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?   

Next Time Afghan Karzi Demands US Military Leave - Announce "No US Protection" Day for the Leader

Well, it seems to be hot and cold when it comes to the President of Afghanistan. One minute he is asking us for more money, asking us for more assistance, and wanting protection for himself and his family. The next minute he tells us that he would rather support our enemies in Iran than assist us in our fight against terrorism, or if there were ever a war between Pakistan and the United States, that he would definitely side with Pakistan. Okay so let's talk about this for a moment because there was something interesting recently in the news.

We all know the challenges with the burning of Korans in the military prison in Afghanistan, where Islamic radical prisoners had made notes in the margins of these religious texts on it how to kill Americans, and where in the religious work it stated that it was okay to do such things. Because of these notations those Korans were thrown into an incinerator on the property. Then there was retaliation, and more insurgent and terrorist attacks.

After that, a decorated soldier took it upon himself to deliver street justice, killing many civilians. Then the President Karzi of Afghanistan said that the United States was at the end of its rope, and he wanted us to leave. Perhaps, he's trying to play both sides in the media because if he sides with the Americans at this time of crisis, he himself will be considered unfit to lead by the people. Never mind the fact that it undermines what we are doing their, and can incite more violence against the United States, rather than defusing the situation.

In fact, from a mass psychology perspective one could say he is instigating further attacks against the United States in Afghanistan and justifying them to anyone who wishes to carry out such a deadly mission. Therefore, the other day I was discussing this with an international diplomatic consultant. I suggested that perhaps next time Karzai demands that our US military leave Afghanistan we should simply announce to the media that President Karzai will remain unprotected by the US military for one week starting on this date at this time, until this day at that time.

Some might say that would be a crazy notion because President Karzai could be killed by his own people. Indeed, that might happen, but it probably wouldn't because he would have himself protected by his own group of security people. But he certainly wouldn't feel very safe during that time, and that would mean, we would have made our point.

In reality he's not making us very safe by lambasting the US military in the media to the people of Afghanistan. At some point President Karzai needs to decide whose team he is on, and if he isn't on our team, I don't want my tax dollar paying for whatever he thinks he's doing there.

No more games!

Indeed I hope you will please consider all this and think on it.

How to End Hunger and Starvation Instantly   The Top 7 Mistakes Professionals Make While On Paid Employment   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   

Whoops, Another Blow to Global Warming Alarmists - Coral Reef Deterioration Pre-Dates Warming

A couple of years ago, I sat in a really interesting environmental seminar and listened to a lecture by one of the top professors from the University of California at Riverside. His talk was quite fascinating and it was on coral reefs, and some of the challenges they've had with bleaching. During his talk he sounded like a mouthpiece for the global warming groups.

He made some statements matter-of-factly that the degradation which was challenging the coral reefs around the world was due to mankind's pollution, and the acidification of the water. However, no matter how many questions I asked, he had no data to back that that or prove it, and yet it was as if it was a foregone conclusion, no longer a theory, and a fact of global warming. Okay so, let's talk about this for second shall we?

In Physorg (dot) com there was an article titled; "Declines in Caribbean coral reefs pre-date damage resulting from climate change," published on March 30, 2012 which stated; "The decline of Caribbean coral reefs has been linked to the recent effects of human-induced climate change. However, new research led by scientists at Scripps Institution of Oceanography at UCSD suggests an even earlier cause. The bad news - humans are still to blame. The good news - relatively simple policy changes can hinder further coral reef decline."

It actually figures that a climate warming period isn't to blame because many of these coral reefs are in waters which are quite warm, therefore they should actually do better if the planet's surface waters temperature heat up. What I think bothers me the most is that the scientists are not being truthful, honest, or even questioning their own data. They are so sure that global warming is real, they've almost taken it as a religion, and allowed academia to indoctrinate them into this belief system.

That's rather problematic for research scientists, but it is the reality. Next time a global warming alarmists tries to put forth information you know to be nonfactual, cut them off, stop them right there, and start asking questions; if they can't answer the questions, then challenge them some more. If they can't explain it to you in layman's terms, tell them that they are wrong straight to their face.

You see, we've been lied to long enough, and whether or not these researchers are purposely lying, or incompetent in their assessments doesn't make it okay. First, we shouldn't fund research scientist who are incompetent, and we definitely should not fund them if they are lying to us. Do you see that point? Indeed I hope you will please consider all this and think on it.

How to End Hunger and Starvation Instantly   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   

Are You Afraid of Change or Afraid of Stupidity?

Are you a change agent? Many young people say they are, but do they really have any clue as to what that means? Doubtful, however that doesn't stop them from signing up, adding friends, and marching in step for the cause, the cause they really don't understand, and perhaps if they did fully comprehend it all, wouldn't have touched it with a ten-foot pole. Such is the challenge of youth, some things I guess you just have to learn the hard way. Okay so, let's talk shall we?

There seems to be a re-occurring theme happening as socialist thinking and left-leaning academia promote their alternative energy dreams and global warming alarmism. In fact, it's a little unnerving as now they are using social pressure to turn the tide and prop up their failing policies and push, almost as a last stand. When anyone points out their failures in the alternative energy sector or their false and misleading evidence of global warming bathed and cloaked into pretend-empirical evidence, they retort;

"Oh, you are just afraid of change," as if they can now play psychologist and help us over this behavioral issue?

What on Earth are they thinking, do they really believe they can call us "afraid" to try their new scheme? As if it is a personal behavioral disorder that we don't approve of their nonsensical and economically unsustainable plan - yes, somehow they believe that those who supposedly cannot see their vision - are actually "afraid of change" which I must say I find completely laughable.

Oh sure, clean water and clean air are a concern to all, but their schemes are not actually better for the environment and these new alternative energy concepts aren't even viable. Worse, they've created yet another "bubble" and joined in this common theory that this will usher in a new age of energy, jobs, and a robust growing economy. What a bunch of nonsense.

Look, I am perfectly okay with a new innovation that works, one which is cost effective, efficient, reliable, and also helps the environment - but that's not what is being produced, funded, or coming forth via tax payer guaranteed loans to (let me use an old Beltway technical term here) "the pigs feeding at the trough" and yes, folks, we've been had.

Okay so, are you a "change agent" and hoping for utopia? Well then, it's time to use your mind and come up with viable solutions, not march in step to the beat of those who wish to hijack the energy sector for their own personal gain, at all of our expense. It makes no sense whatsoever to destroy the reliable energy we are using today, unless we have a viable replacement - we don't - and even if we did, we should not prop up such a vital sector of our economy making it weak.

Rather the new alternative energy sector must compete on price, efficiency, pollution output, reliability, and abundance. Right now it can't, it doesn't. If those who want to be "Change Agents" really want to impress everyone, come up with a viable alternative, clue; Solar and Wind are more costly than what we have now, require CO2 to create, put out more toxic types green house gases during manufacturing and installation.

If you want change, bring real change, change for the better, don't become another "bubble builder" as our economy has been through enough of that already. Use your mind to come up with something that works. Do not to follow in lock-step of those who use every single psychological trick in the book to turn your life mission into their financial and pet project gain, at everyone else's expense. Think on it.

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

Debt Based Currency System Close to Doom

Ron Paul continually repeats over and over again that he wants to see the U.S government have a sound financial currency, and he appears to be the only congressman who really understands what is happening to the U.S dollar.

America is still the issuer of the reserve currency of the world, and it is a temporary blessing for the U.S, that it still remains that way. The U.S dollar is now Americas number one export and to this point countries have been happy to take the U.S dollar as the accepted world medium of exchange, however that interest is now starting to waiver with India wanting to buy their goods Internationally using Gold instead.

Ron Paul is the only American politician who understands that America is heading for a giant thud in its monetary system, and unfortunately will again miss out on his final push to become the next American President, because most Americans see him as too extreme and are too naive at see what is happening to their once great nation.

And what is the truth? The Federal Reserve have printed Trillions of U.S paper dollars to meet the growing interest debt of the money it currently owes other countries like China, and the losers in that exchange is the American taxpayer, who pays his or hers taxes like subservient puppets into the future.

Americans must understand that the U.S dollar today has a spending power of around.03c compared to the dollar back in 1980, and that the Federal Reserve is now quickly bleeding every ounce of life still left in the U.S dollar, by continually printing more and more of their fiat paper currency.

Michael Maloney says that conventional ignorance across America is what is causing peoples wealth to deteriorate, and by looking back into monetary history and what has proven to work and what has not, Americans should then understand that sound and solid money will inevitably end up being the winner once again.

History has proven that any debt based currency system will always eventually fail and implode on itself. A debt based currency system where people today borrow money into existence and promise to pay it back tomorrow plus interest. The dollars required to pay that interest back don't even exist yet, so people have to work into the future and go deeper into debt every year as a society, to keep that flawed system functioning.

When Obama took office, America had ac-rude around 11 Trillion dollars of debt and today that has blown out to just over 15.3 Trillion dollars. This proves that America must keep going into further debt to prop up this flawed fiat monetary system, to prevent it from collapsing around them. Unfortunately when it eventually does collapse, it will also take the average Americans wealth with it as well.

America borrows money into existence every day when the federal reserve writes out a check and buys another bond, a bond which is promising to pay back the principal plus interest into the future, using the tax dollars that Americans will be eventually paying, in the future.

A debt based currency system always creates a skewed distribution of wealth, and it is always the banks who receive the bulk of that wealth, however when the system starts to fail those very banks will fall along with the system, that is rewarding them today.

Today people all around the world are tightening their spending and paying down their debts, which is reducing the lending the banks require for this Debt based circus to continue. As these loans start to diminish so too does the need for these banks to exist, and this is why banks worldwide are now shedding staff by the thousands.

Under a hard monetary system, the system will be much fairer to society and the wealth cannot be garnished by those greedy banks. Gold and silver will always account for this greed, and the day is soon coming when Gold and Silver, will again take their mantle as true International money again!

How to End Hunger and Starvation Instantly   ObamaCare and The Supreme Court - Legislating Socialist Ideology From the Bench, Ouch   Feeding a Growing World Population With the Aid of Science   The Top 7 Mistakes Professionals Make While On Paid Employment   Celtic Jewelry and Cultural Influences Create Works of Art   Corruption Destroying India's Progress   

A Nation Is Only 3 Meals Away From Chaos and Instability the Philosopher Once Noted

One famous historian and past period philosopher made a very famous quote, one that I think we should remember, especially after watching the Arab Spring on the international TV stations. He said; "a nation is only three meals away from chaos and instability." You see, when the people can no longer eat, and they have no food, they come out into the streets. At that point there will be hell to pay for the government, King, dictator, or even Republic which promised the people prosperity. Okay so, I'd like to talk to a little bit about this for a moment if I might.

The GOP candidates running for election in 2012 have noted something very disturbing, extremely troubling, as they have noted that there are 45 million people on food stamps. This is not the America I know. And yet, the federal government along with President Obama has explained to us that this is the best government program going. It's so successful because 45 million people are participating in it, can't you see how wonderful it is that it is helping that huge number of people?

Well, that's not the way I see it, I see it as a sign, and a scoreboard of the unbelievable incompetence of the federal government being led by a president who only knows how to vote present. Someone is asleep at the wheel, someone doesn't understand that capitalism works and brings people up, and it is socialism which drives them back down, and socialism has never worked in any nation or country long-term in the history of mankind. Socialism is not progressive. Socialism is regressive because it sets us back to previous periods where things haven't worked out. The Third Reich was a socialist power play, so let's not forget our history books folks.

Now then, let's go back up to the famous quote above. That philosopher noted that when people are hungry they want to riot, and when they are pissed off and hungry they really get mean and angry, and they form mobs of humanity like they did in the Arab Spring. So tell me, does the Obama Administration know something we don't, are they hiding something from us? Is there an impending crisis coming that we don't know about, but they do?

Are they expecting the economy to suddenly fall off a cliff? I would submit to you that they have instituted the wrong policies which will keep us in an adverse economic situation for quite a while, just as the bad policies after the great recession did; and if so I asked; Is this why Obama has 45 million people on Food Stamps? In which case, it is to protect himself and the government from the rebellious and rioting people for their failed policies.

Wow, those are some harsh words aren't they? Sure they are, but I'm the big bad entrepreneur, I'm the person everyone should hate because I worked my ass off to produce things for everyone else? So if I am now the evil one, right back at you folks! Two can play it political rhetoric, and I'm a somewhat prolific writer or someone once said.

How to End Hunger and Starvation Instantly   ObamaCare and The Supreme Court - Legislating Socialist Ideology From the Bench, Ouch   Where Is the World Going To?   Origins - Knowing How and Why   The Deadly Cherry Investigation   The Hidden Tax: Regulations' Impact on Small Businesses and the Hampering of Progress   

Why Socialism Is Unethical

Most people don't understand why socialism is bad. You may think that's crazy, because perhaps you know the difference, but the reality is that socialism sounds pretty good when you're in college, and you get good grades for merely mimicking and repeating what the professors telling you. I find it rather unfortunate that our colleges and universities are subsidized by tax dollars, and yet they are being used for indoctrination and brainwashing into the belief that socialism is better than capitalism. It's not. And let me explain why.

With capitalism if you want more, you have to work for it, and when you work for it you provide labor, or goods and services to the marketplace so someone else can get what they want. With socialism, you demand that you get something, something you didn't work for, and you demand that someone else pays for it. Really, that is stealing, but it doesn't seem like it's stealing because the government is taxing another group of people and taking that money, spending a little bit (theory, in reality they spend a lot) in administration, and giving you the difference.

Because you are one level removed from the situation, it doesn't feel like stealing, but it actually is. Let me put it this way if we raise the taxes on the people next door you by $699 per year, and the government gave you a $699 iPad which the people next door didn't get, then in a way they'd be paying for your iPad because the government stole the money from them to give you something. Do you see that?

Socialism is also unethical because it goes against what we consider to be human rights, and also what we consider to be our rights as Americans, namely; freedom, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If the government controls every aspect of your life as if you were a teenager, just as your parents perhaps tried to do, then you can understand why people call the rise of socialism; a nanny state. Governments like socialism because it's easier to control the people.

But there are two other items I'd like you to consider when it comes to socialism, as it;

Destroys the Individual for the Whole Curbs Innovation Except Where the Organism Takes It

Why don't you think about those two items, and consider what I've said previously in this article, and I think it will be readily apparent how true it really is that socialism is unethical. If you don't believe it, look around at what's happening, and consider where we are going with all this. Not only is it un-American, it's not right for our future, and the United States of America need not become another Greek tragedy. Indeed I hope you will please consider all this and think on it.

How to End Hunger and Starvation Instantly   ObamaCare and The Supreme Court - Legislating Socialist Ideology From the Bench, Ouch   Marriage Is Man and Woman   Are Republicans Bad?   African Doctors As Founding Presidents   Why Should Those Who Pay No Taxes Be Allowed to Vote?   

How To Prevent America's Future Economic Meltdown

After 12 years of loose credit, the bubble had finally burst on the housing market and now it was time to fix what was damaged and that was the American economy. President Obama's first move was to bail out Wall street which was an idea that began with his former predecessor, George W. Bush. Next, President Obama decided to create a stimulus package known as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, estimated to be around 787 billion dollars which was later increased to 840 billion dollars in order to be more inline with what the President wanted to spend for 2012.

The stimulus package covered a wide range of spending such as giving perks to first time home owners, tax breaks, infrastructure like roads and schools, Medicaid provisions, urban development, energy expenses, heath information technology, assistance for insurance, assistance for people out of work, and even things like broadband connections for the internet!

There were many promises being made on how quick taxpayer money (the stimulus package) would turn into jobs and save existing jobs thus bailing America out of what was known as the Great Recession. Here is a breakdown on the results of those promises of what stimulus money can do according to the government's own stats.

In California, 34.6 billion dollars was awarded, 22 billion given out so far resulting in 20,038 job gains. In Washington, 8.4 billion was awarded, 6.3 billion has been given out so far resulting in 5,258 job gains. In New York, 17 billion dollars was awarded, 12.7 has been given out so far resulting in 10.620 job gains. In Texas, 16.6 billion dollars was awarded, 13.3 billion given out so far resulting in 11,800 job gains. In Florida, 11 billion dollars was awarded, 8.3 billion has been given out so far resulting in 9,455 job gains. In Illinois, 11.9 billion dollars has been awarded, 7.8 billion has been given out so far resulting in 4,856 jobs.

A year later since the stimulus package had been passed in 2010, the Federal Reserve was disappointed with the economic recovery describing it as "disappointingly slow." So the Federal Reserve decided to manufacture 600 billion dollars out of thin air for the purpose of inserting into the financial system in order to keep interest rates low and making it easier for businesses to loan money.

One of the more controversial moves trying to restore the economy but was more of an opportunity than fixing the economy was health-care reform or currently known as Obamacare. It was promised by changing the government-run system of health-care, taxpayers would be saving money while expanding coverage. When the health-care reform law was first enacted, the mayo clinic who lost $840 million in 2009, treating Medicare patients decided not to admit anymore unless medicare patients pay cash, thus the new reform for health-care denies seniors the best medical care in the world for cancer.

And that only scratches the surface, there are other things like 12 million seniors who have relied on Medicare Advantage, which allows them to seek free market heath care without aggravating gaps in coverage. But according to the new law set-up by President Obama which was a political move, not until after the presidential election with the help of another law to obtain an additional 8.3 billion dollars to keep the program going. Then cuts in Medicare Advantage reimbursements would be implemented. As a result, 12 million seniors will eventually be pushed back into the government-run program.

The Trustees of the Medicare program recently released their report and in there they estimate that Employer retiree drug plans will fall from 6.8 million in 2010 to a mere 800,000 by 2016 because of the massive amount of new taxes employers will have to pay with the new health-care law!

What does this all mean? On its current course of spending, the United States is on path to go bankrupt! When former President George Bush left office, the annual the annual deficit was 400 billion dollars a year, but during President Obama's tenure spending has increased to 1.3 trillion a year.

Entitlements like social security, and medicare are predicted to go broke sooner than expected. The Baby boomers who helped drive the economy to new highs back in the 90's will be retiring in mass droves in the future leaving less workers to pay taxes while a lot more seniors will be collecting from the system while living longer due to advancements in medicine! Tax revenue remains low while the economy struggles to recover. The United States credit rating continues to get downgraded. On April 6, 2012, the 4th largest credit agency (Egan-Jones) downgraded the United States credit from AA+ to AA. because of growing concern over the public debt.

Countries who have been in this position usually do the following, they either raise as much taxes as they can, or they get bailout money from other countries, or both or as a last resort, the government starts printing extra currency to pay the bills. A small country like Greece was bailed out not once but twice. The second time, foreign countries demanded that Greece reduce its spending or otherwise it wouldn't get the money. So things like government jobs was cut. Huge protests by the people of Greece resulted.

Unlike Greece however, the United States has a much bigger problem with its financial situation. First of all, there is not enough foreign money to go around that would bail out the debt of the United States! Which would leave the country with two options, raise taxes to astounding new highs, cut programs very deep or print more money to make up the difference. By printing more money on a massive scale to help pay the bills would in turn create hyper-inflation because the dollar would devalue so low, the prices of goods and services would dramatically go up, changing the standard of living for everyone. This is a lot worst than a recession or a depression. It wouldn't be the first time that a country had gone through hyper-inflation. Other countries like Mexico, Russia and Argentina have gone through similar situations.

So how can we prevent such a major meltdown in the economy that would affect people lives so dramatically? The answer is simple, the free market! Let's begin with one of the most important government programs which is medicare that contributes heavily to the deficit with its out of control spending. Here are some of the solutions proposed and implemented to a certain degree so far...

Under the Obamacare plan which has been passed but not fully implemented yet, a panel of 15 people would decide how much money the government would pay for various health-care services and which services would be covered and which services would not be covered. If the panel decides to pay less for services than non-medicare patients, they would see higher costs to make up the difference or like the mayo clinic, medicare patients would be no longer accepted.

The Paul Ryan plan is another solution to the problem, this plan would create competition with more consumer involvement in the cost of health-care for those under the age of 55 using competitive bidding which could create reductions in Medicare spending without implementing hard spending caps.

Here is what it says...

"The second-least expensive approved plan or fee-for-service Medicare, whichever is least expensive, would establish the benchmark that determines the premium-support amount for the plan chosen by the senior. If a senior chose a costlier plan than the benchmark plan, he or she would be responsible for paying the difference between the premium subsidy and the monthly premium."

"Conversely, if that senior chose a plan that cost less than the benchmark, he or she would be given a rebate for the difference. Payments to plans would be risk-adjusted and geographically rated. Private health plans would be required to cover at least the actuarial equivalent of the benefit package provided by fee-for-service Medicare."

It has estimated that medicare spending would be reduced by 2.5 trillion dollars while eliminating Obamacare's tax hikes. The plan is going in the right direction, but it doesn't solve the overall problem with the costs of health-care because people do not see spending their own money rather it's the insurance company's money. Obtaining a reduction in health-care services that will provide the highest service at the lowest possible cost relies on you, the consumer rather than just the insurance companies!

Here is how a consumer driven plan works and this goes for both medicare or private insurances. You need an MRI, various hospitals in your area charge anywhere from 2,000 to 3,000 dollars. The MRI specialists charge 600 dollars and you decide to choose that one instead of the hospital. Your plan consists of a deducible. This deducible will be reduced on what you have to pay because of the better choice you made. You save money and also the insurer saves money in this case the taxpayers. A mandated deductible is limited in scope on what it can reduce in terms of medical costs because once the deductible is met there is no incentive to save anymore money for future health-care treatments.

With a consumer driven plan, you can add all kinds of incentives which creates competition in the health-care industry! Another example would be, if you need heart surgery and one hospital charges say, 80,000 dollars and another 43,000 dollars. You choose the hospital charging 43,000 dollars, your deduction is eliminated and no co-pays for drugs or doctors up to three months during rehab. Now the dollar figures may vary in your area, but are you getting the idea on a consumer driven plan rather than just choosing an insurance plan? A consumer driven plan is the solution for bringing down the high costs of health care while maintaining world-class service!

Now on to bringing the United States out of a great recession. As mentioned earlier in this article, President Obama decided to use the stimulus package consisting of taxpayers money to create jobs and also maintain existing ones. Stats from the government have been provided and we can see that the policy is not working like it was promised. The states mentioned are from the west coast to the east coast. The sampling consists of six states that have been awarded money and how much was given so far. The total amount given for all six states is 70.4 billion dollars. The total jobs created for all six states is 62,027. A very low result considering how much money was spent. So the stimulus plan is nothing to brag about, it hasn't turned the economy around nor created many jobs like advertised.

Here is how it can be turned around without using stimulus money. Take Apple for example. They recently announced that their total earnings for the first quarter of this year (2012) which was a staggering $39.2 billion! It blew expectations away! How much stimulus money was used to turn this business into a record sharing profit? You guessed it, none! Apple has become the most valuable business in America and despite the sluggish economy, their business is booming without the help of any stimulus money! So that is the key here, the free market will eventually turn the economy around. And once the economy turns around, tax revenue goes up as well which also helps pays for the programs and national debt down the road.

And one last thing that wasn't previously mentioned but does play a role in deficit spending and that is the post office that has lost billions of dollars. The government hasn't allowed the post office to act like a business thus it has become a liability rather than an asset. One way to fix the post office is to limit delivery for resident mail to 3 days a week and business mail 3 days a week and spread those days out over a course of six days. If a business requires more deliveries than those provided 3 days, they would have to pay a user fee. If mail has to be delivered on a certain day that is not part of the 3 day rotation for residents then they have to pay a user fee.

So there you have it, a simple but effective way to prevent the American economy from going through a major economic meltdown that would affect the standard of living as we know it!

How to End Hunger and Starvation Instantly   ObamaCare and The Supreme Court - Legislating Socialist Ideology From the Bench, Ouch   If You Want to See Poor People, Check Into a 5 Star Hotel in Dubai   Cable TV Without The Commercials - We Wish   Cancer to Rise Due to Affluence - Another Socialist Research Ploy Indeed   

Will Birds Evolve to Deal With Wind Turbine Blades - Adapt or Die, Nature Versus Environmentalism

I've stated before that the problem with wind turbines and birds is that birds have not yet evolved to handle spinning wind turbine blades. Sure they can dodge tree branches spinning in the wind, but those tree branches don't typically spin around in a circle to come back and bat them out of the sky, rather they swing back and forth like a pendulum. In that case the birds could easily dodge those blades. So, do we redesign the wind turbines or wait for subsequent generations of migratory birds to evolve to easily dodge these turbine blades.

Okay so, maybe we might address this issue as there is a new study which is quite intriguing that might shed some light on how these birds may someday evolve to deal with spinning blades. There was an interesting article in Science Daily on March 21, 2012 titled; " Seeing Movement: Why the World in Our Head Stays Still When We Move Our Eyes," which stated;

"When observing a fly buzzing around the room, we should have the impression that it is not the fly, but rather the space that lies behind it that is moving. After all, the fly is always fixed in our central point of view. But how does the brain convey the impression of a fly in motion in a motionless field?" and "The two areas of the brain that are particularly good at reacting to external movements, even during eye movements, are known as V3A and V6. They are located in the upper half in the posterior part of the brain."

Now then, this is how the human brain does it, and since the birds can't dodge the spinning wind turbine systems, obviously their brains are wired similarly, albeit simpler. Interestingly enough, one challenge I'd put out to those designing optical flow sensors for MAVs or micro-air vehicles was to have them work in reverse. Rather than the object or small RC sized aircraft moving as per the sensor reading as is how most optical flow sensors work (See: Centeye - Geoffrey Barrows work), we merely have it work backwards as if the world is moving and the aircraft is stationary.

Apparently, birds of prey fall victim to these wind turbine blades, why? Because their brains are so similarly wired, were as perhaps some of the other species of birds are not. See that point. If brain-damaged birds without those areas of their brains full-developed are living in the regions near wind turbines, then chances are they will be able to negotiate the spinning blades, or they will need to have a slight change to do both types of viewing, switching back and forth between different parts of their brains.

Humans can do this sometimes, often when impaired, or under extreme focus, perhaps you've had that slow motion effect during extreme sporting events with adrenal glands pumping and a heightened state of awareness? It will be interesting to see if the birds can adapt as humans negate their importance in the environment and continue to put up more wind farms, if not they will die. Such is nature, adapt and evolve or die - it's always been a contest nature versus the environment. Please consider all this and think on it.

How to End Hunger and Starvation Instantly   ObamaCare and The Supreme Court - Legislating Socialist Ideology From the Bench, Ouch   Feeding a Growing World Population With the Aid of Science   The Top 7 Mistakes Professionals Make While On Paid Employment   Celtic Jewelry and Cultural Influences Create Works of Art   Corruption Destroying India's Progress   

Twitter Facebook Flickr RSS



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