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

Advertisements

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.

the true war on poverty.

The use & excuse of slavery must end. I’d like a laundry list of Black accomplishments taught in schools all over the country as the true black history of America. Black people need to see how historically they’ve been, a success in America despite parties. I’m not saying “our” history is more important… it’s that Blacks need a newer reference point of American values than what occurred through slavery. Black people need to know that they don’t need government programs in order to succeed. Exactly… we need references where Black people were successful without Government dependency. A real US History explained in a true positive light, that will inspire and rekindle human potential, and the pursuit of excellence, over that of being a new kept people destined for lower wage jobs. We need to rise above that education system that teaches the values of the political race baiters. But so it seems that neither party is really interested in edifying Black people to their contributions includes the NAACP, as worthwhile contributions in making improvements to American society as a whole. So the Democrats and the Republicans must assume equal guilt for the continued human misery and wasted moneys spent on the war on poverty over the past 40 years. We should stop complaining about the wrongs of our ancestors and that of slavery, for those things we can do nothing about. But this generation must stop hiding their guilt with respect to the war on poverty in hopes to hide this generation wrong just long enough so as not to be held accountable for them.

Destroying imaginations?

In the world of education, presented by educators that also draw their paychecks from the federal and state governments, it is plan to see they mostly posses a leaning towards a liberal mindset. So is it good to question motive, if any, to their teaching methods, in an effort to avoided a public education that resembles more of a indoctrination to a liberal philosophy, over unbiased pursuit of knowledge based on truth?

At what point is it too much of an education to give to developing minds, and who should decide if so? Can an education do more damage to a human mind, then good?

Colorado second-grader suspended for throwing IMAGINARY grenade during recess http://soc.li/QKLVU5V

Aren’t schools supposed to provide educations within a supervised safe environment, for purposes of expanding young minds no matter what the age of that student? Isn’t an education in part a shared responsibility and the job of parents, along with teachers, to inspire imaginations of young people to dream the impossible, to look behind the curtain of life with curiosity?

Every great thinker and inventor has used an active imagination, driving the individual to dream, to innovate, in making dreams and unknown technologies into realities produced in the present. Also known by catch phrase as “Moving forwards”.

An education is bridling the power of thought, inspired to action, in moving towards that future yet imagined. Without the active use of imaginations in our world, we wouldn’t have computers, or all sorts of entertainments, or even books to read, net alone things that are common place for most people used daily without thought, like cars. So when a school system limits a child’s imagination, are they not also robbing that child of their education, or at least damaging or retarding that child’s human potential in an unmeasured way, by potentially crushing their ability’s, or willingness to imagination farther?

Even John Lennon had a song called “Imagine” where people were called to imagine a world different to the present world, different to the world that existed when he wrote the song, different to today’s standards. Had he been this little boy in school, he too could have been suspended, by expressing unpopular imaginations. Can an imagination go too far, and becomes just as dangerous as a weapon?

So no matter where we stand on education, pro or con, we should expect a healthy dose of imagination to be encouraged in our youth, for the pursuit of a well-rounded education, from a school system charged with turning out an educated adult. An education devoid of including, critical thought, or thinking outside of the box, without also including in that realm the encouragement of the use of imagination. Is not really an education, but a political correct indoctrination, a type of brain washing through emotional reasoning or emotional peer pressure in administering a popular education. Children are at a disadvantage in being able to reason philosophically with adults, therefore venerable to the political or liberal presentations masked as an unbiased education.

Who decides what is a good imagination or a bad one, when we are discussing, or defining the thoughts or actions of a child that creates it. Are we to believe that people are born evil or good, so actions of said people are then predetermined? Is there at some point in time, an age of accountability, to what may be considered right and wrong things to imagine? Who then should decide, or teach what is or isn’t proper imagination? The thought police?

Colorado second-grader suspended for throwing IMAGINARY grenade during recess http://soc.li/QKLVU5V

In remembering what it was like to be a child, when everything seemed unlimited, where the many possibilities were always possible, where the impossible wasn’t recognized as obstacles, but just a short-term delays on our way to those destinations of personal greatness. Have we forgotten what satisfaction, or a sense of accomplishment felt like, even those imagined which inspired us in making an effort? Why should we then throw the political correct wet blanket over a child’s ability to dream, or to imagine, because what others only see as an imagined threat?

In our world of political correctness what damage have we created within this little boy’s education, or personal views of what is good or bad, what is good or evil, or which is stronger, or who will prevail in any struggle? Even in all of the movies that Hollywood produces there are elements of good and evil, where good always wins. In today’s world there isn’t any question in the argument, the only question that remains is who will define it? What is truly shocking is the carefree attitude of this boy’s parent in accepting her schools actions with regards to the education received, by the veiled attempt of that school in destroying youthful imagination, without parental outrage.

Super heroes who are battling evil, or who are trying to re-adjusting the balance of power between good and evil, in the support of a positive moral compass equally for everyone. Should not only be found in comic books designed for the imaginations of kids, but displayed in real life actions. Parents should never lose sight of their super hero status. Those bigger than life, those real life characters within parents, who in their childs eyes are always to be their super heroes; those same people whose jobs are to be defending by preserving the rights of kids, to be a kid, allowing them to enjoy their innocence, over that of being corrupted at a young age by a social brain washing of political correctness.

Parents are therefore that last line of defence, that supper hero re-adjusting that balance of power, that will tug and pull at their childs emotions. So imagine for a moment if you will, if you still have an imagination, and an unbiased willingness to use it? When has a super hero ever refuse to do those thankless jobs big and small, or allow themselves the freedom in giving in to the mindset or notion that evil will prevail? Saying to themselves,” So what is the use?” Simply because the job may be uncomfortable to do?

It is time conservatives push back respectively against the liberal mindset of political correctness, the insanity that suspends a second-grader for throwing IMAGINARY grenade during recess in Colorado, and sees nothing wrong with passing out the “morning after pill” to kids in New York schools, unknown to their parents, or with any knowledge of their medical histories of those young students receiving them.

Some NYC schools to offer  the morning-after-pill  http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-204_162-57518735/some-nyc-schools-to-offer-morning-after-pills/?tag=socsh via @CBSNews

This is the kind of mindset that has no future!!  Are we to remain free, with our liberty’s intact, to give to our children as their inheritance that same liberty that we enjoy. Then we must evoke the power of being that super hero, and imagine victory.

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

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