Concepts of Justice and Equity in Islam

 Some of the recurring phrases one hears from Islamic advocates are words like "No Peace Without Justice" or "No Justice Without Equity."  In fact, justice and equity may be said to be synonymous, but it is a rather unusual conception of justice and even more unusual conception of equity.  Justice is seen as a kind of equalizer, always in favor of the oppressed.  That's not too far astray from Western conceptions, especially of social justice, in particular.  However, Muslims regard the opposite of tyranny as justice (in the West, the opposite of tyranny is freedom).  This means that there is no Western-like view of solace in freedom.  Instead, Islam urges constant battling in favor of the oppressed.  Further, their notion of equity is not merit-based, but closest in nature to being need-based (or entitlement-based).  Simply put, equity is conceived of as something which puts you ahead of the game; i.e., something which always progressively moves you forward toward your ultimate goal.  At root, this is a conception of equity as profit or constant advantage-seeking.  Misunderstanding these conceptions has caused the Western world to vastly underestimate the Muslim world's intentions when treaties, agreements, appeasements, or accommodations are made.  

Posted via email from Global Politics

National Bourbon Heritage Month .... Some History!!

In honor of National Bourbon Heritage Month, we would like to take a moment to reflect on how America’s Native Spirit has shaped our culture, influenced our lives and sparked many of our best decisions and greatest ideas.

---

Daddy kept whiskey, but he didn’t drink it much.

I think he refrained out of deference to my mother, who had five younger brothers, all of whom were bad to drink and light on ambition. They all still lived on Grandaddy’s farm, in trailers strewn haphazardly along Seedtick Road. In the evenings, after supper, they’d gather on the front porch of the big house to smoke and drink and tell stories, settling into an acrid haze of young male dissolution.

Sometimes in the summer, when we’d drive down for a visit, I’d sit out with them a while, listening to their bray and brag, and inevitably one of them would pass me the pint of Old Charter or Old Crow. I’d take a tentative sip and taste snake venom and tears. I’d pull a face and they’d laugh in a way that wasn’t quite unkind but made me feel smaller and odder and less a part of their orbit than I’d hope to become. My first sip of bourbon was charged with confusion and shame.

Whiskey made my uncles mean, and so my father stuck mostly to beer around my mother, though he always kept a gallon of Jim Beam and a fifth of Jack Daniel’s in his bar. I watched the levels of these bottles rise and fall over the years, but I never saw my father pour a drink from them.

My bunch drank a lot during senior year — we poured 151 rum over Coca-Cola Icees to take to our homeroom. At night we cruised the dirt roads with bottles of Pepe Lopez tequila and Cutty Sark clinking on the floorboards. We drank to dissolve our inhibitions, to talk to girls from other high schools, to be the sort of wild desperate kids we saw in the movies. A few of us tried too hard and didn’t make it out.

I feel bad about that — I wasn’t the fastest or the fittest of our herd, just one of the lucky ones.

I started to learn about drink in college, when I bought pints of Canadian Mist to fit in my date’s purse for football games and we drank fraternity house jungle juice made with grain alcohol from galvanized garbage cans. I had a few beers with my father before he died.

I tried to make myself love Scotch, because it was my idea of what the person I wanted to be would drink, but I couldn’t keep up with it. It was, like some ladies I admired, too expensive and worldly for me. I could barely flirt with it.

I took back up with bourbon sometime around my 30th birthday. I started calling it in bars. I liked the way it made me feel, which was authentic. Every Southern eventually comes home. (Even if it’s in a box.)

America’s only distinctly indigenous spirit, bourbon tastes of blood and smoke—of ashes, caramel and quit. Take too much your head might bust open, like Zeus birthing Athena—a swole-head god in trouble with the goddess. It took a little doing, but I’ve learned not to overdo it, not to sink into the comfortable numbness that consumed my uncles, and I’ve found it can be downright ennobling.

It’s odd that America’s whiskey has a name redolent of Old Europe’s musty humors and class structure. Bourbon takes its name from “Old Bourbon,” an area that later became Bourbon County, Ky., which in turn was named after the royal House of Bourbon, a branch of the Capetian dynasty descended from King Hugh Capet of France, whose ascension to the throne was widely considered to be the birth of modern France.

That the spirit’s invention is occluded by mystery seems appropriate—we want our ghosts to retain some mystery. Some say it started with a barn fire that damaged a Kentucky distiller’s oak barrels. Rather than discard the charred barrels or waste time searching for fresh ones, he filled them with corn liquor and sent them downriver to New Orleans. By the time the booze arrived, it had acquired the characteristics of what we now know as bourbon. It was amber colored and flavored with woodsmoke. And people liked it.

Or maybe a distiller decided to scorch the interior walls of old fish barrels so he could use them to age his distilled spirits?

More dubious is the legend of Elijah Craig, a preacher who is said to have aged corn squeezings in charred oak barrels as early as 1789. But while Craig existed, he was a Virginian who never lived in what became Bourbon County.

Anyway, by 1821, there were newspaper ads for “bourbon whisky” to be delivered in barrels to taverns all over the country.

Yet it wasn’t until May 4, 1964, that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms took measures to define and protect bourbon as a distinctive American spirit. They declared that in order to be called “bourbon,” a liquor had to be distilled from a fermented mash of grain, at least 51 percent of which must be corn, bottled at between 60 and 160 proof. Most importantly, it had to be aged in new, charred American oak barrels.

(Once the barrels have been used, they’re no longer eligible for aging bourbon, so they’re shipped around the world where they’re often employed in the aging of other potent potables. Some European beers are aged in old bourbon barrels by Belgian monks. Our world is soaked in poetry.)

Those charred barrels are what accounts for the difference between sweet, oaky flavors of American board and the somewhat more astringent, aromatic (and perhaps subtler) notes of Irish whiskey or the terroir tones of Scotch.

It’s a common misperception that no spirit produced outside the state of Kentucky could legally identify itself as bourbon. This was supposedly because only Kentucky’s limestone-rich soil produced the right kind of spring water for distillation.

While some will argue that’s true enough, one can make bourbon anywhere in the country. They make it in Little Rock, Rock Town Distillery produces a wonderful, if pricey product called Arkansas Young Bourbon. Unlike almost all other bourbons, it contains no rye because they don’t grow rye in Arkansas. The mash is made of native corn and soft wheat.

There are Texas bourbons—Garrison Brothers, Ranger Creek—and bourbon distillers in Indiana (W. H. Harrison) and Virginia (A. Smith Bowman). The idea that Kentucky is the only legitimate home of bourbon is a myth promulgated by Kentucky protectionists, and—at least to some degree—by the marketers of Jack Daniel’s Tennessee Whiskey, which eschews the bourbon label although the spirit meets all regulatory requirements. (Though they do filter their stuff through charcoal, which is an extra step.) Jack Daniel’s would prefer to be seen as a unique alternative than another one of the boys. Whatever.

When I was coming of age in the ‘70s and ‘80s, bourbon had fallen on hard times as the overall number of American drinkers declined (some recreational drugs make you want to sip sugary soft drinks, or so I’m told) and baby boomers turned to the milder (and dubious) pleasures of wine coolers and light beer. Bourbon, once the drink of choice of Samuel Gompers and William Faulkner, Ulysses S. Grant and Mark Twain, was too raw and flavorful for health-conscious yuppies.

Then in the 1990s, Clintonian prosperity gave us upscale small-batch bourbons—the American answer to single-malt Scotches and expensive brandies. These days there are bourbon snobs everywhere and cults of Pappy Van Winkle andBooker Noe, the late small batch evangelist who happened to be the grandson of Jim Beam. (I had a couple of boozy lunches with the man, and I miss him.)

It’s not unusual to encounter $60 bottles of bourbon. I usually have a couple of them in my bar (which was also my father’s bar—it’s the one thing I took out of my mother’s house when she moved out of my childhood home a dozen years ago). I always have half a dozen or more different bourbons, from modest Evan Williams to the most pricey of the gettable Van Winkles. (It’s probably just as well that the most expensive ones are practically ungettable—I hear it may be back on some shelves this autumn.) My go-to bourbon is probably Knob Creek, though I like the Bulleit’s cowboy style and Maker’s Mark and dear old Evan Williams, as raw and ornery as he sometimes gets.

These days I drink bourbon mostly in what I consider moderation. Part of it is no doubt affectation, but I like the taste, the char and burr of the creekish stuff, the tangle of fire it makes in my gullet going down, the soft plosion of satisfaction that blossoms in my brain.

I like bourbon, despite the rocky start we had.

 

Dale Smith is a writer, musician, lover of novels, baseball, dogs, and punk rock music .

Posted via email from Global Politics

FBI wants easy password access FBI Wants Easy Password Access .... The (sometimes scary) state of your digital rights!!

----by Kim Komando

The FBI is looking for easier access to one of the last mobile rights you have - your phone's password! So far, Google and Apple are blocking the attempt. In these confusing digital times, knowing your rights isn't easy.

Technology changes at lightning speed. Laws concerning electronic snooping and privacy lag considerably behind.

But important cases end up in court often enough that it pays to occasionally review where you stand in the event you and technology clash with workplace policies and law enforcement.

The first thing to know is: I am not a lawyer. Although it's possible to draw some general conclusions about the current state of digital affairs you should seek legal counsel in any encounter with the police or whenever you feel your rights are being violated.

Visit the website of digital rights watchdog Electronic Frontier Foundation to stay current on Internet legislation and case law.

You basically have no rights at work
It should be clear to all workers by now that they should never use a company computer or smartphone for personal business. Yet, employees get fired and disciplined everyday for questionable Web surfing, downloading and emailing at work.

Time and again, employees also get into trouble for saying dumb things on blogs and social networks, even if it was done on their own equipment and their own time.

When disputes even make it that far, courts consistently side with employers. Your First Amendment right to free speech protects you against the government - not private employers.

Planes, homes and automobiles
If you're driving or flying back into the U.S., agents can take your laptop or other gadget and examine it without a warrant or probable cause. Your Fourth Amendment rights that protect against unreasonable search and seizure take a back seat to the government's right to fight terrorism and crime and to protect the border.

Your home is on more sacred ground. Unless you consent to a search, police can't search your home, your home computer or any of your gadgets without a warrant. When there is a warrant, it must specifically state that the computer and gadgets are part of the search.

If your computer and electronic devices are encrypted, the police can't force you to divulge your passwords. However, a judge or a grand jury can order you to disclose your data.

State laws differ when it comes to cars and smartphones. If you are pulled over while driving, for instance, and the cop suspects there is evidence of a crime in your car, state law may allow the officer to search your phone much as he would your glove box or a center console.

If you're placed under arrest, police can take your phone and whatever else is in your pockets. Some states allow police to search the phone without cause; others require a warrant. Here again, you're not required to hand over a pass code unless ordered by a court.

Snooping through the back door
In response to a recent Congressional inquiry, major cellular carriers in the U.S. revealed that they responded to a jaw-dropping 1.3 million demands for subscriber information from law enforcement agencies in 2011.

Sprint reported that it fielded approximately 1,500 law enforcement requests per day, while AT&T tallied 700.

Keep in mind that Google and many other Web services firms will do the same thing when approached by law enforcement. It's spelled out in all those Terms of Service agreements that you accept but don't read.

A simple subpoena can net the police basic account data, including credit card information. Anything beyond that - your locations, texts and calls - is supposed to require a court order or a warrant. Agencies have been known to cut through red tape by citing an imminent danger or emergency.

There's no question that smartphone surveillance has become a critical counterterrorism and crime-busting tool. Until policymakers shine a light on this shadowy part of the digital frontier, however, the arm wrestling between public safety needs and privacy rights will continue.

Meantime, there isn't much you as a consumer can do about digital dragnets, unless you avoid using your smartphone and the Internet altogether.

Does Your PC Have The Right Power Supply For New Technology????

You might have heard of the term “power supply unit” (PSU) or “SMPS” (switch mode power supply) — yes that’s a part of your computer system, even if you haven’t heard of it. The power supply is not only one of the most important parts in a PC, but unfortunately, it’s also the most overlooked one. People brag and spend hours discussing their PC’s processor speeds, monitor size, amount of RAM and disk storage but rarely specify the device that powers their system. there’s no respect for the humble and unglamorous metal box that sits at a corner of your system.

When a system is put together to meet the lowest possible price point, what component do you think the assembler or manufacturer compromises on? Yes, it’s the power supply unit, and it is that same device which most often responsible for internal damage in your system, be it burnt motherboards, CPUs, graphics cards or other components that were killed due to electrical faults. So you save on the PSU while buying a PC and pay much more for the mistake later.

Even if people pay little attention to PSU, they are more concerned about the power rating label that is stuck on them by the manufacturer. Without regard to whether the power being produced is clean and stable or whether it is full of noise, spikes and surges.  A person building a new PC should give special emphasis on selecting a power supply to get a robust and reliable unit. It will ensure peace of mind throughout the life time of the PC.

Basic functions of a PSU

The basic function of a power supply is to convert the electrical power available (AC 120V, 50Hz/AC 240V, 50Hz) to that which the computer circuit can use (DC +3.3V, +5V, +12V). The objective in manufacturing a power supply is to provide an efficient power source which generates minimum heat. If you observe a power supply unit, you are sure to notice that there is a fan built into it. Now that fan throws out hot air from inside the cabinet thereby keeping the PSU as well as the whole system cool. The fan diameter typically ranges from 60mm to 200mm or even larger, depending on the manufacturer. It’s basic logic that larger diameter fans will throw out more air and thereby keep the system cool, but efficient PSUs may not need large fans as they generate less heat. Therefore fan size is not a major criterion while deciding on a PSU.

Voltage Rails

Power is generally supplied to the motherboard over multiple wires connected to the same source circuit called rail or tap inside the power supply. Each rail can be imagined to be a separate power circuit supplying a specific power rating. There are generally +3.3V, +5V, +12V rails which are technically independent inside the power supply, many cheaper designs have them sharing some circuitry, making them less independent than they should be. This can cause voltage regulation problems in which a significant load on one rail causes a voltage drop on others. Components such as processors and graphic cards can vary their power consumption greatly by their activity. When you suddenly load a graphics intensive game, it causes the processor as well as the video card to more than double the power consumption on the +12V rail which powers them. In these cases, cheaper power supplies can cause voltage fluctuations causing the system to crash. Better designed power supplies feature independent rails with better regulation and better quality wires to draw power from the rails.

Active PFCs

Most switched-mode power supplies with more than 75 W of output power must include passive PFC, at least. 80 PLUS power supply certification requires a power factor of 0.9 or more. Where power factor is purity of the DC voltage obtained, here 1 power factor means it is completely pure. An “active power factor corrector” (active PFC) is a power electronic system that controls the amount of power drawn by a load in order to obtain a power factor as close as possible to unity. The purpose of making the power factor as close to unity as possible is to make the load circuitry that is power factor corrected appear purely DC and this ensures proper working of the internal components of the PC and its longevity.

It is frequently used in practice, for example, SMPS with passive PFC can achieve power factor of about 0.7–0.75, SMPS with active PFC can supply up to a 0.99 power factor, while a SMPS without any power factor correction has a power factor of only about 0.55–0.65. Due to their very wide input voltage range, many power supplies with active PFC can automatically adjust to operate on AC power from about 100 V to 230 V. So it is always necessary to look out for PSUs with active PFCs.

So now that you know the basics of power supply units, go get yourself the right one if you are still using cheap PSUs which can cause potential harm to your system. The best way to decide on a PSU is to calculate the power requirement for your system and then zeroing in on a particular brand or model by searching their reviews on the net.

God, Our Founders, Our Constitution .... Real Hope and Change Accomplished July 4, 1776

We The People should stand for what our

fore fathers fought and died for

Did you know that 52 of the 55 signers of The Declaration of Independence were orthodox, deeply committed Christians? The other three all believed in the Bible as the divine truth, the God of scripture, and His personal intervention. It is the same congress that formed the American Bible Society. Immediately after creating the Declaration of Independence, the Continental Congress voted to purchase and import 20,000 copies of scripture for the people of this nation.   Patrick Henry, who is called the firebrand of the American Revolution, is still remembered for his words, 'Give me liberty or give me death.' But in current textbooks the context of these words is deleted. Here is what he said: 'An appeal to arms and the God of hosts is all that is left us. But we shall not fight our battle alone. There is a just God that presides over the destinies of nations. The battle sir, is not of the strong alone. Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death.'  These sentences have been erased from our textbooks. Was Patrick Henry a Christian? The following year, 1776, he wrote this 'It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religion, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For that reason alone, people of other faiths have been afforded freedom of worship here.' Consider these words that Thomas Jefferson wrote on the front of his well- worn Bible: 'I am a Christian, that is to say a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus. I have little doubt that our whole country will soon be rallied to the unity of our Creator and, I hope, to the pure doctrine of Jesus also.' Consider these words from George Washington, the Father of our Nation, in his farewell speech on September 19, 1796: 'It is impossible to govern the world without God and the Bible. Of all the dispositions and habits that lead to political prosperity, our religion and morality are the indispensable supporters. Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that our national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.' Was George Washington a Christian? Consider these words from his personal prayer book: 'Oh, eternal and everlasting God, direct my thoughts, words and work. Wash away my sins in the immaculate blood of the lamb and purge my heart by the Holy Spirit. Daily, frame me more and more in the likeness of thy son, Jesus Christ, that living in thy fear, and dying in thy favor, I may in thy appointed time obtain the resurrection of the justified unto eternal life. Bless, O Lord, the whole race of mankind and let the world be filled with the knowledge of thy son, Jesus Christ.' Consider these words by John Adams, our second president, who also served as chairman of the American Bible Society. In an address to military leaders he said, 'We have no government armed with the power capable of contending with human passions, unbridled by morality and true religion. Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.' How about our first   Court Justice, John Jay? He stated that when we select our national leaders, if we are to preserve our Nation, we must select Christians. ' Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers and it is the duty as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian Nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.' John Quincy Adams, son of John Adams, was the sixth U.S. President. He was also the chairman of the American Bible Society, which he considered his highest and most important role. On July 4, 1821, President Adams said, 'The highest glory of the American Revolution was this: it connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity.' James Madison, the primary author of the Constitution of the United States , said this: 'We have staked the whole future of our new nation, not upon the power of government; far from it. We have staked the future of all our political constitutions upon the capacity of each of ourselves to govern ourselves according to the moral principles of the Ten Commandments.' Today we are asking God to bless America . But how can He bless a Nation that has departed so far from Him?

Posted via email from Global Politics

HOPE AND CHANGE IN AMERICA

In my world of 'realism' NO one should ever be talking about HOPE and CHANGE.  Why??? Because that is a 'GIVEN' in America!!!  Why do you think so many have given their lives for America????......BECAUSE our heroes died so we will always have HOPE that can CHANGE everyone's life.

All of us should do everything necessary to keep our Founder's Dreams Alive! We should always be looking to improve the foundation our Founders gave us, BUT ONLY IN WAYS THAT MAKE WHAT OUR FOUNDERS WITH GOD'S HELP, GIFTED US, STRONGER!

If you don't believe that, then believe this: America was founded primarily on GOD'S WORD AS WELL AS HIS Wisdom in the Bible.....WHY?  Because our Founders knew without God there can be NO HOPE nor can  CHANGE ANY CHANGE, BY MAN, EVER SUFFICE WHAT WE'VE HAD FOR SO MANY DECADES!

SUMMARY: SO HOPE AND CHANGE HAS ALREADY BEEN ESTABLISHED LONG BEFORE OBAMA TOOK OFFICE......The only thing we have to do is keep it alive by daily demonstrations we understand and know how fortunate we are in America. 

See the full gallery on Posterous

Posted via email from Global Politics

Why Do My Spouse and I Fight So Much?

By Billy Graham

Q: I thought I'd be happy if I got married, but all we do is quarrel. No matter what comes up, we end up fighting over it. I'd leave if I could, but I don't have enough money to live on my own. Maybe you can suggest something. -- Mrs. L.S.  A: The most important thing I can urge you and your husband to do is to turn to God and ask Him to take control of your lives -- and your marriage. He knows your problems far better than you do, but more than that, He has the answer to them.  What difference will God make? For one thing, He'll give you a new love for each other. Right now, your marriage is a battleground -- and the reason is because both you and your husband are each insisting on your own way. In other words, you both want to be in control, and you both want to dominate the other person. But what would happen if you had a different goal -- the goal of serving each other and doing what's best for each other? I can guarantee that your marriage would be far different than it is today.  And with God's help this can happen! He can take away your desire to get only what you want, and replace it with a desire to walk with each other, and with God. May you and your husband humbly seek God's help for your marriage, and by faith invite Jesus Christ into your lives.  God loves you; He loves you so much that He sent His Son into the world to give His life for you. Receive His love into your hearts today -- and then ask Him to help you have that same kind of self-giving love toward each other.

Posted via email from Religion

Importance of Having Great Candidates

----from National Review

Tonight, the Democratic National Convention's keynote address will be given by San Antonio mayor Julian Castro. Shortly after the announcement I took a look at Castro's meager record -- he's been mayor for three years -- and concluded:

 

A) Violent crime in San Antonio is pretty darn bad, and it hasn't gotten much better since Castro became mayor.

 

B) The schools in San Antonio are pretty troubled, and judging by the state test scores, they haven't gotten any better since Castro became mayor. In response to the article, a couple of locals wrote in, pointing out that the city's school board is quite independent and that the mayor is quite limited in his ability to shape education policy in his city. That may be true enough, but for what it's worth, Castro made the city's schools -- particularly preschool education -- the centerpiece of his state-of-the-city address.

 

C) The economy of San Antonio is doing pretty darn well, but that's largely due to outside forces rather than any particular innovative city policy under Castro -- the city has plenty of military bases and hospitals, it never had much of a manufacturing base to lose, and it's booming because of the fracking and shale deposits in the surrounding counties.

 

One of the reasons Julian Castro fascinates me is that he's clearly being groomed for bigger things by both the Democratic powers that be (note the plum keynote slot this week) and the media (count the glowing profiles you encounter this week). By the time he speaks tonight, at least one talking head, and probably several, will be touting him as "the Hispanic Obama" or something like that.

 

The Right unknowingly made a major error in the middle of the past decade when they failed to provide then-state-senator Barack Obama any serious challenger in 2004. (You've heard me go on about the Chicago media's sudden hell-bent determination to open sealed divorce records for Republican nominee Jack Ryan.) Fairly fundamental to Obama's rise was the fact that he waltzed into the Senate unscathed, dealing only the mosquito-like annoyance provided by Alan Keyes, campaigning on the theme that Vice President Cheney's daughter was a "selfish hedonist." He first appeared on the cover of Newsweekbefore he took the oath of office for the Senate, in the magazine's end-of-year "The man for Purple America" -- even though there was little or nothing in Barack Obama's brief state-legislative career to indicate he would have anything to offer the right half of America's electorate.

 

If Obama had a serious challenger in 2004, that rival would at least brought up some of the issues that those on the Right deemed disqualifying in 2008 -- Jeremiah Wright's sermons, the shady land deal with slumlord Tony Rezko (Hillary's term for him, not the Right's), the longtime relationship with the likes of bomb-makers William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn. It might not have derailed Obama's Senate bid, nor his presidential bid in 2008. But remember how much of Obama's appeal was that he was this cleaner-than-clean, messianic figure. He successfully posed as a reformer when he had been acceptable to the Chicago/Daley Political Machine from day one. (David Freddoso wrote a whole book about this phenomenon.)

 

You know who is responsible for the Obama presidency? Mike Ditka. For about 24 hours after Jack Ryan's sudden withdrawal from the race, there wasserious buzz that the Illinois Republican party was reaching out to the former Chicago Bears coach to run for Senate. Senator Ditka would have brought his own challenges -- picture him chewing gum and then chewing out, say, Senator Franken -- but he would have presented Obama a strikingly difficult task: a rival he couldn't go have his allies destroy through negative attacks without serious damage to his own image.

 

But so much for alternate history. Either way, any time you see some rising star in a party you oppose, start digging. Start looking for the parts of their record that aren't so shining, the topics they're strangely quiet about, the financial arrangements that emit a bit of an odor, and the other aspects of their record that don't quite add up. We're not in the messiah business in American politics; we're in the business of hiring somebody to do a job for us. As America's most famous chair salesman said, "It's not politicians owning [this country]; politicians are employees of ours."

 

If we couldn't stop the election of this aspiring messiah, we can derail the next one.

Posted via email from Global Politics

The President Many Voters Really Don't Know???

Obama's accent to office of president of U.S.A. dates back to1970's and to those he met.  Those who influenced/mentored him, his beliefs, and his thinking.    

Many of his mentors come from the area around Palo Alto, CA., including the 8th District who is represented by Nancy P, the person who supposedly vetted Obama. Palo Alto is in the 18th district, which is a majority Democrats. 

Bottom line does America even, today, know half of all the truths about Obama's life those involved in it from a very early age??  When and how did they decide he was destined to become President of U.S.A.??  And most of all where did all the money come from to quietly move him along this career path????  

I know there are many blogs, books, and articles....my question is which ones revealed ALL the real truth about him or by careful design, DOES ANY ONE OR TWO PEOPLE REALLY KNOW ALL THE TRUTH ABOUT HIM??

Regardless of what all truths we don't know, this I do know....it's time we Constitutionalist, send him packing.....it's time for Romney/Ryan, who will being the long process of restoring America.

Posted via email from Anointed One

BeetRoot Juice Very Healthy

One of the most interesting tweets I read (from an in-the-know sports dietitian) was about the Kenyan marathon runners drinking copious quantities of beetroot juice at their training camp. Yes deep red, beetroot juice. Let’s explore.

Nitrate know how Recent research on beetroot and beetroot juice shows that there is more to this familiar vegetable than adding colour to a salad or zing to a hamburger. Many healthy eating recommendations focus on future health protection from your veggies, whereas it appears beetroot has benefits that may be immediate. You can just tell by the vibrant pigments in beetroots that they are bursting with phytonutrients and other bioactives. One of the most talked about components in beetroots is nitrate with beetroot being one of the richest plant sources of nitrate at 250mg per 100g. Other vegetables with a high nitrate content include spinach, radishes, lettuce, celery and Chinese cabbage. Nitrates are converted by your body into another compound called nitric oxide. Research has identified that increased nitric oxide levels may help:

• Reduce blood pressure
• Enhance endothelial function or the elasticity in blood vessels
• Reduce platelet aggregation or blood clotting
• Moderate blood glucose levels
• Improve lung function and on today’s topic;
• Improve performance and endurance when exercising

Posted via email from WellCare