Greenhouse Metals.

What do a leftist American expatriate, Russia, and Saudi Arabia's oil magnates have in common?

All feel somehow threatened by an American domestic energy development agenda (Energy security).

Saudi Arabia has recently ramped up its oil production, creating more supply in order to drive down oil prices overall.

What are they trying to do?

Their goal is to undercut American companies, make domestic energy production unprofitable, and reduce their market share.

You've probably heard of Edward Snowden and his mysteriously-timed assault on the NSA (The Senate Intelligence Committee's report on enhanced interrogation techniques was a mysteriously-timed Democratic attack on the American intelligence sphere as well).

He also reported an odd story: he makes the claim that chemtrails are actually part of a benevolent program to help regulate our climate. I'll make sure you understand these claims: he claims that chemtrails are actually good, and do the opposite of what they have long been believed to do, and that is regulate our climate.

I trust this report and explanation no more than I trust Snowden's motives (I have long thought he may have been a false flag participant working for a particular agenda that dovetails with that of Russia and leftist activists).

I harbor no agenda besides the American people being free to make their own choices about their own neighborhoods and properties.

I do not work for oil corporations.

As a matter of fact, I am for phasing out oil subsidies.

We will be a preeminent player in the world energy markets, and nothing and no one can stop us.

I just wanted to make that much clear.

1337 Hax0rz

Politics meets entertainment.
What could I  be talking about?

The Sony/North Korea hacking incident over the film "The Interview," starring Seth Rogan and James Franco.

In it (the hacking), corporate secrets and personal information were illegally obtained from Sony's servers.

Threats were also leveled by the North Korean hackers, threatening 9/11-type tragedy at theaters if the movie was released as scheduled.

It won't be, because the movie was pulled.

Although it may be considered impolite to push a movie about the assassination of a foreign head of state, it is sad to see us buckle under international pressure to drop such a movie.

The hackers called it a wise decision, and promised the confidentiality of the personal information obtained if there were not any new issues to arise.

Will there be any reaction in response to this state-sponsored event coming out of North Korea?
That remains to be seen.

What is clear is that Sony buckled under controversy, which is the saddest part of all.

This is a developing story, and there will be more on this in the future.

Briefly on another topic: travel bans on traffic entering the country.
We've considered location as an exclusionary factor, as well as age.

Why not consider income level?

The profile of a terrorist tends to be male, young, and disaffected (see: poor). Screening by income level would target these individuals more precisely.

Take care.

"TapouT Shirt."

Just a few more thoughts.

-I once had a goal of removing this cybernetic implant from my skull. I was informed that this generation of cybernetic implant requires a much more intrusive and risk-laden removal procedure: cutting out a section of my skull.

How do we square this circle?

I was informed that after making an incision in the forehead, a special filler is used to cover the chip and render it inert. It will have to do, and why shouldn't it? It's just as effective.

-How did I know that my fiancee was the one?

After sinking my face into a tray of Swedish meatballs, I felt a very particular feeling wash over me- one of radiating warmth and comfort. The sensation one gets when touched by the Holy Spirit. It was God's way of telling me that her and I are headed in the right direction. Barring any unforseen complications, we are headed down the aisle.

-Once I am done with a short-term contract in Pittsburgh, I'll be headed over to Detroit to get my Baseball on. Count on it.

-A date hasn't been set yet, but I will be taking on C.M. Punk in the octagon, MMA style.
Count on that as well.

Take care of yourselves and each other.

Torture?

The Senate Intelligence Committee a few days ago released its executive summary of its study of the CIA and its "enhanced interrogation" techniques enacted after 9/11 (and the passage of the Patriot Act).

I'll start with the bad news, first.

One method, known as "rectal feeding," (inserting puree into the colon as a forced feeding and hydration method) was employed on the likes of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and other detainees. Sometimes, apparently, without medical necessity, which is wrong. A legitimate medical procedure meant for dire situations should never be misused as a tool of torture.

Another sign of abuse of authority is when the families of the detainees were threatened with death or bodily injury.

Another charge is that far too often ( an estimated 20%) were wrongfully detained.
In other words, they were innocent of all relevant charges and were held and interrogated for no good reason.

All of this said, the part that bothered me the most was not that some of our agents went too far, but that some of these techniques did not wield good information. In some cases, they wielded bad information that was of no use at all.

I wanted to make it known that:

1) I support the men and women in the intelligence sphere.
They do amazing work with little to no fanfare.


2) Although it simulates drowning, I believe that waterboarding is not torture.

3) Clear, unambiguous guidelines should be followed when handling and interrogating detainees.

Guidelines that respect both our access to quality intelligence as well as that respect our heritage and values as Americans.

I am not for bringing charges against these individuals, but if lying and deception were used by the CIA when communicating with the White House, DNI, and Senate Intelligence Committee (to obfuscate oversight), the individuals responsible should probably be fired.

May God bless you.

Race.

Some of the main stories in American headlines today deal with blacks and their interaction with the police that serve their communities. Namely, the Eric Garner and Michael Brown cases.

I want the first point that I make to be that you should always comply with police requests when it comes down to time for an arrest. Terrible things happen when you resist arrest.

While it would be outrageous to claim that white cops are out there mowing down Blacks left and right, it is true that there is a palpable uneasiness between police and the inner-city communities that they serve.

Why could this be?

I believe that it is the out-of-control crime statistics in the inner city, and not any sort of overt racism coming from these precincts.

It's the crime that drives this mistrust, not racism.

Statistics show that this is not an epidemic (cops killing blacks, but media sensationalization only manages to rile people up) , but there are certainly things that could be done to un-poison this well:

1) Body cameras on every cop.

2) Community outreach, like bike and helmet drives.

3) Increased minority hiring in inner-city precincts.

I wanted to note that I have no sympathy for the likes of Michael Brown, who attempted to take a police officer's gun.  Eric Garner was a different case, and it receives a different disposition in my book.

These incidences of violence (like Eric Garner) are merely the symptom and not the disease in and of themselves.

At the end of the day, police have a right to come home, which is why I tend to give them the benefit of the doubt.

The real problem in the inner-city?
Blacks killing other blacks.

90 percent of all blacks are killed by other blacks.

"Rick Roll America"

"Rick Roll America.
My big, Black mug.

Where's my cider
and lighter?

Chewed my nails 
right on down to the nub.

From my flannel,
to my goatee,
to my Starbucks cup of foam.

Rick Roll America,
Great heap of loam.

Rick Roll America,
Straight to the dome."


Thanks, I'll be here all night folks.

Anointing vs. Approval

I wanted to take a brief moment to discuss a phenomenon in the church today known as "wolves in sheep's clothing," or "phonies."

How can one tell the difference between the genuine and the fake?
By their fruits, but that's not the whole of it.

Let's first make the point that the anointing (or acknowledgement and empowerment) from God is completely separate from the approval of man (be it a church board, fellow pastors, etc.)

Let's start with a few examples of different people who claimed to be sent by God and dissect it from there.

Our first example here is John the Baptist, who experienced both an anointing from the Holy Spirit as well as the approval of local temple leaders. In other words, he was popular with the Jewish community.

Our next example would be Judas Iscariot, who experienced an anointing from the Spirit, but did not receive approval from the Jewish community (by in large). Even being the traitor that he was, Judas was empowered to heal diseases and cast out demons in the name of Jesus Christ.

Our last example would be the phony pastor down the street, whom experiences no empowerment or anointing from the Spirit, but receives approval from his contemporaries.

Returning to my initial point, while one may have suspicions concerning any given pastor's means or motives, it is not given to us to pull our hair out determining whom is whom. This job is reserved for the angels to do, mainly at the end of the age.

There is a good rule of thumb to go by, and that is "if something doesn't seem right, it's probably not."
Get out of there.

The takeaway point here is this: it is always God's anointing and presence that makes the difference in people's lives, regardless of what Pastor Henry or Jack down the street says or thinks.