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

Burning candles in the wind—GOP eroding faith

To those of you who believe in a government made of two parties with separate and different ideas and principles; that at their core they are supposed to also get along with each other, to compromise values and principles for the sake of getting things done? You are living in a dream. That is no government that represents different segments of society, beliefs systems, political views, or even states issues. It is akin to why we fought the revolutionary war in the first place– to rid ourselves of a KING and allow for the greatest amount of liberty for all, given to us by GOD!

“Let’s have a new first party – a Republican Party – raising a banner of bold colors, no pale pastels. A banner instantly recognizable as standing for certain values which will not be compromised.” – Ronald Reagan, 1975

“While I myself am a registered conservative, I look to the Republican Party as the closest representative of conservative values in American politics. Overtime, that appears to be fading. Sometimes I look at Washington lately and I wonder.”– Quote Shawn Hannity

It seems that there is a policy gripping the electorate of today that is inspiring the belief, “You must go along in order to get along”. This kind of policy is completely at odds with freedom and liberty. It hands over all control to few people with like-minded views. A command and control style of government, after all who will determine the “get along” part and enforce the “must go along part” if not a King like power?

To the liberal mind the use of government in their favor isn’t forced control, so it isn’t seen as some forced compliance to a power. At the same time they would use the systems of liberty and freedom, free speech and alike to gain power. Once in power though those tools are no longer useful and become too dangerous to be allowed.

Republicans at their core should be opposed to such governing. They should present bold arguments to the people so they are able to look at the contrasts, the differences between these two political standards. Instead they see short-term political successes and lust after that success. They are willing to forfeit their bold colors to duplicate that success for themselves by following the Democrats advice and models. For the GOP this demonstrates that they have lost faith in their founding principles. They see power slipping away from them and so embrace the “political life-line” made of smoke in a failed attempt to rescue themselves from losing sight and faith in liberty and GOD given rights. The GOP is willing to slit their wrists, by watered down policies they embrace and birthing version of the Democrat policies as their own. As the republican self-inflicted suicidal wounds bleed potential votes they don’t even see liberty fading away and the need to protect it by standing in the way of Democratic managed decay.

Where are the leaders of tomorrow that prize lady liberty, who would be sworn to protect her, not for personal benefits, but for future ones?? Who will boldly point towards the Democrat policies, deceptions, manipulations, and corruptions that represent virtually every antithesis of the conservative principles: Big government, lack of freedom, invasion of privacy, increased taxes, harms businesses, higher costs with worse results, more government dependency, less innovation, more regulations.

Is it possible to distinguish one party from the other. Like two bold colored candles burning together, slowly melting into one. though their rhetoric seems partisan and different it is drowned out by deceitful actions that are nearly impossible to discern one from the other. With the melting of those two candles one light is being extinguished as they melt into the same pot of power. No longer two separated ideas with their own principles willing to stand firm for what they believe in.

I call out to the Republican party first and then to the rest of you, what man or women is going to allow lady liberty to be turned into some whore of tyranny; who of you would hand to their future kids the principles of compromising national security by refusing to defend liberty politically here at home? Who of you are counting on renewed leadership between the melting pot of leaders of today and those mythical future leaders you all point to in hope of finding “them” that would lead rather than to cower in the shadows?

So what are you going to do about it?

Sugar plumbs terrorists, strawberries, and $59 per gallon green jet fuel.

I thought that “the sequester” was going to end the economy as we all know it? When the White House ended the tours, it was just proof positive of that fact. Then there were stories of hungry people, some 700,000 that would not be getting their SNAP benefits. That’s right again, do to the sequester? I suppose record numbers of people on the government dole isn’t something to take notice of until you have a little thing called the “SEQUESTER”?

Despite the sequester, a designed plan brought to everyone by the president and his democratic steeple. The manipulative presentations of the sequester is never a talking point about slowing the rate of spending? But a magnification of impending doom? A presentation of a biblical disaster to all humanity? Because the idea was hatched in the minds of men, and is presented as a disastrous calamity that will negatively affect human life, will it also qualify as a work place disaster or an economical terrorist attack? Lets not go to extremes. The sequester is not a reduction! It is a slowing of the rate of government’s spending growth. Even so, if the sequester was a reduction in government spending, what they are telling us is that they can’t find 3% worth of waste in the budget? Not even to avoid impending doom?

Come on people, look harder! What did the president say…”You in government were sent to Washington to make the difficult choices!”

How long will the people allow these sleeper cells of economical terror to exist in government, who have the intent of setting off avalanches of wasteful fantasies wrapped in one crises to the next, only solved by increasing taxes?

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel recently warned that sequestration would cause “suspension of important activities, curtailed training, and could result in furloughs of civilian personnel” but the spending cuts haven’t killed the green fuels program, as the Pentagon has continued purchasing renewable fuel at $59 per gallon.

Well the sequester didn’t kill the green energy industry? We already had a 90 billion dollar waste on green energy that could have kept the white house tours going indefinitely. Honestly green jet fuels, at a cost of $59 per gallon, is reasonable, and economical? If we could squeeze $58 per gallon jet fuel out of aborted babies would that be a good policy to pursue? Why is $59 per gallon jet fuel reasonable, no matter how it is made? How is that worth a way word thought in the minds of idiots, net alone, have a snowball’s chance in hell getting past the mighty, all-powerful, evil sequester that will starve a nation? That policy produced by evil politician to cause starvation of 700,000 people (presumed to be kids none the less) some how this is a bargain in choosing $59 jet fuel, in weighing out the consequences between the lesser of two evils?

Do you thing the negotiations when like this…we have 700,000 people we could feed, or we can buy this crazy good green energy jet fuel? Because green energy is the future–what will the vote be and who is going to break the bad news to the people of America?

I know it is an over simplification of negotiations devoid of common sense! But some times it takes recklessness in pointing out the retarded mind numb in government!

With all of the injustice caused by the sequester, how did the green energy policies escape the grim reaper of modern economy’s? Please explain to me… when our existence was transformed to the realities of the “Mad Max” movie, to justify the extreme costs of green energy? Because certainly, even in the Mad Max movie–a world that ran out of oil, would have thought of $59 per gallon as too high a price to pay for fuel?

Shouldn’t government be spending money on inventing the “Back to the future Delorean   car”, at least that ran on garbage, and think of it as just as green energy worthy in saving the planet. If you don think so, you need to spend some more time at a land fill. Just saying the Delorean is better then the Mad Max world.

But then using this movie example, look to what kind of life we all have to look forward to in the future, if green energy sponsored by the retarded idiots of government has their way? If this is the cost of green energy today, what will the cost of a ripe red strawberry be in February? Because we know they’re out of growing season and flown in from some distant land on a jet today?

It seems government choices are never in favor of doing something good for 100% of the people 100% of the time? That would require too much common sense, something that was outlawed several sequesters ago.

Despite sequester, DOD signs contract for $59/gallon green jet fuel http://bit.ly/ZC5n9L#.UYPJp9Lu9OI.twitter via @DCExaminer

Too mooch, or not to mooch! (Obama-nomics; chief designer of “Pimp my pantry”)

Wrenching a world apart with failed political policies, leaving people pointing finger at each other calling names, “Well you’re a taker, and I’m a maker.” one side calls out.

The other side responds, “No you’re a greedy rich person, and we are the people in need!”

This is where the people of this once great nation have ended up after Obama-nomics?  Once people came to this nation only wanting an equal opportunity. Now they come hoping for an un-equaled amount of handouts, while taking their time to find some personal footing. Can you blame the people? I blame the politicians! After all we the America people, have come to know this America, through the eyes of the rest of the poor world, now flooding into this nation looking for charity, if not demanding it.

At least through the distorted view of the liberal government official, that also sees the world differently out of their own guilt, paints a picture of national guilt, accusing the nation of not wanting to help people in need as their guilty manipulation. A means to grab even more power for themselves by brow beating people into feeling guilty of their accomplishments, or just being guilty for having been born an American.

What is the point of having lines on paper representing boarders, If the politicians of the day (the gate keepers) selectively choose wether or not to enforce the laws, or even locking the gates?

There used to be a requirement in order to be able to enter the country as a permanent immigrant. Today to use the term “Illegal alien” is cruel, inhuman. The progressives and the proper political correctness have created terms to be used with people who break the law in coming to America. The proper term now is “Illegal immigrant”. To lessen the personal pain of the criminal immigrant for breaking the law, or to cause guilty feelings of the rest of the American people, because of their immigrant heritage? Immigrants of the past used to come here offering skills and looking to exchange those skills for equal free opportunity’s. Today a good portion of immigrants are offering little skill other than a potential democratic vote, for all of the free stuff they can haul away in those hands of opportunity.

I mean, what would you do if you came home from work and found 20 people in your living room and you didn’t know where they came from despite the law of the land? When you complained about the problem, you only discovered that those laws on the books were only selectively enforced. When you complained some more about the added costs you were experiencing, you were deemed as a greedy bastard. The political correct view, of you, Joe Blow Citizen seems to be, a hater of poor people.

Under Obama life isn’t too far from that. Speaking to power and telling them that we are broke, out of money and adding too much debt to the national balance sheet. Just goes un-heard, or worse ignored? They (The powerful in government) respond with. “What? We are the richest nation on earth, because of that  we need to help the poor!”

In fact I have never known a single so-called rich person, or a nation, past or present, that has also given away their riches faster and faster than their incomes, then borrowed even more money and they still some how remained the status of being “Rich”, nor have they no matter how well-intentioned ever reduced the needs of the poor.

Since 1963, the year the policy “The war on poverty” was conceived, American politicians have spent 16 trillion dollars on helping the poor, hoping to reduce poverty in America. Today we have a national debt of the same, with an even larger segment of the population needing help from the government. It is clear, government policies create dependency. This in a nation that celebrates on the 4th of July–“Independence”! Go figure.

What is more upsetting then poor people’s needs, legal or illegal, is the politicization of misconstrued facts. I’m trying to be nicer and kinder these days so I used “Misconstrued” instead of “flat-out liars about the facts”! Mr. Obama closed down the White house tours, and blamed the sequester, then followed up with delay’s of air traffic. Making sure that comfortable delays would be realized by the traveler as a gift of the furloughed air traffic controllers in major cities. Totally leaving the Washington DC air traffic unhampered, unaffected, controllers un-furloughed. who’d a thought? It shows that this president is willing to hurt the American people and the economy, for political points, for the sake of winning unreasonable, unpopular, manipulated political arguments.

After all it is only the rich who travel, and they can afford some pain to help the poor, right?

With all of this going around the various news agencies, where is the news on the “Food stamp recruiters” trying to give away the last bit of money left in the treasury before the American people truly realize that government is truly the enemy of the people and any of the people’s wealth? Yes that’s right, food stamp recruiters trying to get people to sign up for what is termed— as their benefits that their entitled to. So these stamp recruiters have been seen around the golf courses in Florida recruiting retired people. Honestly people who play golf don’t need food stamps!  With the sequester in place, where are these programs getting their money from, not only for the food give aways but also to pay the recruiters, when we supposedly can’t even pay air traffic controllers?

Yep! You get the picture all right. Mr. Obama couldn’t manage himself out of a wet paper bag, facts are, in truth he is the mismanage-er-in-chief. He and he alone is the chief designer of “Pimp my pantry” with all of the free food giveaway’s. Why are these well-intentioned programs also being abused by people? Why can they use their benefits at their local strip clubs/bars, casinos, or even selling their stamps on-line so they could use the money on who knows what? Why is it a cruel abuse, to denied a poor person the ability’s of seeing a nude women, when that money should have bought food and diapers for their kids? Why can they do this without prosecutions? Call it, the Obama bucks give away! Much like the Obama phones of yesterday. Now who’s guilty of being “Greedy”?

But the richest nation on earth isn’t out of money, until the redistribution of the term “rich” is complete? Of course there will still be rich people here in the good old USA, in fact more than the rest of the world? It is just re-applying the term rich to people who will have a lot less wealth after Obama is through. So what happens to the poor people of the world? Will the term “Poor” be massaged into a new term less demeaning? Will poor people go the way of the dinosaur? Will poor people still be making their demands of the socialists of the world until wealth is totally destroyed, and misery is the new equally?

It seems when the value of money is destroyed, political clout, such as food stamps, will become the new unit of exchange to be used?

When the American people realize that they can vote into office people that will benefit themselves without having to make a reasonable effort for themselves; that is when the spark of freedom will have been extinguished, and mob rule will replace rule of law.

“The fastest way to destroy your enemy in a modern world, with less cost then fighting a war, is controlling the food supply! Every nation will fall when the people demand more food then supply’s exist.” paraphrased from a speech that Henry Kissinger gave at the end of the Vietnam war. The same applies to when a government gives food away; who’s going to receive that benefits and then vote to end that policy? Do these people realize that they are selling their freedoms of tomorrow?

Moocher Nation: Paid Food Stamp Recruiters – 620 WTMJ … http://www.620wtmj.com/blogs/charliesykes/204649971

Florida, other states, hires recruiters to sign up food stamps – UPI.com http://www.upi.com/Health_News/2013/04/25/Florida-other-states-hire-recruiters-to-sign-up-food-stamps/UPI-30891366869297/

Fla. bill would ban using food stamps for stripper, casino tabs … http://www.bizpacreview.com/2013/03/16/fla-bill-would-ban-using-food-stamps-for-stripper-casino-tabs-55875

Is the term (the Power of Whiteness) racist?

In a recent posting or article this person tries to make a case that racism plays a part in the Boston bombings of some kind? But when we allow ourselves to only see people as small groups, or paint people into them, we become separated from being an effective tool to enact change in our surroundings. Let’s not confuse ourselves with facts of history, that racism did exist, still exists to some extent, but society has indeed made great strides in changing it. Not to recognize this, is to be somewhat closed-minded. Changing people doesn’t happen at a snap of ones fingers. It is also just as closed-minded to want more change to take place, when everyone on all sides have allowed themselves to act in a way that could be seen by the other group as being a kind of watered down racism. Anyone who makes judgments based on colors of individuals is not making judgments based on the content of character. So to Tim Wise article, this is what he wrote…

Terrorism and Privilege:

Understanding

the Power of Whiteness

By Tim Wise

 As the nation weeps for the victims of the horrific bombing in Boston yesterday, one searches for lessons amid the carnage, and finds few. That violence is unacceptable stands out as one, sure. That hatred — for humanity, for life, or whatever else might have animated the bomber or bombers — is never the source of constructive human action seems like a reasonably close second.

But I dare say there is more; a much less obvious and far more uncomfortable lesson, which many are loathe to learn, but which an event such as this makes readily apparent, and which we must acknowledge, no matter how painful.

He goes on to say. “It is a lesson about race, about whiteness, and specifically, about white privilege.”

1)     Does this sound like a person that sees people, all people in the same way, free from the view of color and from the judgments thereof? Where is the open-mindedness to allow  self to judge the content of character when people have been per-boxed into colored groups? He goes on to point out a list of white criminals to make some point that radical white    people have done evil things in the name of some flawed ideology.

White privilege is knowing that if the bomber turns out to be white, he or she will be viewed as an exception to an otherwise non-white rule, an aberration, an anomaly, and that he or she will be able to join the ranks of Tim McVeigh and Terry Nichols and Ted Kaczynski and Eric Rudolph and Joe Stack and George Metesky and Byron De La Beckwith and Bobby Frank Cherry and Thomas Blanton and Herman Frank Cash and Robert Chambliss and James von Brunn and Robert Mathews and David Lane and Michael F. Griffin and Paul Hill and John Salvi and James Kopp and Luke Helder and James David Adkisson and Scott Roeder and Shelley Shannon and Dennis Mahon and Wade Michael Page and Byron Williams and Kevin Harpham and William Krar and Judith Bruey and Edward Feltus and Raymond Kirk Dillard and Adam Lynn Cunningham and Bonnell Hughes and Randall Garrett Cole and James Ray McElroy and Michael Gorbey and Daniel Cowart and Paul Schlesselman and Frederick Thomas and Paul Ross Evans and Matt Goldsby and Jimmy Simmons and Kathy Simmons and Kaye Wiggins and Patricia Hughes and Jeremy Dunahoe and David McMenemy and Bobby Joe Rogers and Francis Grady and Demetrius Van Crocker and Floyd Raymond Looker and Derek Mathew Shrout, among the pantheon of white people who engage in (or have plotted) politically motivated violence meant to terrorize and kill, but whose actions result in the assumption of absolutely nothing about white people generally, or white Christians in particular.

2)     The writer’s own point of view must see these white people on this list as hiding among conservative, Christian political groups that have tended towards public displays of violence or terror.  But was this a jaded view, a political over sight to have left out all of the violence of people of the liberal left mind-set? Making a list of violent people doesn’t prove a theory. It proves that you have taken the time to make a colored list of violent people but nothing less. But I also see there is at least one left leaning liberal democrat of white fame. A self-professed American unapologetic bomber, a member of the weatherman underground, a person responsible of the same acts of violence to create terror in the minds of people and a killer of innocent people as well–Bill Ayers. A man who on 9-11 said, “he wasn’t sorry for his part in the bombings.” OH to mention in passing… He is also just a friend of the current president of the United States of America. Just a fact, nothing less.

He goes on to say…

And white privilege is being able to know nothing about the crimes committed by most of the terrorists listed above — indeed, never to have so much as heard most of their names — let alone to make assumptions about the role that their racial or ethnic identity may have played in their crimes.

In short, white privilege is the thing that allows you (if you’re white) — and me — to view tragic events like this as merely horrific, and from the perspective of pure and innocent victims, rather than having to wonder, and to look over one’s shoulder, and to ask even if only in hushed tones, whether those we pass on the street might think that somehow we were involved.

3)     I have never known anyone like this as he describes with these kinds of attitudes towards others. But that isn’t saying that this doesn’t exist. I stand by what I have tried to point out already. If we don’t change ourselves with the way we see people, using common sense, and critical thinking, then the whole of society continues to slowly decay farther into becoming divided by race, racism, and the division of colors. When we all can recognize evil does exist in the hearts, minds, and soils of every person no matter the color of organ; then at that time we can be better guardians of our own reputations, better teachers to our youth, have a greater sense of responsible that our personal individual actions will impact what comes after us in the world we leave behind.

The fact is we are in a war of education, not open uncontrolled actions! If the terms of blackness or whiteness can be taken as to color specific or even racist/ Why do we allow ourselves to use them publicly or privately? We all are educators or teachers to our youth.  If we continue to promote mind-sets (even behind closed doors) like the ones in this article, then the best we can expect out of society is more of a managed decay. The only question then is—who is going to manage with any success when values individually compost away, with compromise. At some point we must except that racism only stops one person at a time. The hard part is standing on principles, in the face of people with an angry mob mentality that also exists within elements of the different ethnical groups, that aren’t looking to be an equal… but superior.

An Obstructionist view to the good, the bad, and the ugly, and modern slaves.

From Examiner

On Wednesday 12/13/2012, singer Harry Belafonte offered some friendly advice for Barack Obama while speaking with MSNBC’s Al Sharpton. In his view, the president should rule like a third world dictator and throw the GOP in jail for opposing him.

“That there should be this lingering infestation of really corrupt people who sit trying to dismantle the wishes of the people, the mandate that has been given to Barack Obama, and I don’t know what more they want. The only thing left for Barack Obama to do is to work like a third world dictator and just put all these guys in jail,” he said.

Mr. Belafonte must have never hear of limited and separation of powers and a limited government? A representation by the people who voted for their representatives in government. The left loves to say. “Elections have consequences.” Until they have to live with the consequences of any elections they disagree with.

I suppose the left has forgotten that in 2010 the people voted overwhelmingly to control spending, by limiting government, as why the GOP Tea party won overwhelmingly in the house of representatives. Now these same people are called “obstructionists” by the liberal left. Liberals are forgetting facts of truth totally, offering complaints to them, by saying that elections have consequences, but refusing to see the election results in terms of people speaking to their political leaders, over that as being only a win or a loss in any election.

In America we don’t elect a dictatorship ( a winner take all, completely unopposed power, a situation in having to accept only the winners policies). We elect officials who hopefully have the ability’s to perswade people to see their points of view, and then voting on those points. Not to drag people, kicking and screaming, in excepting or invoke political policies of crisis, or manipulating people in selecting only from these solutions of more spending and borrowing. What is said to be those same failed solutions of uncontrolled government, that only seems to lead to an even more manipulative or uncomfortable life, within an identical crisis to the past.

“Nothing is accomplished in facing tomorrows responsibility’s, by refusing to act on todays responsibility’s.” unknown.

Doing the same things over and over expecting a different result is the definition of insanity.

To call your political opponents obstructionist because you dislike their politics, or at the very least, want them to compromise their principles, is just using a dictator’s vision,” In order to get along, you must go along.”

One man’s obstructionist is another man’s conservationist. Who would be working to protect against socialist dictators using command and control style governing as the only option. The left seem to be using crisis, or the creations of them, to increase the need for government to take power and liberty from the people, thus killing the future needs to vote on issues. After all if you don’t support winners policies then you are an obstructionists to them, all because elections have consequences you know?

Using the terms of……. “Elections have consequences.” never seem to sink into the liberal mind, when they have to deal with a loss of an election. Funny that the left then also starts to use terms like “obstructionist” in describing someone who is doing their job, according to the people that voted these politicians into office. Liberals tend to overlook that there is more to an election year then who won the presidents office.

When that doesn’t work they seem to use stronger terms like Mr. Belafonte used, “Infestation”! So when Republicans or Tea-party people were elected to office, charged with doing the job as the people’s representatives, in stopping Obama’s reckless policies, they can now be considered to be an “infestation” in government. The descriptive nature of these words and others, describing your political rivals as being the problem, while hiding the true nature of the problem, is governing through fear. Because words have meanings the word choice is interesting, since one normally deals with an infestation by eliminating it. Can there really be any room for compromise, or honestly any bipartisanship, or a willingness, for these opposed powers in working together?

Republicans, or Tea party patriots, the faster you realize the facts, that the Democrats are out to eliminate you as a relevant political force, if not totally eliminate you, because you’re position and opposition to their brand of socialism designed for a total takeover, a total power grab through corruption of the election proses. The better you will be equipped with the power to recognize that you and you alone are the last conservationists of liberty, and freedom in America. If they look at you as an infestation, then you can’t ever compromise your principles in trying to co-govern with the enemies of liberty and freedom, who would deal with any infestation like a third world dictator by eliminating it.

The importance of the debt limit isn’t in limiting government from paying bills. But limiting government in increasing its size, and moving away from its importance of its spending as a driving force in the economy. Future growth borrowed from the bank of China, with the belief that our children will be all too happy to pay these bills, while receiving nothing in return for these payments. Is taxation without representation!

The borrower is a slave to the lender! Borrowing more and more to function as a society, as an economy, or as a government, is just sowing the seeds of our own destruction.

The function of any limit, is to give a warning to the danger of going past your limits, before you even get there, so you can avoid any and all negative consequences for going past them.

Constantly moving your limits, pretending they were always ment to be moved, all because of being ill-equipped to deal with the problem, doesn’t resolve or prevent any problems, nor is it a solution. It is a symptom of the addiction.

Democrats when faced with having to reduce spending on their favorite programs, the project devastation they present, along with some frightful out comes, or some kind of uncomfortable existences, as being inhumane, abusive and uncaring treatment, are the results of policies of the opposition party. Obscuring the facts of finance, that prosperity and wealthy, is never an accomplished goal by being asset poor and mountain of debt rich.

If Liberty is to become extinct it is because the conservationists (GOP conservatives) are not willing to do the hard work, the unpopular work of presenting the arguments in a persuasive way to the public. Only quietly going along, to get along, isn’t governing from the perspective in preserving the constitution for all from all foreign or domestic enemy’s. Compromise isn’t any tool used in making persuasive arguments, but is excepting a more comfortable defeat.

When was an unlimited debt ever the principles of our founding?

Government doesn’t produce anything, it taxes all economic production of the people, and then by definition is a growth inhibitor.

Politically speaking. We must recognize that every dime spent in payment to the interest on our debts, is a drag on future growth, future job creation, future security, future economical innovations, while increasing the size of todays obstacles into impossible ones, for future leaderships to deal with. We today are standing at the generational crossroads, deciding what kind of future our kids will have, or can expect. If we the adults in society or in government, are only interested in working for the extravagances of life, allowing ourselves only to enjoy freedom and liberty. Then we must honestly confess, too our own selfish greed, “That we don’t care about our youth”! What gives us the rights to sell, those freedoms and liberty’s, those God-given rights, that our kids should also be able to expect for themselves, with indifference to enslaving them to foreign banks, and treasonous governments, forcing them to pay for our extravagance of today? The borrower is a slave to the lender! How can we then enjoy our extravagances by selling “Our kids ” and their lives into slavery tomorrow?

Modern third world dictators always use the command and control style of governance in solving a self-made crisis while also reducing any powers that oppose it. The Democrat party, and prehaps some of the Republican party, must see themself’s as the slave masters of tomorrow? By wanting to eliminate all infestations / or opposition to their support of policies like, unlimited debt, and the slow erosion of liberty, their policies only seem to managed the decay, over finding true positive solutions.

When has a Democratic policy, a socialist solution, ever been purposed to the people resulted in a reversal of the social decline within society? Liberal policies have only added to a farther decline. Will the Modern Republican party embrace conservative principles, present them publicly and persuasively, or will they allow liberty’s extinction, by finely drowning it to death, with debt?

Restoring “Balance” The dolphin and the camel story.

Why is the concept or to a smaller degree the definition of “Balance” so misunderstood, massaged, manipulated, distorted, variably changed at will, within the liberal progressive politicians mind? Not to mention any speech where they tend to mention the need for “Balance” while promoting imbalances?

For instance: 50% of the people don’t pay federal income tax! So the other 50% must pay more? The liberal—- it is 50/50 after all. That’s “Balance” is it not?

The mega millionaires and billionaires are all publicly promoting–higher Income tax rates, as a “Balanced” approach to governmental needs. But eliminating waste, doesn’t receive any promotion in becoming a top priority? When all these titans of business have become rich doing just that and using every advantage from government that can be lobbied for. These liberals–knowingly have no earned incomes, will pay no wealth tax (or at the least a taxation of already accumulated wealth, doesn’t exist yet or is actively being promoted out of fairness), they all take advantage of moving income through or past those higher rates that they promote, by the use of dividends, or other tax advantaged ways to lower tax rates for themself’s. In short, they don’t have incomes to tax. They have unearned incomes off of investments from money they have already accumulated. In effect paying little to nothing as a ratio, (income to taxes paid), or amount of wealth they must pay in comparison to possessions accumulated. This is why Buffet will never pay an equal tax rate as all of working America does. So this is balanced?

The cereal criminal (Be they a man or a women) can use a gun against anyone that is law-abiding. Because the concepts of respecting laws, rules, regulations, or even other people’s rights (the right to have and protect your own life or property) isn’t something of worth to them. In this social asylum, the common belief, and trust is in the governmental forced charity contribution of taxation, and redistribution, as the way providing for those in need. A criminal is just the same thing, just taking the power for themself’s to provide out of perceived need. The liberal—- we have to limit people ( law-abiding people) from having, buying, possessing, bartering for, or any other acquisition of any weapon that at least looks violent, scary, or has the ability to shoot more than 7 rounds before reloading. Yet with a spirit of demanding payment, as in forced taxation, to implement such unrealistic rules of self imprisonment, is considered to being a balanced approach to a problem? Limiting good lawful people, depriving them to make the choice of how or when to protect themselves or family members, doesn’t in the slightest way prevent crime. Other wise Chicago would be one of the safest city’s then? When indeed they had more victims of crime resulting in death then the Afghanistan war zone 2012. But then gun control is a good thing…right?

So where is the “Balance”? A criminal (or multiple criminals) can have an AR-15/AK-47 (just to name two types) with 30 round clips and kick your door-in, (in a home invasion robbery). But all that you can have to protect yourself is seven rounds in any gun, as a balanced approach, for being law-abiding?

Liberals stand for every kind of minority group or voter block of the mind numb stupid. Sense the majority of the population is law-abiding, dis-arming them is a priority so to protect a minority, in the name of balance, I guess? Criminals are indeed a minority? Funny concepts, supporting a minority, by bullying the majority. When these same politicians assume power with a vote of the majority. Isn’t that a dog eating tail type of thing?

What happens when the minority becomes the majority and would like to benefit themself’s with the help of the government to abuse the then minority, believing in independence and working to make it so? Government chosing to abuse the majority by empowering unequally so the minority–so this is achieving “Balance!!”?

When I look at all of these kinds of things in this social asylum we live in today. I ask myself where is the “Balance”? All I see is the government getting more and more powerful, and the population giving up more and more power to them willingly. Creating an imbalance? An invitation to abuse? Of course most people don’t even see this happening net alone see the imbalance of it? Because I guess, for the most part they don’t understand the founders of this country and the concept of “Limiting the powers of any government” as the greatest Balancing act of them all in being able to live free.

So if a criminal comes to your door, holding a weapon that holds more rounds then you have in yours. Why would you even try to understand those misunderstood, massaged, manipulated, distorted, and variably changed words and definitions of liberal left? Those words like… Bipartisan, reach across the aisle, negotiate, compromise, or balanced approach, redistribution of wealth, and fairness, the need to compromise, and so the list goes on and on. Not to say…” Why is it I can’t protect my things, possessions or family, with the same weapons that criminals have, or could get? The liberal progressive politicians are genetically geared to the use of manipulations. That is getting you and others to give up the ability to choose for yourself. To then force you against your will in accept something that in any normal persons own mind couldn’t possibly chose for themselves, as being “Balanced”!

It is impossible to evaluated anything to be balanced, presented by a politician who says so, or presents it as being so? Balanced, I’m mean! The impossibility comes when the people expect the “TRUTH”, and a politician presents something different or their version of the truth…. or ”A manipulative LIE”, as true Balance. Then defends and argues with anyone, by pointing their finger at you.. Joe Blow American, who is saying something different. “You don’t believe in balance or fairness then?” Is what the manipulative politician would say.

Evolution didn’t create “Fairness”! God through his intelligent design didn’t completely allow for “Fairness”! The politician is no GOD of “Balance or fairness” either! Here is the PROOF!!!

The dolphin and the camel really do want to be best of friends? But in all fairness, this isn’t going to happen! Like a politician who promises that it could be a possibility to make friends of these odd sorts, saying “Just follow my lead?” We should always be aware of our own limitations, so as to realistically be able to recognize those manipulative lying politicians’ as having the same limitations. At that point, and only then we will have true “BALANCE”!

The problem isn’t in the presentations, or in presenting the impossible as possible. It is in the unrealistic willingness in believing, to be able to change the impossible, at someones elses expense by believing a total lie of…”That it isn’t going to affect you!”. So yes! The dolphin and the camel really do want to be best of friends……. It could be possible for the sake of “BALANCE” right? But if God didn’t provide “Balance to their wishes, and evolution didn’t care enough to allow for balance to exist among these two animals–then why should there be any balance to what is imbalanced already between people choosing to act, lawfully or unlawfully?

The kind of weapon, or the amount of ammo needed in protecting yourself, your property, or other members of family, is determined after the gun battle is over!

If criminals never chose to be criminals, and act within the laws of the land, then and only then we would be balanced, equal, and fair. It is impossible for GOVERNMENT to legislate what is in the minds of people. Therefore impossible to protect all of the people all of the time through unfair, imbalanced approaches of gun control legislation. The faster you all realize this, the closer you get to a balanced fairness.