God’s of “Chalk” dressed in black.

Judge Howard M. Shore’s courtroom seems to be full of ceremonial vandals, people dressed in black; these days Judges seem to be attacking our constitution from the bench. Attacking the very foundation that was to be one of Governments most precious founding principles, empowering individuals to have and to enjoy freedom, with no fear of governments taking away their God-given rights, in addition to enjoy their lives with limited government.

Today the trial began in the case of a San Diego man who is being charged with 13 counts of vandalism for writing anti-big-bank-slogans with water-soluble children’s chalk on the sidewalk outside of three Bank of America branches in Mid-City.

Judge Shore granted a motion to prohibit Olson’s attorney from mentioning the First Amendment, free speech, free expression, public forum, expressive conduct, or political speech during the trial. Judge Shore ruling sighted a state “Vandalism Statute” that apparently does not mention First Amendment rights. Judge Shore apparently places his judgeship’s power, as a gift given to him by the state government, as being greater in this case than to the federally guaranteed constitution, and bill of rights. Individual rights like free speech; whether this free speech is expressed in words out in the open, or in public, or expressed in a non-Permanente medium such as words written in chalk, was not his place to place judgment in the way as he did ordering the exclusion of the terms–free speech, free expression, public forum, expressive conduct, or political speech during the trial.

Judge Shore’s mind-set had already decided sidewalk chalk is far to dangerous of an expression to allow it to continue. Over looking that it was written on a sidewalk owned by the public, not by any person or corporate entity. He could have just as easily laugh at the case and then thrown it out? You know…using some common sense?

Let that sink in for a moment. You can burn an American flag; march with signs expressing the death of a sitting president (at least this was the case while President Bush was in office), or make movies of the same, no matter if you’re expressing yourself by the written word or in pictorial, you can attempt to shut down a privet business by protesting it–shouting at customers as they attempt to shop there. But Liberals count that as free speech / freedom of expression / or an artistic expression…etc. But should you use water-soluble chalk that can easily be washed off of any side-walk, using words against a Bank who received government bailout money in order to survive, well that’s considered unacceptable or vandalism; a type of “Vandalism” worthy of stripping the freedom of expression, and free speech from those who choose to use chalk as their medium at least?

What is next? Are children playing with chalk on city sidewalks now having to answer to the law? Will we need to re educate them to proper sidewalk chalk usage?

In this nation where the use of chalk on the sidewalk is now being considered as “Vandalism” and having the potential and possibility of punishment, perhaps a prison sentence? Our nations leaders are now seemingly becoming energized with a zealots zeal to protect the public  from itself while preserving their own power,  yet they are paralyzed to engage in deportation proceedings of an illegal alien caught sneaking across our countries boarders. Refusing to see that the publics safety is being placed at risk, at the same time acting as if chalk writing is the end all in public risk?

I wonder what would happen to any illegals, if they chose to express themselves against deportation in chalk? Prison sentences? Or an offering of a wet-nap napkin, so they can clean their hands and be then sent along their way?

Where is the common sense in all of this? What is potentially more detrimental to society…chalk…or spray paint vandalism, or ________? (You can fill in the blank)

In another case, Mackinney v. Nielsen 69 F.3d 1002 (9th Cir.1995), a court ruled that use of chalk was not considered vandalism. The law was later changed to define vandalism as defacement “with graffiti or other inscribed material.” Chalk fits this perfectly? Considering it disappears with rain, or man-made rain. Wouldn’t you like it if Graffiti would disappear off your building, homes fencing so effortlessly, so easily? Damn Chalk! Someone needs to make a law?

Liberals didn’t like the outcome of that case so they changed the law. The law now so vaguely defined that children using chalk to make hop-scotch squares to play could be considered criminals, menaces to society, or vandals depending on the definitions of the offended. Written words shouldn’t be considered “Graffiti” simply because someone disagrees with those words and their meanings, even if they are written in chalk claiming defacement of property. With no difference in degree of defacement to how hard it is to clean up, but defacement the same, akin to someone using spray-paint to Graffiti someone’s building or egging someone’s property, or toilet papering someone’s house, yard, and trees?

We are slowly becoming a society where common sense is going extinct within the legal systems judgments, causing a rapid erosion of our rights guaranteed by our founding as God-given. These same rights aren’t being upheld or protected at all costs by our government or its legal system, but now are openly attacked. We are seeing the constitution and the bill of rights actively vandalized by black-robed political activists, using a majority rule mentality and personal interpretations of the founder’s intent. Politicians and judges are shaping public opinions according to their social engineering models within their own minds. Their decisions seem to be in line with political acquaintances, friends, partners, and co-collaborators, and the religion of populism. Whose God and goals and worship seem to be unfettered power for themselves. In other words, “Tyranny”! Tyranny is never experienced by those in power. So the powerful embrace tyranny as the means to stay in power, to remain above the law, beyond having to comply too it, permanently positioned as if they were God’s of society that can do no wrong.

To these power-hungry people, the written word of disagreement in chalk or on any sidewalk, billboard, or even books, must be stopped at all costs. What must be stopped is instead, people who would hold the constitution in the same light as being just as easily eroded away and destroyed, as chalk words on a sidewalk during a rain storm. Because it opposes their demand for the public to worship, to comply to “Tyrannical leadership”.

You can read more at…

Chalking the plank: Judge won’t allow bank protester to claim first amendment rights, by Dorian Hargrove, http://www.sandiegoreader.com/weblogs/news-ticker/2013/jun/25/chalking-the-plank-judge-wont-allow-bank-protester/, @SDReader

Advertisements

In 29 states, you can get fired just for being gay????

Ask yourself if this statement is true???

“Despite the strides we have made in this country to try to ensure equal opportunities, equal treatment and equal pay for all, “all” doesn’t necessarily include someone who is gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender. We have laws to protect against workplace discrimination—but not on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. In 29 states, you can get fired just for being gay. In 38 states, you can get fired just for being transgender.”

I was told once, “That government is like making sausages. Everyone loves to eat them, but doesn’t want to know what is in them.” This person then went on to say, “It is complicated, running a government, and making laws and regulations that will suit everyone equally, is down right impossible.”

Making complicated things even more complicated, doesn’t solve much. But making things that are complicated less so, does.

It seem that politicians are purposefully making government, and the laws and regulations they make out of whole cloth, more and more difficult to understand, net alone follow? Throw into the mix, the political pundits who don’t understand what government or what the political leaders are trying to do; or is it that these political pundits are just blindly supporting those ideals no matter what, for some kind of advantages unto themselves?

There was this story the other day that stated that people could be fired if you lived in one of these states saying…(a picture was also posted–which I have also posted in this piece), if you were gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender and lived in these states you could be fired! Oh no! Often these states are referred to as “Right to work states.”

This term “Right to work”, is being abused. It seems that political pundits are determined to twist its definition and other terms along with it, in a mental no holds barred wrestling match designed to confuse the average voter. Playing mental gymnastics with words and terms or definitions is the kind of word play the progressive left uses to appear superior to everyone. It is just the kind of tactic used, no difference in explaining that government is like making sausages.

The truth of the matter is, the truth is never really explained or presented with these word game–wrestling matches. These games are easily debunked within the issue when the lies and distortions are pointed out. For instance the following definitions and facts do matter. The right to work states laws are stated as….

“Right to work” laws govern hiring of employees. In a nutshell, “right to work” means that a person has the right to work for a company without being required to either join a union or financially support a union. Basically, if you live in a “right to work” state, joining a union, or paying union dues, can’t be a condition of your employment.

“Employment at will” means that either an employer or employee can end a working relationship at any time, for any reason, with no notice. No matter how hard you work, if you upset your boss, no matter how small the incident, you could be out of a job.

The only exceptions are that employers can’t fire anyone for reasons protected by federal legislation. That means that discriminatory firings (age, sex, religion, race…the usual suspects) are still illegal in “employment at will” states.

So how is it possible to get fired from your job if you are–gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender, when employers can’t fire anyone for reasons protected by federal legislation?

I don’t believe this is an issue of equality. I do however believe it is an issue of gaining superiority.

When political pundits add pictures that are for the most part visually dishonest, distracting from the truth, or facts, and the population is over-run with political lies and distortions. The 30 second sound-bite, or an attractive picture, seems normal to most voters that also don’t take any time for themselves to search for the truth, or use common sense to say the least in exposing the political lie. Throw into the mix the successful augment that “If you’re against something, you are also cold, un-caring, cruel, less charitable.” as the new way in building the superior argument, or presentation.

The point of the matter is if it takes lies, distortions, re-arranging definitions of words, untrue acts, or actions, or reactions. in order to manipulate people into excepting something that is inferior, how is that being superior, or even supporting something that is defined as superior? The truth doesn’t need the support of any distortion, or lie, to make it so. The inferior does!

I’m amazed that there aren’t more people that are willing to call these political hacks, or pundits, what they are! “LIARS! LIARS! LIARS!”, and then some?

It isn’t that I have an ax to grind, these issues of being gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender doesn’t affect me personally. But those political hacks or pundits who are trying to bury common sense with BS will effect 100% of everyone. I believe in supporting the truth, regardless of the axes people grind!

Workplace Discrimination « Give A Damn http://www.wegiveadamn.org/issues/workplace-discrimination/

What are friends for in this parallel life’s journey within this social asylum. A kick in the…

After all what are friends for? A kick in the…? At lest they should posses and present honesty their advice. We shouldn’t expect anything else from them? A true friend would be using, brutal honesty and the power of a friends observations, to help a friend in trouble that they also love. We therefore should expect nothing but honest comments, observations, criticisms, advice, as they guide, support, and commiserate with us in our travels along our parallel life’s journey within this social asylum.

If we take a deep breath, and really listen to what is being said, and quietly taking some time to think… really think about what is being said, instead of angrily reacting emotionally. We may gain some wisdom.

A friend of a friend wrote some profound words, as their observations to what might as well be a doctors prognosis, a temperature reading of a sick social asylum, and the final analyses to what disease we are fighting. With all sicknesses or diseases, the medicine are usually bitter to taste. Prehaps this brave soul, this social MD’s words will help to bring about at the very least a recognition of the condition, as well the stage of the disease, and a willingness to take the bitter pill, over that of just excepting our demise? Surviving any sickness, or disease, requires a willingness to fight it!

At what point is a freedom fighter a social terrorist, an obstructionist, an infectious organism, to the progressive liberal mindset that sits in opposition to the concept of what America was founded upon? What happened to those same concepts of life liberty and the pursuits of happiness, or of individual freedom, and the responsibility’s that go along with it?  Why is it, in supporting these things we have been viewed politically as “Obstructionists” when we indeed are nothing but “Conversationist / Freedom Fighters” who would like to preserve America as founded? When did these values lose their luster, or social value, while getting replaced with socialism’s false guarantees? Socialism is birthing the utopia of the mesmerized, envious lazy minded individuals, through its religion of unrealistic pursuits, of equal out comes, and average existences, and misery for all. A managed decay is its only contributions to the world at its very best?

Why have we failed to recognize the failed policies of socialism as our politicians present them to us? When has socialistic utopias the world over ever supported themself’s? They have all needed to be rescued or bailed-out, by free market capitalism in order to continue to exist. For those who believe in the concepts of evolution ( where everything must adapt, and only the strongest will survive) why do we as a people support political failures, or the weakest of political parasitic organisms, where misery is their greatest contribution to their populations and to the world? Why then would we who live in the shadows of such great failures, and misery’s, volunteer to do the same, without much as giving any opposition to it?

There has been no greater waste of resources of human efforts, and charity. Then those misguided contributions, given as emotional gift of charity; in the hopes of helping people while supporting political leaders and their policies that have done nothing but take from the population. Destroying human dignity, human potential, the ability in improving themself’s, or talents, or even their lot in life.

Thanks Mark for passing along this friend of your statements.

Mark M
The saddest, albeit possibly most accurate short message you will read that was  written by a USMC Vet. ( I can’t argue with any of it.  Passing it along as it was received. )
He wrote: The American Dream ended (on November 6th) in Ohio. The second term of Barack Obama will be the final nail in the coffin for the legacy of the white Christian males who discovered, explored, pioneered, settled… and developed the greatest Republic in the history of mankind. A coalition of Blacks, Latinos, Feminists, Gays, Government Workers, Union Members,  Environmental Extremists, The Media, Hollywood, uninformed young people, the “forever needy,” the chronically unemployed, illegal aliens and other “fellow travelers” have ended Norman Rockwell’s America. The Cocker Spaniel is off the front porch…the Pit Bull is in the back yard. The American Constitution has been replaced with Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals” and Chicago shyster, David Axelrod, along with international Socialist George Soros will be pulling the strings on their beige puppet to bring us Act 2 of the New World Order. Our side ran two candidates who couldn’t even win their own home states, and the circus fattster Chris Christie helped Obama over the top with a glowing “post Sandy” tribute that elevated the “Commander-in-Chief” to Mother Teresa status. People like me are completely politically irrelevant, and I will never again comment on or concern myself with the aforementioned coalition which has surrendered our culture, our heritage and our traditions without a shot being fired. You will never again out vote these people. It will take individual acts of defiance and massive displays of civil disobedience to get back the rights we have allowed them to take away. It will take Zealots, not moderates–not reach-across-the-aisle RINOs to right this ship and restore our beloved country to its former status. Those who come after us will have to risk their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor to bring back the Republic that this generation has timidly frittered away due to “white guilt” and political correctness….. I’m done.

“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.

facebook jail candidates

Just three days after Facebook jailed yours truly, for making friend requests, or too many friend requests, either way I’m now able to make new request of friends again. The question is for how long? Should we start a pool on how long before Facebook restricts me for a fifth time? There are numerous requests by members asking me to reach out to their friends so my initial days of freedom might be short. During my incarceration we have added many to this group who are obvious candidates to become cyberfriends as well.

If I re-begin a campaign to include them will it led to more jail time? We also must include the Facebook enticements themselves; you know those suggested adds of people with mutual friends. The continuous questioning by Facebook, ” you may also know this person?” sending all of the pictures along with obvious button to friend this person. “Satan! Get ye behind me, and away from me”!

My current term of freedom to push buttons at will, free from punishment, is the result of restricting myself to only request  friends with those who have 100 mutual friends or more. Obviously that didn’t matter because of my last restrictions took place under the same set of rules for myself.

My rules, the ones I have for myself will change without notice, to Facebook or any other social networking pages, as I see fit. Not as you may instruct me! Just so Facebook knows where I’m coming from.

A man changed against his will, is of the same opinions still!!!!

I find that most people who have also reported that they too have been restricted, have posted as I have about politics, religion. The two biggies. The two most common starters of arguments. The third is free speech. Those who would use its restriction, only demonstrates a willingness to retard thought, knowledge, and opinion of others. They must be supporters of the retarded, the willfully stupid, the idiots coalition of restricted knowledge. Because I have a diploma of the college of hard knocks. I also believe in the power of self-education through critical thinking.

Because humans have yet to be mass-produced as of yet, resembling one mind and body fresh off the assembly line. I will reserve the right to be different by design, by choice that my creator granted me to also make for myself.
Your guesses is as good as mine, as how long it will be untill Facebook flexes their muscles and places me into Facebook jail. Your guess should include both date and time, or number of days before the inevitable occurs.

If your on restriction / or in Facebook’s jail? You can request a fellow-inmate friend, by hitting the friending button. After all if we are to be restricted together, like you are in school detention. Then they must also have learned that it pays to advertize if you can produce the merchandise.

My restrictions then must be saying that I give “HOT TALK”!

Free speech has no bounds, and true friends are the ties that bind. United we stand. divided we fall.

Come on! join the bad boy club, friend me, or at the very least take a good guess untill my next restriction. Have some fun with it. I am!!

Life is to short not to give “HOT TALK ” on Facebook, think of what Facebook would be like if we all sounded the same, or we wouldn’t be allowed to talk at all……. crickets!!

All the best.

the “DO SOMETHING DISEASES” (UN’s attempt at internet regulation.)

Should there be some kind of control put on the internet by government no matter what respective country of origin you live in? Should there be a governing body to control the usage of the internet in a “Fair” way only considering the country’s populations and access to the internet without any regard to that country’s wealth? Is the internet only a wealthy country’s play thing of privilege?

A report by the BBC news and technology. http://bbc.in/VeBkxN

A UN agency is trying to calm fears that the internet could be damaged by a conference it is hosting.

Government regulators from 193 countries are in Dubai to revise a wide-ranging communications treaty.

Google has warned the event threatened the “open internet”, while the EU said the current system worked, adding: “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”

But the agency said action was needed to ensure investment in infrastructure to help more people access the net.

“The brutal truth is that the internet remains largely [the] rich world’s privilege, ” said Dr Hamadoun Toure, secretary-general of the UN’s International Telecommunications Union, ahead of the meeting.

“ITU wants to change that.”

What seem interesting with these kinds of proposals of how the internet should be controlled or regulated (no matter who is behind the regulation like the UN or its socialist partnership country’s) is that these country’s in favor of regulations also have a negative view of successful country’s and their economy’s, when compared to their own economic might.

Isn’t it social justice to want even distribution the world over of “Fairness” for all? Of course who determines “Fairness” and the amount of that each country should receive. The tenets of social justice is a progressive socialist idea that never takes in account that in order to creat fairness for all it requires to take success from some, to then be given still to others in the hopes to satisfy any offences that may have happened along the way. But re-offending one because the other has suffered some offences of the past, is just playing musical chairs with the offended only changing positions of the players on an economical scale.

Mr Kramer has suggested that “a variety of nations in the Arab states” also
supported the idea.

No real surprise here. Because the Arab states seem to promote thin-skinned people who are easily offended at a drop of a hat. Yet have little problems or remorse in offending others.

Politian’s the world over are falling over themself’s to convince the easily fooled that they don’t want to take total control of individuals lives from cradle to grave. But still we have the proposals of organisations like those of the UN and alike to control some aspect of life using foolish excuses, “that this would be better for everyone”.

Remember when president Obama gave his speech to the UN, he said. “The future shouldn’t belong to those who would offend the prophet Mohamed.” But then the United States when out of their way to convince the world and the respective population that some guy releasing a video on the internet, was the object that offended muslims the world over. Touching off deadly protests in the Arab world, and what seem to be now why they are most in favor of regulation of the internet.

The reality here is that we are trying to punish people for some mythical offence of the thin-skinned, because the thin-skinned also like to protest violently are we thinking this is what it is to be peaceful? But when we alow the muslim religion to have a free pass to offend anyone they please to, like the Jews, or Christen and their belief systems, or their buildings, because they are viewed as subservient to they’re religious beliefs; where is the willingness of the world to impose the need of…… “Fairness for all”, by the use of the powers of the UN, Instead of the kiss-butt attitude of supporting a less offensive stance towards those who just demand it?

The United Nations (UN) isn’t good for anything really. Look at all of the wars they’re try to resolve in ending conflict, by interjecting human forces under the UN flag that then become human targets for both sides to shoot at. Was there any resolution? Has armed conflict disappeared? Look at all of the UN efforts with the Palestinians. Despite building schools for the Palestinians, the people still have the educated (or uneducated new education, presented to them by the UN) giving them the same views of wanting to wipe out Israel. Peace comes and goes only in an effort of ether side to reorganize, rearm, and live to fight another day with the same attitudes of yesterday towards each other. The UN seems to have disregarded reality, with regards to people living according to human nature. Every person demonstrates by their actions the power of choice when choosing between good and evil.

“A person changed against their own will, is of the same opinion still!”

For the UN to even make any presentations, or have any debate over regulating the internet, by disgruntled governments for the possible support of regulation, smacks of censorship on a grand scale and must be opposed vigorously. For on the basis of fairness if it truly can exist within governmental policies of regulation, must begin with the individual citizen ability to express themself’s openly and unopposed from governmental oversight. Nothing is un-say-able! If you don’t like what is being said, then don’t read it, just exercise your right of freedom to self-regulation, over that of forcible imposed compliance.

Falling under the spell of the “DO SOMETHING DISEASES”  the UN has become over inflated with self-importance! The UN is no sort of body to bully itself into controlling others through the use of political interests. When their only interests are that of taking….. that what isn’t theirs to take. When millions of people in the world live without decent water
supplies, heat or education, the UN worries about something that does not concern
them.

“What is most unnerving and out-of-place, is that there are some politicians that are also willing to give regulating powers away for what seem like, “FOR FREE” to the unelected political body of the UN, in exchange for a diminished sovereignty over a nation that they were elected to govern; all this while under oath of preserving life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, while also protecting it from all foreign and demotic enemy’s of freedom!? Makes one wonder if regulation of the internet is such a small thing after all, compared to dancing on the fine lines of treason?” mindwarpfx

Supporting the upwardly mobile poverty line

Supporting the upwardly mobile poverty line

According to the government, “the Senate Budget Committee ” recently reported its own assessments, which totaled up the true cost of supporting welfare recipients, along with projections of the 2013 costs of them….

It’s official. Taxpayers are no longer simply helping the poor; they’re subsidizing the lives of welfare recipients at a better rate than their own. The Senate Budget Committee has released a report showing households living below the poverty line and receiving welfare payments are raking in the equivalent of $168 per day in benefits which come in the form of food stamps, housing, childcare, healthcare and more. The median household income in 2011 was $50,054, totaling $137.13 per day. The worst part? Welfare payments are equivalent to making $30 per hour for 40 hours a week. The median wage for non-welfare recipients is $25 per hour but because they pay taxes, unlike welfare recipients, the wage is bumped down to $21 per hour. From the report:

For fiscal year 2011, CRS identified roughly 80 overlapping federal means-tested welfare programs that together represented the single largest budget item in 2011—more than the nation spends on Social Security, Medicare, or national defense. The total amount spent on these federal programs, when taken together with approximately $280 billion in state contributions, amounted to roughly $1 trillion. Nearly 95 percent of these costs come from four categories of spending: medical assistance, cash assistance, food assistance, and social / housing assistance. Under the President’s FY13 budget proposal, means-tested spending would increase an additional 30 percent over the next four years.

( governments own report pictured as reported)  http://wp.me/a2DfMt-qi

If people are going to look to government for their answers to every problem they face in life. The uncertain problems as well as the self-created problems. Why can’t government then also find answers to lift all people up with positive solutions and policies to their problems, in an effort to build a positive society over that of just slowly eroding society away?

So often the media points out that people need training to have a chance at a better paying jobs to support their families.  So with any welfare program why can’t these people who need a helping hand, also get the true help they need to become a more productive part of society? Giving them some new training in doing government maintenance jobs of buildings, grounds, and parks, building low-income housing….. ect, where at this time the welfare program provides no hands on training other than offering some limited schooling! The program itself promotes a life of getting help, without making much an effort on ones own. The welfare program promotes ready-made guilt through the common belief of entitlement in asking for help, without also providing or offering to do something in exchange for help received.

We have become an entitlement society where by we are entitled to get help without ever having to take any responsibilities for our own actions. There are plenty of jobs that “We the people” could do with government help and money’s spend on national, state, and local levels. Why can’t welfare recipients get those jobs in exchange for the support they are getting? By getting the chance to do those jobs they will also get hands on training to a skill, to then market these skills into the economy, with time, be able then support themselves on their own.

We also could have programs in place to have people take jobs at any wage (like Minim wage), the government then to provide any differences between the wage received by work, and that of what the welfare program provides to them currently.  A savings to the tax payers and a helping hand to people who need it in a way that empowers them to  believe in themselves, while inspiring a can-do attitude, and a up-lifting experience to they’re true potential as a contributing part in society.

Today we only want a pain-free way to house people through government charity. Reserving the right to complained about the charitable work of the government as inefficient, ineffective, socially insulting, personality eroding, supporting a life of irresponsibility’s rewarded. All the while convincing ourselves that government is the best answer, most effective way to administer the work of society’s feel good charity’s, through emotional taxation of its citizenry.

In trying to avoid the total wasted human efforts in society, by wasting human working hours. Government could give a bigger role to those who also work in the economy, who are trying to provide a living for their families. By encouraging them through a tax deduction for contributing to charity, and supporting in a positive way their fellow-man, a positive government policy in finding solutions while preserving liberty and freedoms of choice.

On the other hand, a forced taxation collected in an inefficient government program of redistribution, rewarding irresponsible choices along the way. Is nothing but escalating the costs of society’s managed decay, farther reducing any response to any future emergency that may also arise unexpected.

It seem today the populations view of just what is an emergency, and therefore what government needs to do for them is asking the question—– “Where is my Obama phone?”

What ever happened to; “Ask not what your country can do for you. But ask what you  can do for your country?” JFK

It seems that government is taking the easy way out of doing a supportive job of supporting society positively. It is much easier to buy the upwardly mobile poverty lines vote, to remain in power by engineering the social decay!

UPDATE: The report does not say that every household receiving welfare benefits totals $168 but specifically refers to those receiving benefits and living below the poverty line. Also, it should be pointed out the $168 includes all costs incurred by the federal government to deliver benefits, including administrative costs.

Information provided by; The Senate Budget Committee own released report on this subject.