“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.

Advertisements

Greener lawns, re-adjusting the greed factor.

When is a decision made for what is in your, or your family best interest, then is publicly perceived as being greedy? Don’t we all make decisions in life with our personal best interest in mind? Where are the best price for bread, clothes, our homes and schools for our kids, what represents the best values in entertainments or even vacations? All of these decisions and others made in order to stretch the all mighty dollar in our budgets. After all, we aren’t all fat cats, millionaires or even billionaires who make some $250,000.00 per year, as defined by the government. So stretching the dollar is a must if we are to save, and invest our way into that group.

But when we become wealthy, or plain God gifted by some….. I don’t know… Talent to play a sport, and receive unreal amounts of payola, should we be looking to stretch the mighty dollar? Or should society force you into a passion by pier-pressure, to spend the money you have or make without ever deciding where the value is for yourself?

Fed up with the spike in federal and state tax hikes, Phil Mickelson hinted at “drastic changes” that would possibly involve moving his family out of his native California or toward some form of semi-retirement.

Phil Mickelson, according to Sports Illustrated, makes over $60M in 2012 and is  the country’s second highest-paid athlete.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/more-sports/phil-rants-recants-tax-raise-article-1.1244850#ixzz2IouvShYu

It is because of California’s progressive stance on taxing and spending uncontrolled that is. That’s why they are looking at this statement by Phil Mickelson, which is considered to be a very rich resident, or at least greedy. How dare he look to save money by not paying his fair share? Isn’t he just looking to personally take from the Californian community and economy all for himself?

Later in the week Phil Mickelson said.

“I’m not going to jump the gun, but there are going to be some (changes),” he said Sunday. “There are going to be some drastic changes for me because I happen to be in that zone that has been targeted both federally and by the state and . . . it doesn’t work for me right now.”

Isn’t that what it is all about? Government sets some rules and regulations on how to play this game of life within a social community. All the while leaving you with personal choices on the how’s, and where’s, you decide to live, or what degree your life style will be. Phil recognizes the changes in the political atmosphere, and the tax revenues required to run this attitude by governments both state and federal. He has become a target just because of his unusual high income based on his talent to play golf, and his attitude of trying to save money by not wanting to pay so high taxes. So why shouldn’t he be able to save himself some money, by deciding what product to use or buy?

Moving from state to state is just that! Indeed, a decision of style of government and the way states govern compared state to state, and what fits best for Phil, or every citizen for that matter. In the field of competition that Phil is well aware, because he competes professionally in golf.  He knows that the best products, or atmosphere, should receive the business, or the title of being the best, the champion. So why is making a statement that the tax environment isn’t working anymore for his family, a greedy stance requiring an apology? Isn’t it more an observation of what states have done to their market place, and done so with somewhat an irresponsible governance of state resources?

Phil’s apology as offered was like this….

On Monday, telling FoxNews in a statement, “Finances and taxes are a personal matter and I should not have made my opinions on them public.”

“I certainly don’t have a definitive plan at this time, but like everyone else I want to make decisions that are best for my future and my family,” Mickelson added.

Why would Phil feel, he had to offer an apology? Isn’t his words exactly what everyone is doing for themselves, trying to figure out the least amount of taxes needed to be paid. How is that not doing what is best for everyone? Did he receive some kind of threats from the state government putting him on the targeted list of making your life a miserable hell if you speak ill of the state’s situation? Or was this just a ploy by Phil to remove attention from his personal decisions, while preserving his future income from endorsements, even should he leave at some point. Either way, it seem that Phil found it necessary to offer an apology to remove a target and the public negative image of his statement that could also lead to some financial impact to his family.

But really, have we just become a society where speaking the truth needs to be apologized for?

Perhaps that’s why other high-profile mega rich people tend to give huge amounts of money to charity in a publicly announced way. Purchasing the best public insurance against negative public opinion’s, over how they chose to live life, or over what they choose to do in life for themselves. Because every decision by the rich, is considered extravagant, and therefore greedy.

So why isn’t trying to stretch your money in no different of ways, the same actions of the average citizen just as greedy? Could it be in the sure numbers of perceived income compared to your own? Is this the new definition of greed applied through changing standards? Is the public just becoming upset with the rich because of the ability of more choices in life do to their wealth? Or is it that rich people have more of everything and therefore need to share with the average person’s in order to lift all standards, or suffer being targeted as the “GREEDY RICH”!

It seem the greed exists, in looking over the fence and seeing that your neighbor has a greener lawn, and then demanding of him to apply fertilizer to your lawn….. Just because!

Greed has also changes the standards of being rich as well. Society considers being rich today, isn’t your fathers rich of being a millionaire any more, but simply having more money than I do, frequently adjusted downward in the name of being fairly compared, and maintaining “Greener lawns, and re-adjusting the greed factor“.

Image was provided by; Andrew Redington/Getty Images, and the following web page.

Information & photo provided by this web page, to read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/more-sports/phil-rants-recants-tax-raise-article-1.1244850#ixzz2IoaVtwjq