Obama-backed Syrian Rebels behead Catholic Priest

Syrian terrorists have beheaded a Catholic priest who they accused of collaborating with the Assad regime. Those accusations have not yet been verified. Father Francois was summarily executed and the Vatican has confirmed the martyrdom.

VATICAN CITY (Catholic Online) - The Vatican is confirming the death by beheading of Franciscan Father, Francois Murad, who was martyred by Syrian jihadists on June 23.Below is the news release from the Vatican, via news.va.

On Sunday, June 23 the Syrian priest François Murad was killed in Gassanieh, in northern Syria, in the convent of the Custody of the Holy Land where he had taken refuge. This is confirmed by a statement of the Custos of the Holy Land sent to Fides Agency. The circumstances of the death are not fully understood. According to local sources, the monastery where Fr. Murad was staying was attacked by militants linked to the jihadi group Jabhat al-Nusra.

Father François, 49, had taken the first steps in the religious life with the Franciscan Friars of the Custody of the Holy Land, and with them he continued to share close bonds of spiritual friendship. After being ordained a priest he had started the construction of a coenobitic monastery dedicated to St. Simon Stylites in the village of Gassanieh.After the start of the Civil War, the monastery of St. Simon had been bombed and Fr. Murad had moved to the convent of the Custody for safety reasons and to give support to the remaining few, along with another religious and nuns of the Rosary.

"Let us pray," writes the Custos of the Holy Land Pierbattista Pizzaballa OFM " so that this absurd and shameful war ends soon and that the people of Syria can go back to living a normal life." Archbishop Jacques Behnan Hindo, titular of the Syrian Catholic archeparchy in Hassaké-Nisibis reports to Fides: "The whole story of Christians in the Middle East is marked and made fruitful by the blood of the martyrs of many persecutions. Lately, father Murad sent me some messages that clearly showed how conscious he was of living in a dangerous situation, and offered his life for peace in Syria and around the world. "

Knots and Collars

Most men don’t realize it, but not all collars were created equal. Some are narrow, some are wide, some are in between. You can wear whatever type of collar you want, but how you tie your tie must match it, lest you look like an unprofessional fool. A four-in-hand knot for a tie on a spread collar? No. Wide collars require large knots; narrow collars require small knots.

Here’s how to tie the three basic types of knots: full windsor, half-windsor, and four-in-hand and how to match your knot to your collar:

Point → four-in-hand
Button down collar → half-Windsor
Medium spread → half-Windsor
Spread collar → full-Windsor

from: http://college.monster.com/benefits/articles/527-10-worst-fashion-mistakes-men

Two Words

A message to Pastors, Teachers, and Heads of Households. 

Why it is so difficult and rare for so many Christians to reject and condemn false teachings.  I hope and pray that the article below encourages and comforts those who are in the position to do so.  SDG/VDMA, El Cid

 

The Lutheran Confessions are made up of two basic statements:

“We believe, teach, and confess,” & “We reject and condemn.”
While many today would suggest that anyone who “rejects” or “condemns” someone for their belief is not only mean-spirited and intolerant, but is breaking the 8th commandment, we simply cannot believe truth without rejecting that which contradicts truth. Paul says in Titus 1:9, speaking of an overseer, “He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it.”

Those who have no concern for rejecting the false teachings that oppose the pure doctrine of the Gospel, also have no concern for the pure doctrine of the Gospel. For there is no reason to attack false doctrine, or even simply say that what someone is doing is wrong, except for the fact that false teaching in Christianity threatens to usurp the very heart of the Gospel, the justification of sinners by grace through faith according to the life, suffering, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

We only reject and condemn that which endangers salvation, and leads people away from Christ and into apostasy.

Posted by Rev. Anthony R. Voltattorni at 5:05 PM at http://allbeggars.blogspot.com/2013/06/two-words.html

Five Great Suit Colors

Any man needs to have in his wardrobe at least one suit. Because we dress casual 99% of the time, we tend to care less about formal outfits.   And when we DO need one, we hurry up to the nearest store (probably an expensive one) and buy one for a huge price.

Needless to say, that suit might not even fit us. Since we’re in a hurry, we just get the first one we try and… end up paying a small fortune on it too!  Price is important, fabric is important, but there’s one more aspect you should consider… and we’re going to talk a little bit about that today: color.

If you don’t want to have too many suits and would like a color that works well on occasions, I will give you a few color ideas for your first suit.

It’s important to remember that the color needs to work well with your skin complexity. if you want to know which colors flatter your skin type, I’ve talked about this in detail in the Be Stylish! ™ Package. In fact, I talk about the suit from every point of view imaginable, so you can find the right one for you.

But, as a general rule, you want the suit to match your skin to and the shirt to contrast with it. If you have darker complexion, go for darker suit colors. If you have a lighter complexion, go for the lighter ones.

OK, let’s see some basic suit colors that you may want to try.


Gray. If this is your first suit, this would be option number one. It’s considered a staple in men’s style and it will definitely not go out of fashion.



Navy. Navy is the best choice for businessmen who don’t want to stand out too much. It’s overused but will never go out of style. If you wear this at a formal event during the evening, it will look AWESOME at sunset. Highly recommended.


Charcoal gray. This is a great color, more formal than regular gray, perfect for more formal events. Don’t worry if it’s too dark, this is actually an opportunity to make some contrast with a nice white shirt (or some other light color).


Dark brown. I own one and I’m very happy with it. If you’re afraid you’ll go unnoticed in the sea of black and gray suits, here’s a very subtle way to stand out.


Black. I left this last because, at some occasions, such as weddings, it’s not the best choice. Still, black always looks good, it shows class and it will never go out of style.

Final advice:

The color you eventually choose depends on how many suits you already have and of what color. If this is your first, one of the five colors above is perfect. If you want to get a second one, you can go for colors that make you stand out more, such as white, beige or green.

Just remember that the color should complement your skin complexion. This a golden nugget that almost always separates the guys who look good in a suit from the guys that don’t.

If you have a dark skin tone, go for charcoal gray, navy or brown. If your skin is lighter, go for lighter shades and add a darker shirt to the mix. Easy as pie.

One more thing: the way you choose your other clothing items is just as important as choosing a suit color. I’m talking about the shirt, the tie, the pocket square etc.

I really hope you get these aspects down because formal events are crucial times to look stylish, and avoid making a fashion blunder. If you’re hesitant, please do it. ASAP. You need the style basics down.


See more at: http://www.bestylish.org/blog/index.php/formal-wear/five-great-suit-colors

The Architect of Destruction

The Architect of Destruction  By Maureen Scott

 Barack Obama appears to be a tormented man filled with resentment, anger, and disdain for anyone of an opinion or view other than his. He acts in the most hateful, spiteful, malevolent, vindictive ways in order to manipulate and maintain power and control over others. Perhaps, because, as a child, he grew up harboring an abiding bitterness toward the U.S. that was instilled in him by his family and mentors…it seems to have never left him.

It is not the color of his skin that is a problem in America .

Rather it is the blackness that fills his soul and the hollowness in his heart where there should be abiding pride and love for this country.

Think: Have we ever heard Obama speak lovingly of the U.S. or its people, with deep appreciation and genuine respect for our history, our customs, our sufferings and our blessings? Has he ever revealed that, like most patriotic Americans, he gets "goose bumps" when a band plays "The Star Spangled Banner," or sheds a tear when he hears a beautiful rendition of " America the Beautiful?" Does his heart burst with pride when millions of American flags wave on a National holiday - or someone plays "taps" on a trumpet? Has he ever shared the admiration of the military, as we as lovers of those who keep us free, feel when soldiers march by? It is doubtful because Obama did not grow up sharing our experiences or our values. He did not sit at the knee of a Grandfather or Uncle who showed us his medals and told us about the bravery of his fellow troops as they tramped through foreign lands to keep us free. He didn't have grandparents who told stories of suffering and then coming to America, penniless, and the opportunities they had for building a business and life for their children.

 Away from this country as a young child, Obama didn't delight in being part of America and its greatness. He wasn't singing our patriotic songs in kindergarten, or standing on the roadside for a holiday parade and eating a hot dog, or lighting sparklers around a campfire on July 4th as fireworks exploded over head, or placing flags on the grave sites of fallen and beloved American heroes.

Rather he was separated from all of these experiences and doesn't really understand us and what it means to be an American. He is void of the basic emotions that most feel regarding this country and insensitive to the instinctive pride we have in our national heritage. His opinions were formed by those who either envied us or wanted him to devalue the United States and the traditions and patriotism that unites us.

He has never given a speech that is filled with calm, reassuring, complimentary, heartfelt statements about all the people in the U.S. Or one that inspires us to be better and grateful and proud that in a short time our country became a leader, and a protector of many. Quite the contrary, his speeches always degenerate into mocking, ridiculing tirades as he faults our achievements as well as any critics or opposition for the sake of a laugh, or to bolster his ego. He uses his Office to threaten and create fear while demeaning and degrading any American who opposes his policies and actions. A secure leader, who has noble self-esteem and not false confidence, refrains from showing such dread of critics and displaying a cocky, haughty attitude.

 Mostly, his time seems to be spent causing dissension, unrest, and anxiety among the people of America, rather than uniting us (even though he was presented to us as the "Great Uniter"). He creates chaos for the sake of keeping people separated, envious, aggrieved and ready to argue. Under his leadership Americans have been kept on edge, rather than in a state of comfort and security. He incites people to be aggressive toward, and disrespectful of, those of differing opinions. And through such behavior, Obama has lowered the standards for self-control and mature restraint to the level of street-fighting gangs, when he should be raising the bar for people to strive toward becoming more considerate, tolerant, self-disciplined, self-sustaining, and self-assured.

Not a day goes by that he is not attempting to defy our laws, remove our rights, over-ride established procedures, install controversial appointees, enact divisive mandates, and assert a dictatorial form of power.

 · Never has there been a leader of this great land who used such tactics to harm and hurt the people and this country.

· Never have we had a President who spoke with a caustic, evil tongue against the citizenry rather than present himself as a soothing, calming and trustworthy force.

· Never, in this country, have we experienced how much stress one man can cause a nation of people - on a daily basis!

Obama has promoted the degeneration of peace, civility, and quality of cooperation between us. He thrives on tearing us down, rather than building us up. He is the Architect of the decline of America , and the epitome of a Demagogue.

© Maureen Scott

From: http://seanlinnane.blogspot.com/2013/06/the-architect.html

Happy Fathers' Day

What Men Want, By Suzanne Venker, Published June 12, 2013, FoxNews.com




FILE -- Carol Brandt, 3, right, talks with her father Matthew Brandt during the College Point Memorial Day Parade in New York. (AP Photo/Seth Wenig)

Father’s Day 2013 arrives on Sunday. Here’s what we have to show for it: According to a survey conducted by Today Moms, more than half of the 7,000 mothers polled feel more stressed out by their husbands than they do by their kids.

Imagine if the “Today Show” had polled men instead and the response was the same: “More than half of all husbands feel more stressed out by their wives than they do by their kids.”

That would never happen. Not because it’s never true, but because men don’t tend to point fingers—particularly at their wives.

When pressed, however, they will tell you what they want. In a 2012 "Today Show" survey of 1,500 dads, two-thirds of the respondents said what they want most from their partner is “a little verbal acknowledgement.” In other words: respect.

In the past, taking care of a husband was something women did with pride. Today, it’s done—if it’s done at all—with resentment.

It should be noted that these polls are from the “Today Show” not Gallup. But that doesn’t make the findings insignificant. The results are, in fact, commensurate with my research on marriage and family dynamics. It is simply indisputable that women with children have become more stressed over the past decade—and that all too often they blame their husbands as the source of their discontent.

“We can’t be expected to raise children, bring home the bacon, and take care of our husbands!” women say. It’s all too much.

Indeed it is. But are men to blame? After all, they didn’t demand society change the rules so drastically. Women did.

In the past, taking care of a husband was something women did with pride. Today, it’s done—if it’s done at all—with resentment. The implication seems to be, “My husband is a grown man! He can take care of himself!” If that is how you feel, then what you’re saying is that a marriage should take care of itself.

But it can’t. A marriage is like a garden: if you don’t tend to it, it will die. Taking care of one’s spouse is part of the deal—and men don’t mind one bit. They love taking care of their wives. In exchange, however, they want to feel needed. And they don’t.

This gender dynamic is lost on modern women, who pride themselves on being strong and independent. But those qualities can undermine love. As Steve Harvey wrote in “Act Like a Lady, Think Like a Man,” “If you’ve got your own money, your own car, your own house, a Brinks alarm system, a pistol, and a guard dog, and you’re practically shouting from the rooftops that you don’t need a man to provide for you or protect you, then we will see no need to keep coming around. What in the world do you need us for if you have all of that?”

For months Americans have been dissecting the changing role of women and its effect on gender relations. The conclusion seems to be that men are threatened by women’s independence.

I disagree.

Men are happy to have women out doing their thing. What does threaten is the implication—or worse, assertion—that men bring nothing of value to the table. “Men know women are powerful, and we don’t mind that one bit. It empowers us that you’re empowered,” writes clinical psychiatrist Paul Dobransky, M.D. “Unless, that is, you disempower us in order to feel empowered.” And there it is.

It’s time to admit the truth: the so-called rise of women has come at men’s expense. Men have been disempowered.

If what I’m saying is true, you ask, then what is the solution? To turn back the clock? No—that’s impossible. (Though I do believe the one-income family, which offers a notably stress-free lifestyle, will make a comeback—the difference being that more and more dads will be the ones to stay home, which I think is a great compromise to the relentless work/family conflict.)

What I am saying is that women must be cognizant of how they use their newfound ambition. If a woman’s desire for independence is used to suggest, either verbally or non-verbally, that men are superfluous—or that a husband is just one more child to take care of—love will remain elusive. No one wants to feel like a nuisance.

So this Father’s Day, let’s give men what they want: respect. Instead of complaining about what husbands and fathers don’t do, let’s honor them for what they do do—and see if that exchange doesn’t translate to a happier, less stressful home.



Suzanne Venker has written extensively about politics, parenting, and the influence of feminism on American society. Her latest book, How to Choose a Husband and Make Peace with Marriage, is now available at Amazon. Also available is her new Kindle Single, The War on Men. For more on Suzanne, visit www.suzannevenker.com.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/06/12/what-men-want/#ixzz2WLycd26A

Happy Flag Day 2013

Tips on How to Wear the 8 Most Common Men’s Dress Shoe Styles

from: http://www.tie-a-tie.net/blog/mens-dress-shoe-guide/



If I would only have a dollar every-time I hear a fellow sartorialist say “The shoe makes the man”… Well, this saying is popular for a reason. Nice footwear does add a tremendous amount of style and class to your wardrobe, a fact that inspired me to write this dress shoe guide. Below are the eight most common dress shoe styles found in a man’s wardrobe, and besides just writing about what makes each style unique, I am giving you some helpful dress/style tips on each. Last but not least, because a picture is worth a thousand words, I added images of some of my favorite pieces for each category.

Oxfords (AKA Balmoral)
A classic shoe style with a formal, elegant, and dressy appeal. Oxfords come in any color although black and browns are most popular. Typically the sleeker the design (being also black in color), the more formal the shoe. Brogue oxfords and heavier construction on the other hand appear a bit less formal. Pair the oxford shoes with dress pants but not jeans.

Two classic examples of men’s oxfords. The one on the left is a captor style. Its black calfskin leather and overall simplistic design makes it a perfect formal pair for suits and even black tie events. The brown color, more rugged construction, as well as its brogue wingtip makes the left pair much more casual in comparison.

Derby (aka Blüchers)
The Derby is a very similar to the oxford shoe but the difference is in the lacing which is sewn outside of the shoes (showing visible flaps). This more noticeable lacing style makes this shoe style less formal compared to the classic Oxford. Derby/Blüchers come in any color, brogue and non brogue, cap-toed, wing tipped, as well as many different types of leather and linen. Derby shoes are perfect for a smart-casual dress consisting of jeans, dress shorts, and sport coats. They are less suited for suits but do make a good shoe choice for business attire on rainy days due to their more rugged construction.

Two very unique pair of Blüchers. The pair on the left is decorated with a brogue wingtip. It is a classic pair that suits casual business attire with slacks and sports coat as much as with dark wash jeans and cardigan sweater. The pair on the right stands out because of the dark blue color and different leather combinations (suede and calf skin).

Loafers
Loafer’s are the traveling business man’s best friend. They slip on and off easily when going through security, they are comfortable, and versatile. The sleeker and simpler the design the more formal it is. Also, darker colors are more formal (black being the most formal), and the less of your socks are visible the more formal the look. Loafers look great with jeans and dress pants, as well as with suits when not wearing a necktie. Common loafer variations are monk straps, tasseled decorations, penny loafers, and formal pumps (see below).


That most loafers are more casual can be seen here. The Hugo Boss pair on the left is a bit more formal compared to the suede pair on the left thanks to color, type of leather, and minimalistic design. The pair on the right (sometimes also called driving shoes) are much more casual. The blue color, the suede leather, and the thin rubber sole are all indicative of a casual pair.

Cap Toes
The term cap toe refers to the extra layer of leather near the front of the shoes. That being said, oxfords as well as Blüchers can be “Cap Toed”. Again, the sleeker the design the more formal. Heavy brogue (embossing of the leather) takes away the formality but does add a more uniqueness. Depending on the style and formality, cap toed dress shoes can be worn with suits, tuxedos, and even jeans.


Two classic Allen Edmonds captoes. The oxford style pair on the left is elegant yet not overly dressy thanks to the decorated brogues. The Derby pair on the right is another perfect casual dress shoe that would look excellent with sports coats, blazers, and even suits.

Monk Straps
The term “Monk strap” refers to the buckled strap the replaces shoe laces. Monk straps come with one, two, and even three straps, are available in any color, can be made from a wide variety of different leathers, and can be cap toed as well as wingtipped (see below). Monk strap shoes are perfect for those who seek a more unique type of shoe that will draw attention. When matching the shoes, make sure that the color of the clasp Typically silver, brass, or gold) matches your belt buckle, wrist watch, and cufflinks (should you choose to wear those).





Two elegant pairs of monkstrap dress shoes. The pair on the left uses a double clasp giving the shoe a more trendy/fashion-forward look, while the pair on the right keeps the style classic/timeless with its single strap. Note the captoe construction on the left and the brogue wingtip on the right.

Dress Boots
Dress boots are a sleek and minimalistic boot style that can be worn with jeans, odd trousers, and suits (in rainy or snowy weather). Dress boots come in a wide variety of styles such as brougai, wing tip, monk strap, and cap toed.


Two completely different types of dress boots. The chelsea boot on the left is a classic accessory dating back to the Victorian era. The laced up pair on the right is perfect for smart-casual wear and great for jeans and slacks but not suits.

Wingtips
The term “Wing Tip” refers to the shape of the cap toe that looks like wings stretching across the front of the shoe. Most wing tips are Derby shoes decorated with brogue leather. While most wing tips are solid in color (mostly back or brown), two-toned date back to the 1920s (black & white). Today two-toned wingtips are once again quite popular and perfect for a smart-casual dress.


Wingtips are a popular shoe style that comes in any color and style. The brown brogue pair on the left is a bit more elegant compared to the grayish-blue brogue pair on the right. Designers like Cole Hahn especially has played with lots of colors on their assortment of wingtip shoes offering bright colored soles and two tone upper leather.

Formal Pumps
The formal pump (aka Opera pump) is a formal type of loafer made from shiny black patent leather. Typical is a grosgrain ribbon decoration on the cap of the shoe. Formal pumps are only suited for formal black tie or white tie ensembles and do make a good alternative choice of shoe to formal patent leather oxfords which are typically worn for these two formal dress codes.


Who said loafers are casual? The so called Opera Pumps are one of the most formal type of footwear in a man’s wardrobe. The patent leather on the left is the classic style decorated with a grosgrain ribbon. The suede pair on the left is a bit more fashion-forward but an excellent choice for those opting to wear a tux with suede lapels.

by Hendrik

Shoe Color vs. Suit Color

So here are Justin FitzPatrick's rules pertaining to suits and shoe colors:

 

Black Suits: Black (and patent) or Gray

 

Navy Suits: Brown (any shade), Burgundy, Red, Green, Yellow, Black etc. The possibilities to what you can pair with navy suits are limitless

 

Gray Suits: Same things as navy, the possibilities are pretty much endless (depending on the shade of suit). Lighter grays for me, are a bit more versatile, where as charcoal suits head towards the territory of black.

 

All in all, I have no rules, I generally tend to wear what I feel like. However sometimes I feel like an anomaly, especially in America, and what I believe the average man would be comfortable wearing is:

• black suits with black shoes;
• navy suits with either black, any shade of brown or burgundy/oxblood/cordovan colored shoes;
• gray suits with the same colors as a navy suit.

However, with gray suits there are different shades and for me the more contrast you create the more catching and appreciative the outfit.

 

Posted by Justin FitzPatrick, The Shoe Snob, at http://www.theshoesnobblog.com/2010/02/shoe-color-vs-suit-color.html

The Essential Man’s Wardrobe

 Perhaps the most frequent question we get at Put This On is: “what are the essential elements of a man’s wardrobe?” Often it is framed in the context of something like, “if I were to buy five items to wear all the time and I never had to go shopping or buy anything again…”

I generally try not to respond to the questions that seem to be predicated on the assumption that a man should hate his clothes and want to spend as little time, effort and money as possible on them, so I’ve generally avoided the question. Today, though, I’ll take a stab at it.

Here are some essential elements of a man’s wardrobe. This list assumes that you do not wear a suit and tie to work (if you do, I’d recommend Will’s list, here). This is also not intended as a be-all, end-all. I’d be happy to hear what you think is missing, or unnecessary. I do think it’s an excellent starting point, however.

This wardrobe is useful not just for those starting out, but for those who want to simplify or those who wonder why it’s so hard for them to pack for travel. These are all essential elements, and they are largely interchangeable. Focus on very high quality and fit, and you will look great in them, even without accent pieces.

• Solid gray or navy suit.
• Navy blue blazer.
• Good straight-cut blue jeans.
• Khaki pants.
• Mid-gray wool pants (preferably light weight).
• Trim khaki shorts.
• White and light blue oxford shirts (oxford is a heavier, textural cloth that is inherently more casual - in this case the collars would be button-down, as well.)
• White and light blue dress shirts (something in a finer fabric, without a button-down collar, suitable for wearing with a suit).
• Solid black grenadine necktie.
• Other neckties based on needs and taste - colored, textured solids, knits, simple diagonally striped ties.
• White linen pocket hankerchiefs.
• Plain white t-shirts.
• A couple of other plain t-shirts - navy or heather gray are good choices.
• A trim-fitting solid polo or two (white and blue are good colors).
• Gray crew-neck sweatshirt.
• Cashmere v-neck sweater (light gray or camel/oatmeal are good colors).
• Plain white sneakers.
• Black cap-toes.
• Brown dress shoes.
• Brown or burgundy casual shoes or boots (chukkas or plain-toe bluchers are a good choice).
• Belts to match shoes.

After this, you may need one or two casual jackets. A peacoat or duffel coat is good for cold weather. A Harrington or mechanic’s jacket is good for less cold weather.
Again depending on local weather, you may need an overcoat suitable to wear with a suit, gloves, a scarf or a trench coat or mac for rain.

Focus on fit and quality. Quality is particularly important for the more durable goods on the list, like shoes. Add accents that speak to you. You’ll look good.

(Above: McQueen in a white oxford, oatmeal v-neck sweater and a Harrington.)

from: http://putthison.com/post/712103418/the-essential-mans-wardrobe-perhaps-the-most

The Importance of Gray Pants

The Importance of Gray Pants

There are two essential casual pants: blue jeans and chinos.

For every other situation that doesn’t call for a suit, there is only one: gray wool.

Even more than the blue blazer, the gray pant is a staple of the well-dressed man. Virtually every sportcoat will look well paired with gray pants. In fact, some suggest that if a sportcoat doesn’t pair with gray pants, you shouldn’t bother buying it. Gray pants are a foundation: they are the first pants you should buy, and probably the second and third, as well.

Truth be told, you will likely need more than one pair of gray pants. Flannel is the best fabric for winter. It’s warmer, and it has been a favorite for decades because it wears and drapes so well. In the summer months, you’ll need something lighter in weight - probably a worsted. If you live somewhere genuinely hot, you should consider a pair in a very light weight wool designed for hot weather, like a fresco.

The matter of styling is up to you. The current style tends toward a slim, flat-front pant. I have a pair of Brunello Cucinelli flannels in this style, and they’re wonderful with a trim coat. I also have a pair of Polo flannels that are notably wider in the leg, with double reverse pleats, for when I’m feeling a little more classic. My worsteds are by Incotex, with some a little wider than the others.

A mid-gray will be most versatile. Darker grays are a little more sober, but a little tougher to pair. Lighter grays are in style at the moment, and can look quite elegant, but are a little less serious-looking. Serious-looking, of course, is a good quality if you’re buying just one pair.

Gray pants are the garment that you’ll go to again and again. It is the rare outfit that features a jacket, but not a suit that wouldn’t look great with a pair of mid-gray pants. Other colors - like khaki or navy blue - should get in line well behind gray. Seriously: at least two, maybe three or four pairs of gray pants before you buy any other color.

(Above pants, in charcoal gray, by Howard Yount)

from: http://putthison.com/post/3106478547/the-importance-of-gray-pants-there-are-two

Red Skelton's Pledge of Allegiance 1969

I’ve been listening to you boys and girls recite the Pledge of Allegiance all semester and it seems as though it is becoming monotonous to you.
If I may, may I recite it and try to explain to you the meaning of each word?”

I – me, an individual, a committee of one.

Pledge – dedicate all of my worldly goods to give without self pity.

Allegiance – my love and my devotion.

To the flag – our standard, Old Glory, a symbol of freedom. Wherever
she waves, there’s respect because your loyalty has givenher a dignity that shouts freedom is everybody’s job!

United – that means that we have all come together.

States – individual communities that have united into 48 great states. Forty-eight individual communities with pride and dignity and purpose; all divided with imaginary boundaries, yet united to a common purpose, and that’s love for country.

And to the republic – a state in which sovereign power is invested in representatives chosen by the people to govern. And government is the people
and it’s from the people to the leaders, not from the leaders to the people.

For which it stands, one nation – one nation, meaning “so blessed by God”

Indivisible – incapable of being divided.

With liberty – which is freedom — the right of power to live one’s own life without threats, fear or some sort of retaliation.

And Justice – the principle or quality of dealing fairly with others.

For all – which means, boys and girls, it’s as much your country as it is mine.

Since I was a small boy, two states have been added to our country and two words have been added to the pledge of Allegiance…

UNDER GOD

Wouldn’t it be a pity if someone said that is a prayer and that would be eliminated from schools too?

Funiculi, Funicula - Dangerfield (Monte in "Easy Money") vs Scala

Funiculi Funicula (An English version of the song is subtitled "A Merry Life".)

Some think the world is made for fun and frolic,
And so do I! And so do I!
Some think it well to be all melancholic,
To pine and sigh; to pine and sigh;

But I, I love to spend my time in singing,
Some joyous song, some joyous song,
To set the air with music bravely ringing
Is far from wrong! Is far from wrong!

Harken, harken, music sounds a-far!
Harken, harken, with a happy heart!
Funiculì, funiculà, funiculì, funiculà!
Joy is everywhere, funiculì, funiculà!

Ah me! 'tis strange that some should take to sighing,
And like it well! And like it well!
For me, I have not thought it worth the trying,
So cannot tell! So cannot tell!

With laugh, with dance and song the day soon passes
Full soon is gone, full soon is gone,
For mirth was made for joyous lads and lasses
To call their own! To call their own!

Harken, harken, hark the soft guitar!
Harken, harken, hark the soft guitar!
Funiculì, funiculà, funiculì, funiculà!
Hark the soft guitar, funiculì, funiculà!.



Funiculì Funiculà

Aissera, Nanninè, me ne sagliette,
tu saie addò?
(Tu saie addò?)

Addò 'stu core ngrato cchiu' dispiette
farme nun pò, farme nun pò.

Addò lo fuoco coce, ma si fuje,
te lassa stà
(Te lassa stà).

E nun te corre appriesso, nun te struje,
sulo a guardà, sulo a guardà.

Jammo, jammo 'ncoppa jammo jà
Jammo, jammo 'ncoppa jammo jà
Funiculì, funiculà
Funiculì, funiculà
'ncoppa jammo jà,
Funiculì, funiculà.

Jammo, jammo 'ncoppa jammo jà
Jammo, jammo 'ncoppa jammo jà
Funiculì, funiculà
Funiculì, funiculà
'ncoppa jammo jà,
Funiculì, funiculà.

Se n'è sagliuta, oi n'è, se n'è sagliuta
la capa già.
(La capa già)
E' gghiuta, pò è turnata, pò è venuta,
sta sempe ccà!
(Sta sempe ccà!)

La capa vota, vota attuorno, attuorno,
attuorno a tte.
(Attuorno a tte.)

Sto core canta
Sempe nu taluorno
Sposammo, oi' Ne!
(Sposammo, oi' Ne!)

Jammo, jammo 'ncoppa jammo jà
Jammo, jammo 'ncoppa jammo jà
Funiculì, funiculà
Funiculì, funiculà
'ncoppa jammo jà,
Funiculì, funiculà.

English translation:
Yesterday evening, O Nannina [nickname for Giovanna], I climbed up,
Do you know where?
To where an ungrateful heart can no longer vex me!
Where a fire is burning, but if you flee
It lets you be.
It doesn't chase you, doesn't melt you, with just one glance!
Let's go, let's go, let's go to the top,
Let's go, let's go, let's go to the top,
Funiculì, funiculà, funiculì, funiculà!
Let's go to the top, Funiculì, funiculà!

Let's go from here below up to the mountain, O Nannina, a step away!
You can see France, Procida, and Spain,
And I see you!
You rise, pulled by a cable, quick as a wink
into the sky.
We'll rise up like a whirlwind all of a sudden knows how to do!
Let's go, let's go, let's go to the top,
Let's go, let's go, let's go to the top,
Funiculì, funiculà, funiculì, funiculà!
Let's go to the top, Funiculì, funiculà!

My head is spinning, O Nannina, It's gone up there already!
It went there, spun 'round, and then returned:
It's always here!
My head is spinning, spinning,
Encircling you!
This heart of mine is always singing
the same refrain:
"Marry me, O Nannina"!
Let's go, let's go, let's go to the top,
Let's go, let's go, let's go to the top,
Funiculì, funiculà, funiculì, funiculà!
Let's go to the top, Funiculì, funiculà!

Eight Colorado counties want to leave the state

As a sign of just how divisive the recently ended Colorado legislative session has been, it may very well result in a literal division of the state.

As many as eight counties composing the rural, oil and gas-rich northeast corner of the state are pursuing a plan to cut ties with a capital city they no longer feel represents their interests and come together as the 51st state in the country: North Colorado.

“We’re actually going to pursue it,” said Weld County Commissioner Douglas Rademacher, a farmer whose jurisdiction is spearheading the effort. “Frankly, we’ve been ignored in northeastern Colorado now for the last, going on eight years with the current administration in Denver.”

“Frankly, we see no option,” he said. “We are going to move forward.”

Rademacher cited numerous examples of how Denver politicians are out of touch with rural Colorado, from passing tough new gun laws — “that gun legislation really pissed a lot of people off in Weld County,” he said — to trying to clamp down on companies that extract natural gas through fracking.

But the final straw, he said, was Gov. John Hickenlooper’s signature on Wednesday of Senate Bill 252 requiring rural electrical cooperatives to double to 20 percent the amount of renewable energy in their portfolios by 2020.

“It’s a death by a thousand cuts, but the straw that finally broke the back was the governor signed 252 yesterday, which puts another huge impact on rural Colorado to meet these unrealistic deadlines and mandates for renewable energy,” he said. “And yet, the major population centers don’t have to abide by it. There’s a hypocrisy going on in Denver that’s just driving us crazy.”

Rademacher said a theoretical North Colorado could also include counties in neighboring states like Kansas and Nebraska, some of which he said have expressed interest in joining the effort. He said there was also serious talk among the county commissioners about asking a neighboring state to annex their territory — Rademacher said Wyoming would be the obvious choice.

In the end, it was decided that self-representation was the most appealing course, even though Rademacher admits that forming a new state will be difficult. The last time a state was formed from another was when West Virginia gained sovereignty from Virginia in 1863.

“Nevertheless, they were all done for the same reason, lack of representation,” he said. “And that’s where we’re at.”

“Frankly, I think we’re ready to cut and go.”

It may be easier said than done. The rules for creating new states are outlined in Article IV, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution, which require the approval of the existing state’s legislature and Congress.

Each upstart county plans to let its residents’ vote on the idea, which Rademacher said they want to do at the first opportunity, even though the deadline for questions to appear on the November ballot is Aug. 1.

If the votes pass, the legislature and the governor would then have to petition Congress to allow for the formation of a new state. Rademacher thinks getting the legislature to do so will be the biggest hurdle.

“I don’t think they’ll let us go,” he said, pointing to the region’s rich oil and gas deposits and the agricultural industry that contributes substantially to Colorado’s economy.

U.S. history is filled with failed attempts at new states. According to the nonprofit, nonpartisan National Constitution Center, it’s been tried at least 75 times and been successful only five — Vermont split from New York, Kentucky from Virginia, Tennessee from North Carolina, Maine from Massachusetts, and West Virginia from Virginia.

The most recent attempt to form a new state was in 2011, when residents of Pima County, Ariz., tried to break out on their own to distance themselves from the politics of Maricopa County.

Rademacher said he’s heard from non-contiguous counties in Colorado about if and how they could also join the effort. But he said the territory of wannabe North Colorado at least has to share a border with other breakaway-minded counties.

“We can’t build a highway to heaven,” he said.

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/06/07/eight-colorado-counties-want-to-leave-the-state/#ixzz2VfZjDCJk

Report Details U.S. Government’s ‘Disastrous Muslim Outreach’

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/report-details-us-government-s-disastrous-muslim-outreach

(CNSNews.com) - A new report documents the failures of Muslim outreach conducted by the U.S. government before and after the Sept. 11 attacks, faulting both Republican and Democrat administrations for reaching out to known terrorist funders and leaders.

Published by the Israel-based Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center by Patrick Poole, a counterterrorism consultant and investigative reporter, the 14,000-word exposé details the federal government’s “long-standing policy of engaging extremists.”

Among the many examples, Poole cites government leaders inviting radical cleric Anwar al-Awlaki to the Pentagon, just months after one of his spiritual disciples had flown a plane into the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001.

The report, “Blind to Terror: The U.S. Government’s Disastrous Muslim Outreach Efforts and the Impact on U.S. Middle East Policy,” finds that a “campaign of political correctness” has been ingrained in government, hindering investigations and resulting in culturally sensitive policies towards Islam, such as guidelines that required FBI agents to remove their shoes before raiding a mosque that financially supported the Taliban.

According to the report, President Obama issued a directive in August 2011 ordering law enforcement to engage “community partners” to help combat “violent extremism.”

“One example of the effect of this new policy are the Shari’a-compliant guidelines that federal law enforcement officials must now comply with when conducting raids related to Islamic leaders or institutions,” Poole explains. “This was exhibited in May 2011, when the FBI raided a South Florida mosque and arrested its imam and his son for financially supporting the Taliban.”

The rules required law enforcement officials to remove their shoes before entering the mosque and dogs were barred from property, Poole said. “The common sense of these new rules undoubtedly would have been put to the test had the subjects tried to flee, to be pursued by shoeless federal agents.”

The report also reveals that numerous leaders linked to terrorism have been used as conduits for the Muslim community since the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993, under the Clinton, Bush and Obama administrations.

Poole points to Abdul Rahman al-Amoudi, who was a regular visitor to the White House under both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, who asked him to help train Muslim military chaplains. He made six taxpayer-funded trips as a civilian goodwill ambassador to the Middle East for the State Department beginning in 1997.

But throughout his time working with the government, al-Amoudi was a major fundraiser for al-Qaeda.

Anwar al-Awlaki, the radical American-born Imam who was killed in Yemen by a drone strike authorized by Obama in 2011, was also a go-to community partner for the U.S. government.

“One of the first Muslim leaders that the government turned to was Anwar al-Awlaki,” says Poole, “the al-Qa’ida cleric who was in direct contact with at least three of the September 11 hijackers.”

“As the cleanup from the terrorist attack on the Pentagon continued, Awlaki was invited by the Pentagon’s Office of Government Counsel to speak at a lunch in the building’s executive offices as part of the government’s new Muslim outreach policy,” Poole writes. “Ironically, one of the September 11 terrorists who had helped hijack American Airlines Flight 77 that was flown into the Pentagon had described Awlaki as ‘a great man’ and his ‘spiritual leader.’”

Awlaki had ties to terrorist suspects dating back to 1999, and continued to support terrorism, including email exchanges with Ft. Hood shooter Major Nidal Hasan.

In another example, Shaykh Kifah Mustapha, a long-time supporter of Hamas who was caught on video singing the terrorist group’s praises—“calling for violence against Jews as children danced around him carrying guns”—was given a guided tour of top-secret FBI facilities in 2010.

In November 2010, under Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s leadership, U.S. Ambassador to Britain Louis B. Susman visited the East London Mosque, a “longtime hotbed of extremism.” The year before, the mosque hosted a conference where Awlaki phoned in. Weeks before Susman’s visit, the mosque chairman said Awlaki’s involvement was an act of “fairness and justice.”

“The U.S. government…failed to even acknowledge the blunder, let alone attempt to reconsider its long-standing policy of engaging extremists,” he added. “In fact, the American Embassy issued a statement explaining that the visit was ‘a part of President Obama’s call for a renewed dialogue with Muslim communities around the world.’”

As a result of that dialogue, several terrorists have been invited to the Obama White House, affecting U.S. foreign policy, Poole argues.

“In 2012, Hani Nour Eldin, a known member of the Egyptian al-Gama’a al-Islamiyya (a U.S.-designated terrorist group), was invited to Washington, D.C.” the report says. “Eldin was escorted into the White House to meet with Obama’s national security staff.” At the meeting Eldin demanded the release of the Blind Sheikh, currently in federal prison for masterminding the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.

An “even more egregious” example is Nafie Ali Nafie, a Sudanese war criminal and architect of genocides in the Nuba Mountains and in Darfur, who was invited by the State Department to a Sudanese Delegation in May 2012.

“As these examples demonstrate,” Poole writes, “the U.S. government’s ignoring the terrorist support of its Muslim outreach partners has had a slippery-slope effect in its foreign policy by inviting members of terrorist groups and war criminals to Washington, D.C. for ‘dialogue.’”

“The legacy of the U.S. government’s Muslim outreach programs since the 1990s is a monument of failure by any measure,” Poole concludes. “With more American lives and body parts strewn across American streets once again in Boston, these outreach partners threaten the health and legitimacy of our constitutional republic with their demands.

“It is clearly past time for Congress to ask whether this long since failed experiment should come to an immediate end.”

Russia to Resume Nuclear Submarine Patrols

They're Back...



(Reuters) - Russia plans to resume nuclear submarine patrols in the southern seas after a hiatus of more than 20 years following the break-up of the Soviet Union, Itar-Tass news agency reported on Saturday, in another example of efforts to revive Moscow's military.

The plan to send Borei-class submarines, designed to carry 16 long-range nuclear missiles, to the southern hemisphere follows President Vladimir Putin's decision in March to deploy a naval unit in the Mediterranean Sea on a permanent basis starting this year.

"The revival of nuclear submarine patrols will allow us to fulfill the tasks of strategic deterrence not only across the North Pole but also the South Pole," state-run Itar-Tass cited an unnamed official in the military General Staff as saying.
The official said the patrols would be phased in over several years. The Yuri Dolgoruky, the first of eight Borei-class submarines that Russia hopes to launch by 2020, entered service this year.

Putin has stressed the importance of a strong and agile military since returning to the presidency last May. In 13 years in power, he has often cited external threats when talking of the need for a reliable armed forces and Russian political unity.

Fears of a nuclear confrontation between Russia and the United States has eased in recent years, and the Cold War-era foes signed a landmark treaty in 2010 setting lower limits on the size of their long-range nuclear arsenals.

But the limited numbers of warheads and delivery vehicles such as submarines that they committed to under the New START treaty are still enough to devastate the world. Putin has made clear Russia will continue to upgrade its arsenal.
Russia's land-launched Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs) would fly over the northern part of the globe, as would those fired from submarines in the northern hemisphere.

Both the Borei-class submarines and the Bulava ballistic missiles they carry were designed in the 1990s, when the science and defense industries were severely underfunded.

Russia sees the Bulava as the backbone of its future nuclear deterrence, but the program has been set back by several botched launches over the past few years.

(Editing by Sonya Hepinstall)