Is it possible “Not” to offend?

In today’s business and political climate, you are going to take crap for things you take part in, much less for things you feel strongly about? In today’s world are businesses allowed to choose what clients they wish to grant service to or not?

Let the consumer be ware; and so let the consumer decide through the use of free will and choice, if necessary, to choose another service provider to their liking.

For example:

Does a restaurateur have the right to deny services to somebody for whatever reason? Do certain restaurateurs have the right to only hire women and expect these women to dress in revealing clothing as part of company policy and marketing plan? Isn’t this gender discrimination, or what some would say exploitation? Not that there is anything wrong with Hooters, but it makes a good example of that last question. Is a policy of “no shoes, no shirt, no service”, too much?

Does an advertising agency if asked to make a commercial, (for lets say) a pro-life organization, or if they are asked by a politician with a political philosophy that they don’t agree with, can they refuse service and decline the client’s patronage?

Should people who practice the religion of Islam refuse to handle alcohol or any pork products? Should the practice of allowing businesses who advertise kosher food handling and kosher foods, be forced to be more inclusive of other religion and their practices according to the customer’s religious guidelines?

Does the company that produces M&Ms have the right to refuse to print a logo, or a saying, on a client’s order for custom candy, M&Ms, or do they have the right to refuse such order on the bases according to some company policy, or philosophy, or even politics? Who sets the company policy and or philosophy, or politics, in that culture? Are company’s or corporation’s silently also in the business of changing society’s excepted popular beliefs or moral standings?

Not to exaggerate to any great level of being ridicules, but every point made has a story or a lawsuit behind the asking of these questions; except those points with regards to “Kosher foods”. But asking the hard questions sometimes requires exaggeration, it can help drive points home or develop new thought…

If you are running a business in today’s political climate, you better be aware of how your reactions could affect your business. Even how you react to the folks who “bother you”—regardless of the reason—it is just as important to your business as how you may react to your ideal customer. Both deserve courtesy and mutual respect. But this doesn’t mean that you have to leave your beliefs or how you choose to live your life at home, completely separated, because you’re in business.

Jack Phillips, 57, refused to bake a wedding cake for Denver residents David Mullins, 29, and Charlie Craig, 34 – despite it being claimed he was happy to make one for two dogs.

The couple sued him and won in a landmark case, which saw the Colorado Civil Rights Commission unanimously declare free speech and business should be separate.

Jack Phillips said “If it’s just a birthday, I have no problem with that. My issue is that I don’t want to be forced to participate in a same-sex wedding.”

He lost the Gay discrimination case brought against him and his business. The case seems to say you can’t discriminate while we use the court system to legally “discriminate” against your particular values. Because we all live in the real world of a free market system that says, you have the right to go elsewhere, to the competition if you must, to spend your money in exchange for services rendered. Why was this even a case?

Why wasn’t this case just thrown out then? Why would one individual with curtain beliefs be compelled to comply or suffer economic consequences, at the request of another group and their beliefs?

Is this a type of bullying?

Is that a type of modern-day slavery? Demanding that one person perform services against their own free-will, and to the likes of another?

There are those who would compare Gay-rights to Civil-right, but do they compare? Both claim to be born into their existence. But scientifically only one between the two has an element of personal choice. There has never been any person of color that has chosen to be some other color and by choice alone, then changed. There has been however lots of claims by people that they made a choice in being Gay or becoming straight.

Who among us has the right to empower ourselves with more power, demanding more human rights, while trampling other people’s human right, or the ability to follow their religious consciences. In following any religious convictions there should be only one rule—anything goes providing others aren’t hurt or endangered by them.

Isn’t that the essence of having freedom to worship, freedom of religion, and the separation-of-church and state?

This case isn’t really over sour grapes and wedding cake. It is the first shots fired in the war against religious beliefs, asking government to support and choose between, those who would rather install their religion of non-belief over those who claim any belief in God. Regardless what religion that seems to be for the moment. Christians seem to be fair game in going after, while no one ever questions why Gay rights activists never seem to ever go after Islam—a religion that doesn’t even recognize or has any willingness to embrace any love for Gay people.

So I will ask again. In today’s world are businesses allowed to choose what clients they wish to grant service to, or should that choice only be granted to anything but religious beliefs?

There used to be some expectations in general for everyone to be respectful of everyone they come in contact with in public. Remember when business owners had the right of refusal—“No shoes, no shirt, no service”? Back then, there were more expected freedoms, if offended in having to wear shoes or a shirt we could have just as easily gone out and created a business that catered to the shoeless and shirtless clientele. It’s all in the exercise of free choice. Because when a person is changed against their will, they’ll remain of the same opinion still.

Rather than fighting any wars in court between the religious and those who claim to be non-religious affiliated, we should all see there are economical missed opportunities here. Perhaps there is more room in the market place for a gay baker willing to bake cake for anyone or for any services, then there is for any bullying attempt to destroy people and their businesses through the power of the government, that practice a religion that you disagree with.

The best thing about a free market system is that system will all on its own allow for success and failure, by allowing individual’s to choose for themselves which business they will support, what products they will buy, what particular specialty products they which to have and desire for their money.

Government loves cases like this; it weakens everyone’s liberty, by weakening religious liberty. You may feel all safe and secure claiming no religion, having no religious beliefs, holding steadfast to a non-religious belief systems; but in the end it takes the same level of faith to believe in something, as it does to develop an non-belief in that same thing; so all liberty for everyone is affected by government involvement just the same with this issue.

Because people create businesses or corporation’s it’s only natural for those same businesses and corporation’s to be run according to individuals and their beliefs. If there is no business to provide your particular requested services, to your standards—seize the capitalist opportunity and service that market. That way competition will decide. Because if a government is powerful enough to grant you everything, it is also powerful enough to at some point take everything from you.

Unintended consequences have a way of destroying perfectly good but not particularly well thought-out dreams. When you throw the government into the mix, and when they’re perfect by batting 1000, giving a 100% guarantee that unintended consequences will multiply, liberty and common sense slowly erodes away.

Baker who lost gay discrimination case will stop making wedding cakes http://dailym.ai/1ucJHOD via @MailOnline

The Reason M&Ms Refused To Sell To A Knife Rights Group Is PC …

www.ijreview.com/…44169-mms-refuses-custom-candy…

Advertisements

“War is Peace, Knowledge is Ignorance, Freedom is Slavery”.

“War is Peace, Knowledge is Ignorance, Freedom is Slavery”. “1984”

We started a “War on Poverty” in 1965; there are Millions more in poverty today than back then.

We started the “War on Drugs” in the 1970’s.  Hundreds of thousands have been killed or jailed, and there are more drugs in the US than ever before.

We started a “War on Terrorism” in 2002″ and terrorists now control more nations than ever before.

In 2009 we started a war on the “Greedy rich”, those corporations, company’s and the greedy bankers at its center of this new religion of greed. Looking for a government to tax the greed out of them completely. Yet we now have an even larger government, an ever increasingly greedy population of citizens, followed by an ever-increasing greedy politician in office legislating the new rules, regulations, definitions and laws to deal with the world of greed, resulting in its magnification within society. At the same time protecting the endangered species, the greedy political official looking for reelection.

We started a political war on “Women” in 2012. A politically created division within groups of people and their genders, all of which are now competing for preferential treatment by governmental policies. Showered with money and attention, bought and paid for by a newly protected group, a societal superior, over every other voter group. I suppose we could just call it a forced evolution, a survival of the fittest, that has all ready prostituted itself to government which controls the nature of evolution in the first place. Today the war on women, tomorrow the war on the planet through the use of global warming??

In 2012 we also started the war on “Offences”;

Obama’s quote…..”there is no future for those who choose to slander the prophet of Islam.” President Obama said in a speech to the UN.

Because Islam and other religious and non religious groups are easily offended. We must use governmental controls of what is and what isn’t offensive, ( political correct terms that is). Of course while outlawing offences of the smallest kind we tend to offend the people or groups of every kind, who would also express an opinion of their own. Because these opinions are still offensive to others. In stead of peacefully agreeing to disagree, they only express disagreement.  saying Marry Christmas shouldn’t be so disagreeable, but to an overly sensitive person who also is an atheist? This is too much! To the terrorist who wishes to wipe out the infidel by blowing them up along with himself in order to gain a place in heaven surrounded by virgins. Wether it is agreeable, or disagreeable, or offensive to either side, even to those who must die or to those who must stop the madness, we shouldn’t be slandering the islamic prophet / religion? Wouldn’t this be showing preferential treatment for one religion practices over the others, no matter how misguided it seems to be, by allowing venomous reactions without outrage against such, is itself offensive? Would we not then be offending the Grim Reaper or death itself by defending life through modern medical practices or techniques? All that has been accomplished in the war on offence is an ever thinner skinned population competing for their group to be recognised in gaining approval, offensive superiority supported by the laws of the land.  Of course to the anarchist this is also offensive, to have laws, net alone a government who would in force them.

When it comes to the war on offence, it is a lose / lose proposition. Offences survives on either side of the coin. Prehaps we should abandon our war on offence and go straight for the new war on WHINING! Eliminating that, could resolve things that the weak-minded can’t, who use being offended as their weapon of choice, trying to gain control over you and your actions, in limiting reactions or choices, at the very least, by whining about everything.

Early in 2013 we now have renewed the war on guns. After 20 kids got killed by some crazy gun-man. Not to make light of the tragedy of what was the sandy hook school massacre in new town CT. But banning a gun does little to nothing in changing the mind of the criminal who has chosen to do evil. Besides, why is it now proper for the president and government to wage war on the gun after 20 victims? Where were these wizards of wisdom in the Chicago wars? The casualty’s in 2012 in Chicago have surpassed the death toll of Afghanistan. When the president says. ” We must try to do something, even if it stops just one person from being killed.” Yet with a philosophy of stopping just one more needless death, should the population be limited in its freedoms, and rights? Or is this just a price to pay to be living in an uncertain world, where nothing is guaranteed? Autos kill far more people than guns, no one is banning the use of autos. Drunk drivers kill even more people than the proclaimed “One” by the president. Should we re-ban alcohol? How about the parking lots at the bar?

When we look at the statistics last year we had 11,000 gun related deaths, down from the 20,000 plus gun deaths in 1980. The ratio of volume of weapons vs. deaths by weapons is in decline, as is the case in the statistical evidence in the state of California. Gun bans don’t work! Because it only regulates the law-abiding citizen, not the lawless citizen who doesn’t follow laws. With 1.4% of gun victims last year coming from the weapons government is now trying to ban, it seems out-of-place, or is this just the beginning of what will be the slippery slope to an out-right total gun ban?

It seem in order to protect this society from needless deaths at the hands of criminals who by their nature doesn’t follow any laws, or rules of conscience within society. Would be a waste of resources if we don’t engage the true source of the problem. It would be better to have a war on the mentally ill, or at least people who are weak-minded or have a lack of morals. Maybe movie makers, or video game makers, is what we should be warring against because they should have a bigger responsibility to society. For they influence the weak-minded? After all, the movies, and TV, and video games have become the advertisements of violence that may entice weak-minded people, in acting out with violence. Advertisements do work in getting people to act, other wise companies wouldn’t spend millions of dollars each year on them. If there is a marinade of violence on the weak-minded like this, wouldn’t that also be a problem? Every mass-shooting has found that the shooter to have a fascination with these kinds of entertanments.Treating the weak-minded / mentally ill with dignity and respect in helping them is far better, then limiting the law-abiding citizen as if they are the danger to society. If we chose to bathe in a sewer, should we also expect an improvement just because we using the excuse ” we used soap!”??

Aren’t all these wars “For the good of the people, to keep them safe and secure, even from themselves”?

Truly, we are living Orwell’s nightmare.

Religion of Suicidal selfishness, or the ultimate social engineering?

Any society that is founded on a self-centered selfishness. Is one that will often make decisions based on limiting personal responsibility’s. Yet society is dependent on growth. Peoples  retirements depends on younger people to pay for their retirement. Younger people are dependent on still younger people having kids and thus supporting the housing markets with expansion and of price. Even stores that sell the basic needs look for growth in income and expansion of operations from the population growth. Even growth of the job markets are dependent on these reality’s. Basic fact growth of any society comes from the growth of the population.

What happens to society’s when they embrace a suicidal selfishness?

Back in 2006 President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had called for a baby boom.

 “I am against saying that two children are enough. Our country has a lot of capacity. It has the capacity for many children to grow in it. It even has the capacity for 120 million people,” he declared. “Westerners have got problems. Because their population growth is negative, they are worried and fear that if our population increases, we will triumph over them.”

After the 1979 Islāmic Revolution which booted out the Shah, The Iranians had an extremely high birth rate. Some almost 7 births per women. Iranians had swelling births and plenty of young people coming up in society. Soon they would enter the workforce and every aspect of a modern Iran not socially and politically prepared for it. According to the politicians of the day they had a bright future. Some what expressed by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. But with huge growth you also have huge societal demands. Education, Jobs, housing, better foods, healthcare… and so on. But the leaders of Iran didn’t see the need to follow the people’s needs and or demands. The outlook for the future, and that same outlook that the population viewed, was a whole different view completely. Was it is because of personal responsibility’s?

Shocked by the rapidly growing population, the Iranian government vigorously promoted family planning as a path to economic development. 70 million as a teeming cauldron of Islāmic fundamentalism and social and moral conservatism, the trend to lower birthrates began. Hoping to lower the pressure on government.

A western way of life was considered evil. So birth control was on the cutting edge of to different society’s, were one was considered more western therefore ( Evil ), and the other was religiously rigid. After the 1979 Islāmic Revolution which booted out the Shah, Iran was dismantled for being pro-Western. But contraceptive use was not totally banned and Imam Khomeini and other Ayatollahs did grant fatwas allowing it as a health measure.

Women were encouraged to space births and to stop at three. Although there was no overt coercion, a 1993 social engineering law penalised large families by terminating family allowances, health benefits and maternity leave for families with four or more children. Reducing farther the government responsibility, all the while creating a theocracy controlled social engineering.

Who really wants to look at their children and tell them, ” Sorry there is no food!” no one does. So there is no real surprise that the birth rate dropped to a low in 2012 1.88 births per women. That represents a declining population. Any population needs to have 2.1 births per women to sustain its self. But to grow it needs more births, along with a population that sees opportunity’s for a brighter future.

Iran today has had one of the highest declines in birth rates in the world. Down some 70% in their growth rate, within a single genaration.This will spell trouble with the ageing of the population. First the baby boom from the war years, now between the ages of 14-35. In that age group women are using birth control at an increasing rate, or having baby’s farther apart, or not at all. All so they have a renewed desire to have an easier life. They can see the world through the internet, and its many appeals. A reduction of personal responsibility’s on every level, is therefore appealing.  Leaving more resources for everyone on every level.

Being young with no real bright futures that they can see. The young are taking the direction to protest against the political internals to the country. It also explains the political unrest in the country. Leaderships worry is, how to deal with all of the social concerns, along with the their brand of religious expansion they are hoping for.

Iran has been going down that road of controlling the population through religious rules rather than rigid government ones. If you don’t like the rules supplied by government you can always overthrow them. But with religious rules…… even through they seem to be perverted by political leaders, it takes an extreme mindset to change religions. Much harder to do when you have the kind of religion like Islam. It also doesn’t surprise anyone with the display’s of attitudes of the government leadership. A Young population ( Some 30 + % of the population ), 25% plus unemployment among the young, and a declining birth rate. Which means that the iranian government will have fewer people to support the future retirement of the present youth. A governmental migraine.

War and the extreme talk of it is just a way to slim down the population and kick-start any economy. But that is also evil. Yet old men can’t fight in a war so……

When you look at it like I’m sure the president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has. It doesn’t surprise anyone to hear the kind of political rhetoric, along with a strange love of death.

Islamist’s love to say… ” We love death more than you love life. “

Is it religion coping society? Or society that has copied flawed religious rules, only seeing a dark future, therefore allowing a for slow suicidal death by way of reduced birth rates? Truly is it a Religion of suicidal selfishness, or the ultimate social engineering on the road to failure?

I have a bone to pick with FACEBOOK!

                                 I have a bone to pick with FACEBOOK!

Yesterday November 13, 2012 I was picked on by the mighty FACEBOOK. I got upset to a point of just typing without rereading what I had typed. My apologies to everyone for that, and for having to read my ramblings riddled with misspellings or sentences that were run together, or some such. Again My apologies for the confused writings.

In case your late to this game, Facebook took it upon its self to “BAN” me from being able to friend anyone I know, or otherwise, for 7 long days. Well it is now about to become 6 more days anyway. I know it is a small thing, but then the slippery slope starts out that way every time. At the bottom of that slope is a collection of shell-shocked people asking the same question? “How could this have this happened?”

My offence to receive this kind of punishment —- Asking someone to be my Facebook friend.

Seem harmless? After all I’m harmless, and those who have taken the time to get to know me will testify to that. But asking someone to be a Facebook friend isn’t allowed unless you know them personally. Banning people that Facebook doesn’t know or have taken the time to get to know or investigate their high crime of trying to friend someone is ridicules! Facebook programmers have devised a program to get to know me and my acquaintances better than I know myself I guess? Or they have set up a social system of complainers to weed out those of us who would like to be socially inter-active with life, and people using social networks like Facebook or twitter…. etc.

To receive this kind of ban from Facebook you have to do one or all of the following:

1)      Ask someone to be a friend on Facebook. Even though it is a person’s free will to accept that invite. They then can choose by making efforts on their part to press a button in acceptance, or to ignore the request, or to block people who are making unwanted or repeated requests, as well as make a complaint about repeated requests made. Note pressing any button takes the same amount of effort on anyone’s part (Little to none). If you’re a complainer, and don’t wish to interact with me —– Strap a head to toes condom on yourself and consider yourself protected from hear no evil and see no evil from me! Holding your breath at the same time isn’t necessary, but feel free if you must!

2)      If you make too many requests of any amount of people to become a new friend or a request of family (People you actually do know), within the course of a day (A 24 hour per day time frame). This will trigger the program to potentially block you from making new requests. Facebook doesn’t know who you are. Nor do they know who you know, or don’t know. It is all about learning about the people that use Facebook, and building a person’s profile by how they use it. So this has nothing to do with anything that I or you have done wrong according to some socialist rules that they have you agree to, so you can use Facebook properly.

3)      If anyone makes a complaint about you (Warranted or not) the program kicks in and takes action. For me it was blocking me, from making any more requests for friends. The first time this happened to me, I was new to Facebook. I made 15 requests and was deemed, not have that many friends (A programmer’s way of calling me a loser) and was blocked for 4 hours. This happened to me just 3 days into being on Facebook. The next time it happened to me, I had made a request of a person who made some opposing points to my posts. They weren’t my friend, and I didn’t complained. They commented on my story that I had posted. They were intelligent and I thought it would nice to discuss other points of view with them in the future if they were willing. They complained to Facebook about what must have been an unreasonable offensive request, and I was blocked for a second time for 12 hours. The next time, I had made only 10 – 20 new requests of people that had 30-140 friends in common with me. I also had people make some friend requests of me during this time and gladly accepted their requests. This pushed me over the programmer’s threshold of the number of requests that anyone can make or accept so it seems in a day / 24 hours’ time. I know, how dare I!!! I was ban for 7 long days. (Note; how the periods of time and being ban is inconsistent with anything realistic, times or number of offences vs. the accusations of unreasonable offences made.)

4)      Anyone that is making a complaint to Facebook seems to be of a greater importance to Facebook then actually looking into any potential problem with its users (like an habitual complainer). Think about it, how many people do illegal things and are still on Facebook without being ban, or arrested? The news is full of such stories over the years.

5)      My second banning was due to this situation as I will explain. The person didn’t like being challenged to his utopian world of liberalism. Rather than coming up with better intellectual arguments and making a civil presentation of them. This person who seemed was intelligent to me, just when to the itchy trigger finger and shot a round of complaints to Facebook. After all how can only one complaint coming into Facebook trigger such a reaction by Facebook towards me? We wouldn’t expect them to over react with a ban of some kind over just one complaint, right? Maybe a warning first? But not the kill shot, for requesting some new friends?

6)      Facebook refuses to correct the hair-trigger stance of how they deal with complainers and those who they complain about. It is their opinion to shoot first, and then repeat the proses if needed with a greater wound to your social networking experience. They (Facebook) do not have any intention to investigate any complaint at all. They know that fighting with a computer program is futile. We really do live in a sy-fi kind of world, where computers can deem us an enemy of friendship, free speech, or political correctness. How do we fight that? Feeling like a number rather than a person with feelings right about now. Aren’t you?

Who enters a social networking party room without expecting to also being social with people in that room? Did we not enter that room with our own free will? So we can leave that room then of our own free will, if it isn’t as expected. Who sits on the outer edges of that room wishing to interact but then has to ask permission to do so from Facebook? I’m not in favor of harassment of people and their ability to inter act no matter what their opinions seem to be. But I’m not in favor of some kind of social networking social engineering of society either. No matter who may be behind it!  We are no idiots here in the social networking world, except for the habitual complaining ones. It would see this kind of abuse of people for practically doing nothing, is also unacceptable, abusive, insulting, and most of all a promotion of an anti-social life styles limited to those views of the social engineers among us.

Facebook is in the world of electronic censoring, information gathering, and learning of its subjects. (People and their actions, observing why they chose to act like they do). People are the ones being studied, observed, by Facebook. The only questions that remain to be answered are, why? What is the end game and for what purposes?

I have been often been told. Do not talk to strangers as I was growing up. But then everyone is a stranger in life if you don’t also make an attempt to communicate with them.

My only offence here on Facebook is being exactly what Facebook was created for. BEING SOCIAL!!!

I must then presume that Facebook doesn’t like my politics, religious beliefs, or my supporting others in theirs. For just one complaint (If I choose to play Facebook’s game of blame) is a bit too much of a hair-trigger to then ban people in this way. Not allowing a defense of one’s own actions, or to view (in E-mail form) their offences of others, is all on its own offensive! I’m innocent until proven otherwise! Don’t you ever forget that FACEBOOK!

Next, where is the system of protecting me from chronic complainers or other ill willed individuals, and the actions of any perpetrators of crime, or harassments within Facebook’s world against me or others? Who defines the word net alone who the perpetrators of offences really are? Or are you ( FACEBOOK, and your programmer’s) living the life of a hermit’s, who are also computer programmer’s? Hiding behind your mother’s dress, like a scared little kid, who just saw the friend request from under the bed? Presuming the one who cry’s wolf most often is the one worthy of your misguided attentions within the big bad world of social networking?

I would therefore under normal conditions expect an apology from Facebook. But let’s face it; Facebook is nothing but a computer program created by a bunch of faceless people, who never think so much as to investigate their product from flaws within. Like design flaws! Your system always advertises new people to me by saying, and displaying on-screen. “Do you know these people? They then display (some number) of friends in common with you, along with a request button and ignore button. What the hell is this? Do you (FACEBOOK) not understand your own rules? The ones that you also make me agree to before I can be a user in good standings again? That one in particular where I seem to having a problem with you —- WHERE NO ONE IS TO BE FRIENDING ANYONE WHO THEY DON”T KNOW! You may love the power to be able to choose for me, but you, yourself don’t know me! How would you? You’re just a computer program designed to spit out what the little programmers told you to. You know… garbage in — garbage out. On the other hand if I press a button and by doing so request friendship on Facebook I’m “BANED” from the full use of Facebook. Now what is wrong with this picture? Why do I need to subjugate myself to your determination of just who my real life friends are? Why do I need to be tempted to make new friends with people I may or may not know of your choosing, against your rules? Are you the DEVIL?

Last I checked, I didn’t sell my ability to make friends, or give you an accrete list of current friends, that may interact with me. If we can never expand beyond our current friends lists, why would we need Facebook anyway? There are things of somewhat older technologies just like Facebook. We call them “Cell phones”! What’s the point then? It is you’re job in keeping Facebook relevant in the world of social networking where all people start as strangers, capable of deciding for themselves who should be their friends while using social networking? I or all the people on Facebook don’t need your permeation to do that for us!

7)      I all most forgot. Number seven, the exponential growth of friends on my page. Facebook is making an attempt at controlling growth or so it seems the growth of like-minded people on my page as well as other pages, who may read like-minded stuff. Over 25% of the people on my list of friends are due to people making requests of me and my excepting of them. Some of which came to becoming a friend with my request of new friends that I may or may not know in my real personal life. All of which seem to have happened in the last 10 days. I personally am grateful, humbled, and have the biggest amount of gratitude for that. I indeed have a great collection of principled people who I gladly will call Facebook friends.

I however will not be controlled! My life or on the acting out within my life other than how I choose to live it, and who I choose to share it with, is for me to decide for myself.  When my actions haven’t harmed anyone and my words haven’t supported the harming of anything. My religion beliefs or politics as presented is harmless in comparisons to those religions groups and Politian’s who support — terror, fear, manipulations, and distortions, or flat-out lies! All for the purposes of gaining power over people, myself included. I therefore cannot and will not agree with your baseless BAN!

I will not submit…… I will never, ever submit!!!!!!

I’m personally grateful, humbled, and have the greatest amount of gratitude for all my friends. I fully respect your privacy if you desire it, and have no intentions of ever setting out to hurt anyone who I may disagree with or who disagrees with me.

Thank you all for that great growth of friendships and the ability’s to have found you all on Facebook. You know just who you all are. True friendship will never be denied, compromised away, or left behind willingly by me! Unless I get a personal request to do just that from you.

Facebook you cannot stop what is happening in social networking after you open Pandora’s Box by claiming to have invented it, for the purposes of people being able to stay in contact with each other! For that is the base line and the beginning stage for forming friendships that last.

All the best.

CYA SOON ON FACEBOOK!!

Choices of man-made Gods.

Choices of man-made Gods.

We are in control now. Do not make an attempt to control your own lives, the horizontal, the vertical, or even what has become the average. We, those who know just what is best for you, will decide for you. No need to tax your own brain cells to make an effort. For we who are the Government who knows best. We will decide on your behalf in all things.

“The latest move from the city that’s set trends by banned smoking in bars and trans fats in foods involves sugary drinks sold at restaurants, fast-food chains, theaters, delis, office cafeterias and other places that fall under the New York City Board of Health’s regulation by March 2013. Exempt will be drinks sold in convenience and grocery stores, as well as dairy and alcohol-based beverages. Restaurants with self-serve soda fountains will be prohibited from giving out cups larger than 16 ounces, even for diet drinks, but consumers will be allowed refills. “From a recent publications announcement.

No other U.S. city has tried to tackle obesity by restricting portion sizes at restaurants, but city officials wanted to take action as a way of getting a skeptical public to embrace the idea that empty-calorie foods are a menace. The use of the health board has become nothing short of a new form of herding the general public into a smaller world where making their own choices for themselves is pointless.

It isn’t whether or not the public can make such choices. But more the public has put government into a position of controlling needless costs, and expensed through socialized healthcare. Public health experts around the nation are sure to sit up and take notice of this ruling on health. More importantly the Obama administration / the regime are probably rubbing their hands together with anticipation. These federal puppeteer’s of the public’s mindset have been involved in the greatest social engineering in America’s 237 year history.

Mayor Michael Doomberg likens himself as a reinventor of normal, through the use of the power of the government. He likened his restrictions on sugar, and soft-drinks, to the banning of lead paint. Therefore saving humanity from the horrors of it. His war on childhood diabetes, the same kind found to be most prevalent in overweight adults as the true enemy to any improvements government can provide to public health. But secretly he knows that saving people from themselves will save future dollars as the number one resource on the government’s endangered list of resources. It has very little to do with looking out for his fellow-man.

Michael Doomberg concedes the ban will not solve the obesity epidemic alone. Yet has trouble to mention publicly  that it is more of an effort to prolong the impending doom of socialism from running out of other people’s money, while providing a social healthcare of sorts.

One of the calling cards of socialism is that they will control every aspect of life for everyone under their control; under the guided mindset, they know what is best. They point to the policies of the conservative movements as some kind of moralists. “You can’t do this, or that — it isn’t right.” they say as they push against the religious moral rules and boundaries. In other words, the liberals are warring against Religious moral codes / GOD, while pushing a code of their own based on a moral less value system, free from all accountability’s.

Any governmental from of rule, that says that we must control the sugar, salt, trans-fat, smoke from smoking indoors, the kinds of foods our kids eat in school or food supplied to the homeless from religious charity’s, and so on, blah,blah,blah! Isn’t looking out for the good health of the population as a whole. In fact this liberal mindset which takes the ability of choice in the names of the for mentioned activities away from people. Only wishes to extend the ability to make choice in areas in individual life styles that brings society down slowly to its same end as suicide! They say nothing or pass no restrictions on or about adolescent parenting, children making the choice without parent involvement in choosing abortions, legalization of marijuana, the distribution of free birth control (despite that this promotes an irresponsible life style.), the promotion of slothful activity’s and lifestyles (By providing an overabundance of social services without any regard to the damage it brings to the individual themselves.

Social governments always support the control of the portion of society that stands for an uplifting of individuals and values. While showing a total lack of concern in controlling individual choices of those kinds that destroy individuals from within.  People naturally already have those tendencies towards self-destruction within themselves. No real need to promote them by governmental regulations.

There is nothing as destructive as a misguided government policy that goes out of its way to destroy “ Equal opportunity “ and replaces it with “equal out comes”, at the expense of killing for all individual personally, their GOD given potential. It is through the expansion of individual talents, that individuals have opportunity’s to improve themselves by marketing those talents into the free market system. Offering goods and services to other people that they can freely choose for themselves. Based on goods and services that they seek and desire to have. In short this was the pursuit of happiness that Jefferson was talking about.

The legalization of being able to smoke pot like what happened in the state of Washington, or the ban of sugar, salt, trans fat, or extra-large soda drinks, or being able to feed the poor, like what New York is pushing. These kinds of regulations that will certainly be national presentations within Obamacare regulations. Seem to be stupid regulations presented from the merchants of smart. This has had nothing to do with smart, or for the common good of people in society down to the individual level. It has however everything to do with pleasing the useful idiots in society to gained power, while repurchasing that power in future elections as cheaply as they can, with the new drug of freebie give-a-ways.

The Democratic Party is the party of “NO”! Saying no to any moral codes, while promoting irresponsible living without morals. The Democratic Party who for the most part stands for anything against moral values, along with Republicans who support, a relaxing of standards, in compromising principles. These are the social engineers of the day, the leaders standing at the helm. Who only are managing the decay, as if it is the new social order? The new presentation of a man-made heaven utopia, void of GOD.

Quote “Is the new boss the same as the old boss?” the rock band the WHO.

Alternate reality of political correctness.

Within the alternate reality world of the liberal left. Political correctness, is only one of the tools to be found within the tool box of forced results. Untill it becomes necessary to use the only other tool within the toolbox. THE POINT OF A GUN! These left minded people rarely use their right mind in anything. So they are by definition half-witted.

Take religion for instance. The liberal tosses moral values to the wind, and settles into the redefining of what is to be popular. Presenting the popular point of view for the new moral. If you disagree look to the values that are being supported present day Democratic party. One may even look to the values of the president of the United States. He claims to be Christian but acts like he has a favored spot in his heart for the Muslim Islamist’s of the world. Is this attitude, the fundamental change, his platform of hope and change was built on? But then he believes that no body can build anything without government first building the roadway and bridge to no where. Which is where the government seem to be pushing Christians and their religious beliefs towards.

We have come to a point of not being able to trust him ( Obama ) and the judgments he is making on our behalf. Net alow his word. He is as it seem to be, a first third world president of the United States of America. Concerned more with being a compromise-er with an overly friendly nature towards everyone else in the world. He compromises his presented moral standings, or what faith he claims for the moment. No matter what intent he may have. He has failed to understand the Islāmic faith vs Christianity.

To govern this nation you have to leave your personal beliefs at the front door of the office. There is no room for expressing personal beliefs, without giving the impression of governmental support of them. Without offending still other beliefs and believers. Therefore no need to insult this nations over whelming belief in Christian values. All the while over looking the almost daily threats from the Islamist extremest, towards every religion in opposition to their own beliefs.

Like supper man he ( Mr. Obama ) fly’s around the wold chastising behaviours for something that rubs him wrong. Apologizing still to others for something he didn’t create, and then coming home he criticizing for all the intolerance he sees, while pushing the immoral political correctness.

Obama is not just the first black president. But the first third world president. Who, when ever he steps out on the world stage seems to have forgotten where he has come from, and where he is going. Claiming to be christian. But forgetting his muslim up bringing. Offending one, while apologizing still for the others offence. In so doing Obama has lost personal popularity, as well as American popularity, among the Islamists of the world. Not to mention the respect as well.

By his display of weakness, he has lost every kind of popularity and respect, faster than Gorge Bush did. Even faster still among the world of Islam. Because they despise weakness, and are all to willing to exploit it.

Despite the God-given right of the FIRST AMENDMENT. Along with the superior moral values within the constitution of the United States of America. These documents given all of us the same abilities, to the same kind of free speech as anyone else in this country.

Obama uses his own moral judgments to engage within negotiations along with Islāmic nations. Using the United Nations ( UN ) counsel of human rights in trying to curb our ( USA”s ) freedom of free speech. By limiting what we can say or even criticise, with regards to Islam. Without even asking for the same kind of compromise and controlled speech of the muslim nations, and what they say towards other religions. Clearly Obama doesn’t see the real differences between Islam and every other religion. Islam feels that their God is more powerful than Christianity’s perceptions of who, and what God is, or is like.

Did he fail to lessen to the president of Egypt when he said.

” The Quartan is the constitution! The prophet is our leader! Jihad is our path! Death in the name Islam is our goal! “

or at different times other Islāmic leaders said.

” We love death more than you love life!”

Despite all of this Obama said in an apologetic way.

“The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam” Obama at the UN

Liberals have attacked conservatives and constrictive minded Christians. With self blinding cliché’s of some self-proclaimed superior emotional ideas. A progressive moral code. using political correctness as the weapon of choice. Showing us all, that they are nothing but old musicians of the past. Trying desperately to hang onto lost fame of the past. With their past memories still fresh in their minds performing their one hit wonders, to what now is only an empty arena of intellectual ideas. along with a child-like attitude. They paint unrealistic dreams of their fathers lost glory. Like a pot smoker under the influence. They weave yarns of smoke into the foundational fabric of their socialist utopia. Marching forward, towards their social engineering of their choosing.

These disciples of destruction Believe they, and they alone deserve to be in the rightful place of leadership. They try to negotiate with the Islamist world what would be acceptable as what is and is not free speech. Despite the first amendment. They subjugate Christian values and morals as being ones of a lesser importance in comparison to muslim values. Yet say nothing when women’s rights are violated, when Christians are being killed, persecuted, or thrown out of Islāmic country’s. We say nothing when muslims arm themself’s, and attack with suicide bombers. Attacking women and children because they happen to be jewish. Or other people who express beliefs in opposition to Islam or Sharia. We say and do nothing when Islamist leaders call for genocide to be preformed against Israel. Yet we fool ourself’s into believing that progressive values are far superior. Rather then recognising progressive morals as being socially suicidal in nature.

When will we admit to our self, then to the world. That any religion that also promotes violence, engages in violence, and teaches hate of others because they dare to believe differently, and then acts out with violence on that teaching, as being a false religion!?

Why can we not express to those false teachers. That their kind of religious teachings do deserve a future that is comfortable with ours? Nor should the future belong to those who slander, using hate of Christian / Jewish / and other religious values. When will any American leader stand up and deliver a speech using terms as forcefully as possible explaining our values of being a Christian nation, as one who has a GOD given powerful right of free speech? So put a sock in it!!

When have we seen or heard. “The future must not belong to those who slander the tenets of Christianity! ” ?

Yet the news if full of stories of rioting against innocent people trapped in poverty, unable to escape the insanity of religious persecution. By a religion that has turned its back on free choice, and replaced it with an over abundance of fear, violence, manipulation, distortion, lies and lairs. Who promise any of the would be suicide bombers with a fantasy of 72 virgins, as their 30 pieces of silver.

When will we accept that Islam doesn’t want peace, they want victory!!! A one world religion governed by Sharia law! A heaven built of men, not of GOD!

When will our leaders get it? We don’t want ignorance bottled up in righteousness. The chronic political correctness, which leads to an accommodationist style and type of leadership. A compromise-er! An alternate reality where Christianity isn’t worth defending. Out of some misguided guilt, willing to embrace Islāmic seeds of destruction. In exchanged for bucket loads of money, constantly shoveled into the middle east in an attempt to pay the devil in buying our way to heaven. these acts of misguided charity clothed in misguided support of human rights. Is the self-deception, the false religion of where everyone will go along, to get along. In the end forgetting that true principles and morals are timeless.

We ( As a nation and more importantly our government. ) must see what our enemy’s have been all to willing to tell us openly. The who, and what they are, as well as what they intend to do. Only then we will be able to defend ourself’s if it need be. With the appropriate amount of force. Therefore understanding Islam and their religious extremism within the muslim off shoots that exist today. Not as a religion, but as a religious command and control theocracy, bent on world domination. One compelled mind at a time.

” It requires to correctly identify your enemy’s and what they intend to do. But in your arrogance you believe that you write the script, but you don’t!! “ Lara Logan.

This guy explains these differences without mixing word: http://youtu.be/GCXHPKhRCVg

Arrogance will blind you from seeing what is so openly in your face. The future must not belong to those who slander common sence, and refuses to see the alternate reality of political correctness. Religious ones or other wise.

A narcissistic ego; Never letting a crisis go to waste. ( the YouTube video that no one has seen )

“Never letting a crisis go to waste.” quote Rahm Emanuel. Is the presidents motto for his reelection. When you also look at his own speeches you would also find. Another one of his mottos. If you don’t have a record to run on. You give something of your opponents to run from. Is the crisis in the middle east one of those moments in time?

This YouTube video that sparked the outrage in the middle east is somewhat over done. Not saying that the riots are outrageous by themself’s. But saying, what do you expect from a society that is totally controlled by a theocracy. Along with the limitations of the state-run by abusive powers, and thus limiting the theater-goers as well as the theatrical presentations within the country’s of questions.

This video is therefore suspect to have caused the riots. The limited viewership of some brief showings to the hollywood movers and shakers. Is one thing. But for these some backwards country’s and their leadership to have allowed the YouTube released to the general public is highly unlikely. Even if we were to play along as being devil’s advocate. The question that comes to mind is what about all of the other hollywood movies that shine an unflattering light on Islam / the Muslim world? Where is the out rage?

These country’s are poor country’s and receive a lot of foreign aid just for everyday survival. Throw into the mix high unemployment, radical religious views and the facts that within these theocracy the population gets most of its news and how to react to it if any, from the mosque and the cleric who teaches there. How else would a country like those in the middle east riot with huge populations of rioters, who seem to not mind to rioting for the camera. Just where are the theaters that had the showings for these people to see this movie. Where is the evidence of huge numbers of broadband internet mobile devices where these people can see the outrageous video? Have we forgotten the Iranians crack down on the social media networks when there were anti-government uprisings within that country? In Egypt during the muslim spring, the outgoing government even tried to shut down the social media networks at that time. These theocracy’s control content because they see the western life style presented in movies and videos, or everyday life as a threat to the religion of Islam and its life style. Why else would they refer to the USA as the ” Great Satan “?

As devils advocate again; If this YouTube video that no one has seen. Can then spark such violence, why not with the speeches of Obama and crew. Who mentioned no less than 21 times during the DNC the killing of Osama Bin Laden being one of their greatest achievements? Seems riot worthy when you consider the chanting rioters in Egypt were shouting “Hey Obama, we are all Osama.” Could it have been…..?

For the administration to then go out on the limb and say it was this YouTube video as the culprit to all of the unrest is just a political smoke screen. Even these liars of olympic stardom and fame can see that the numbers don’t figure. With limited opportunity’s to see any videos like this one net alone limited internet access. Weather it is limited by the theocracy style government or other wise. How is it possible? But then these wizards of smart seemed to have voted on Obama-care. No one even admitted to having spent the time to have read the 2700 page bill. At least there is similarity, and consistency’s. You can get people to do something without the participants even have taken the time to look into the possibility’s of fact or fictions. Throw into the mix, a perceived attack on religious beliefs and you got nitro style volatility.

Yes content can be controlled by governments of all types. Like the way Google does but more compleat in its entirety.

Google Blocks Anti-Muslim Movie From Stirring More Protests http://huff.to/RRb4aV via @HuffPostTech

This gives you a clear view at the President’s narcissistic ego. Blame any one and any thing. Mix in some half-truths, along with some total lies and presto! A president who could have just as easily ben the cause, having just washed his hands of all blame, and cast blame to some religious Christian trouble maker on YouTube. Shining some of his own lime light on a new enemy of society. The need of controlling YouTube / free speech!

Like I said, Barak Obama taking credit for killing Bin Laden without any reaction from the middle east, or at least no one in the middle east is admitted to that being the reasons for their actions. At the same time Barak Obama taking credit for killing Bin Laden would be like Nixon trying to take credit for the Moon Landing. A fulfillment of feeding the narcissistic!

When you Also consider, in Egypt last week, the crowd was shouting

“Hey Obama, we are all Osama.”

One is lead to question it all in its entirely. Along with the movie that director Kathryn Bigelow, of the movie fame the ” Hurt locker ”  is making for the administration. High lighting the killing of Osama Bin Laden. Yes the same hollywood movie that was to be released during the months of September or October this year. Just in time for the election spot light to be shining a positive light on some accomplishment of the president’s administration.

But then we have this reaction in the middle east. What to do? Is the narcissistic ego’s of this administration going crazy right now? Or are they quietly telling Hollywood to stop with Islam bashing, or we will have to control every movie you make? Its more like Making a run, finding reasons to limit free speech for everyone. The opium of the narcissistic socialist, self admitted drug user. After all Obama said. ” That’s the point! ” Okay. You caught me. Obama said that to a question asked of him. ” Did you inhale drug smoke back in high school? ” Obama answered. ” That’s the point! ”

Any way you slice it…  Is it the never seen video clip.. the constant beating on his chest, ” I killed Osama Bin Laden.. or the quote of the narcissistic mind-set, ” That’s the point ….Never letting a crisis go to waste! ” Answers it nicely. Its more of an end around to taking away of our free speech, all the while adding to the perception of weakness perceived by our enemy’s. Treating one religion with kid gloves. While also beating up the religions in this country for what they believe.

Have you ever seen two bully’s take each other on? Only when they have run out dividing up the weak people or organisations. At that point. Yes. To Islam we are the bully’s. To anyone who can yet see. Radical Islam is the religion of bullying.

( Picture was an AP picture within the post from the new york times story mentioned in the link, in this piece.)