Consumer Escort

Many are very impressed with the NIMA (National Imagery and Map Agency) “Infotech Project.” Not only does this give the US the edge from CIA, NSA and NRO but the implications for business are unbelievable. The map imagery is great and combined with software available with ERSI and programs like ArcView and ArcData and ArcBiz we can do multi-layered can do unbelievable things for environmental mitigation, Target Marketing and when compiled with the declassified DMA-Defense Mapping Agency data it is more powerful than ever before.

We can use this to prevent forest fires, estimate fresh water needs in regions, predict weather, droughts. The military of course has their own experts in the Central Imagery Office and DIA (Defense Intelligence Agency), which interprets data and imagery analysis. Satellite Spot and LandSat are used in both civil and commercial applications.

Every inch of the Earth is being surveyed and anytime anyone changes anything over three feet high in the way of putting in buildings will be noticed and areas of major concern can spot a truck parked where it was never before or a block wall that has changed shape. These technologies will help business also and within a few years we can have a major advantage by doing aerial surveying in 3D from space. This is going to be rather incredible and it will change many of the ways we build things in the future and how we market to different area and how we study traffic and water, and Earthquakes and everything you can think of in the physical world.

“Lance Winslow” - Online Think Tank forum board. If you have innovative thoughts and unique perspectives, come think with Lance; www.WorldThinkTank.net/wttbbs/

It is so easy for America to find one person to place the blame for events or happenings within our country, such as our President, and not only our present leader but those in the past as well have suffered this same fate. We fail to look at the entire spectrum before us, or should we say “behind and before us”.

This was brought to my attention and I thought you might be interested in this forgotten bit of information……….

Recently, at a lecture, playing an old news video of Lt.Col. Oliver North testifying at the Iran-Contra hearings during the Reagan Administration, the year was 1987.

Being questioned by a Senator, getting the third degree, Oliver North’s words a shock!

Senator: “Did you not recently spend close to $60,000 for a home security system?”

Mr North: “Yes, I did, Sir.”

Senator (amusingly): “Isn’t that just a little excessive?”

Mr. North: “No, sir.”

Senator: “No? And why not?”

Mr. North: “Because the lives of my family and I were threatened, sir.”

Senator: “Threatened? By whom?”

Mr. North: “By a terrorist, sir.”

Senator: “Terrorist? What terrorist could possibly scare you that much?”

Mr. North: “His name is Osama Bin Laden, sir.”

Senator (trying to repeat the name Osama Bin Laden, but failed to pronounce it. Laughter at the Senator’s attempt): Why are you so afraid of this man?”

Mr. North: “Because, sir, he is the most evil person alive that I know of.”

Senator: “And what do you recommend we do about him?”

Mr. North: “Well, sir, if it was up to me, I would recommend that an assassin team be formed to eliminate him and his men from the face of the earth.”

Senator disagreeing with this proposal, the clip ended.

The Senator: Al Gore!

Another Past to Present:

Terrorist “Pilot” Mohammad Atta blew up a bus in Israel in 1986. The Israelis captured, tried and imprisoned him. As part of the Oslo agreement with the Palestinians in 1993, Israel had to agree to release so-called “political prisoners.”

However, the Israelis refused to release prisoners with blood on their hands. In term as President of the United States, Bill Clinton, and his Secretary of State, Warren Christopher, “insisted” that all prisoners be released.

Therefore, the “Pilot”, Mohammad Atta was released and eventually boarding a US airplane and flying into Tower One of the World Trade Center. This was reported by many of the American TV networks at the time that the terrorist were first identified. Of course, we all know he had to have felt extreme guilt for his actions against the country that “insisted” upon his release.

Later, all reports relating to this incident were censored in the US.

The curiousity within me questions: How many will continue to refuse reality? How many will fight against the realization because they need that one person to blame, that one person in which to distribute all their fear and anger? When will they accept that there are many more to blame, many more shoulders to carry the burden?

Many people who are expert in the issue of the Oswald’s rifle are able to clearly demonstrate that the best marksman in the world could not have done what that one rifle was supposed to have done. I suppose once the story was manufactured they had to stick with it before they knew about the ricochet and other evidence. On forums and in debates with serious people who have studied all facets of the case I have never had anyone stand behind the fact that this one bullet ended up in such a pristine condition. They say things like - ‘That was obviously a planted piece of evidence.’ I then say things such as this.

If they can allow Ruby the kind of freedom in a police building that I saw as a youngster, they are capable of having done many fabrications in the effort to confuse and mislead the American people. If they placed fake evidence on the body of JFK and told the coroner not to do his usual job, they broke laws that would land anyone in prison. Thus when I hear a trained assassination squad person at Camp Le Jeune come forward after he has left the forces and is no longer either afraid of reprisals or considers the matter de-classified, I listen. I listen when the son of a Dallas policeman who is dead tells me that his father was on the grassy knoll and saw the triangulation team member take the vital shot.

The American people had a totally false impression of JFK and indeed the American people are generally gutless sheep who are willing to accept this kind of government due to the fact that most of them know where their bread is buttered. They cannot honestly say they do not know the US has been behind numerous enforced and fraudulent businesses that allow America to be the recipient of the largesse it enjoys. It started with the outright immoral invasion of the land of people whose culture was far better and at least as advanced as European culture. They used bioweapons and disease with intent. The pork-barreling cronyism that is all over America has allowed people to re-elect whoever brings their district the most shares o these spoils of immoral actions conducted by their agents in the armies and secret operations so they turn a blind eye to the facts.

The End of the Cold War Could Cost:

The ‘dismal science’ of economics with its ‘trickle-down’ or ‘voodoo economics’ as well as Keynesian wastefulness is defended by many to this day. They believe in full employment rather than efficient employment of technology just as Rome used slaves rather than technology. The Hobbesian or Machiavellian ‘appeals to base human urges’ (Il Principe) are behind this Neoplatonic hierarchial oligarchy or Synarchy but I have done many other books on these things.

Please, just think of your own family budget and how stupid it is to spend money blowing up and destroying things just so you have something to fix or work at fixing. The massive over-building of deserts full of helicopters and airplanes come to mind. Truman sold the Russians a whole air force at scrap value shortly after having gotten the American people to go along with increasing the defence budget in a time of Peace. He had said bad things about the Russians while cajoling Congress to authorize these black and horrid spending measures that Eisenhower later warned us about. Make work programs might cause greater employment but just imagine what could be achieved if productive and educational efforts had been taken rather than the whole Cold War. A War on Poverty and Ignorance would have lead to free energy and no need for planned obsolescence and all the other wasteful programs of these economic ONE PIE schools of thought.

There are people who argue that re-distribution of assets or the seizure of ill-gotten gains is communistic and counter-productive. I could argue that it is not counter-productive, but there is no need to re-distribute the wealth held by the rich except in cases where they continue to operate in immoral fashion. We should tax churches that diminish women and children and we should close loop-holes throughout the world so that the super-rich are paying their fair share of taxes while we cut bureaucracy and encourage productive use of the human asset pool and other resources. The Club of Rome, Bucky Fuller and many futurists have described sensible alternatives to these ONE PIE ideologies.

I think JFK intended to make real change quicker than his Merovingian bosses felt comfortable with. They saw the profits they were making from more war and they knew they were gaining greater control over the world economy. This was the ‘cost’ that had to be addressed. They acted to end his life rather than end the Cold War that JFK and Khrushchev had agreed to do. Nelson Rockefeller took his first trip to Moscow the day before Nikita was sent packing. I think this was no coincidence even though I do think the book called None Dare Call It Conspiracy was a politically motivated sensationalistic piece of the Hegelian plot. Again I remind you of what FDR said - ‘If it happened, it was planned.’ I have many similar quotes from Yeltsin, Bismarck and even from the horse’s (Rothschild) mouths. I know Chomsky is right about Canada being a satellite state and when I say American people are ignorant I include all the satellite states and people that this New World Order economic hegemony has wrought.

I remind my brother and other intelligent people who I argue these points with, that the Cathars demonstrated a working model for proper governance. I remind people that before Empire there was a Brotherhood that Jesus (and JFK) or other wise people inside the hegemony have given their lives for. I do indeed specify details that they often have never heard and I give them the references to back it up.

Activist for real change rather than pet projects or peeves.

“Like humans void of soul or mind, they jeered and yelled as they went about selecting their most jagged stones.” - David Hearne, excerpt from Hulagu’s Web.

Stoning is a brutal and outdated practice that is kept alive only by Muslims under Sharia rule. Although it has been practiced since biblical times, every other culture has systematically ceased the practice in favor of more humane forms of punishment. The torturous sentence leaves the victim in agony. David Hearne, in his book Hulagu’s Web, shows us how painful it can be. “Terror ripped through her mind…then suddenly the first stone smashed into her…” (Hulagu’s Web, 64) The only solitude the punished has is that they will soon die.

Stoning is typically a punishment for adultery, although it can also be use for cases of incest and other sexual or “moral” crimes. Typically, a stoning victim is first wrapped in cloth and buried up to the waist for men, or up to the chest for females. Then the crowd is to throw stones at the victim. However, it is very important that, “… no stone should be thrown that should kill with the first or second blow, or so small as a pebble to do no injury to the condemned.” (Hulagu’s Web, 64) Stoning is a unique form of punishment in that there is no single executioner. The simplistic act of gathering the victim’s peers around him creates killers out of everyone.

Today, stoning is only practiced in Islamic culture in order to maintain the submission of its women and those in the lower cast. Only those impoverished or socially unimportant are punished by stoning. This barbaric act parallels those of the 4th century Theodosius who punished those who did not share his religious views. He ordered all non-Christian temples be destroyed and that all heathens be executed unless they convert. His decree now lives on in the hands of religious Islamic tyrants that now employ the brutal act of stoning. These acts of barbarism and violence far outweigh the moral transgression of those condemned.

Stoning has been in practice since biblical times. In the Old Testament, God is quoted as requiring stoning as a punishment for breaking one of the Ten Commandments, particularly for committing adultery. However, in the New Testament, Jesus is believed to have replaced that type of punishment for a more humane punishment. He is quoted as having challenged, “he that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.” This is why stoning has slowly been replaced with punishments that require less involvement of ones peers.

As we realize the impact of such a brutal death, we realize that we have no right to take part in killing another when we too have sinned. This imparting of sin on all those who partake in it is the very reason most cultures have abandoned the practice.

We already see a disintegration of the practice of stoning in Islamic culture. Only those under Sharia rule still practice it. In this culture, there is no distinction between religious and governmental law. Religion is governmental law. More information on Islam and Sharia law can be found at http://answering-islam.org.uk/.

Among the countries that still practice stoning are Afghanistan, Iran, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Sudan and the United Arab Emirates. Other Islamic countries denounce the practice as inhumane and indicate that the Qur’an provides no grounds for such a vicious practice. Those who practice stoning claim that it is demanded by Islam and have gone so far as incorporating it into their countries penal codes.

From these deep rooted laws regarding stoning, there have been a few recent cases of global interest where stoning has been received as a punishment. In December 2004 a woman in Iran was scheduled to be stoned to death after spending five years in prison for committing adultery. She was one of over 100 to be stoned to death in Iran last year alone. In Nigeria, a woman was sentenced to stoning after giving birth to a baby more than nine months after divorcing. To her good fortune, this sentence was overturned. More instances of recent convictions resulting in stoning can be found at http://www.religioustolerance.org/isl_adul1.htm. With international efforts to stop stoning, the rulings are being overturned with more frequency, hopefully giving less credibility to Sharia law.

David Hearne shows us a heart-wrenching account of a stoning in his book Hulagu’s Web. He shows us that not only does the victim suffer the agony of the stoning, but also her anguish is unfelt by the executioners who relish their license to kill. “A spray of blood and spit now accompanies her cries of pain…The gore pleased [him], and he gleefully watched the proceedings to ensure that no one used a stone of the wrong size.” (Hulagu’s Web, 64-65) Through this account we can see that the emotional involvement of crowd creates the wrong message. Instead of invoking fear of being stoned themselves, the crowd comes to enjoy a good stoning and thrives off of it. In this fashion, stoning is no longer a form of punishment, rather a form of entertainment that breeds murderers out of ordinary people.

For those doing the stoning, it is a social event that becomes more of a religious sport than a true act of moral self-righteousness. An actual video of a stoning can be viewed at http://www.iran-e-azad.org/stoning/. The footage taken in Iran illustrates a party like atmosphere of those carrying out the execution. It is reminiscent of the family picnics at the old Wild West hangings or the popularity of people watching the slaughter of gladiators in early Rome.

Like other diabolical methods of torture, stoning has gone out of style as society realized that having others participate in the punishment of another, even a criminal, devalues life. Stoning also creates fear and terrorizes the minds of others. The Guillotine, whipping, pouring acid on someone or gouging their eyes out with iron have all been gleefully practiced over the ages by zealots. Regardless of the how brutal, none of these punishments have stood the test of time. Even those founded in the name of religion have died out because they are cruel and inhumane.

As these diabolical methods have failed, it is important to note one punishment continually in practice: Jail. Imprisonment has been a popular form of punishment because having “…her face pulverized by the stoning,” (Hulagu’s Web, 64) seems a little extreme no matter what the crime. Even though so many cultures have migrated towards this type of punishment, it is hard for westerners to understand why Sharia Muslims still sanction a punishment this inhumane.

As stoning is done in the name of Allah, Hearne has his character yelling “God is great.” (Hulagu’s Web, 63) The crowd is egged on even more as they become more involved with the stoning. Perhaps the worst part about stoning is that it brings ordinary God fearing people to actually fear life itself. They are put into a perpetual state of fear such as Hearne’s Senator Laforge who imagines her own stoning in a nightmare. (Hulagu’s Web, 63) Unable to let the memory go, people in these countries under Sharia rule cower and are plagued with fear of their life ending in such a brutal manner.

Stoning is an act of insanity and must be stopped. That humans should gather around and throw stones with the intent to take another human life is a hideous thought. Though fiction, David Hearne’s book shows us that an individual can be gripped with fear over governmental prosecution. It is the passion shown in his book that gives us cause and hope for change in the world.

For more information on joining the international fight against stoning, visit the following links:

http://www.stopstoningnow.com/

http://www.free-minds.org/stoning.htm

After traveling to over 20 countries, Brooke Sikula has finally settled down in Ventura, CA. She enjoys quilting, home improvement projects and spending time with her husband and 1 year old son. Brooke has a B.A. in History and Spanish and currently works as a freelance writer.

According to Ofcom, a majority of the British population does not believe in the utility of a broadband connection.

Ed Richards, CEO of Ofcom, speaking at the London School of Economics mentioned that 55% of the British population was not interested in availing the facilities of broadband in spite of being regularly reminded of its benefits such as conveniently buying insurance, catching up on missed TV shows or accessing useful information.

Mr. Richards said that it was imperative to find out why broadband was not popular amongst the British and why 40% of the population still does not possess basic internet services. He revealed that out of the half of the population that was not keen to get a broadband connection, 30 percent felt it would be an added expenditure, which they could not afford. Another 15 percent did not even have a computer through which they could access the internet. I you would like to find out more about broadband and what options are available for you , try www.broadbandgenie.co.uk, for a comparison based on factors which are important for you, such as cost and prices.

Mr. Richards stressed that it was clear that some action needs to be taken to tackle the situation as broadband brings huge advantages to people and has the potential of improving their living condition by increasing productivity and providing access to a huge amount of information. He suggested that it might be economically more viable to ensure that people get access to the basic broadband services first instead of having to wait for a new 2Mb network to be setup.

For many years now, I have been the proud holder of jobs that my parents found very difficult to explain to their friends. Now, when a well-meaning acquaintance asks “what does your daughter do?” they try to explain that I help people understand how to communicate with elected officials. Invariably the response is “What? She teaches people how to lobby? Good heavens, she’s not a lobbyist herself, is she?” Apparently, being a lobbyist is right up there with being a convict, especially these days.

But is lobbying really that terrible? Before you utter a resounding “yes”, let’s look at what a lobbyist does. According to that wonderful resource www.dictionary.com, a lobbyist is someone who tries to influence public officials to take one position over another on a particular issue. That doesn’t sound so bad, does it? I’m sure some of you are thinking “well, no, but that doesn’t adequately describe all the terrible things that those lobbyists do in Washington, DC.”

Before we start casting stones, however, consider for a minute that the vast majority of these lobbyists are working on issues that you might actually care about! For example, are you a member of AARP? Do you contribute to the Sierra Club? Do you own a car and have an AAA membership? All of these organizations use funds from their members to hire “lobbyists” in Washington, DC. In fact, you, yes you, might actually be acting as a lobbyist in your daily life. Have you ever called up a city agency to express the need for a stop sign in your neighborhood? Have you signed on to a petition or letter from a professional organization that was then sent to elected officials at the state or federal level? That’s lobbying, my friend, pure and simple.

Yes, I know. That’s different. You’re expressing your views on public policy because you really care about an issue. Those evil lobbyists, however, are paid to express opinions that they don’t necessarily believe. They use all kinds of bribery to get officials on their side. The truth is, some people are paid for this work. Some, like citizen advocates, aren’t. Some employ a number of tools, such as fancy dinners, fundraisers and, as we’ve heard in the news lately, fully-paid trips to exotic locales as part of their lobbying efforts. Some don’t. Some professional lobbyists actually are really terrible people that peddle their influence in as sleazy a manner as possible and are an embarrassment to the profession. The vast majority, however, are people who truly believe in a cause and have found a way to marry their personal interests with their professional life. They are hired to lobby on causes they really care about, from access to health care to city planning to protection of animals.

I’m often asked “what’s the difference between lobbying and advocacy?” To me, it’s a simple matter of the audience. People who are supporters of a particular cause or position are “advocates”. When those people start seeking to influence public officials to take one position over another on those issues, they are “lobbying.” It doesn’t matter whether they are paid or unpaid, whether they are in DC or “outside the beltway”, or even whether they are sleazy or not: when one person seeks to influence another, that’s lobbying. We can condemn the tactics and strategies they use, but let’s not condemn the entire practice.

Really, if you think about it, there’s no escaping lobbying. In fact, it could probably be considered the world’s oldest profession. I know that some people honor another profession with that title, but if you adhere to the whole “Adam-and-Eve-in-the-garden-with-the-snake” perspective on the world, what was the snake but a very highly successful lobbyist? I’m sure he made all kinds of claims to Eve about the wholesomeness of apples and the general benefits that could be expected from apple eating. Perhaps he was evil - or perhaps he was just trying to get a little peace and quiet in the garden.

And in answer to the question that my parents always wrestle with - no, I am not a professional lobbyist, although I do occasionally “lobby” on a personal level. But I wouldn’t be ashamed to admit that I was.

Stephanie Vance, an ex-lobbyist and ex-chief of staff, believes that government isn’t broken; you just need to work the system to beat the odds. She currenlty travels the country presenting entertaining and informative workshops to help advocates navigate the legislative system and make an impact with their elected officials. Learn more and sign up for her free Advocacy Tipsheet at http://www.advocacyguru.com

There are no stupid questions, only stupid people. Ask an economist for proof of one of their pet theories and you’ll find quickly that the age old axiom that we all learned in school and work place training seminars is dead wrong. You can ask a stupid question if you’re talking to an economist and that question can, in fact, make you stupid.

It’s a well accepted fact that scientists are not the greatest communicators around. They generally are not strong in the customer service or public relations fields. Scientists spend their time preaching to the well educated, well informed, scientific choir. When the time comes that a scientific discovery leads to a consumer product, it is not scientists that explain the benefits and dangers of the new product, a marketing company will handle that. Because of the disconnect between the science behind a product and the actual implementation of that science, there are a slew of products which are around 1.25% scientific fact and 98.75% marketing hype (take a look at your average diet pill). Consumers don’t know the difference because scientists won’t talk to us.

Economists also fancy themselves as scientists. They like to say that they have laws and they also don’t feel the need to deign to speak to the general public about their work. They talk to each other, develop their theories, push for the implementation of those theories and generally think that Liberal Arts majors and auto mechanics should mind their own business. Maybe it’s time that we lowly non-economists demand a few answers.

It’s tremendously irksome to hear an economist speak about an economic law. Ask the economist to demonstrate the law and he will fall quickly to an explanation of the theories which, in his opinion, make the law true. Supply and Demand can only be verified by reading those theorists who endorse the idea. The theory cannot be measured, cannot be duplicated under scientific standards, cannot be certain to have the same outcome at all times, even given the same circumstances. It is therefore not a law. It’s just a widely accepted theory.

I’ve got no problem with widely accepted theories. What I do find disturbing and even dangerous is the application of widely accepted theories into public policy without regard to whom is being hurt and without question as to whether or not the theory is working.

Take free trade for instance. It’s an economic policy which is not demanded by the average working person, but which both major political parties endorse to some extent and which the Libertarian Party makes a cornerstone of it’s platform. The theories all indicate that some job loss, even great displacement of a given society’s workers, is to be expected. In fact, the displacement is a good thing, since it allows once unskilled laborers to study and become highly skilled technitions, or accountants or something. Unfortunately, the American people aren’t privy to this part of the working economic theory and thusly aren’t excited to hear that the reason that their job was offshore is due to India’s comparative advantage in call center operations. The displaced worker may not feel that they are a worthy subject for the grand experiment of free trade.

Of course, no theory says that America has to be the winner in the free trade free-for-all rush to the top of the comparative/absolute advantage heap. No, economists don’t often talk about nations at all. Their theories do not aim to find ways of make America the most economically powerful nation, or the richest, or the most comfortable; their theories work to ensure a true free market. The problem with a truly free market is that the displaced workers can just as easily be upper middle class Americans and the new skills that they may be acquiring just may be menial labor. Ask an economist why the displaced workers are always poor and always must be and I’ll bet you money that they cannot give even a small piece of evidence to show a reason why that is so.

Yet our politicians, being taught economics in universities which are almost universally in support of free trade, themselves support free trade. They support an economic theory that has no evidence of actually being affective, but which may cause damage to the American economy, a fact which any honest free trade supporting economist would have to admit doesn’t matter to them. Yet, the average person is not supposed to question these theories and certainly not the logic of the theorocrats that endorse them. If you fail to remain quietly on the sidelines of history and make the mistake of questioning the theory behind free trade, then you will be the recipient of a litany of the names of long dead authors who will all prove you wrong. You’ll be called an idiot (trust me, I’ve had these discussions), they will threaten your mother’s virtue before they admit that they can provide no evidence that they are correct.

Does a lack of evidence prove that the economists are wrong? Not at all. In fact, my desire for evidence is proof that I don’t know enough about economics to ask more informed questions than, “can you prove that?” I do think, though, that is a damn fine place to start. Maybe more economists should start their path of theoretical enlightenment by questioning the fundamental truth of what they are being taught. Maybe economists should consider being the first scientists to learn customer service. If that seems like a bit of a demotion, just call it retraining for new economic conditions.

About The Author

Donald R. Carroll III is a student, insurance adjuster and freelance writer from Kansas City, Missouri.

dcarroll04@kc.rr.com

Pimsleur German II Complete Course by Dr. Paul Pimsleur is definitely an interesting book, but today’s busy life styles could make finding time challenging to do. Sometimes we don’t notice how long journeys to work and various different chores take up large chunks of our time. Making a living, taking care of kids or housework all cut back the time available to persue your interests. If you are a keen book fan who is finding it hard to fit it in, time in the car may be a chance for catching up. Thanks to downloads, it’s simple to spoil yourself with Monkey’s Paw by W.W. Jacobs for sale from Download Audio Book Online, or audible books recounted by W.W. Jacobs without even flipping a page.

Nowadays multitasking has become the norm. Audio-books like Pimsleur Armenian (Eastern) Compact by Dr. Paul Pimsleur for sale from Download Audio Book Online fill the dead minutes in life, it may be waiting in a dental surgery or maybe grocery shopping. Audiobooks are obtainable to download as audio files suited for your PC, laptop computers and ipods for example Kafka’s Dick by Alan Bennett, so pick up your mp3 player you have the chance to hear a biography or a great novel, for instance audio-books by Paul Strathern without hauling a cumbersome book around.

The various benefits of audio-books include hiring or buying the instructional book of your choice and listening to it at your leisure. How about learning Spanish? Why not check out audiobooks? Maybe the latest sales techniques interest you, or you can enjoy studying the most innovative thoughts about religion or modern spirituality.

An extended selection of writing styles and titles are available. It doesn’t matter if you love history, mad over love stories or even if your interested in self help, many can be downloaded immediately. Several options are available; it’s simple to subscribe to a rental service or instead buy what interests you.

Reading will always have its place, but the thousands of audio titles available offer convenience. Numerous narratives, such as audio titles performed by Gloria White, can be more gratifying when performed by the writer or an actor. Reading a book is not quite the same as listening to audio books performed by John Darnton, including refinements given during a rendidtion. Your enjoyment of the story will be heightened when you listen to audiobooks such as Historian by Elizabeth Kostova and in many cases will mean more to you than the written words.

Please hop over to our awesome website for Pimsleur Irish I Part 1 by Pimsleur facts.

Don’t forget audio titles next time you think about buying a book, they are a wonderful means to squeeze all the studying you want to do into a busy routine.

Whether you are breaking wood commercially or for your own residential use, a good log splitter is an essential part of the job. Before choosing a particular electric log splitter, educate yourself on the different varieties. Different types of manual wood splitters are better suited to the usage involved.

Just need some lumber split for a few piles of firewood? Your basic old fashioned single blade log splitting axe can get the job done. The hand held simple log splitting maul uses a sharp blade and has a wedge shaped head which forces the log to split. A strong blow or two is all that is needed to split a log 15-25 inches in length. If you are a healthy and strong individual who doesn’t mind manual labor, a regular wood splitting axe may be all you need.

Investing in a hydraulic wood splitter may be the best choice for those who need more than just a few pieces of firewood. One of your first decisions is between a horizontal or vertical loading manual wood splitter. Either are dependent on how you are using the splitter. Another choice to make when considering a log splitter is whether your needs are better suited to a gasoline powered or a diesel engine model. Another option for those who have access to a power supply is to use an electric wood splitter.

The powerful manual wood splitter is pretty easy to understand. It works by the log being driven through the razor sharp blade by the piston.

A sign of a good manual log splitter is one that completes the job without problems and at an efficient rate of speed. The log splitter used properly will save a company many hours of manual labor and unnecessary effort on the part of the operator. Appropriate safety measures should always be taken to protect the operator from unnecessary injury.

Those near the manual log splitter should maintain a safe enough distance to avoid injury. Protective eyewear should always be worn to avoid injury from flying particles of wood. Loose fitting clothing and jewelry are a safety hazard and should not be worn.

Independent contractors who work on homes or for those who remodel and use wood regularly, a electric log splitter is a smart investment decision. A hydraulic log splitter can be used for a wide range of projects; from chopping firewood to making furniture. A electric wood splitter can be found wherever lumber and logging equipment is sold.

I have to be honest. It is time to come clean. Though the rising cost of health care was indeed the primary reason my wife and I uprooted our lives and left America, it was not the only one. In very close competition was the issue of terrorism.

We left America on August 1, 2003, and could not leave fast enough. Though health care is the primary reason we cite in our writing for leaving, the ongoing threat of Islamic terrorism in America was another motivating factor. Here is what I thought on the day of 9/11 and what I said to my wife at the time:

*America would never adopt strict measures making it illegal to belong to extremist Islamic groups such as Hizb-ut-Tahrir or others.

*America would never consider outlawing those who advocate the creation of an Islamic state.

*America would never consider compiling a list of websites and bookstores that carry materials which incite hatred and violence in order to catch and punish American nationals and deport others who frequent theses venues.

*America would never consider adopting the policy: “Play by our rules or you have to leave!”

*America would never consider holding INDEFINITELY, if necessary, those who would kill us without charge. Do the words, Guantanamo and the ACLU ring a familiar bell?

*America would never close mosques used as centers for fomenting extremism and would never draw up a list of foreign Islamic clerics not suitable to preach who would be excluded from America.

*American government officials would never be able to reach the critically thought out conclusion that it is impossible to negotiate with terrorists and that no comprise would be possible.

And just why did I immediately jump to these seven conclusions?

There are two reasons:

1. I immediately knew the ACLU, the self-proclaimed paragons of American “moral virtue” and all things democratic (yeah rightthey are feared as though they are the fourth branch of the federal government), would not allow it.

2. Because of representatives of “the people” like Barney Frank.

“Congressman Barney Frank, the Massachusetts Democrat who was a strong advocate of protecting civil liberties, led a successful effort to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act so that membership in a terrorist group was no longer sufficient to deny a visa. Under Frank’s amendment, which seems unthinkable post 9/11, a visa could only be denied if the government could prove that the applicant had committed an act of terrorism. Rendered toothless by the Frank amendment, the Reagan administration had virtually no way to block entry visas even when there was information linking the individuals to terrorist groups.”[1]

And should this come a surprise to anyone?

“Between 1981 and 2001, Barney Frank sponsored no less than 13 amendments to the Immigration and Nationality Act, which had the effect of opening the nation’s floodgates to a well-disciplined, well-organized network of terrorist sleeper cells and support groups that have since become entrenched here in America for up to two decades.

The Frank Amendment of 1989, the crown jewel of the congressman’s assault on our immigration laws, declared that a foreigner could not be denied a visa because of his ideology, which meant that that no matter how repugnant, hostile or undemocratic an individual’s politics, these could not be grounds for denying him entry into the United States.”[2]

Gerald Posner, author of these quotes makes this observation of Frank:

“The Congressman exhibited an almost exasperated disbelief when I continued to query him, as if I were a knave to even dare to question his legislative record. When I evidently let on that I was less than convinced by his response, he questioned whether I had listened to anything he already told me. So chagrined was Mr. Frank that someone should be disinclined to accept his rhetoric as gospel.”[3]

If I may opine here, this is the typical response of someone who lives a life of untested assumptions and is incapable of engaging in critical thinking skillsnow you know my opinion of Barney Frank.

That is the abysmal state of the American federal government. We are ruled not by a government of the people and by the people but by a self-proclaimed human rights organization supported financially by ideologues. We are ruled by congressmen and senators who would not know how to think critically if their lives depended on itand everyone’s does.

Even as I write these words, Britain is actually implementing the seven conclusions I assumed America would NEVER implement after 9/11 occurred.[4] To say I was shocked is to put it mildly.

Will America ever come to its senses and follow Britain in this measure to adopt these new and much needed, and what our friends like the “good” Congressman Barney Frank will undoubtedly call, draconian measures?

I doubt it very, very much. In fact, I so doubt it that the wife and I have no plans ever to return to America.

[1] Author Gerald Posner, as published in Frank’s hometown newspaper, The Newton Tab.

[2] Ibid

[3] Ibid

[4] U.K. Institutes New Deportation Measures By ED JOHNSON, Associated Press Writer

Freelance writer, Syndicated Columnist, and book author, Doug Bower, has written a compelling new book titled, AMERICA’S ANTI-MEXICAN XENOPHOBIA. Have you wondered if the Minuteman Project is really on the “up and up”? Have you wondered if they represent all that is good and right with Americaparagons of patriotic virtue? Doug Bower may have the answers you’ve been looking for. FREE CHAPTER: http://www.lulu.com/content/140958