Tuesday, December 11, 2012

Discrimination - The Politically Incorrect Guide

Choose the car you like, the woman you marry, or the supermarket you shop at, and you "discriminate." We all discriminate every minute of our lives-to discriminate means to choose between endless options that suit your needs, values, or preferences. Personal discrimination means having the right to choose what you do with your body, values, and the money or property you own.

When we "discriminate" with our property, we exercise our right to make choices. But sometimes we make bad choices that offend others. Some people don't wish to sell to, buy from, or associate with minorities, Catholics, old people, homosexuals, or women with children. People can be irrational or bigoted in a thousand ways.

However, respect for each other's freedom ironically requires that we respect each other's right to make decisions that may offend some people. For example, if a homeowner doesn't want to rent his upstairs apartment to bald men, homosexuals, or Indonesian women, that should be his right, because it is his home.

The homeowner may be "prejudiced" against certain people, but he has the right to make that choice with his own property. The person denied the apartment, while their feelings may be offended, had no claim to that apartment, for it was not their property in the first place. In free trade between people who respect each other's property and freedom of choice, you have the right to buy or sell anything, but only if the other person is willing to trade with you. Every trade requires the free consent of both parties.

Remember, an insulted would-be tenant also has free choice. He can decide who he rents from. Doesn't a tenant also "discriminate" against a homeowner if he chooses not to rent the apartment because it is dirty, in a neighborhood too far from where he works, or because he doesn't like the owner's race or personality?

The same applies to all privately-owned property in a free country. The owner of a restaurant has the right to not serve someone who can't order in English. It's his restaurant. A private-school owner has the right to say, "I will only admit Asian students with wealthy parents." It's his school. These businessmen may be fools to believe bad things about whole groups of people, but they have the right to be fools with their own property.

A school or business owner earned the money and took the risks to buy that school or business. However, if he irrationally excludes too many people as customers, he may soon find himself out of business and bankrupt. The free market often punishes a business owner for being stupid or bigoted.

We all dislike bigots, but one man's bigotry is another's truth. No one has the right to dictate our opinions or moral values, or to control our property without our consent. That's what property rights means.

Yet, anti-discrimination laws violate this principle. These laws say a man can't choose who he wants to do business with. This means that government now presumes to control that man's mind, hard-earned property, personal decisions, and freedom of choice. It means tyranny.

If government officials can tell us what opinions we can or can't have about other people, it can also tell us what we can or can't do with our bodies, property, and even our children. It can wipe out our freedom of choice. Isn't that what compulsory public schools do against parents? Isn't that what a suffocating web of government regulations does to all businessmen? Haven't the bureaucrats, like a spreading cancer, eaten away ever more of our choices, our freedom, and our property rights?

Also, in the end, anti-discrimination laws end up hurting the very people they want to help. The more that government strangles businesses with a suffocating web of anti-discrimination, wage, health, and environmental regulations, the worse off minorities get. A massive Federal government needs massive deficit spending. That pumps up inflation. Inflation sharply raises the cost of living for everyone, which hurts low-income minorities most of all.

Strangling government regulations also cripple small businesses and either stop them from opening, or restrict their expansion. That means less jobs for minority workers. Also, every time Congress raises the minimum wage, small-business owners who can't afford these raises have to fire some of their minority workers.

It is only governments, at any level, that have no right to discriminate. Government's purpose is to protect all citizens' liberty. Also, government bureaucrats do not earn or create property. They mostly loot money (through taxes) from some people to give to others. They therefore don't have the right, for example, to tell all restaurant owners in white neighborhoods that they can't serve Blacks (as some states did with Jim Crow laws). That violates the right of a non-bigoted restaurant owner to serve whoever he pleases. Such laws also violate the political and economic liberty of a black person.

One reason discrimination against Blacks lasted so long in many southern states was because Jim Crow laws legalized segregation, but these laws were created by local governments. Such laws forbid competition between bigots and non-bigots. The restaurant or bus company who serves all people makes more money and has a greater chance at success. Bigoted businessmen lose money. In the end, without government-enforced discrimination laws, the free market would wipe out most organized discrimination.

In short, we, as individuals or businesses, have the right to "discriminate" with our own minds, bodies, and property. I say this not because I agree with bigots, but to protect our most fundamental liberties, the liberties that, in the end, are the only real protection for those "discriminated" against.

How to End Hunger and Starvation Instantly   Why Should Those Who Pay No Taxes Be Allowed to Vote?   Where Is the World Going To?   Origins - Knowing How and Why   The Deadly Cherry Investigation   

How Does One Go About Joining the Council on Foreign Appeasement?

We have all heard about the self-promoting group called The Council on Foreign Relations, and how they try to keep everything smooth over the differences between nations - hopefully to prevent wars. The concept is good enough, however the amount of appeasement which goes on, clearly spits in the face of all that we hold dear in our great nation. All the great concepts of freedom that we wish to spread around the world are being held short by The Council on Foreign Appeasement. Perhaps you would like to join the group, and help them ditch some of their onerous political correctness, and pony up to the plate to do what's right, for the right reasons. Okay so let's talk about this for second shall we?

First of all, they promote the concept of perspective based thinking, meaning that we can't possibly understand how other cultures work, or appreciate what they're doing, or how well it's working in their society, civilization, and culture, because we just don't have any foundation having not been immersed in that culture. Indeed, that may be so, but I would submit to you that all humans want to be free, it's an inherent need of almost every species on this planet. Now our domesticated animals might like the idea of getting free food, and in a way we are melting their minds by preventing them from being what they actually are.

Wouldn't it be great if The Council on Foreign Relations had a little more common sense in their group? Well, I'm a free-market capitalist, I believe in free and fair trade around the world, I have no problem with trading with any nation for any reason as long as they can deliver the goods and services at the agreed-upon price without reneging on the deal. I don't care if they are Atheists, Buddhist, Islamic, Jewish, or worship a Red Sun Devil for that matter - I am happy to do business with anyone and trade with them if it makes sense for what I'm doing.

Yes, no problem there, but to ask me to appease a culture, or society, or even a government which doesn't respect its own people, or would like to see me and my country, or culture wiped off the map, that's about the time I start having problems, and no it's not okay, no matter what anyone says that is at the CFR. And that's why I would suggest that the CFR become the CFA - Council on Foreign Appeasement. Now then, how do you join such a group? The reality is you can't join the group unless you're invited, and you cannot be invited unless you are a dignitary, or someone in power.

Further, you'll have a difficult time staying in power unless you appease this group, which appeases all the nonsense going on in the world. Do you see this problem? My question is; how to fix it. You should be able to fix it from within, but you can join, unless you are elected to high office, and you can't do that in your life until you promise free gifts to the people and run around acting like a politically correct socialist; in my humble opinion. Something is amiss, so the CFA needs a mirror. Please consider all this and think on it.

How to End Hunger and Starvation Instantly   Cancer to Rise Due to Affluence - Another Socialist Research Ploy Indeed   Marriage Is Man and Woman   Are Republicans Bad?   African Doctors As Founding Presidents   

Read This Article If You Are Going to Vote for Obama Again

Oh my gosh, it appears that president Obama's approval ratings are down in the dirt, under 35%, and that poll was done by CBS which is generally a left-leaning media news outlet. If it happened on Fox news, I could understand it, but 35% from CBS, that's terrible, I wonder if President Obama has a chance in hell of getting reelected. The news segment and video which accompanied that article was fairly interesting, the news commentary folks were trying to put a good spin on these terrible and dismal ratings.

You see, they seem to reason away that the particularly low and drastically underperforming approval ratings were due to the high fuel costs. One reporter said; "well, how much can a president really do about the high fuel costs." It is interesting, because I know a thing or two about this, and there are a lot of things President Obama and his administration could have done up until now about the high oil costs, but they didn't, and there are a lot of things a President can do. Still, I would submit to you that his low approval ratings have nothing to do with the oil prices, well, maybe a little bit, I will give you that.

Rather, I believe much of it has to do with the GOPs getting out in force, and dominating the news outlets, and reminding people that this individual promised us lots of things, and didn't deliver. Further, their main claim to fame was to pass this universal healthcare, ObamaCare package. It's turned out to be a total disaster, and it is quite possible the Supreme Court will look at this and say forget it. In other words, if that goes away, President Obama has basically done nothing, but deficit spend our nation's treasury into oblivion.

They've made so many mistakes, they haven't done anything right, and now they're lying to us about the job numbers, and the economic numbers, just as they did with the CBO telling us that we were somehow going to save money by insuring more people with universal healthcare at no cost to them. First of all, that's impossible, but it is just this kind of socialist rhetoric which is driven the European Union off a cliff, without a parachute. Now then, I ask you, and this is a simple question, it's not a trick question;

If the elections were held today, would you again vote for president Obama?

Yes or no?

And realize, I didn't ask you for any commentary, I don't want your excuses, it no longer matters to me why, just answer the question.

How to End Hunger and Starvation Instantly   Celtic Jewelry and Cultural Influences Create Works of Art   Corruption Destroying India's Progress   If You Want to See Poor People, Check Into a 5 Star Hotel in Dubai   Cable TV Without The Commercials - We Wish   ObamaCare and The Supreme Court - Legislating Socialist Ideology From the Bench, Ouch   

The Ron Paul Spirit: Why I Love This Man And What Each Of Us Can Learn From Him

The coming election is one of the most important elections in America's history. We owe it to ourselves to look beyond the shallow reality which appears on our TV screens in the form of words and promises. Words alone are hollow, as we have been finding out time and again when we look at the political reality playing out in our daily lives. There is hope though if we care to look what's hidden beneath the obvious surface.

Because deep in the trenches of life's struggles, paradoxes, hopes and despairs there is a truth, which I would like to call the real truth of the Ron Paul Spirit.

When one observes Ron Paul one cannot help but notice the immense charisma, the inner strength and integrity that way surpasses his message. Whether or not Ron Paul becomes president, he understands the importance of "being" first and foremost. He knows that reality follows what we are and not what we want to be.

Ron Paul has been steadfast for 30 years in his core message, his core being and yet been honest enough and flexible enough to grow with his message and make honest adjustments as required.

Ron Paul knows that life is about the embodiment of truth which honours the human spirit, is non judgemental and thus expansive and in line with the evolutionary process all of life.

Ron Paul knows about the art of surrendering to what is and letting it be okay. He does not do this as a result of deliberation, but from the core of his inner being. This is his enormous power. People all over America and probably all over the world, (I am in the UK and an avid Ron Paul supporter), are beginning to feel it, if they are open to receiving it.

This is the power we all have, and many are beginning to recognise it, even if they are unable to articulate it such. Truth, the deep truth our soul knows, the truth which derives from the core of our being, is way more powerful than anything else could possibly be. In its awakening resides true, joy, happiness, fulfillment and ultimately success.

I have chosen to spend countless hours writing about the subject of authentic truth from many angles, trusting that some of you will get it. And I mean truly get it. Its like price momentum on a chart: You watch and see momentum grow. At some point you can feel that it only takes one or two more contracts and direction changes...

It is up to you and me to chose to expand and finally re-unite ourselves with the truth of who we are. We can chose to be swept along with the collective consciousness or to help shape it.

Ron Paul is a wonderful teacher to all of us. Thank you Ron Paul for being here in this time and reminding us of who we truly are!

How to End Hunger and Starvation Instantly   Origins - Knowing How and Why   The Deadly Cherry Investigation   The Hidden Tax: Regulations' Impact on Small Businesses and the Hampering of Progress   Feeding a Growing World Population With the Aid of Science   The Top 7 Mistakes Professionals Make While On Paid Employment   

Be Good, Get Free Toys - Be Bad, End Up In Some Other Afterlife or Demonic Purgatory Location

Okay so I guess it goes without saying that religions invented the concept of hell to scare people, keep them in line, and to get them to do as they were told. Even if you believe in God, or a higher power, you inherently know or realize this tricky tactic. Okay so, let's go ahead and talk about this for a moment shall we?

There was an interesting piece in Homeland Security News titled; "Belief in hell associated with reduced crime," published on June 19, 2012 which stated;

"A broad study, study following 143,197 people in sixty-seven countries over twenty-six years, found that criminal activity is higher in societies in which people's religious beliefs contain a strong punitive component than in places where religious beliefs are more benevolent; a country where many more people believe in heaven than in hell is likely to have a much higher crime rate than one where these beliefs are about equal."

Okay but, indoctrinating people into this line of thinking will curtail the enjoyment of their life experience, and it is in itself "evil" to use or manipulate human minds in this way. Not long ago, I was talking to a conspiracy theorist, and he explained to me that he believed that the government and those running the Internet were trying to give the impression to everyone in the public that they were constantly being watched, even though they weren't really.

His thinking was that it would be similar to creating the concept of an all-knowing God watching you in your life at all times, judging you, to see if you were worthy of going to heaven. If not you were going to go to hell - but in the case of massive surveillance of the population, if you did something wrong, you would get demerits, and not have the same opportunity life, or if you did something really bad, you would be caught and put in jail. Could it be that the same theories are being used to control the populations of the world?

Still, is this much control good? It doesn't seem to do very well for the individual when it's used in a religion, and it certainly can't do very much good for liberty and freedom when a government does it - using surveillance in this case, either real or perceived. Now then, it would be nice to see if the same sort of study was done when it came to the increased abundance of surveillance in human societies and civilizations throughout the world. I imagine the study would show a similar statistical value in the surveys.

Who knows, maybe my conspiracy friend that I see at Starbucks now and again is onto something? It's hard to say, but it is an interesting topic so I'm glad I discussed it with you today. Indeed I hope you will please consider all this and think on it.

How to End Hunger and Starvation Instantly   African Doctors As Founding Presidents   Why Should Those Who Pay No Taxes Be Allowed to Vote?   Where Is the World Going To?   

Vatican Catholic Pope Surveillance Detail Working On American Soil - Is It Legal?

Did you know that the United States government shares information with security details for dignitaries of other nations? In other words, all the data that the US collects on its citizens, and it is gathering more and more information every day due to social networks and Internet data collection - it makes available to non-US intelligence agencies, security details, and international surveillance groups. As an American I have a problem with this, and I just learned even more information. Okay so, I'd like to talk to you about this for a moment if I might.

Recently, I discovered that the Vaticans Catholic Pope's surveillance detail was working on American soil using information from our fusion centers to detect the possibility of any anti-catholic American traveling to Mexico, or any cross-border threats to the Pope while he was giving a speech in that country. That's interesting isn't it? However I question the legality of it, and as someone who did not appreciate the various molestation cases which were brought forth in the US, the Catholic Church is no longer on my "favorites" or FaceBook "friends" list - still, I wholly believe 100% in freedom of religion in our great nation, that reality here in the US is a breath of fresh air as I travel the globe.

Now then, on March 27, 2012 there was an interesting article in the New York Times titled; "Raul Castro Greets Pope Benedict at Start of Closely Watched Visit," by Rachel Donadio and Victoria Brunett which stated; "Pope Benedict XVI arrived in Cuba on Monday, welcomed by President Raúl Castro, who gripped the pontiff's hands in greeting but did not kiss his ring."

Now then, one should ask if it is right for the US to assist in giving information to the Catholic Church on US citizens, or sharing information in this regard. One could say that we should oblige, and do the right thing by being attempting to identify threats. But the sharing of information is a totally different thing, and once we start doing that, it can lead to all sorts of other unintended consequences in the future. Security details for various nations may want to track our US based corporate executives, or use the information for spying.

This is a slippery slope. It's hard to say what the protocol should actually be, but since this is going on behind the backs of Americans, and since the American taxpayer is paying for all of this, I have a problem with it. The Catholic Church has obviously made some enemies in the United States due to the challenges I mentioned above, even if those unfortunate types of events have no completely ended. Still, how they handled those cases at the onset was troubling, but is that any fault of any American for being upset. It takes a lot to forgive and forget, and not everyone is a devout Catholic able to so readily do that

Okay so, what I asking is this; should the Catholic Church have access to all of the personal information, whereabouts, and online data collected by the US government of every individual that was not exactly pleased with what has gone on previously? I dare to ask the question because I am disturbed by the information sharing with various groups who do not necessarily have the ideals of the United States in their best interests, not the Church, as I am merely using this data sharing event as a launching point for my argument here. Obviously, the Catholic Church wishes to grow and improve on its tattered reputation, and move on to expand and continue its work, which it is doing and has the right to do in our nation that respects all religions.

Nevertheless, anyone in the US who has any animosity towards the Catholic Church could be identified by their surveillance detail as a potential threat to the Pope. It doesn't matter that that is just overboard paranoia, what matters is that our government is working with these folks, and not just the Catholic Church, but surveillance teams of other countries all over the world, even those we may actually be at war with in the future. We need to think about this very hard, and develop strict protocols to protect the American people.

You see, the government's number one job is to protect the American people, but giving away their privacy to foreign actors is not protecting the US citizen or our privacy, thus, I am concerned. There is a fine line between preventing a future crisis, and complete destruction of personal privacy. Not to mention the fact that the NSA Chief recently told Congress that "we are just that far away from becoming a totalitarian state," as he held up his index finger to his thumb. Indeed I hope you will please consider all this and think on it.

How to End Hunger and Starvation Instantly   Cable TV Without The Commercials - We Wish   ObamaCare and The Supreme Court - Legislating Socialist Ideology From the Bench, Ouch   Cancer to Rise Due to Affluence - Another Socialist Research Ploy Indeed   Marriage Is Man and Woman   Are Republicans Bad?   

Twitter Facebook Flickr RSS



Français Deutsch Italiano Português
Español 日本語 한국의 中国简体。