A Forbidden Country

Proof of US sanctions at work.

Trying to download Google Talk:

This product is not available in your country

Thanks for your interest, but the product that you're trying to download is not available in your country.


One of the kindest people I ever met was accepted to study in Germany, but needs first to open a bank account there for visa requirements:

Hello Sir,

I'm very sorry, but Deutsche Bank does not open any accounts for people from Syria.

Maybe there is a chance to get an account in another bank in Germany.

Mit freundlichen Gruessen / Kind regards

Deutsche Bank Privat- und Geschaeftskunden AG


An American woman living in Syria, wrote a bit about it: A Forbidden Country

"The Truths Behind the Tea Parties"

I read this article by Steve Chapman earlier today. He explained the sentiments of the tea party goers.

The country has gotten into a painful fiscal predicament because both parties have let us believe we can have more and more goodies from Washington at no additional cost. The recent explosion of federal spending has succeeded in one way: It has exposed that assumption for the fiction it was.

By the way, I got a telephone call today inviting me to a local tea party next Saturday at the courthouse.

Jehovah-Jireh -- The Lord our Provider

Recently I've been reading Numbers. In the midst of all the detailed verses pertaining to numbering the tribes of Israel and the requirements of God for them concerning His tabernacle was chapter 11 which described the people complaining about their hard times.

¹ Now the people complained about their hardships in the hearing of the LORD, and when he heard them his anger was aroused.


The people had chosen to forget the great deliverance God had shown them as they left slavery in Egypt or His power displayed as He opened the Red Sea so they could walk on dry land. They didn't think about how God directed their lives and provided for their needs even sending manna from heaven. Instead they focused on their hard times and thought back to the spices and herbs and meat they ate in Egypt.

Moses was frustrated with these complaining and unthankful children of Israel (can you imagine over a million whining children at your house?) and told God this responsibility was too much for him to bear alone. He even asked God if he could die! God instructed Moses on what to do to alleviate this burden.

God also told Moses that He would send meat to the Israelites. You can read the chapter for yourself to see all the particulars, but the verse that caught my eye was 23. God promised to send meat, but Moses replied in essence, "Um, Lord, in case You aren't aware, there are over 600,000 men not counting women and children. Even if we killed all the sheep and goats and caught all the fish in the sea, we would not have enough meat for all of them to have meat for a month!"

This is a picture Samer sent me from Damascus around late 2007

So I loved the Lord's reply and it's what inspired this post.

²³ The LORD answered Moses, "Is the LORD's arm too short? You will now see whether or not what I say will come true for you."

Do you think the God who favors us with sunsets such as these, created the world out of nothing and has every hair on our heads numbered can't provide meat for His children? Is God's ability to provide limited by our shortsightedness and our focusing on the bad news all around us?


As Jesus reminded us in Matthew 7:

⁹"Which of you, if his son asks for bread, will give him a stone? ¹⁰Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake? ¹¹If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him!"


Do we think God has short arms and cannot do as He promised? Let's ask Him and see whether or not what He says will come true for us. Amen?

Find comfort and Jesus' instruction on what to do in Matthew 6:25-34.

I find it interesting . . .

(note: this is mostly political stuff)


-- that an American billionaire paid $35 million in order to fly to space on a Russian rocket, the Soyuz; I believe it's his second trip -- wonder if he gets frequent flier miles :-)

-- that on Tuesday President Obama interrupted American Idol programming for the second time in recent weeks. I've not watched much AI this year so it didn't hurt my feelings. I just read that evening. Or uploaded pictures to my blog. Can't remember actually.

-- that several companies receiving bail-out money actually owe federal taxes! Two companies owe over $100 million each.


-- that Daniel Hannan, a British politician, spoke up against Gordon Brown for Brown's response concerning the global financial crisis. I heard Hannan's 3-minute speech and was amazed at his strong words. Apparently the world was, too, because Wikipedia reports

A video clip of the speech went viral on YouTube that evening,^[4] attracting more than 630,000 views in 24 hours on YouTube. It became the 'most viewed today' youtube video worldwide. ^[5][6][7]

Wow, check it out! "The devalued Prime Minister of a devalued government." "Every British child is born owing about 20,000 British pounds. .. You cannot borrow yourself out of debt!" What a speech!


-- that the current European Union president, Czech Prime Minister Mirek Topolanek, spoke out against the United States' plan for getting over the recession.

OK, check this out.

Europeans leaders hope the new U.S. administration will agree with them on tightening oversight over the global financial system — which they see as crucial to fixing the global economy.

Instead, the United States is focusing its efforts on economic stimulus and plans to spend heavily to try and lift itself out of recession with a $787 billion plan of tax rebates, health and welfare benefits, as well as extra energy and infrastructure spending.

To encourage banks to lend again, the U.S. government will also pump $1 trillion into the financial system by buying up treasury bonds and mortgage securities in an effort to clear some of the "toxic assets" — devalued and untradeable assets — from banks' balance sheets.

We are going to spend ourselves out of the recession. The US government is going to spend all this money it doesn't have in order to do what exactly?

Obama insisted Tuesday that his massive budget proposal will put the ailing U.S. economy back on its feet. "This budget is inseparable from this recovery," he said, "because it is what lays the foundation for a secure and lasting prosperity."

But Topolanek took aim at Washington's deficit spending.

"All of these steps, these combinations and permanency is the road to hell," Topolanek said. "We need to read the history books and the lessons of history and the biggest success of the (EU) is the refusal to go this way."

"Americans will need liquidity to finance all their measures and they will balance this with the sale of their bonds but this will undermine the liquidity of the global financial market," Topolanek said.

Source: Yahoo News

I tend to agree with the Czech PM. I guess time will tell. I just don't see how spending more money that we don't have will improve things in the long run. *shrug* But what do I know? I'm not an economist or a brainy politician. Maybe it'll work out somehow.

-- that Turkey has not been as affected by the global crisis. I saw on CNN yesterday -- while at McDonald's -- that they had their own crisis in 2001, cleaned up the banks afterwards and haven't had to deal with the mess that most western nations are facing now.

-- that several Asian nations are discussing a different world currency since the US dollar has been devalued greatly in recent months. Also China has bought so much of our debt, and it seems they have expressed concern over our ability to work out our faulty finances. I really hate being in debt to anyone. Why are we in debt to Communists??

Just some thoughts lately.

Generous conservatives

Just yesterday I asked some of my online friends why liberals were often seen as more caring than conservatives, and this morning I found a review about this man's book in a magazine my BIL loaned us! Neat timing! :-) Arthur Brooks "a (now former) Democrat raised by leftist academic parents, describes himself as a 'behavioral economist.' He researched ten years of data and scientific surveys to get the true picture of giving in America and in 2006 he published Who Really Cares? America's Charity Divide: Who Gives, Who Doesn't and Why It Matters. The results of his research shocked him into fear: 'The New York Times Book Review, they're going to flatten me. I'm just dead,' he fretted to The [Syracuse, NY] Post-Standard. He also admitted to The Seattle Post-Intelligencer: 'In my preconceptions, I was in the usual box about charitability and compassion . . . I figured conservatives were hardheaded, pragmatic, tough-minded but didn't care a much about others and wouldn't donate as much ... I figured liberals were softhearted and cared more.' Wrong."

Here is a bit about the author from his website. The reviews are from Amazon.com from people who read it. I only read a few of the reviews, but I thought these were interesting enough to share.

Arthur C. Brooks is Louis A. Bantle Professor of Business and Government Policy at Syracuse University's Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs and Whitman School of Management. He is also a Visiting Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.

The author of Who Really Cares, he writes and speaks widely on the connections among culture, politics, and economic life, and his work appears frequently in the Wall Street Journal and other publications. Previously, he spent twelve years as a professional French hornist with the City Orchestra of Barcelona and other ensembles. A native of Seattle, Washington, he currently lives with his family in Syracuse, New York.

Interesting,

December 23, 2006

By	Carolyn Rampone "Carolyn D'Amico Rampone" (Plantation, FL USA) - See all my reviews

This book took me by complete surprise. The liberal left's mantra is all about helping the poor and downtrodden and shaming the conservatives for not doing more. Well, I have to say, you're not compassionate when you're spending other people's money. If that's the one point you take away from " Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth about Compassionate Conservatism" it's a good thing. Most American's old enough to vote should know by now relying on the government to cure the country's ills doesn't work and never has. It takes the individual with the heart and desire to make life better for others to make a difference. If you go through life walking past poverty feeling good because you paid your taxes, think again. Both sides pay their taxes (hopefully) yet this research shows conservatives dig a little deeper into their own wallets and schedule and give more. Arthur C. Brooks makes you think twice about public opinion and why they feel the liberals are more compassionate. I think this is a book that sheds light on the central core issue...who is making an actual difference in the lives of others and who does a good job talking about it!!


Honest. Illuminating. Myth-bustiing. Refreshing.,

January 3, 2007

By	Jeffrey E Ellis (Naperville, IL USA) - See all my reviews

For years, the common wisdom in our culture has been that conservatives are selfish, self-centered, and greedy. After all, wasn't the "me generation" of the 80's about those conservative republicans? On the other hand, liberals really cared about people, cared about the poor and the hungry in America and around the world...In fact, America was a selfish nation, using up most of the world's resources in pursuit of its selfish motives...

Well, the popular culture was wrong. The media was wrong. And the liberal politicians were wrong.

As it turns out, to the surprise of Arthur Brooks, the opposite is true. Liberals care but mainly with other people's money. Their rhetoric isn't backed up by their personal generosity with either their time or their money.

On the other hand, the most generous group in America are conservatives. Religion seems to be the major factor and, for whatever reason, conservatives are made up by the faithful. They give and give a lot - more than any other factor, age, geography, income level, education, gender or any other control measure, being a person of faith is the major factor in a person's charity.

Until their arms grow longer and their hearts measure up to their rhetoric, liberals need to tone down the political propaganda. America is the most generous nation on earth and conservatives the most caring, giving people.





The truth is out--secularists are coldhearted Scrooges,

January 27, 2007

By	Jeri Nevermind "loves to read" (Idaho) - See all my reviews

Brooks started out buying the usual stereotypes of conservative selfishness and liberal generosity. That the political left is compassionate and charitable to the less fortunate is the sturdiest plank of the liberal belief system.

Masses of research later, Brooks was forced to admit he had swallowed a lie. In fact, there was plenty of proof, unanswerable piles of proof, that it was the Christian conservatives who had hearts of gold when it came to giving to others; liberal secularists had hearts made from lumps of coal.

Here is one telling fact: "Families in San Francisco give almost exactly the same amount to charity each year as families in South Dakota" (p 31) although the families in San Francisco had a 78% more personal income. So maybe the secularists in San Francisco give a lot to friends instead of charities. Well, no. "People belonging to religious congregations were 8% more likely to give money to family and friends...Furthermore, the value...was, on average, 46% higher" (p 39).

By all measures, a Christian is simply more charitable. More likely to give to the homeless, to feed the homeless, to donate blood, or even to return the correct change. Religion matters. Beliefs matter. And, apparently, lack of belief matters, too. Secularists were not only less charitable, they were always more likely to grumble that charities 'waste donations'.

Nor is this a pattern found only in the US. In Europe, where religion seems to no longer exist, private charities have simply vanished. Europeans prefer to believe that their tax system is their charity, but it is not. Simply put: Americans give more to charity--much, much more, no matter how things are calculated. They also volunteer more, or, at least, the Christians among us do. American secularists tend to stay home, like their European counterparts.

I am currently reading "Shutting Out the Sun" a book about Japan, where the author mentions that the homeless Japanese are being cared for by...Christian Koreans.


comprehensive and easy to read,

December 3, 2006

By	M. Nowacki "bocamick" (mentor, ohio) - See all my reviews

Keep this quote from John Adams in mind as you read this book: "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."

The author is a professor at Syracuse. He was raised a liberal, was liberal most his life, but in grad school he studied public policy and then became an independent.

The author did not conduct these surveys. He used data from reputable sources (government agencies, non-partisan research groups, etc.). Here are some key findings of his research:

Nearly the same percentage of liberals and conservatives do volunteer work (1% difference), but conservatives donate much more time

The same percentage of liberals and conservatives donate money, but conservatives donate 30% more and earn 6% less

Conservatives give more money than liberals in every income class

Poor people who don't accept welfare give much more than poor people who do accept welfare

religious people give more than non-religious people

religious people give more to secular causes than non-religious people

The average family in San Francisco and South Dakota both give $1300 away each year, even though families in San Francisco make 78% more!

The percent of people that give to charity is higher among poor people who don't believe in income redistribution than rich people who favor income redistribution (welfare, closing the income gap, etc.) !!! [It is easy to want to give other people's money away and pat yourself on the back for advocating it, all the time calling people uncompassionate for not agreeing with you.]

People whose parents were charitable are more likely to be charitable

If liberals and moderates gave blood at the same rate as conservatives, the blood supply in the U.S. would increase 45%

Of the twenty-five states in 2004 that donated a portion of household income above the national average, twenty-four gave a majority of their popular votes to George W. Bush for president

Oil prices hit new record high!

My dad sent me a link yesterday. Oil was up almost $11 a barrel and set another record high at $138 per barrel. Ugh. I remember when hitting $60 a barrel was SO high! Now we are more than double that. Oh well.....nothing much to do about it. Supply and demand at work, right?

Here is an interesting article I read recently. I'd never thought of taxing the oil companies quite this way before .... hmmm.

Windfall-Profit Nonsense

By John Stossel

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama want to raise the price of oil, as well as most everything else, and lower the value of the pension and mutual funds that union members and retirees depend on.

Of course, they don't describe their plan that way. Instead, they call for a windfall-profits tax on the oil companies.

But it's the same thing.

Taxing a "windfall" sounds appealing, but stock prices are based on expected profits. Throw a new tax on profits, and retirement portfolios of regular people take a hit.

"Hillary will impose a windfall profits tax on oil companies and use the money to temporarily suspend the 18.4 cent per gallon federal gas tax and the 24.4 cent per gallon diesel tax during the upcoming peak summer driving months," says her website (http://tinyurl.com/3jtlfp).

"They sure can afford it," she told an audience in Indianapolis.

Whom does she think "they" are?

Obama says: "It isn't right that oil companies are making record profits at a time when ordinary Americans are going into debt. ... That's why we'll put a windfall profits tax on oil companies...".

Taxing "windfalls" is politically rewarding, but in the final analysis, only people pay taxes. When a corporation is taxed, the burden falls on workers (through smaller raises), consumers (through higher prices) and shareholders (through lower stock prices).

Do Clinton and Obama really want to tax these innocent people just to spite oil executives for high profits?

Anyway, what is a "windfall"? Any answer is arbitrary. Obama says it's the profit made off oil that's priced above $80 a barrel. Why not $70? Or $90? Did he pull that number out of a hat?

At least he's honest enough to call his tax a windfall profits "penalty." But why do the companies deserve to be penalized? Have they behaved badly?

It's not their fault that demand for oil skyrocketed because of booming economies in China and India, and that tensions in the Middle East pushed prices up. It's not their fault government regulation keeps them from drilling in promising locations like Alaska and offshore, and harasses them when they want to build new refineries or expand old ones. It's not their fault the dollar has deteriorated dramatically.

Being in the oil business is profitable, but not as profitable as you may think. Last year, average earnings in the industry (net income divided by sales) were 8.3 percent. (They are lower this year.) Other industries have done better. Beverage and tobacco firms had returns of over 19 percent.

Yes, oil company profits have surged as the price of oil rose, but bigger profits are good for America. The vast majority of the money goes not to the pockets of oil executives, but to exploration for new oil. If you take the money away, who is hurt?

We don't have to speculate because we have experience to draw on. "We tried this windfall profits scheme in 1980," The Wall Street Journal writes. "It backfired. The Congressional Research Service found in a 1990 analysis that the tax reduced domestic oil production by 3 (percent) to 6 (percent) ...".

Repeating that would not be a good thing for the harried working families Clinton and Obama claim to champion.

Spiking prices and profits encourage investors to take risks to find more oil, develop oil substitutes and increase efficiency. We don't need a "national energy policy" because we already have one. It's called the free market. When oil prices rose a few years ago, old fields with hard-to-reach oil in Oklahoma were suddenly worth operating (http://tinyurl.com/5bqmog).

Economics 101: incentives matter. Now that the price of oil has reached a new high, oil companies and other entrepreneurs have more incentive to find new sources of energy.

Only that -- letting the profit-motive work -- will bring the price of oil down.

Interfering with markets may be good for politicians, but it's bad for everyone else.