Tinker:
Lets cut to the chase because after all we are talking about how we love one another. Are we going to now start tarring at the fabric deep inside our emotions that make our everyday delights not worth living.
No matter how rich or poor that we maybe, can't we simply keep living in the moments of our life enjoying the interaction of our daily life. Because people are the very investment into how we feel about what we are doing.
The politicians now running Washington DC seem to be devoid of any kind of standard of life, lost within the world that has impressed them. A kind of walking misery seeking company so they can keep existing in the self absolved narcissism complex where they live.
Unaccountable popular corruption locked deep inside the United States government self-serving bag of political tricks room so they can use the United States constitution that is stocked full of the American people check and balances against political corruption, for cover in the Washington DC politician's really big showcase, broadcasted anywhere and everywhere every day and night.
Do you thing that a lot of American people are condition to the really big American government TV show by now. I'm pretty sure that you are formulier with their routine, right?
Politics, power and money that never seems to be enough for their shallow vanity. A daily life of fear and anxiety looking over their shoulder worrying their life away.
No! I don't want to live like that.
Elton John - I Don't Wanna Go On With You Like That... Moscow 1995
------------------
What Did Jesus Say About Love
Matthew 5:43-48 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
Read more: http://www.whatchristianswantt
Read more: http://www.whatchristianswantt
| The Holy Bible: King James Version. 2000. |
| The Revelation |
| of St. John the Divine |
| 22 |
| 13 | I am Alpha and Ome'ga, the beginning and the end, Rev. 1.8 the first and the last. Is. 44.6 ; 48.12 · Rev. 1.17 ; 2.8 |
| 14 | ¶ Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, Gen. 2.9 ; 3.22 and may enter in through the gates into the city. |
------------------
------------------
What a wonderful world - LOUIS ARMSTRONG
------------------
Wall Street Journal
DECLARATIONS
Updated August 16, 2013, 7:05 p.m. ET
What is privacy? Why should we want to hold onto it? Why is it important, necessary, precious?
Is it just some prissy relic of the pretechnological past?
We talk about this now because of Edward Snowden, the National Security Agency revelations, and new fears that we are operating, all of us, within what has become or is becoming a massive surveillance state. They log your calls here, they can listen in, they can read your emails. They keep the data in mammoth machines that contain a huge collection of information about you and yours. This of course is in pursuit of a laudable goal, security in the age of terror.
Is it excessive? It certainly appears to be. Does that matter? Yes. Among other reasons: The end of the expectation that citizens' communications are and will remain private will probably change us as a people, and a country.
Privacy is connected to personhood. It has to do with intimate things—the innards of your head and heart, the workings of your mind—and the boundary between those things and the world outside.
A loss of the expectation of privacy in communications is a loss of something personal and intimate, and it will have broader implications. That is the view of Nat Hentoff, the great journalist and civil libertarian. He is 88 now and on fire on the issue of privacy. "The media has awakened," he told me. "Congress has awakened, to some extent." Both are beginning to realize "that there are particular constitutional liberty rights that [Americans] have that distinguish them from all other people, and one of them is privacy."
Mr. Hentoff sees excessive government surveillance as violative of the Fourth Amendment, which protects "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures" and requires that warrants be issued only "upon probable cause . . . particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
But Mr. Hentoff sees the surveillance state as a threat to free speech, too. About a year ago he went up to Harvard to speak to a class. He asked, he recalled: "How many of you realize the connection between what's happening with the Fourth Amendment with the First Amendment?" He told the students that if citizens don't have basic privacies—firm protections against the search and seizure of your private communications, for instance—they will be left feeling "threatened." This will make citizens increasingly concerned "about what they say, and they do, and they think." It will have the effect of constricting freedom of expression. Americans will become careful about what they say that can be misunderstood or misinterpreted, and then too careful about what they say that can be understood. The inevitable end of surveillance is self-censorship.
All of a sudden, the room became quiet. "These were bright kids, interested, concerned, but they hadn't made an obvious connection about who we are as a people." We are "free citizens in a self-governing republic."
Mr. Hentoff once asked Justice William Brennan "a schoolboy's question": What is the most important amendment to the Constitution? "Brennan said the First Amendment, because all the other ones come from that. If you don't have free speech you have to be afraid, you lack a vital part of what it is to be a human being who is free to be who you want to be." Your own growth as a person will in time be constricted, because we come to know ourselves by our thoughts.
He wonders if Americans know who they are compared to what the Constitution says they are.
Mr. Hentoff's second point: An entrenched surveillance state will change and distort the balance that allows free government to function successfully. Broad and intrusive surveillance will, definitively, put government in charge. But a republic only works, Mr. Hentoff notes, if public officials know that they—and the government itself—answer to the citizens. It doesn't work, and is distorted, if the citizens must answer to the government. And that will happen more and more if the government knows—and you know—that the government has something, or some things, on you. "The bad thing is you no longer have the one thing we're supposed to have as Americans living in a self-governing republic," Mr. Hentoff said. "The people we elect are not your bosses, they are responsible to us." They must answer to us. But if they increasingly control our privacy, "suddenly they're in charge if they know what you're thinking."
This is a shift in the democratic dynamic. "If we don't have free speech then what can we do if the people who govern us have no respect for us, may indeed make life difficult for us, and in fact belittle us?"
If massive surveillance continues and grows, could it change the national character? "Yes, because it will change free speech."
What of those who say, "I have nothing to fear, I don't do anything wrong"? Mr. Hentoff suggests that's a false sense of security. "When you have this amount of privacy invasion put into these huge data banks, who knows what will come out?" Or can be made to come out through misunderstanding the data, or finagling, or mischief of one sort or another. "People say, 'Well I've done nothing wrong so why should I worry?' But that's too easy a way to get out of what is in our history—constant attempts to try to change who we are as Americans." Asked about those attempts, he mentions the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, the Red Scare of the 1920s and the McCarthy era. Those times and incidents, he says, were more than specific scandals or news stories, they were attempts to change our nature as a people.
What of those who say they don't care what the federal government does as long as it keeps us safe? The threat of terrorism is real, Mr. Hentoff acknowledges. Al Qaeda is still here, its networks are growing. But you have to be careful about who's running U.S. intelligence and U.S. security, and they have to be fully versed in and obey constitutional guarantees. "There has to be somebody supervising them who knows what's right. . . . Terrorism is not going to go away. But we need someone in charge of the whole apparatus who has read the Constitution."
Advances in technology constantly up the ability of what government can do. Its technological expertise will only become deeper and broader. "They think they're getting to how you think. The technology is such that with the masses of databases, then privacy will get even weaker."
Mr. Hentoff notes that J. Edgar Hoover didn't have all this technology. "He would be so envious of what NSA can do."
A version of this article appeared August 16, 2013, on page A13 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: What We Lose if We Give Up Privacy.
----------------
Noonan: What We Lose if We Give Up Privacy
A civil libertarian reflects on the dangers of the surveillance state.
By Peggy NoonanWhat is privacy? Why should we want to hold onto it? Why is it important, necessary, precious?
Is it just some prissy relic of the pretechnological past?
We talk about this now because of Edward Snowden, the National Security Agency revelations, and new fears that we are operating, all of us, within what has become or is becoming a massive surveillance state. They log your calls here, they can listen in, they can read your emails. They keep the data in mammoth machines that contain a huge collection of information about you and yours. This of course is in pursuit of a laudable goal, security in the age of terror.
Is it excessive? It certainly appears to be. Does that matter? Yes. Among other reasons: The end of the expectation that citizens' communications are and will remain private will probably change us as a people, and a country.
***
Among the pertinent definitions of privacy from the Oxford English Dictionary: "freedom from disturbance or intrusion," "intended only for the use of a particular person or persons," belonging to "the property of a particular person." Also: "confidential, not to be disclosed to others." Among others, the OED quotes the playwright Arthur Miller, describing the McCarthy era: "Conscience was no longer a private matter but one of state administration."Privacy is connected to personhood. It has to do with intimate things—the innards of your head and heart, the workings of your mind—and the boundary between those things and the world outside.
Martin Kozlowski
Mr. Hentoff sees excessive government surveillance as violative of the Fourth Amendment, which protects "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures" and requires that warrants be issued only "upon probable cause . . . particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
But Mr. Hentoff sees the surveillance state as a threat to free speech, too. About a year ago he went up to Harvard to speak to a class. He asked, he recalled: "How many of you realize the connection between what's happening with the Fourth Amendment with the First Amendment?" He told the students that if citizens don't have basic privacies—firm protections against the search and seizure of your private communications, for instance—they will be left feeling "threatened." This will make citizens increasingly concerned "about what they say, and they do, and they think." It will have the effect of constricting freedom of expression. Americans will become careful about what they say that can be misunderstood or misinterpreted, and then too careful about what they say that can be understood. The inevitable end of surveillance is self-censorship.
All of a sudden, the room became quiet. "These were bright kids, interested, concerned, but they hadn't made an obvious connection about who we are as a people." We are "free citizens in a self-governing republic."
Mr. Hentoff once asked Justice William Brennan "a schoolboy's question": What is the most important amendment to the Constitution? "Brennan said the First Amendment, because all the other ones come from that. If you don't have free speech you have to be afraid, you lack a vital part of what it is to be a human being who is free to be who you want to be." Your own growth as a person will in time be constricted, because we come to know ourselves by our thoughts.
He wonders if Americans know who they are compared to what the Constitution says they are.
Mr. Hentoff's second point: An entrenched surveillance state will change and distort the balance that allows free government to function successfully. Broad and intrusive surveillance will, definitively, put government in charge. But a republic only works, Mr. Hentoff notes, if public officials know that they—and the government itself—answer to the citizens. It doesn't work, and is distorted, if the citizens must answer to the government. And that will happen more and more if the government knows—and you know—that the government has something, or some things, on you. "The bad thing is you no longer have the one thing we're supposed to have as Americans living in a self-governing republic," Mr. Hentoff said. "The people we elect are not your bosses, they are responsible to us." They must answer to us. But if they increasingly control our privacy, "suddenly they're in charge if they know what you're thinking."
This is a shift in the democratic dynamic. "If we don't have free speech then what can we do if the people who govern us have no respect for us, may indeed make life difficult for us, and in fact belittle us?"
If massive surveillance continues and grows, could it change the national character? "Yes, because it will change free speech."
What of those who say, "I have nothing to fear, I don't do anything wrong"? Mr. Hentoff suggests that's a false sense of security. "When you have this amount of privacy invasion put into these huge data banks, who knows what will come out?" Or can be made to come out through misunderstanding the data, or finagling, or mischief of one sort or another. "People say, 'Well I've done nothing wrong so why should I worry?' But that's too easy a way to get out of what is in our history—constant attempts to try to change who we are as Americans." Asked about those attempts, he mentions the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, the Red Scare of the 1920s and the McCarthy era. Those times and incidents, he says, were more than specific scandals or news stories, they were attempts to change our nature as a people.
What of those who say they don't care what the federal government does as long as it keeps us safe? The threat of terrorism is real, Mr. Hentoff acknowledges. Al Qaeda is still here, its networks are growing. But you have to be careful about who's running U.S. intelligence and U.S. security, and they have to be fully versed in and obey constitutional guarantees. "There has to be somebody supervising them who knows what's right. . . . Terrorism is not going to go away. But we need someone in charge of the whole apparatus who has read the Constitution."
Advances in technology constantly up the ability of what government can do. Its technological expertise will only become deeper and broader. "They think they're getting to how you think. The technology is such that with the masses of databases, then privacy will get even weaker."
Mr. Hentoff notes that J. Edgar Hoover didn't have all this technology. "He would be so envious of what NSA can do."
A version of this article appeared August 16, 2013, on page A13 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: What We Lose if We Give Up Privacy.
----------------
Tinker:
Take a look at our American children "That my Boy"
------------------
![The Liberty Amendments: Restoring the American Republic | [Mark R. Levin]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_vpKLDtGcYqwQU13O8b6OwvxKfjwMYXcKMgvSUi_8qawiWNQuMHG0RZoOiOHmruWqpbLFoUVu0alCZBwhogmwXjhp4AaaCeYLIi6sOFrknv8t3Pz9DS9vgHw8RF5BIpPSU=s0-d "The Liberty Amendments: Restoring the American Republic | [Mark R. Levin]")
http%3A%2F%2Fsamples.audible.
The Liberty Amendments: Restoring the American Republic
- Written by: Mark R. Levin
- Narrated by: Jason Culp, Mark R. Levin
- Length: 6 hrs and 54 mins
- FORMATUNABRIDGED
- RELEASE DATE08-13-13
- PUBLISHER
- This book is not currently compatible with Whispersync for Voice.
- 4.40 (12 ratings)
Mark R. Levin has made the case, in numerous New York Times best-selling books - Men in Black, Liberty and Tyranny, and Ameritopia - that the principles undergirding our society and governmental system are unravelling. In The Liberty Amendments, he turns to the founding fathers and the constitution itself for guidance in restoring the American republic.
------------------
Sports
------------------
No surprise: Alabama No. 1 in AP poll
August, 17, 2013
By Sam Khan Jr. | ESPN.com
When the Associated Press Top 25 dropped on Saturday morning there was no surprise at the top: Alabama was a clear cut No. 1.
The reigning BCS champions, which has won three of the past four championships, are the preseason No. 1 team in both major polls for the first time since 2010. The Crimson Tide received 58 of 60 possible first-place votes in the AP poll. Ohio State was a distant No. 2 in the rankings.
The Tide were also a landslide No. 1 in the coaches poll earlier this month. The path to the BCS title will go through Tuscaloosa, Ala., if the rankings are any indication.
The top 5 was identical to that in the coaches poll, with Ohio State, Oregon, Stanford and Georgia following. The SEC is well represented in the rankings, with six teams filling out the top 25 and two in the top 5. Georgia checks in at No. 5, South Carolina is sixth, Texas A&M comes in at No. 7 and Florida is 10th, giving the conference five teams in the top 10, just as it had when the coaches poll debuted earlier this month.
LSU is the lone remaining SEC team in the top 25, coming in at No. 12.
The polls are clear evidence of the national perception of the SEC and its strength in football. With almost half the conference in the top 25, the league has the most teams -- by far -- in the top 10 and also has the most overall in the top 25. The Big Ten and Pac-12 each have five teams and the Big 12 has four, though none higher than Oklahoma State at No. 13.
Fifth-ranked Georgia comes in as a dark horse title contender after coming mere yards within winning the SEC championship game against Alabama a year ago. South Carolina, which is coming off an 11-2 season, figures to challenge Georgia for the SEC East title and a berth in the title game this year, as will Florida.
Texas A&M must find out the fate of its quarterback, Johnny Manziel, but if he is healthy, there is every reason to believe that the Aggies will also be a serious factor in the SEC. LSU, which finished second in the SEC West a year ago, fills out what looks to once again be arguably the toughest division in college football.
History might not be on Alabama's side when it comes to starting No. 1. The last team to be a preseason No. 1 and also finish the season there was in 2004 when USC did it. Florida State also did it in 1999. According to ESPN Stats & Info, there have been five teams since 1990 to garner at least 50 first-place votes. None of those have gone on to win the national title.
Comments
------------------
Seriously how good do you really need to be without Georgia, or Florida, on the Alabama yearly football schedule? And if Bama does drop one, ESPN gives Bama another shot at who beat them. So it must be nice to be coddled by the SEC and TV media like that. I can certainly see how Alabama won the three BCS championships alright. Keeping the regular season football schedule full of cupcakes and the media feels safe to ride the bandwagon. Good recruiting goes a long way in that kind of setup.
------------------------
08/31/13 vs. Virginia Tech TV Atlanta, Ga. 4:30 p.m. CT
09/14/13 at Texas A&M * TV College Station, Texas 2:30 p.m. CT
09/21/13 vs. Colorado State Tuscaloosa, Ala. TBA
09/28/13 vs. Ole Miss * Tuscaloosa, Ala. TBA
10/05/13 vs. Georgia State Tuscaloosa, Ala. TBA
10/12/13 at Kentucky * Lexington, Ky. TBA
10/19/13 ...vs. Arkansas * Tuscaloosa, Ala. TBA
10/26/13 vs. Tennessee * Tuscaloosa, Ala. TBA
11/09/13 vs. LSU * Tuscaloosa, Ala. TBA
11/16/13 at Mississippi State * Starkville, Miss. TBA
11/23/13 vs. Chattanooga Tuscaloosa, Ala. TBA
11/30/13 at Auburn * Auburn, Ala. TBA
------------------------
08/31/13 vs. Virginia Tech TV Atlanta, Ga. 4:30 p.m. CT
09/14/13 at Texas A&M * TV College Station, Texas 2:30 p.m. CT
09/21/13 vs. Colorado State Tuscaloosa, Ala. TBA
09/28/13 vs. Ole Miss * Tuscaloosa, Ala. TBA
10/05/13 vs. Georgia State Tuscaloosa, Ala. TBA
10/12/13 at Kentucky * Lexington, Ky. TBA
10/19/13 ...vs. Arkansas * Tuscaloosa, Ala. TBA
10/26/13 vs. Tennessee * Tuscaloosa, Ala. TBA
11/09/13 vs. LSU * Tuscaloosa, Ala. TBA
11/16/13 at Mississippi State * Starkville, Miss. TBA
11/23/13 vs. Chattanooga Tuscaloosa, Ala. TBA
11/30/13 at Auburn * Auburn, Ala. TBA
-------------------
I'm a Georgia fan but I don't see anything standing in the way of Alabama getting to the SEC championship game again. Johnny Manziel might not even be eligible to play vs. Alabama and if he's not, Bama will win that one big. Virginia Tech doesn't stand much of a chance vs. Alabama in the 1st game. Other than those two, I can only see LSU standing in the way but I think Bama wins that one in Tuscaloosa at home. Outside of LSU & Texas A&M (if Manziel plays) who really has a shot to beat Alabama? It's really a smooth ride for Bama to the Dome again. I just hope it's against my Dawgs again!
--------------------
Dawnmarie Oyler · Harding University
I have a hard time understanding how every team in the SEC except Bama is scheduled to play at least 3 current top 25 teams, and most of the SEC is playing 4 or 5. I don't see how Bama should maintain such a high ranking when they aren't playing ranked teams....
--------------------
LSU
Les Miles Post-Scrimmage Interview - Aug. 17
---------------------
LSU Football - Geaux Tigers!!!
| Tiger Rag | Magee leads LSU ground attack in Saturday scrimmage |
| LSU Football | Twitter log of Les Miles' scrimmage recap |
|
Bryan Lazare @bldore
Pretty good scrimmage for #LSU QB Zach Mettenberger. 18-of-25 with 2 TD passes.
--------------------
--------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment