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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Hey Obama, we are all Osama.”

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

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

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

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

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

Freedom of religion; The international community to criminalize acts of abusing great prophets?

Have we just entered into a world of kabuki theater ( to be divergent, to deviate in ref. to the early evaluation of this drama.) The twilight zone, or have the hands of time been turned back some 1400 years or so?

“The Kingdom’s Grand Mufti Sheikh Abdul Aziz Al-Asheikh called on the international community to criminalize acts of abusing great prophets and messengers such as Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad (peace be upon them all), according to a statement issued today.” ( September 16, 2012)

Is there a real need to protect the thin skinned person and or people or a compleat population? In essence protecting people of all kinds from ever experiencing ” Being offended “?

I find it hard to believe that in these modern times we live in, that we also have this need to eliminate offensive speech because it offends. Yet any reaction to the emotional outbursts of the offended usually leads to some actions designed to offend those who are perceived as having offended in the first place. This mentality of ” An eye for an eye ” doesn’t work! At its core the foresight of the founders to the United States of America were visionary’s. They knew that people who would only conduct themselves with a standard of ” Do as I say ” really didn’t have the best interests of the people in mind, nor did they believe in freedom.

“Free speech was designed to protect offensive speech.” For non offensive speech needs no protection because it doesn’t offend anyone. offensive speech therefore determined by whom to be offensive? The government, or the Grand Mufti Sheikh Abdul Aziz Al-Asheikh, or some popular church of the_________ kind, or some other easily offended.. offender? What is offensive then is in the eye of the offended. But what is retalation then? That person, or persons, or even any religious sect, or compleat deceived populations of some nations run by some devious leaders. Can therefore declarer another to be offensive and just order them to stop doing what is offensive. In other words to stop an offence constitutes having to offend in return.

Who said this? Is it also offensive, and to whom?

“Zionists, who have no faith in religion or even God, now claim piety and intend to take away the Islāmic identity of the Holy Quds. This ridiculous move is in fact the continuation of the colonialist polices of oppressors, which will not save the Zionist regime, but also take the regime closer to the endpoint of its existence.”

(Speech to a delegation from the Turkish-Palestinian Parliamentary Friendship Group) curtsey of the web page; http://jcpa.org/text/ahmadinejad2-words.pdf

Incitements? Are Muslims defined as devoid of incitements of racial hatred towards others? Or is this the views of the radical Muslim hoping to hijack a religion for their end game of conquest? Are they’re beliefs the definition of multi-ethnical faith community’s built on presenting a positive image of their religion and or the practices of ” Treating everyone else in the same way as you would like others to treat their beliefs and traditions “? How can this be expressed when viewing others like, Jews, Sikhs, or even Christians differently, allowing those differences of opinions to outright offend?

October 26, 2005; Ahmadinejad speech, returned to the same theme of… ” Israel as being the dirty vermin which needs to be eradicated. The stain of disgrace will be cleaned from the garment of the world of Islam, and this is attainable.”

In another speech he mentions in describing the Israeli nation as…” Cattle, blood thirsty barbarians, criminals, as well as targeting the population as described as ( SATANIC! ). ” along with a speech in April 17, 2008 Ahmadinejad said. This region and the world are prepared for great changes and for being cleansed of satanic enemies.”

Was he fortelling the events of the recent Arab spring and the rise of radical Islam, as his nations highest national efforts of purpose?

Do we need to have an international religious hatred law? Should he  ( The Grand Mufti Sheikh Abdul Aziz Al-Asheikh) also be interested in the international community criminalizing hate speech, incitement to violence and religious hatred, as already described in the above statements? If so then a few verses of the Quran will need a little adjustment!

Who will in force such a ridiculous law, who and what population will volunteer to have some kind of thought police policing what will be offensive net alone with what penalty’s for breaking it?

With Islāmic Shari’a law permitting treatment of what they consider offensive to Islam and their standards they have volunteered to live under, such as the ” Infidels ” with actions of; Beheadings, gang rape of female infidels, crucifixion, genocide without mercy, and racism stoning of the homosexuals, and people that commit adultery.

It seem more a religion of fear, rather than one of love and forgiveness.The compleat opposite of…. Thou shalt not lie: Thou shalt not steal: Thou shalt not cheat: Thou shalt not murder: Thou shalt not covet.

The mufti said. “The attempts of a filmmaker filled with hatred to Islam would not harm the great personality of the Prophet (pbuh) or anything in Islam in any manner but would only reflect on the people who spread venomous ideas.”

Then why does it have to be outlawed?

Wheels on the bus keep going…. over political freinds!

The wheels on the bus keep going….. over political friends. But then Obama implied that new democrats have now taken over the bus and are going to save the country? But what is going to save us from the words and actions of a presidential ” BUFFOON “?

President Obama says the U.S. would not consider Egypt an ally, “but we don’t
consider them an enemy.”

Mr. Obama said in an interview with the
Spanish-language network Telemundo that Egypt is a “new government that is
trying to find its way.” He warns that if the Egyptian government takes actions
showing “they’re not taking responsibility,” then it would “be a real big
problem.”

So Egypt isn’t an ally any longer? Even though it has been sence 1989 when it was presented as an arab ally in the Middle East.

Poland has been reduced to feel like their not really an ally any longer with recent comments and actions by the president.

Israel treatment has been a treatment much like a once good friend that has been wearing its friendship thin. But never really has been told just why it has deserved such treatment of a reduced ally status.

consider it a political late-term abortion by way of throwing an already fragile relationships under the bus, then run over it, and if it still seems like its moving. Run over it again in reverse!

RICHARD ENGEL: Yeah, I almost had to sit down when I heard
that. For the last forty years, the United States has had two main allies in the
Middle East — Saudi Arabia and Egypt, the other ally in the Middle East being
Israel. For the President to come out and say, well, he’s not exactly sure if
Egypt is an ally any more but it’s not an enemy, that is a significant change in
the perspective of Washington toward this country, the biggest country in the
Arab world. It makes one wonder, well, was it worth it? Was it worth supporting
the Arab Spring, supporting the demonstrations here in Tahrir Square, when now
in Tahrir Square there are clashes going on behind me right in front of the US
embassy?

Quote has been taken a story from ” Freedom Eden ” ( Egypt not an ally: Richard Engel video.) To see video click the highlighted link.

The president accused that Romney isn’t experienced with foreign policy’s. But where is the great wisdom of the one? It seem like that the one with a big stick needs some foreign policy Viagra. Good grief, Elmer fud could as good, and he carried a gun. I’m sure that he also had the motto of the American military; ” This is my weapon.. ( Holding out their M-16’s ) and this is my gun ( pointing to their crotches ). One is for our enemy’s and one is for fun!

The friendships of the terrorists, the Muslim Brotherhood isn’t any good foreign policy in the best interests of the USA. It promotes a weak, debt ridden, incapable of managing one self out of a paper sack to release the paper tiger. Is this the kind of power  that your fundamentally changing socialists, wish to reduced this country into having, going out of your apologizing way to promote? No amount Joe Biden beating his chest saying that you have a big stick is going to prove other wise.

It isn’t good enough to say the wheels of the bus are going round and round in a forward direction. It takes a visionary leader to apply the brakes in knowing there is a washed out road and bridge that government didn’t repair that will crash the economical bus. Therefore running over your friends with that bus isn’t going to help when you will need help from them someday.

It is impossible to collect tax revenues from an economy, that you have gone out of your way to run over with that bus you drive Mr. President. It is equally just as impossible to declare victory in the war on terror someday, when you are giving them 1.5 billion dollars. Certainly just like the failed policy of fast and furious. This new waste of taxpayers money may kill more Americans overseas or …….  maybe worse? You can decide just how to fill in the blank.

Sarah Palin was accused of making a joke out all of this. But the true joke is the president in action.