However, any action taken by the congress that violates the Constitution is invalid(no matter what the courts say). If we submit to this extra-constitutional invasion then we may never again have the ability to resist. Our freedoms to own firearms will be gradually taken away until we can no longer resist.
2. Fight in the courts. While the courts may well strike the law down that is far from certain. What if the SCOTUS says the law is constitutional? I think we should fight this battle, but don't expect to really win it.
3. Fight in the ballot boxes. All of the 219 "representatives" that voted for this bill are up for reelection in the fall, make sure they are all defeated(and any others who voted for any of the bailouts). Of course we should fight this battle, and we may win some battles I am not sure we can win the war this way.
4. Fight in the state legislatures. All 50 states have the authority and obligation to stand up to the federal government's intrusion. Most won't do so, but we can win some battles here. The tide at this level is turning in our favor. There should be serious discussion of secession due to this egregious violation of the constitution. We should hope for all 50 states to secede and form confederacies of states.
5. Fight individually. We must resist this bill in any way possible. We must refuse to submit, refuse to pay, resist with our lives and sacred fortunes is we really want to win the battle. We can easily win, but only if we are really willing to fight. Half hearted fighting will not produce freedom.
Much of the problem with our country is that many people want limited socialism(an oxymoron if there ever was one). Large percentages of people want government to control various entities(big business, car manufacturers, utilities, insurance companies, welfare, etc) and make them provide their goods for free or reduced prices with the features we want. You can not have a little socialism. By its very nature it will grow until it encompasses everything. You must kill socialism or it will take over. As long as we have a socialist mindset we can never win the war, we can only win battles along the way and hope for a mindset change in the future. You hope that people will see that socialism is an abject failure at every level. But covetousness makes us all want something for nothing(even when we know it is impossible). We must destroy the mindset of covetousness(it is one of the 10 Commandments, remember). Whatever government gives must have been taken(by force) from someone first.
25 January, 2010
09 November, 2009
27 September, 2009
10 September, 2009
Danger lurks everywhere. I’m not talking about health risks or economic downturns, I’m talking about human predators. Most people are good human beings, but there are some who are not. They are dangerous and hunt for victims. The good news is that you can keep yourself safe by following seven simple safety rules.
I’m a 4th Dan Karate Black Belt and learned these seven safety rules during eighteen years of martial arts training. The safety rules are simple, because as human beings, we have a built-in warning system that alerts us to predator danger. This warning system is called fear. Yes, fear is our greatest ally in keeping ourselves safe.
The problem is that our natural warning system has become blunted through easy living. We’ve lost our natural ability to keep ourselves safe. Before I guide you through the seven safety strategies, let me say something about a key safety issue.
Don’t be an easy victim
Predators always go for easy victims. I’m not just talking about big crimes, but also of daily aggression, such a bullying. I remember the time my son Sebastian came home from school and told me that he was being bullied by an older boy. Sebastian was seven years old at the time and had just started karate training. He grew up in a Zen household where peacefulness is valued, so he was confused about how to respond to bullying. Here is what he asked me:
“Mum, if someone hits me, do I just have to take it and not hurt them back?”
“Here’s what to do, Sebastian,” I said. “When the bully threatens you, stand up straight and hold both hands out in front of your chest, palms toward him, and say ‘stop!’ in a loud voice.”
“Why do I hold my hands like that?”
“The open hands in front of you show that you want peace, as well as warning your opponent not invade to your personal space. And, most importantly – you’ve got your hands in place, ready to defend or punch.”
“What? To punch?” His eyes grew round.
“Yes. You need to study your opponent carefully. Wait until he’s just getting ready to throw a punch. Then get in first and punch him on the nose. I promise he’ll never attack you again.”
Sebastian followed my advice. Next day he punched his tormentor just as I had suggested. The kids at school were impressed when they saw the big bully run away crying. I must admit, the headmaster wasn’t so pleased with my strategy, but Sebastian was never bullied again.
He reminded me of my advice a short while ago. “That wasn’t exactly what a peace-loving mother is supposed to say,” he said. “But it worked!”
Remember: never be an easy victim.
7 safety rules that can save your life
1. Be alert
I’m not talking about hyper-vigilance here. Just pay attention to what is around you. Think of all the times you walk around in a day dream, or preoccupied with your problems. Those are the times when you are in danger. Because keeping yourself safe is a matter of paying attention to possible danger and avoiding it.
Keep your wits around you at all times. That means avoid getting drunk or drugged. When you’re inebriated, you turn into an easy victim.
2. Use your senses
When our forebears still lived in caves, the senses were essential survival tools. Smell could signal the approach of a dangerous animal, or lead to a food source. Hearing could alert to a predator creeping up, ready to attack. Taste could discern poisonous food.
These days our sense are blunted and we’ve forgotten to use them in order to keep ourselves safe. Let me give you an example: many people walk through streets listening to music on their iPods. What that means is that someone can easily creep up from behind and attack. I suggest that you never listen to music while walking in order to stay alert to your surrounding.
3. Notice anomalies
Impending danger often shows up in anomalies. What I’m talking about is predators often behave in odd ways. Let me give you some examples. At the time of writing, I’m in Buenos Aires, which has a rising crime rate, due to growing poverty. At times, my partner and I have to walk though streets that are less than safe. Here are anomalies I watch out for:
* A couple or small group coming towards you whose attention is on you, and not on each other.
Normally a couple or a small group are focused on each other, talking and looking at each other. In contrast, predators hunting in packs are focused on possible victims.
* People lurking or loitering without visible reason.
Here’s an example: a few weeks ago my partner won a couple of thousand Dollars playing lotto. When he checked his ticket in the store, the win caused a bit of a stir and the store owner paid him out in cash. I quickly took stock of the situation and noticed that two of the guys who had been behind us in the queue were loitering outside the shop. So I immediately chose the back exit to get us home safely.
* People whose face or gait spells out severe mental illness.
Severe mental disturbance shows in the face and in the gait of a person. For example, a normal person uses diagonal movements when walking: we swing the left arm when the right leg moves forward, and so on. People with severe mental illness often walk with parallel movements, i.e., the right arm and right leg move forward.
Research has shown that we instinctively pick up such anomalies. Take note of your feelings of unease or fear and act upon them without delay. The best way to stay safe is to spot oncoming danger and avoid or evade it.
4. Avoid angry scenes and ugly crowds.
If you are at a club or a party and aggravation builds, leave the place immediately. If you are in a large crowd and the mood turns ugly, quickly move to the edge of the crowd and leave the area.
The word ‘immediately’ is a key to keeping yourself safe. Often you will be tempted to ‘wait and see’. Or someone will say to you, “You’re over-reacting!” To keep safe, you have to give your instinct for danger priority, no matter what others say, or what your mind thinks. Your marker for danger is fear. Take good note of any feelings of disquiet or fear and act upon them.
5. Keep together
I’m sure you have seen videos of lions hunting in the wild. They never attack the leaders of a herd. They attack the stragglers. Human predators follow the same strategy, they target people who are on their own. Make sure to keep up when moving across town with another person or a group. Don’t fall behind, and don’t get separated.
6. Look big and show confidence
I’m sure you’ve seen what cats do when they see a strange dog. They fluff up their fur and appear twice their size. If you sense danger, you need to do the same. Make sure your posture is upright. Let your arms swing by your sides but hold them away from your body a little in order to create a bigger profile.
If you are feeling threatened, walk fast and confidently. If you are lost in a foreign city, never stop and study a map under a street lamp – it marks you as a possible victim. It’s better to go into a restaurant or club in order to find your directions. Always appear in charge of your actions.
7. Treat people well
If you are aggressive or nasty to others, they may respond with aggression or even violence towards you. Your best defense against danger is to be a friendly and helpful person.
Safety is also heightened through knowledge. Make sure that you know which areas are dangerous and avoid them. Stick to larger streets with foot traffic, even if it takes longer to get to where you want to go.
If you follow these seven safety rules, you will have a good chance of keeping yourself safe. And they won’t make you into a nervous or suspicious person. Your heightened alertness will enable you to be more relaxed and less tense.
Finally, martial arts training – even for a short time – is a great way to learn not only how to defend yourself, but how to spot and avoid danger. It also gives you the self-confidence to know that you’re worth defending.
The unexpected outcome of good martial art training is that it turns you into a peaceful person. The ultimate key to safety is to radiate peacefulness whilst staying alert.
08 September, 2009
12 June, 2009
Blogs vs billboardsThe birth certificate controversy isn't the first time the old media has attempted to exert control over the public discourse and sweep inconvenient issues under the carpet. Nor will it be the first time they'll be unsuccessful in doing so. Who needs billboards when we've got blogs?
I'd encourage those of you who understand that the Certification of Live Birth produced by the Obama campaign is not the relevant birth certificate being requested and does not prove anything about where he was actually born to throw an electronic billboard up on your blog somewhere. I recognize it's entirely possible that Obama is, in fact, completely eligible for the Federal office he presently holds, but the indisputable fact of the matter is that we don't actually have any evidence that he is while we do know that the administration is going to unprecedented lengths to keep a very tight lid on a number of his records for reasons that remain unknown.
If you find it difficult to believe there is any difference between the document that has been provided and the one being requested, I suggest obtaining a Certification of Live Birth for yourself and attempting to use it the next time you are required to provide a birth certificate. The issue may ultimately prove irrelevant, but the difference is real. Those of us who have lived abroad for extensive periods are painfully aware of the significant differences between the various forms of birth-related documents.
"In order to process your application, DHHL utilizes information that is found only on the original Certificate of Live Birth, which is either black or green. This is a more complete record of your birth than the Certification of Live Birth (a computer-generated printout)."
05 November, 2008
Here is Vox's take on it.
04 November, 2008
This is notes from talks that my wife and I have given on nutrition and ways to get started. Just do one thing until you are comfortable with it and then move to the next step. Don't try to change your whole life at once, it probably won't last long. Make small permanent changes, then when you are ready make another small permanent change.
Baby Steps to Healthy Eating
1. Cut the Crap!
- Cokes (both regular and artificially sweetened)
- Anything fried in vegetable oil (French fries, chips, etc)
- Non fish seafood –especially fried
- Sweets-including artificial sweeteners, some of them are worse than sugar.
2. Drink lots of Pure Water
- God designed water for drinking.
- Avoid all processed drinks (cokes, sports drinks, fruit juices, pasteurized milk.)
- Limit tea-(green, herbal, and black), coffee, and alcohol
- Raw milk is good
- Beware of Contaminants (chlorine, fluoride, nitrates)
3. Eat Green Vegetables
- Color is a fairly good indicator of nutrition-Darker is better
- Green leafy vegetables are the best (spinach, kale, collard greens, etc)
- Raw is probably better than cooked
- Probably the only thing you can’t overdo
- Fruits are good in moderation
- Organic is best
- Exercising burns calories
- It makes your body function better
- Strengthens the immune system and brain
5. Eat Whole Foods
- If your great-grandparents didn’t eat it, it isn’t food
- Processing of foods removes nutrition, adds bad things to foods (sugar, MSG, preservatives, etc)
- Raw foods are good in many cases
- The less processing the better
- Some experts say grains should be avoided by most people
6. Eat Clean Meats
- God’s rules to the Jews were for their health benefits, not just spiritual rules
- Modern research has proven the wisdom of avoiding certain foods.
- God taught them to sacrifice internal and external fats, kidneys, and liver so the didn't eat them
- Antibiotics, hormones, and grain-fed animals make it less healthy
7. Eat Good Fats
- Many fats and oils are bad for you
- Others that you have been told are bad are really good
- Use history as a guide
- Coconut and Palm for cooking
- Extra Virgin Olive for cold use
8. Supplement Wisely
- Watch for synthetic vitamins
- Don’t use vitamins as a first line of defense
- Fill in holes in your diet
- Try superfoods
- Good digestive bacteria
- Avoid antibacterial anything
- Find natural remedies
9. Educate Yourself
- Medical doctors generally have almost NO nutritional training
- Much doctor training is funded by pharmaceutical companies
- Leviticus – by Jehovah Rophe
- What the Bible says about Healthy Living - by Rex Russell, M.D.
- The Maker’s Diet – by Jordan S. Rubin N.M.D., Ph.D.
- Dr. Mercola's Total Health Cookbook and Program – by Dr. Joseph Mercola
- The Great Physician's RX for Health and Wellness – by Jordan Rubin
- Rejuvenate your Life – by Serene Allison
A simple scientific experiment: Look around and see who's healthy
Let me invite you to look at a simple experiment here. If what organized medicine says is true, then you should be able to observe that people on drugs are healthy, while all the people taking herbs and vitamins are diseased.
Go park your car in front of a pharmacy and watch the first 100 people you see buying drugs, then ask yourself, "Are these healthy people?" Look at the way they walk, their energy and their posture. Do they look healthy? Then go park your car in front of a health food store and watch people entering and exiting that store. Ask yourself again: Do they look healthy?
If you do this experiment, you'll quickly find that the unhealthy people are the ones visiting the pharmacy. The healthy people are the ones visiting health food stores, which sell natural health products and supplements. Through this simple observation experiment, we can see for ourselves that conventional medicine doesn't make people healthy. Or, at the very least, we can say that the consumption of prescription drugs is strongly correlated with states of disease, while the consumption of health food store products (natural groceries, organic produce and nutritional supplements) is strongly correlated with the absence of disease. And this observation holds true through many levels: physical health, emotional health, mental health and spiritual health.
How do you know if it is GOD's voice you are hearing
1.It will go against wordly wisdom-many people will say you are crazy
2.It will require Faith
3.It will require courage
4.It will line up with the written WORD
5.You will have Peace in your spirit-
not necessarily Peace in your mind or emotions.
03 November, 2008
from Creflo Dollar
The words you hear(either GOD's word or satan's word) produce your
Thinking which produces your
Emotions and feeling- which affects your
Decisions- where you choose your
Actions- which produce
Habits- which become
Character- which ends up with your
So if you don't like your destiny, you must go back to step 1 and change the words and ideas you are hearing. You can't change step5 without changing step . It will short circuit.
27 October, 2008
Bayou Renaissance Man: Thoughts before the election #1
A number of readers have
e-mailed me, asking why I'm not providing more thoughts on the election
and who I support for President.
The answer's simple. I don't
believe I have the right to try to persuade anyone to vote according to
my view of the world. I have my own convictions (centrist, with a
conservative angle in terms of morality and an emphasis on the
individual versus the collective), but I don't want to impose them on
I've therefore decided to share, over a few posts,
some of the thinkers whom I find valuable in evaluating the candidates
for office (whether the Presidency, Senate, Congress, or temporary
acting honorary assistant deputy dog-catcher). What I do is to take the
ideas of such thinkers and use them as a yardstick to evaluate the
candidates. How do they measure up? How well will they implement these
ideas or principles? If they don't and/or won't, I can't in good
conscience vote for them, irrespective of their political party or
philosophy, or their track record.
Today I'd like to introduce you to William J. H. Boetcker
(1873-1962). He was a Presbyterian minister, renowned for his
motivational public speaking, and had the knack of putting important
truths into concise, easily-grasped points.
Among his most
famous ideas are the 'Ten Cannots', dating from 1916. They're often
attributed - mistakenly - to Abraham Lincoln.
- You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
- You cannot help small men by tearing down big men.
- You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
- You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer.
- You cannot help the poor man by destroying the rich.
- You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than your income.
- You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.
- You cannot establish security on borrowed money.
- You cannot build character and courage by taking away man's initiative and independence.
- You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves.
think the 'Ten Cannots' say a great deal about our present society,
particularly its emphasis on 'big government' and 'handouts' and
'welfare' and suchlike. I don't believe in any of them. If a given
candidate (or political party) has a position that contradicts most of
the 'Ten Cannots', the odds are that I can't support them. If the
positions of all candidates (or parties) contradict the 'Ten Cannots',
I'll have to vote for the person or party who contradicts the fewest of
them, on the principle of choosing the lesser of the evils confronting
Boetcker also coined the 'Seven National Crimes':
- I don’t think.
- I don’t know.
- I don’t care.
- I am too busy.
- I leave well enough alone.
- I have no time to read and find out.
- I am not interested.
may or may not apply to our politicians, but they sure apply to us as
voters! We should be asking ourselves whether we're guilty of any of
these attitudes: and, if so, we should try to change that.
the days ahead I'll write about a few more thinkers who've influenced
me, and helped to shape my outlook. I hope you find them as interesting
as I do - and helpful, in this election season.
21 October, 2008
22 Reasons People don't receive their healing.
Originally taught by Creflo Dollar
Lack of united prayer
Traditions of men
Breaking natural laws-eating, lack of exercise, etc
Unbelief of elder/minister who prays
Evil spirit must be cast our
Lukewarmness in the church
Unwillingness to surrender to GOD
Need to seek forgiveness
Lack of diligence
Seeking miracles instead of healing
Failure to act on faith
Lack of confidence
Failure to receive the HOLY SPIRIT
Lack of Faith
Failure to receive promises
Waiting for healing in order to believe in healing-I'll believe it after I see it.
16 October, 2008
Big-government fingerprints on murder weapon
Posted: October 16, 2008
1:00 am Eastern
Whose fingerprints are on the weapon that murdered the U.S. economy?
Multiple culprits deserve blame, but the Clinton administration stands out as a ringleader for diverting billions of dollars into junk sub-prime mortgages. Those loans have fouled the economy and siphoned away the capital needed by businesses and families today.
Government created a quota system that required lending to people who lacked the ability to repay.
Clinton's HUD (Department of Housing and Urban Development) decreed that big chunks of mortgages must be issued to borrowers with poor finances. It started at 12 percent of all Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac mortgages in 1996. By 2008, that proportion had more than doubled, to 28 percent.
Because Fannie and Freddie dominated the mortgage market, holding about $5 trillion in mortgages, they effectively dictated mortgage standards. The result: Their misguided practices rippled through lenders across the country. If banks made a sub-prime loan, they could re-sell it to Fannie and Freddie. And unless banks made those loans, there was a limit to other loans that would be bought.
(Column continues below)
As HUD wrote in a 2004 report, explaining its post-1996 quotas:
HUD's ... Regulation imposes no requirement for the total number of home purchase mortgages that a GSE [Government-Sponsored Enterprise] must buy. Rather, the rule provides that, however many home purchase loans in metropolitan areas the GSEs buy, a certain percentage must be in each goal category. For example, if a GSE buys 1 million home purchase mortgages in metropolitan areas in 2005, then 450,000 of these mortgages would need to be for low- and moderate-income families.
Under that scenario, for each million loans made in 2005 (when the "very low-income" goal was 22 percent), then 220,000 of those mortgages were required by federal regulation to be among the "special affordable" sub-prime group. Since Fannie and Freddie bought hundreds of billions in mortgages each year, this 22 percent quickly became a huge mandate to make poor-quality loans.
Lenders complied by creating the infamous zero-down loans and other loans that proved to be junk. This wasn't a failure to regulate. It was a failure by regulating too much!
Many motives were commendable, of course. The American dream of home ownership is common to all races, classes and income levels. But so, too, is the ability to get in over your head.
So how low was low-income to our government? "Very low-income," also called "special affordable loans," was defined as having less than 60 percent of an area's median income. Just being below the median alone put a household in the bottom half of income. Being in the bottom third of the bottom half was scraping along compared to most folks.
Local medians vary. Census numbers show a median range from $44,000 for a family of three in Arkansas to $81,000 for a family of three in Maryland. (These are 2008 dollars). Living on 60 percent of that would be $26,400 to $48,600, with all sorts of levels in-between, depending on locality.
Fannie and Freddie complied with HUD's requirements, increasing their sub-prime loans year after year. They didn't mind. Indeed, they and their congressional supporters bragged about it.
Protected by their political friends, especially in Congress, Fannie and Freddie not only met their quotas for backing home loans to people who couldn't afford houses, they surpassed them. In 2004, 24.2 percent of their mortgages went to very low-income families, beating the goal of 20 percent. The following year they bested the 22 percent goal, hitting 24.5 percent. In 2006 they smashed the 23 percent goal with 26.46 percent. A year later they slipped, but still exceeded the 25 percent goal with 25.65 percent.
Helping out was the controversial group ACORN, which joined other community organizations in channeling potential borrowers to banks that would make these special loans. Of course, ACORN and the other enablers received handsome fees for this effort.
But it wasn't a kindness to help poor people get into a house, only to be evicted because they couldn't pay. It was a setback to them.
So, what if Fannie and Freddie had balked, rather than happily complied? Ultimately, the law created penalties that could reach $25,000 each day if they were not aggressive enough in marketing mortgages to those who had limited ability to pay.
This quota system for mortgage loans began when Congress in 1992 created the requirement that Fannie and Freddie must back loans to very low-income persons. However, the legislation specified only that this goal must be "not less than 1 percent." Starting at 12 percent and scaling up to 28 percent, the Clinton administration went above and beyond this. And the Bush administration did not reverse that course.
The left is aggressively working to convince America that a "failure to regulate" made lenders go crazy and wreck our economy through greed. The truth is that our economy was legislated and regulated into this mess. Even if our economy isn't already regulated to death, it's still attempted murder.
15 October, 2008
I came across this site recently. There is a ton of good information on safety in lot's of situations and how to avoid violence. I don't necessarily agree with everything they say, but there is a lot of good information.
08 October, 2008
Our loathsome members of Congress
Posted: October 08, 2008
1:00 am Eastern
In my more cynical moments, I think that we Americans deserve what we get from our politicians, many of whom can be generally described as nothing less than loathsome. You say, "Williams, that's a pretty heavy putdown." My question to you is how else would you describe these congressmen who are now blaming the financial mess on the failure of the free market? Starting with the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, that was given more teeth during the Clinton administration, Congress started intimidating banks and other financial institutions into making loans, so-called sub-prime loans, to high-risk homebuyers and businesses. The carrot offered was that these high-risk loans would be purchased by the government-sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Anyone with an ounce of brains would have known that this was a prescription for disaster, but there was a congressional chorus of denial.
Five years ago, Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., vouched for the "soundness" of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and said, "I do not see any possibility of serious financial losses to the treasury." In 2004 congressional hearings, where the Bush administration sought greater oversight over Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., said, "We do not have a crisis at Freddie Mac and particularly at Fannie Mae," adding that "the GSEs have exceeded their housing goals." Rep. Gregory Meeks, D-N.Y., said, "There's nothing wrong with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac." In these hearings, Barney Frank said that he doesn't see "anything in the reports that raises safety and soundness problems." Earlier this year, Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., praised Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for "riding to the rescue" to help people get home mortgage loans, adding that they "need to do more" to help high-risk borrowers get better loans.
The financial collapse of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is not a failure of the free market, because lending institutions in a free market would not have taken on the high-risk loans. They were forced to by the heavy hand of government. The solution is not a taxpayer-financed bailout. The solution is to let them fail and allow the people who invested in them, as well as the people who purchased homes they couldn't afford, suffer the losses. Of course, that takes a level of political courage that is in short supply. There are other measures that should be taken as part of a second-best solution.
(Column continues below)
| || |
In 2002, when the Enron and WorldCom scandal broke, the Congress held hearings, and some chief executives were jailed. Who did what was the big story in the major news media almost every night. Congress rushed to enact the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, also known as the Public Company Accounting Reform and Investor Protection Act of 2002. The act placed unnecessary, onerous and costly accounting standards on American businesses. The Enron and WorldCom debacle is a drop in the bucket compared to the financial mess Congress has created through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, in the name of "affordable" housing. Have you heard Congress calling for hearings? They haven't called for hearings because many of them, both Democrats and Republicans, receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars, were in cahoots with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. If Americans are going to be on the hook to bail out these government-sponsored enterprises, at the minimum congressional hearings ought to be held to find out who did what and when.
Corporations employ accounting practices promulgated by the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) that established Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP). Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and government agencies have accounting practices that don't come close to, and never did, the honesty of private accounting practices. Accounting fraud and deception are the dominant features of government agencies. If a private business kept and cooked the books, like government agencies do, the top executives would go to jail. Shouldn't the accounting standards businesses have to meet be applied to Washington? My answer is yes, and if a congressman says no, I'd like for him to tell us why.
07 October, 2008
I compare this to someone who get's a diagnosis of terminal cancer. You may not know the time frame, but short of a miracle the time will be too short. Prepare yourself, it could be ugly before the end.
On the positive side, I saved some money on my car insurance by switching to Geico. (not really)
On the truly positive side this may hasten Jesus return to earth. Most biblical scholars don't believe the US is pictured in the Revelation of John. So, somewhere along the way the power and influence of the US has to wane. The economic free fall that this set up could sure do that. Prepare yourself Spiritually first, then prepare naturally for times that will be like no other in our history. What is that old Chinese blessing/curse? "May you live in interesting times?
I have never been so disgusted in the actions of my elected officials as I am now. Your recent vote to spend $700 Billion dollars of someone else's(my) money to socialize 10% of the American economy is unthinkable. It has been clear for a while that most Republicans are alomost as much big government socialists as the Democrats. I have already gotten to the point that I can't imagine voting for a Republican for President and now I must include Senators and Congressmen in that. I know the Libertarian party attracts some idiots, but it also attracts men of true principle.
The Federal Government created the mess by socializing parts of the monetary system, banking, securities, etc. Now you want to solve the problem by more of the same problem. This was not a market failure, it was a socialism failure and $700 Billion more socialism will only make it worse. You may have delayed the crash for a little while but it will come and it will probably be worse. This is the beginning of the end of the United States of America. I had spoken with JoAnn in the San Angelo office and she assured me you would not vote for the bailout, but after voting no on the first one you caved to special interests and left your constituents with the bill.
Rest assured that I will never vote for you for any office again and will actively work to get you voted out of office.
01 October, 2008
26 September, 2008
Fannie Mae was also a quasi public entity(private stockholders with some government control) created in 1938 to help Americans buy homes. Basically a bank would loan someone the money to buy a house, then the bank would sell the loan to Fannie Mae and the interest and payments went to Fannie Mae until the loan was paid off. Freddie Mac was created for more of the same in 1970. As long as home values were going up(due to inflation) and people paid on their mortgages everything looked rosy.
Then under the Clinton administration new banking regulations were put in place that made non discrimination a part of the loan process. Banks had to have a certain percentage of loans to minorities. But since inflation was the rising tide that raises all boats the banks got away with this for a while. They loosened their lending standards and created things like "interest only loans" and "subprime mortgages"(low interest for a short period with a large gotcha at the end) so people with no income or ability to pay a mortgage could still buy a house. Then those notes were sold to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac so they bank was off the hook. Another part of the trap was in place.
Because of many years of stability the US dollar had been the world's currency for many years. Because of this the Treasury could sell Treasury notes to the world to create the money the Fed loaned to banks(remember the banks loan out the same money 10 times). But in the last few years the Euro has gained strength against the dollar(because of the dollar's inflation) and is a threat to become the world's currency. This put even more pressure on the Fed to stop printing money and act responsibly. But like an alcoholic that goes back for one more drink, the couldn't stop printing.
Today the weak dollar with a deteriorating US economy(due largely to regulating and taxing business so much that costs are increased) has put us in a situation that can't continue. The banks have loaned out Billions of dollars 10 times over for property that isn't even worth what they loaned out on it. So if a bank has loans worth $10 million, but the property is only worth $8 Million they have lost $2 Million. But wait, remember they loaned out that same money 10 times, so they have lost $20 million. And once the panic starts, prices drop even more and starts the vicious cycle.
This is where we are today. Hopefully I have explained it well enough so that you see it is a direct result of improper(illegal and unconstitutional) government actions. Years of these actions for the benefit of extremely powerful and politically connected people have created a problem. So what is our government's solution. Give these rich people$700 Billion(today's estimate which works out to about $2500 for every man, woman, and child in the US)(what are the chances this government program will take more money that expected(over 100%))of US taxpayers money to keep them from taking a loss. This is a failure of socialism with more socialism prescribed as the cure.
So what should be done? The government should allow these companies to fail if they cannot pay their notes. Those failures will definitely hurt our economy and make life difficult for a while. But much of the burden will be on the rich and powerful who legislated the problem. Get the government out of the business of regulating banks and such and let the true free market work. Government regulation keeps out competition for the rich and powerful and enables them to outcompete the little guys for a while. Ultimately we should get back to the gold standard where we have a money that is worth something and can't be manipulated for the benefit of the rich and powerful. This goes along with returning our government to its constitutionally defined limits before it strangle the US.
What can you do to protect yourself? Well, hopefully you started years ago getting out of debt. It is real hard to accomplish much now, but get to work on it. Owning gold helps protect your value, but is difficult and impractical for many. The only things that truly hold their value in inflation are "hard" assets(real estate, precious metals, etc). Be at least somewhat self sufficient. Have cash reserves, both in the bank and real cash on hand. Pray that GOD protects you and guides you through this mess. It has the potential to get very ugly.
For more studies
Shadow Stats shows the US money supply over time and demonstrates what inflation really is and how bad it has been.
The Ludwig von Mises institute can educate you about how economics really works
Dave Ramsey can teach you how to get out of debt. I love his work, but some of his advice was only good in the past and I don't think is the best option in the future.
First, I must define inflation. Every economist agrees with the basic definition of inflation, but their definition is different than what the government and modern media use. If you hear someone talking about inflation you think about rising prices; ie food, gas, clothing, etc. The prices actually rise as a result of inflation, they are not the cause. Inflation is defined as an increase in the supply of money. In the old days a ruler would issue gold and silver coins that would be used in trade. Periodically the ruler would want to spend more than he could afford and didn't have enough money. So he would call in the coins, melt them down and reissue them with the same stated value, but slightly less gold or silver weight(either by making them smaller, or mixing them with cheaper metals). This was inflating the money supply. You still had 100 $1 coins, but there was less gold than before.
Gold was the most common money supply in the history of the world. Paper money had been tried in the US by several states and the US, but had always failed shortly when money got tight and the printing presses started running. Soon you could only buy a loaf of bread with a wheelbarrow full of money. That is one of the reasons our Constitution gave Congress the power to "coin"(not print) money. OUr founding fathers knew that printing money would destroy us. The US was basically on a Gold standard up until 1933. Sometimes gold was used as the actual medium or exchange, and sometimes paper money was issued that was backed by gold. If you lost confidence in the paper you could exchange it for gold. US Dollars were virtually 100% gold backed until 1933, and were mostly gold backed until 1971. A $20 gold piece(about 1 ounce of gold) was worth pretty much $20 until 1933(it is worth about $880 today).
In 1913 the Federal Reserve Act created the Federal Reserve. The Fed is a private company(semi government controlled) that manages the US money supply. The Fed is the third attempt at a national banking system. The other two only survived about 20 years. The Federal Reserve and the fractional banking system it created are the root of today's financial crisis. The Fed basically has the authority to create money out of thin air. Basically the Fed authorizes the sale of Treasury Notes to supply itself with money. Then it loans that money out to banks. Then the banks are(legally) allowed to loan out 10 times what they have on hand. So the Fed creates $1 Million and loans it to banks, those banks can then loan out $10 Million. They theoritically only created $1 Million, but the money supply was really increased by $10 Million so your dollars are worth less than before.
The Fed was handcuffed by the gold standard. They could not really create money until 1971 when the US went totally off the gold standard. In fact, Congress and President Nixon made it illegal to own gold in 1971. From then on the Fed could do whatever it wanted. It wanted to print money. It really began to perfect printing money while Jimmy Carter was president, but it got out of hand and had to be reined in or the US would have been bankrupt sooner. Since then the Fed has walked a tightrope with a rate of inflation(money printing) that was slow and steady enough that most people wouldn't notice, but that provided a steady flow of money the the Fed and it's stockholders. Using official government statistics. What cost $100 to purchase in 1967 now costs $656, and what costs $100 in 1982 now costs $220. But government has continued to grow and this wasn't enough. The inflation has really been growing recently. In 2006 the US government quit publishing M3 money supply data which basically showed the results of the Fed creating money out of thin air and then loaning it to banks that loaned out the same money 10 times. See this chart for the results.
I am planning on writing a blog entry about the government caused financial crisis and how the proposed $700 Billion bailout is the worst possible solution to the problem. Until I write my summary, the above link shows links to many articles explaining how the banking and financial systems work.
01 September, 2008
This is a brilliant pick by McCain. But remember it is McCain/Palin and not the other way around. As far as I know Sarah Palin is the kind of person we want in Washington. But, a VP has almost no power. As long as McCain is alive VP Palin would be a figurehead to make people that don't like McCain vote for him. It does not signal a change in McCain's way of thinking, just a political ploy to get votes. The best option now is that McCain wins now and then dies early in office. But I am still not voting for John McCain. Don't listen to what he is saying now, look at 20 years of his voting record as a Senator. That is the McCain you will get, not the one you are hearing now. If you think he will appoint good SC judges, just look at who he partnered with to defeat GW's mediocre judge selections. He might cut spending and he is at least somewhat prolife. But he is wrong on virtually every other issue. Here is Gun Owners of America's report card on Senator John McCain.
Chuck Baldwin 2008
Update 1: As I have processed this longer and more info has come out I have some new thoughts. I still think Palin was a brilliant pick for McCain. But, several things are bothering me. There seems to be a fair amount of feminism in Mrs Palin. While she was busy being governor, her 15 year old daughter was growing up and exploring her sexuality. Would having her mother at home guiding her have changed her actions? She was a 4 month old baby with Downs Syndrome. What is going to happen to him while she is campaigning and being VP? If Paul's qualifications for elder were applied to national candidates, would she qualify? Would any of them qualify? It is hard to imagine most of the women I know and respect leaving a 4 month Downs child at home while they are campaiging for VP. Yes most "Conservative Christians" are hailing her as a great choice. Her positions on the issues I agree with but I guess I question her priorities and commitments to family.