Thursday, March 31, 2011

Princess Kate Middleton | Biography



Catherine Elizabeth "KateMiddleton (born 9 January 1982) is the fiancĂ©e of Prince William of Wales. Since their relationship began, Middleton has received widespread media attention and there was much speculation that they would eventually marry. On 16 November 2010, the office of the Prince of Wales at Clarence House announced their engagement. On 23 November, it was announced the wedding will take place on 29 April 2011 at Westminster Abbey, with the day declared a bank holiday in the UK.
Middleton grew up in Berkshire and, after attending Marlborough College, went to the University of St Andrews, where she met Prince William, also studying there, in 2001. They started a relationship, followed by media attention, triggering complaints by Middleton that the media were harassing her. In April 2007, the press reported that William and Middleton had split up. They continued to be friends, and later in 2007 they reunited. Since then, Middleton has attended many high-profile royal events. She has been admired for her fashion sense and has been placed on numerous "best dressed" lists.








Libya: Why Are We There?

I haven't discussed the military operation (war) in Libya up until now because I was waiting to see whether we would go into Libya or not, then we went into Libya alongside NATO and I wanted to give our President a chance to give an explanation as to why we are in Libya as well as see how the operation was being handled.  

First, I don't think the situation in Libya qualifies as a legitimate humanitarian mission involving our military.  If Iraq didn't qualify according to Obama, liberals, and the UN then how the heck could Libya possibly qualify as a legitimate humanitarian mission?  To me it seems like the United States has little or no political interest in Libya.  We only get 5 percent of our oil from Libya whereas Europe is much more dependent on Libya for oil.  If France and the U.K. wanted to go into Libya to protect their oil supply and other national interests then that is their business but the U.S. should have let them go on this military operation without us.


President Obama was the absent, silent Commander-in-Chief for the first couple weeks of the uprising against Muammar Gaddafi. Then, Obama announced that he wanted regime change. Heck, I'd like another regime change LOL! In addition, President Obama and his foreign policy team were hardly ever, if ever, on the same page with regards on how they to handle Gaddafi.  And now Obama only wants to aid the rebels, even though we don't know who they are, without forcing Gaddafi to step down.  There is information to suggest that there are pockets of Al-Qaeda amongst the rebels.  Why the heck are we aiding terrorists who want to kill us?  So now the U.S. is a part of a no-fly zone, just like Iraq was under a no-fly zone for 12 years.  Does NATO and the U.S. plan to have Gaddafi under a no-fly zone for anywhere near the length of time that Iraq was under a no-fly zone?  I hope not.

Obama said our interests and values are at stake. How? American values are at stake because Libyans are engaging in a civil war?  That is nonsensical. He says we have a responsibility to act. If we didn't have a responsibility to act in Iraq then surely we don't don't have even 1/10th the responsibility to act in Libya.  Saddam Hussein came into power in 1979.  Under Saddam Hussein there was government-approved mass murder, torture, forced disappearances, and rapes being committed.  There were also chemical weapons. In 1988 Saddam led a brutal campaign which ended up slaughtering 50,000 to 100,000 Shiite Kurds. In 1991 Saddam committed widespread massacres which is estimated to have killed between 80,000 and 230,000 Iraqis.  Those are only a few of the horrors committed by Saddam Hussein.  Plus, Saddam violated 18 UN sanctions.  The UN had found that he had blocked the arms inspectors from being able to do their jobs but he denied it.  Saddam claimed that Iraq didn't have any banned chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programmes. You can view a list of human rights violations here.  It was already known at the time that Saddam had previously used a wide array of chemical weapons against the Kurds including Sarin, mustard gas, and nerve agents that killed thousands but yet he denied possessing chemical weapons.  Since he had already used chemical weapons on his own people, had obstructed the weapons inspectors from being able to find out whether he did in fact have chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons or not there was no way we could trust a dictator's word.   Since Saddam's denials of possessing weapons had been proven to be false many times before his denials of having WMD's in his possession lacked plausibility.  If you look at all the brutality that Saddam ordered and did how the heck could liberals with a straight face possibly claim that the military action in Iraq was not justifiable, especially when most liberals voted to authorize the use of force?

And, what did Obama say about removing dictators in 2005?  Shall we say hypocrisy?



Many liberals believe this military action in Libya to be the right thing to do because we went into Libya with the United Nations.  For anyone to give credence to the U.N. is absurd, especially after the oil for food scandal.  Obama said "Then we took a series of swift steps in a matter of days to answer Gadhafi's aggression."  For about three weeks Obama was dilly-dallying as the rebels were winning and kicking butt against Gaddafi, taking control of cities but there was nothing but was inaction and mixed messages on the part of this administration.  Now, I am not for this military action but I am just pointing out that I would hardly call this swift action.

In 1977 Gaddafi tried to buy a bomb, then a nuclear weapon, and weapons of mass destruction.  In 2005 weapons inspectors found chemical weapons in Libya. Several people were indicted for assisting Gaddafi but why wasn't Gaddafi indicted also? He is suspected of being behind the Lockerbie bombing but was never brought up on charges.  Why is that? Gaddafi had numerous clashes with other countries and there may have been a time when he killed some of his military when he first began his rule, and now he has killed some civilians but why are we using military force in Libya?  I have no doubt that he's a bad, bad dude but I don't see how it is in the United States' best interest to be in Libya.  So I ask why are we in Libya?

Iran is Preparing the Way for the 12th Imam; Expecting Him Very Soon

From TCL: Looks like the Iranian government thinks the 12th imam is going to climb out of the well very soon.


H/T The Conservative Lady 

From TCL:

Go to A Time To Betray, where you can view the entire 28 minute video.  As reported at A Time To Betray:

Currently this movie is being distributed throughout the Basij and Revolutionary Guards’ bases. The producers are in the middle of translating it into Arabic with the purpose of mass distribution throughout the Middle East. Their intention is to incite further uprisings with the hopes of motivating Arabs to overthrow U.S. backed governments with the final goal of the annihilation of Israel and Allah’s governance of the world!

I Will Not Now Nor Shall I Ever Put Up With Anti-Catholic Bigotry

There is a difference between useful criticism of a particular religion and just spouting words of hate against one's religion.  This includes when a person just simply spouts off words without backing them up with facts. When someone consistently targets another's religion and solely focuses on attacking it consistently time after time one should not be surprised that a person who believes in that religion might get upset and defensive.  I am sick of certain conservative bloggers who have consistently engaged in Catholic bashing without giving useful or healthy criticism.  Apparently, I have lost a few conservative friends over the discussion defending the biblical truth that the Sabbath is on Sunday under the New Covenant.  It is also distressing that those who claim to be open-minded about biblical controversies weren't really open to being persuaded to the counter position even when shown biblical text and historical evidence.  I will always defend my Faith.  Following Christ and His Church are the most important things in my life and if people can't handle or understand that then I really feel sorry for them.  If they decide to unfriend me or stop following my blog oh well because in the end I know in my heart and soul that I am staying true to my beliefs.  When someone respects my religious beliefs I respects theirs.  It is as simple as that.

Wednesday, March 30, 2011

Tuesday, March 29, 2011

Insured Celebrity Body Parts

1. $1 Billion Legs

Mariah carey




13. $3.2 Million Legs

Tina Turner

21. $357,000 Waistline ($28K in 1930s)

Bette Davis

3. $70 Million Legs

David beckhum

12. $3.8 Million Breasts ($600K in 1970s)

Dolly parton

16. $2.2 Million Legs

Heidi klum

14. $2.8 Million Legs

Jamie Lee

22. $350,000 Breasts

 ornella muti

4. $40 Million Feet


23. $317,000 Mustache


18. $1 Million Legs

Rihana

2. $300 Million Buttocks

Jennifer lopez


Samsung Galaxy Tab Verizon Wireless Tablet



Samsung Galaxy Tab Verizon Wireless Tablet is a powerful entertainment device ideal for home or on the go. Weighing just 1 pound, it features a vibrant 7inch touchscreen display with 3D like graphics, speedy 1 GHz processor, and the Android 2.2 operating system. All in a sleek and compact form factor.

This Samsung Galaxy Tab Verizon Wireless Tablet offers the fast speeds and reliability of theVerizon Wireless 3G network, you'll be able to connect to a wide range of streaming media choices and enjoy fast downloads of music, movies, and documents while on the go. Additionally, you can share your 3G mobile broadband connectivity with up to five other devices another phone, MP3 player, and many more, using Wi-Fi.





Voyagers!: I Wish We Had TV Shows Like This Today

As of late, I have been thinking about old television shows. Do you remember when most T.V. shows that were on television were wholesome, promoted ethical values, didn't have an anti-American slant, and didn't promote a political agenda? My husband and I began to make a list of old TV shows which we enjoyed watching while growing up. Do you remember any of these: Voyagers!, The Electric Company, Picture Pages, Captain Kangaroo, Chips, Emergency!, Little House on the Prairie, The Waltons, Walker Texas Ranger, The Brady Bunch, The Incredible Hulk, Lassie, Fat Albert, Great Space Coaster, Barney Miller, Good Times, and What's Happening!! ? Wouldn't it be nice if we had T.V. shows like this today that didn't propagandize kids?  Some of these were reruns when I was growing up.  Having shows that teach good morals is especially important for children today. What were some of your favorite T.V. shows growing up?

Here are a few shows from the past:

Great Space Coaster:



Picture Pages with Bill Cosby:



Here is full episode of the show Voyagers!:









There is a little bit of overlap with the videos so you can skip to about the 4 minute mark to continue watching the show.




Sterling Silver Marcasite and Garnet Colored Glass Teardrop Earrings

List Price: $50.00
Price: $29.00 & this item ships for FREE with Super Saver Shipping.
In Stock.
Ships from and sold by Amazon.com.

Special Offers and Product Promotions

Six-Month Financing: Make any purchase on Amazon totaling $149 or more using the Amazon.com Store Card and pay no interest if paid in full within 6 months. Interest will be charged to your account from the purchase date if the promotional balance is not paid in full within 6 months. Minimum monthly payments required. 1-Click and phone orders do not apply.
Product Specifications
Jewelry Information
Brand Name:Amazon.com Collection
Metal stamp:925-Sterling
Metal:sterling-silver
Material Type:glass
Gem Type:Marcasite
Length:42 millimeters
Back finding:ear-wire
Total metal weight:8.1 Grams

Product Details

  • Shipping Weight: 1.4 ounces 
  • Shipping: Currently, item can be shipped only within the U.S.
  • ASIN: B000SMNL6A
  • Average Customer Review: 3.8 out of 5 stars  (39 customer reviews)
  • Amazon Bestsellers Rank: #227 in Jewelry
Images


10k Yellow Gold Diamond and Garnet Heart-Shaped Pendant, 18"

10k Yellow Gold Diamond and Garnet Heart-Shaped Pendant, 18"


$220.00
Price: $89.00 & this item ships for FREE with Super Saver Shipping.

Special Offers and Product Promotions

Six-Month Financing: Make any purchase on Amazon totaling $149 or more using the Amazon.com Store Card and pay no interest if paid in full within 6 months. Interest will be charged to your account from the purchase date if the promotional balance is not paid in full within 6 months. Minimum monthly payments required.Product Specifications
Jewelry Information
Brand Name:Amazon.com Collection
Metal stamp:10k
Metal:yellow-gold
Gem Type:Diamond, Garnet
Minimum total gem weight:1.79 carats
Setting:Prong & German Setting
Width:0.53 inches
Chain:Rope
Clasp Type:spring-ring-clasps
Total metal weight:1.5 Grams
Diamond Information
Stone shape:heart-shape
Garnet Information
Stone shape:

Product Features

  • 1 garnet & 16 diamond
  • Minimum diamond color is J; Minimum diamond clarity is I3
  • Gemstones may have been treated to improve their appearance or durability and may require special care.
  • The natural properties and composition of mined gemstones define the unique beauty of each piece. The image may show slight differences to the actual stone in color and texture.

    Product Details

  • Shipping Weight: 3.7 ounces (View shipping rates and policies)
  • Shipping: This item is also available for shipping to select countries outside the U.S.
  • ASIN: B000TR35P6
  • Average Customer Review: 4.4 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (12 customer reviews)
  • Amazon Bestsellers Rank: #405 in Jewelry

Priyanka Chopra In Saree

Priyanka Chopra
Priyanka Chopra
Priyanka Chopra
Priyanka Chopra
Priyanka Chopra
Priyanka Chopra

Monday, March 28, 2011

School Choice and Better Opportunities: Woman Confronts Bill Ayers With Facts



H/T Breitbart 

Saturday or Sunday Sabbath? A Response To Christopher of Conservative Perspective

Christopher, at Conservative Perspective has a post where he shows why he thinks that Saturday should be considered the Sabbath Day.   While he emphasized that he doesn’t want me to use the "man’s word", in his post he himself relies on man’s word (he calls it "actual and verifiable history").    I will point out to you both Biblical and historical evidence to that proves that Sunday is indeed the true Sabbath Day.  In fairness I will only use a small sample of biblical and historical texts from long before the time of Constantine, on whom Christopher seems content to hang the "blame" for changing the Sabbath.

First, a very important piece of scriptural evidence.   There are many passages in the Old Testament that prophesy the end of the exclusive covenant between God and the  children of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, to be replaced with a new and everlasting covenant between God and the whole world, Jews and Gentiles alike.  Many of them describe the new worship in prophetic terms.  In one particular passage it is specifically stated that the old sabbaths would be brought to an end.

"And I will cause all her mirth to cease, her solemnities, her new moons, her sabbaths, and all her festival times. " (Hosea 2:11, Douay Rheims Bible, referred to hereafter as DRB).

For a New Testament passage that fulfills this prophecy, we have Colossians 2:16-17 -

[16] Let no man therefore judge you in meat or in drink, or in respect of a festival day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbaths, [17] Which are a shadow of things to come, but the body is of Christ.  [DRB]

Here is the same passage in a popular Protestant version:

Colossians 2:16 
16 Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. 17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.
[New International Version (NIV)] 


Here is a passage from Acts that shows the day they came together to "do this (the Eucharistic sacrifice) in memory of me" as he commanded [Luke 22:19; 1st Corinthians 11:24]:

Acts 20:7
[7] And on the first day of the week, when we were assembled to break bread, Paul discoursed with them, being to depart on the morrow: and he continued his speech until midnight.
[DRB ]


7 On the first day of the week we came together to break bread. Paul spoke to the people and, because he intended to leave the next day, kept on talking until midnight.
[NIV]

The first say of the week was known also as the eighth day, the 1st day of the New Creation.  It was also commonly known as "The Lord's Day", and in the Book of Revelation we see it referred to as that:


"On the Lord’s Day I was in the Spirit, and I heard behind me a loud voice like a trumpet,"
(Revelation 1:10 NIV)


In the Old Testament the Old Covenant was instituted when God gave a covenant through Moses to the Jews.  The Old Covenant was abolished at the cross.   Below are some more Biblical passages that talk about the superiority of the New Covenant and our freedom under it from the requirements of the Old Covenant.



Hebrews 8:6-7
6 But in fact the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, since the new covenant is established on better promises.


 7 For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another.



Freedom in Christ - Galations 5:1-6


 1 It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.
 2 Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. 3 Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. 4 You who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace. 5 For through the Spirit we eagerly await by faith the righteousness for which we hope. 6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.



Here are quotations of Early Christians, showing that the tradition of Sunday worship goes back to the time of the apostles and their immediate successors.


90AD DIDACHE: "Christian Assembly on the Lord's Day: 1. But every Lord's day do ye gather yourselves together, and break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure. 2. But let no one that is at variance with his fellow come together with you, until they be reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be profaned. 3. For this is that which was spoken by the Lord: In every place and time offer to me a pure sacrifice; for I am a great King, saith the Lord, and my name is wonderful among the nations." (Didache: The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, Chapter XIV)


100 AD BARNABAS "We keep the eighth day [Sunday] with joyfulness, the day also on which Jesus rose again from the dead" (The Epistle of Barnabas, 100 AD 15:6-8).


100 AD BARNABAS: Moreover God says to the Jews, 'Your new moons and Sabbaths 1 cannot endure.' You see how he says, 'The present Sabbaths are not acceptable to me, but the Sabbath which I have made in which, when I have rested [heaven: Heb 4] from all things, I will make the beginning of the eighth day which is the beginning of another world.' Wherefore we Christians keep the eighth day for joy, on which also Jesus arose from the dead and when he appeared ascen+ded into heaven. (15:8f, The Epistle of Barnabas, 100 AD, Ante-Nicene Fathers , vol. 1, pg. 147) ,-


150AD JUSTIN: "He then speaks of those Gentiles, namely us, who in every place offer sacrifices to Him, i.e., the bread of the Eucharist, and also the cup of the Eucharist, affirming both that we glorify His name, and that you profane [it]. The command of circumcision, again, bidding [them] always circumcise the children on the eighth day, was a type of the true circumcision, by which we are circumcised from deceit and iniquity through Him who rose from the dead on the first day after the Sabbath, [namely through] our Lord Jesus Christ. For the first day after the Sabbath, remaining the first of all the days, is called, however, the eighth, according to the number of all the days of the cycle, and [yet] remains the first.". (Justin, Dialogue 41:4)


How we answer to the question of whether the true Sabbath is Saturday or Sunday depends on how we treat the tradition and authority of the Church Christ founded.  Some people believe that they can divorce the authority of scripture from the authority of the Church.  That is not only inconsistent (because the Church, by her divinely given authority, chose the canon of scripture, distinguishing divinely inspired books from those that lack divine inspiration), it is also unbiblical.  According to scripture, the pillar and foundation of truth is not scripture itself, but the Church:

1 Timothy 3:15 if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth. (NIV)

When Christ came He did not form a publishing house.  He did not write a book, and he did not command that books should be written.  He founded a Church.  The writing of books of scripture was part of the larger general command to teach and make disciples of all nations, to pass on the traditions that He taught his disciples.  That passing on of sacred tradition has always been and always will be through two channels of transmission - word of mouth and epistle, i.e. oral and written tradition:

2Thessalonians 2:15 So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter. (NIV)


2Thessalonians 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.(DRB) 


The authority of scripture is the divine authority God gave to the Church.  It is incoherent to reject the latter in the name of the former.  It is a misuse of the Bible to lump sacred apostolic tradition in with the merely human tradition rightly condemned in scripture (Mark 7:8 and Colossians 2:8).  The same Bible that commands us to reject human tradition that denies the word of God tells us that the word of God will be given to us through sacred tradition.  The distinction between sacred apostolic tradition which we are commanded to keep and human tradition which we are commanded to reject is a scriptural distinction and absolutely necessary.

The central issue is in the opposite ways Christopher and I treat the teaching authority of the Church Christ founded.   He thinks he can disregard the authority of the Church while claiming to believe the Bible.  Scripture does not support his error.


Matthew 16:18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. (DRB) 

Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you that you are Peter,[b] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades[c] will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” (Matthew 16:17-19 NIV)

18 Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.” (Matthew 28:18-20 NIV)

And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. [19] Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. [20] Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world. (Matthew 28:18-20) DRB) 


"He who listens to you listens to me; he who rejects you rejects me; but he who rejects me rejects him who sent me." Luke 10:16 (NIV) 

Jennifer Lopez insurance


Perhaps one of the most famous celebrity insurance cases is Jennifer Lopez’s behind. A staggering $27 million: That’s how much J-Lo's butt cost to insure. For you math geeks that’s $100,000 per square inch.