↓ Archives ↓

Archive → May 2nd, 2016

Miracle in Homer Glen? Pilgrims flock to see Orthodox icon weeping drops of oil

Editors Note: I went to the church and was blessed with the oil. It is sweet smelling, and made me feel very good inside. I am a believer in miracles. I recognize the fact that this Icon oozing oil is a gift or sign, healing of mind and or heart. It comes from God as a blessing in many different ways individual to each person that is blessed and believe. I talked with the Pastor who said the miracle has been happening since July 2015.

Healing can be for the physical body, the mind, or our soul. It is up to God how this gift will be experienced by the believer. It reminds me that the supernatural exists and that “God is”. The experience did not hit me till hours after the Blessing when I began to think of Heaven, Hell, friends and family who passed, and asking God to forgive me, since like all of us, I am a sinner. This took place Sunday and was not planned. I decided to go to see the Icon when I got up.  I was Blessed at the Greek Orthodox Church then went to 10am Mass and Communion at the Roman Catholic Church.


Mark Woods CHRISTIAN TODAY CONTRIBUTING EDITOR  April 2016  Christain Today

Assumption Greek Orthodox Church
The icon said to be exuding oil.
Thousands of Orthodox Christians are flocking to a church in southwest Chicago to witness what they believe is a miracle.

According to the Chicago Tribune, tiny drops of sweet-smelling oil have been trickling down an icon of John the Baptist at Assumption Greek Orthodox Church in Homer Glen. The parishioners believe the droplets have healing properties.

Parish priest Rev Sotirios Dimitriou – known as Father Sam – said: “The first thing out of my mouth was ‘What do I do?’ You don’t expect anything like this. It’s breathtaking. It’s so powerful to see such an act of God before your eyes.”

The auxiliary bishop of the diocese told the Tribune it would not comment on whether the phenomenon was genuinely miraculous, saying “We let the faithful believe it if they wish.” Bishop Demetrios added: “If it brings you closer to God that’s wonderful. If it doesn’t, it doesn’t.”

The oil exudes from the icon’s halo, wings, hands and beard and is collected in a reservoir of cotton at its base. Dimitriou saturates cotton balls with the substance and hands them out to his parishioners. He has had several reports of divine healing from those who have touched it. One man said a blocked artery had cleared, while another claimed to be cancer free. Dimitriou himself, who had experienced blackouts because of a nerve condition, said he had not suffered since the oil began to flow and had stopped taking his medication.


The Tribune quotes James Skedros, dean of Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of Theology, who said that similar episodes have taken place across the US. While unlike the Roman Catholic Church the Orthodox Church has no formal process for authenticating them, they are regarded as significant for believers. He said Orthodox Christians believe matter can be a conveyor of sanctity.

“We have a very different understanding of matter as a vehicle of holiness,” Skedros said. “We put [icons] on walls, burn candles in front of them, light incense in front of them because they’re images of what they represent — the holy person or image of Christ or the saint.”

Meanwhile the church itself is struggling with the number of visitors it is receiving because of the phenomenon. A statement from the diocese said: “We are blessed to have this occurring at our parish in Homer Glen, Illinois.

“We ask for patience and understanding when wanting to visit this icon or request additional information as this is a small community parish that is trying to work out how best to share this blessing with now a much enlarged audience.”

Source: Will County News

How to Beat a Rigged Game

How to Beat a Rigged Game
By Briton Ryle | Monday, May 2, 2016

My son just turned 14. He’s in eighth grade. And I gotta share this story he told me with you…

This varsity baseball team at his school was the home team, playing a fierce rival. My son, Henry, was standing behind the backstop, so the ump, catcher, and batter were in front of him. His school’s team was at bat, and there was a man on first.

I don’t know if you’ve ever watched high school baseball, but there tends to be a lot of base stealing in the high school game. So the man on first takes off. The catcher for the rival team gets the pitch and jumps up to make the throw to second to get the runner out. But as he cocks his arm to throw, my son says, just loudly enough to be heard, “Your shoe’s untied.”

Well, that was enough to distract the catcher. He made a bad throw. And the runner for his school’s team was safe at second base. To make matters worse, the runner actually stumbled a little as he was running — he surely would have been out at second if Henry hadn’t said what he said…

And to make matters really worse, the next batter hit a double to score the man on second — the home team was up 1–0.

Of course, the ump had already told him to leave the area. And Henry got some pretty intense glares from the catcher and the other team. But the players in the home dugout were clapping, and the coach came out and shook his hand.

I haven’t told his mom (my ex-wife) about this yet. I’m not sure she will think Henry’s actions were a good example of gamesmanship, as I do. And if he had yelled at the catcher, then yeah, that would not have been in the spirit of gamesmanship. But if you can throw someone off their game with a comment like that, well, you do it. Every time.

My son has been playing baseball since he was five. He knows the game, its subtleties, and its strategies. Talking to your opponent is part of the game. So is concentration. If your concentration is not what it should be, then yeah, you can get distracted and blow a play at a critical moment. When was the last time you saw a major leaguer blow a throw because a fan was yelling at him?

Know the Game

The pros don’t get rattled. You can’t break their concentration by talking to them, or yelling for that matter. They know what their skills are, and they know how to be as successful as they can. That’s why they are pros.

But as an individual investor, you are, by definition, not a pro. But here’s one thing you need to know: the pros will absolutely try to talk you into making a mistake. Because, at least in the short run, investing isn’t a zero-sum game. One person’s profits are another person’s losses.

Maybe you bought a stock at the wrong time. Maybe you sold at the wrong time. Either way, I’ll bet there were pros telling you that you were right to do what you did each time. It’s not a coincidence: misinformation, exaggeration, and downright bad advice are part of the stock market game…

Sometimes it’s called “talking your book.” Talking your book means your advice or opinion is tailored to match the way your investments are structured — for example, if you bought oil stocks and then you tell people that you like oil stocks, especially the ones you already bought.

Or let’s say you’re short a certain company, and then you start giving presentations at conferences that detail why you think the company is a fraud.

One hedge fund manager I’ve written about before, Bill Ackman, did this with a company called Herbalife (NYSE: HLF). He gave three-hour presentations detailing how he thought the company was a Ponzi scheme. He petitioned the SEC and the FTC, three congressmen, and even a senator to investigate the company… all because he thought it would make the stock go lower and he would make money.

If you really understand how big investors use the media as a platform, you can be a much more successful investor. And so you know, just because a big investor has the ability to talk his or her book to a wide audience doesn’t mean he or she will be successful. Ackman has lost over $1 billion trying to crush Herbalife.

Who’s Talking Their Book Now? 

Earlier this year, when the S&P 500 was tanking 12% on fears that weak oil prices and a collapse in the high-yield bond market would push the U.S. economy into recession, George Soros came out and said that 2016 was going to be 2008 all over again.

Now, to say that it will be 2008 Part II is a pretty bold call. After all, there’s only been one other period where the U.S. economy and banking was actually on the verge of collapse: the Great Depression. The likelihood of that happening again so soon is pretty slim…

So why would Soros predict such a thing? Because he was short the market and wanted to give it a nudge lower.

Why do you think Peter Schiff continues to say that the Fed is killing the dollar and that gold is going to $5,000 an ounce? Could it be because he owns a gold coin business and wouldn’t mind drumming up a little business?

This is how the Wall Street game works. Big-name gurus have no problem at all telling anyone who will listen whatever will help them make money for themselves and their clients. It’s called “free speech,” and it is not illegal. (However, please note that “free speech” only applies to opinions expressed in a public forum, like on television. If an advisor deliberately tells you something that isn’t true in a one-on-one situation, that IS illegal.)

In fact, these campaigns of misinformation are exactly the type of behavior that leads to investment opportunity…

Here’s an Example

Now, here’s an example of how you can take advantage of misinformation. It concerns Disney (NYSE: DIS). Disney reported first-quarter 2016 earnings on February 10. The earnings report was really good. But one analyst from a firm I’d never heard of came out with a negative research report that crushed the stock by as much as $6 a share. The low of that day was $86.25.

What was the analyst worried about? Here’s the excerpt I published right here inWealth Daily on February 10:

With strong pricing, we believe ESPN profits can remain relatively flat over the next five years but, in the absence of a convincing DTC [direct to consumer] model, declining subs will lead to significant profit contraction at the unit over the following five years.

Now, I had just recently done my due diligence on Disney because I recommended it to my Wealth Advisory subscribers. So I knew that the concern that revenue at Disney’s biggest division (ESPN) would decline significantly was BS. As I wrote in that same article:

The flaw here is obvious: the analyst is assuming that Disney won’t have a direct-to-consumer platform that will allow viewers to buy ESPN a la carte in the next five years. That’s ridiculous.

Right now, Disney is the king of content. The company absolutely will find the best way to monetize that content.

Another big issue for Disney right now is its dividend. The current yield — 1.5% — is too low. I’m surprised Disney didn’t announce a dividend hike last night. But I have no doubt a dividend hike is coming.

I think buying Disney under $90 is a pretty good idea right now.

As it turns out, I wasn’t the only one who had a fully functioning BS detector that day. Disney hit a low of $86.25 that day, but it closed at $88.85. Today it is above $103.

So the next time you hear an analyst or some guru tell you that your shoe’s untied, do a little digging and see how valid the argument really is. There’s a pretty good chance that you can find opportunity this way.

Until next time,

brit''s sig

Source: Will County News

Democrats: It’s Time to Evolve!

Pat Hughes headshot 2014 WEB

Democrats: It’s Time to Evolve!

By Pat Hughes


Pop quiz: Which Democrat made the following statements?


People know that vast personal incomes come not only through the effort or ability or luck of those who receive them, but also because of the opportunities for advantage which Government itself contributes. Therefore, the duty rests upon the Government to restrict such incomes by very high taxes.


The movement toward progressive taxation of wealth and of income has accompanied the growing diversification and interrelation of effort which marks our industrial society. Wealth in the modern world does not come merely from individual effort; it results from a combination of individual effort and of the manifold uses to which the community puts that effort. The individual does not create the product of his industry with his own hands; he utilizes the many processes and forces of mass production to meet the demands of a national and international market.


If you guessed Barak Obama you could be forgiven. He talks a lot like this (who could forget his declaration that, “if you have a business, you didn’t build that…”). Bernie Sanders didn’t utter these precise words either, although he uses much the same language and offers the same themes. Hillary Clinton would be a good guess too, but these aren’t her (or more precisely Huma’s) words.


You’d also be wrong, understandably so, if you guessed Illinois House Speaker Mike Madigan, Senate President John Cullerton, or any of their minions in the Illinois General Assembly – including and especially Representative Lou Lang.


Any of them could have delivered this message – and in one form or another, all of them have, over and over again. It’s the Democrat message of 2016.


The correct answer, however, is Franklin D. Roosevelt.


fdr with cigarette


Roosevelt, of course, didn’t deliver these words at a Bernie Sanders rally or Hillary Clinton fundraiser. He delivered them in a Message to Congress urging them to move the nation from a flat tax to a graduated –or progressive – income tax on June 19, 1935.


That was 81 years ago – the year Babe Ruth played his last game. Democrats have recycled this idea ever since. They haven’t even come up with new talking points.


Clinging to old prescriptions for modern ailments is a recipe for continued decline. In fact, in Illinois, families and businesses are forced to flee because ruling class politicians are so strictly bound to the old “Chicago Way” of doing business.


That old “Way” has led to the highest unfunded pension liability in the nation, the lowest credit rating in the nation, and the highest unemployment in the Midwest. Those who run Chicago, a world class city plagued by political corruption, have failed in the two main functions of government: to provide for the public safety (Chicago has logged more murders per capita than New York and Los Angeles combined) and to provide a general education (only 16% of children in Chicago Public Schools will graduate college-ready).  Yet, they persist.


Instead of considering logical and proven reforms to reverse these problems, they recycle an 80-year old notion to raise taxes on the state’s already overburdened families and businesses. State Rep. Lou Lang has proposed a progressive tax increase claiming that this tax increase would affect only “the rich,” and that Illinois should follow the lead of other states that use a progressive-tax system. And what has happened in other states? Tax increases on “the rich” end up pounding the middle class for two reasons. First, there are not enough “rich” people to cover the cost of the Democrats’ largesse and mismanagement. Second, the rich—who are mobile—move their businesses, their investments and ultimately themselves out of state. The middle class then bears the pain of lost job creators and a weakening tax base.


Why not follow the lead of states that have implemented common-sense reforms, such as school choice, Medicaid reform, workers’ compensation and other labor reforms, and balanced budget reforms? States like our neighbors in Wisconsin, Michigan and Indiana. Did those states suffer massive job loss, the destruction of worker unions, deficits and inflation, floods and locusts as many Democrats predicted? No. Their economies improved. Their deficits were reduced. The median wage rose. Businesses – many seeking refuge from Illinois – located or expanded in those states. And, importantly, economic opportunity grew more rapidly than it had in years.


So, contact your Democrat Representative or State Senator and tell them it’s time to evolve. Tell them to say, ‘No’ to Representative Lang’s tired, old progressive tax proposal and consider some more modern reforms or they will wind up not only repeating history, but being on the wrong side of it as well.

Source: Will County News

Don’t be fooled, says Sanders’ wife, he cares about the damn emails

Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton at debateJane Sanders on Thursday night said it would “super nice” if the FBI would move a little more quickly on its investigation of Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s email abuses at the State Department.

“Right after the debate where he said, ‘enough of your damn emails,’ he also said, ‘there’s a process — it’s going forward,’” Sanders said of her husband’s remark at a Democratic presidential debate.

She added, “It’s an FBI investigation, and we want to let it go through without politicizing it and then we’ll find what the situation is. That’s how we still feel. I mean, it would be nice if the FBI moved it along.”

Earlier this year, FBI director James Comey said the agency is more focused on conducting a thorough investigation than it is a hasty one.

“The urgency is to do it well and do it promptly,” he said. “And well comes first. [I’m staying] close to this one to make sure we have the resources to do it competently.”

Meanwhile, Clinton’s email scandal continues to grow in terms of just how much government corruption was afoot on her behalf.

Judicial Watch revealed this week that the State Department withheld a key Benghazi email requested in a FOIA lawsuit nearly two years ago. The email in question would have made public Clinton’s private server use before the former top diplomat deleted tens of thousands of emails.

“Now we know the Obama administration consciously refused to give up key information about Hillary Clinton’s email in 2014.  It covered up this email both from the court and Judicial Watch,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.  “This cover-up provided Hillary Clinton enough time to hide potentially thousands of government records.  One aim of our court-order discovery will be to get to the bottom of this cover-up.”

Source: Will County News

Update on Clinton Benghazi Email cover-ups

Obama State Department Hid Key Clinton Benghazi Email from Judicial Watch 4/30/2016

It has taken several years of persistent legal pressure from Judicial Watch even to begin to expose Hillary Clinton’s email scandal. This week, for example, we reported that we could have known about her email games two years ago, had the State Department not covered a key email responsive to a JW Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request.

The Obama State Department admitted last week that it withheld a key Benghazi email of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton from Judicial Watch since at least September 2014. Had the department disclosed the email when first supposedly found, Clinton’s email server and her hidden emails would have been revealed before she authorized the alleged deletion of tens of thousands of emails.

This development comes in our July 2014 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)lawsuit seeking records related to the drafting and use of the Benghazi talking points (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:14-cv-01242)). The lawsuit, which forced the disclosure of the Clinton email records, seeks records specifically from Clinton and her top State Department staff:

Copies of any updates and/or talking points given to Ambassador Rice by the White House or any federal agency concerning, regarding, or related to the September 11, 2012, attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya.

Any and all records or communications concerning, regarding, or relating to talking points or updates on the Benghazi attack given to Ambassador Rice by the White House or any federal agency.

Contradicting an earlier statement to the court, an April 18, 2016, State Department letter admits that it found the email at issue in 2014 but that it was held back in its entirety:

Also, upon further review, the Department has determined that one document previously withheld in full in our letter dated November 12, 2014 may now be released in part.

The referenced November 12, 2014, letter does not discuss any withheld emails. Asearch declaration suggests the hidden email was found in September 2014 as a result of a search in response to Judicial Watch’s lawsuit.

The September 29, 2012, email to Clinton from then-Deputy Chief of Staff Jake Sullivan concerns talking points for Clinton calls with senators about the Benghazi attack. The email contains Clinton’s non-state.gov address.

Last week’s document production also includes material from a records cache of thousands of new Clinton State Department records supposedly only discovered in December 2015. The new material shows the State Department compiled extensive Libya/Benghazi-related dossiers on Republican and Democrat senators.

The result of all this is that we now know that the Obama administration consciously refused to give up key information about Hillary Clinton’s email in 2014. It covered up this email both from the court and Judicial Watch.

U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth was right when he suggested that Obama’s State Department acted in bad faith. This cover-up provided Hillary Clinton enough time to hide potentially thousands of government records. One aim of our court-order discovery will be to get to the bottom of this cover-up.

Our disclosure of the State Department’s mendacity led to some pushback this week from the agency. The agency first told the press and then sent us a letter suggesting we were “confused.” Here’s what the Obama State Department spokesman told the press:

So we don’t generally comment on matters of litigation, but in this case, there has been some confusion about – or rising from what was an administrative error in the correspondence in which the department said that the document in question was withheld on November – in November 2014, and that date was incorrect. So all the facts in this case or this – the complete facts, rather, surrounding this document are actually in a court filing, a public court filing from July 2015. And we would recommend that folks who are interested would look at that court filing.

But in summary, it describes that the department received the documents in June 2015 from members of former Secretary Clinton’s senior staff and did not withhold it until that time. So there’s a pretty big discrepancy in the dates there and we regret, obviously, any confusion that was caused by our error in correspondence.

The letter we received supposedly correcting the record is even more incomprehensible. The Clinton email in question wasn’t received or uncovered in 2015 – that is when the State Department first told us they had a Clinton Benghazi email but were withholding it in its entirety. The poor State Department can’t even keep track of its cover-ups.

These shifting and shifty Clinton email explanations by the State Department is why two frustrated federal court judges granted Judicial Watch discovery in the Clinton email matter.

New Benghazi Documents Reveal September 11, 2012, Hillary Clinton ‘Call Sheet’ Describes Benghazi Assault as Attack by ‘Armed Extremists’

The duplicity of the Obama administration, including its former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, regarding Benghazi seems to know no bounds.

This week we released new State Department documents that contain a “call sheet” background document for Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that called the Benghazi attackers “armed extremists.” This was on the day of the attack.

The documents were obtained under a court order in our Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed on September 4, 2014, (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:14-cv-01511)), seeking:

All records related to notes, updates, or reports created in response to the September 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. special mission compound in Benghazi, Libya. This request includes, but is not limited to, notes taken by then Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton or employees of the Office of the Secretary of State during the attack and its immediate aftermath.

A September 11, 2012, call sheet states:

“Armed extremists attacked U.S. [special mission compound in] Benghazi on September 11, setting fire to the Principal Officer’s Residence and killing at least one American mission staff, Information Management Officer Sean Smith, on TDY from The Hague.”

In an unusual move, the State Department is withholding the identity of the foreign leader for whom the Benghazi background information was prepared. Why does the Obama administration want to keep secret the identity of the person on the other end of Hillary Clinton’s phone call?

The documents also include a copy of Hillary Clinton’s schedule showing she met with then-UN Ambassador Susan Rice and attended a meeting in the White House situation room before the now controversial arrival ceremony for the remains of U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, U.S. Foreign Service Information Management Officer Sean Smith, and CIA contractors Tyrone S. Woods and Glen Doherty.

The families of those killed at Benghazi claim that at the memorial service Clinton blamed an Internet video for the attack. She is alleged to have promised the father of Tyrone Woods to “have the filmmaker arrested who was responsible for the death of your son.” Given the timing of the Susan Rice and White House meetings, one has to ask if the video lie was discussed as they prepared for the political perilous task of having to account to the victims’ families.

Days after her weekly meeting with Clinton, Rice appeared on ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox News and CNN, still claiming the assaults occurred “spontaneously” in response to the “hateful video.” On Sunday, September 16 Rice told CBS’s “Face the Nation“:

But based on the best information we have to date, what our assessment is as of the present is in fact what began spontaneously in Benghazi as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo where, of course, as you know, there was a violent protest outside of our embassy-sparked by this hateful video.

In 2014, Judicial Watch famously uncovered that Rice’s talking points originated with the Obama White House. This directly led to the creation of the House Select Committee on Benghazi.

This is the second production of documents from a records cache of thousands of new Clinton State Department records supposedly only discovered in December 2015. The first batch of records, released earlier this month by Judicial Watch, include documents from the Department of State containing the telephone transcripts from the evening of September 11, 2012, in which then-Secretary of State Clinton informs then-Egyptian Prime Minister Hisham Kandil that the deadly terrorist attack on the U.S. compound in Benghazi “had nothing to do with the film.”

Those documents include previously unreleased telephone transcripts with world leaders about the Benghazi attack. As The Washington Free Beacon first noted, the State Department admitted in a court filing in a related case that the records were removed from the secretary of state’s office in April 2015, despite pending congressional subpoenas and Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuits.

It’s little wonder that the Obama administration hid these documents for nearly four years. These new Benghazi documents show again that Hillary Clinton was told that “extremists” – the Obama administration’s term for terrorists – were behind the Benghazi attack.

Her curiously timed meetings with Rice and the White House just before she personally lied to the Benghazi victims’ families again bring the Obama White House into the center of the continuing scandal.

Source: Will County News