~ Where the Sun Will Never Set on Our liberty ~
While numerous articles have been floating through my mind, and compulsion to write them fought for reasons I can't explain, I come before you with the following summaries for sake of their point not being lost:
Lufthansa, the Epitome of Altruism & why it is wrong
Many say airlines just don't care about their passengers, passing this off as the cause of the crash. Who can blame them? Socialists constantly saying every advancement of mankind is done by people who don't care about mankind, be it the farming equipment that replaced slavery, to the pesticides that kill an endangered bug as collateral damage for saving crops for food, or to be artificially raising commodity prices to use for making ethanol and pursue other alternative energy ideas. Of course it is that evil corporation that owns the plane, it is their fault...Not! The reality is that as our society has moved away from appreciation of Freedom, ambition, and the curiosity that leads to invention, producing something new that makes the old obsolete (i.e. like farm equipment made the slave obsolete). We've decided to blame anyone with more than us, that we perceive to have some privilege gained by their success – earned or inherited, “they're wrong because they have more than I do”...Perfect Communists!
This is what Lufthansa, and every other business is fighting, and led to the birth of AI...er (sorry Matrix Morpheus moment)...PR (Public Relations). Why was a 28-year old man, who the airline knew had “a previous episode of severe depression” ever allowed into the flight training program? Andreas Lubitz, the co-pilot who died crashing the plane into the French Alps, would have been a PR nightmare if rejected, and was going to be a great PR success if he had become a pilot. You see, the company is trying to separate itself from the rest of the airlines, as the rest of the airlines are too, and Lufthansa's approach is to take anyone who wants to be a pilot and teach them to be one, to show their willingness to sacrifice standards for sake of community, in hopes fewer people will say, “Lufthansa doesn't care.”
Well the result is 150 people were sacrificed, on the Altar of Altruism, to the great unicorn of public opinion.
Deny it: Airline is paid, takes your ticket, gets you on a plane, you arrive = Airline caring. You can't. This is their business, and to say that the airline doesn't care, without 50% or more of their planes falling out of the sky, and their passengers not making it to their destination, is to say the airline is supposed to do something else, something in addition to being an airline. Flight A320 shows that this is a dangerous proposition that cost the lives of 146 innocent people. Altruistic Anti-Capitalist Terrorism is to blame for the deaths of these people. Andreas Lubitz never should have been in that cockpit, even as a co-pilot. Anyone who thinks otherwise had better make sure the corporate charter for the airline and its tax ID number accurately depicts the variety of social consciousness programs the airline is taking on, and that they also are willing to admit that these extraneous concerns, can and will affect the airline's performance of its duty, to fly you from point A to point B without incident.
For me, Lufthansa represents the death of Altruism. But, I am sure another extremist who believes in sacrifice will prove me wrong, be it ISIS, Al Qaida, or Iran with a nuke.
Hillary Clinton's Paperless Office
Having been a small business owner at the beginning of the computer revolution, when Supercalc and Visicalc were coming out, precursors to Lotus 1-2-3 and Microsoft Office, the vision of the paperless office was being discussed amongst the coding and developer community. The great possibilities and potentials were, of course, recognized, and as they sunk in and lost their newness shimmer, the fears and real potentials were considered: “They can erase history. They can set-up an archive and then just change it to say something else.” Thus and so, Hillary Clinton has carried herself, electronically. She has erased history to meet her liking, she has decided that she is the most objective reviewer of her information as to what pertains to government activity and what doesn't. All the while receiving billions of dollars in a tax-exempt foundation, a not so amazing “rags to riches” in trust story. Her control over her server, a specious means to control the information and assume the information belongs to her as well... I believe it's time we used this with Microsoft, to explain why we're exempt from their End User License Agreement, don't you?
We volunteer to buy the product, yet are stuck with the End User License Agreement explaining we own nothing, that we are being licensed the product and Microsoft can prosecute us for wrongdoing in the use of their software.
Compare: Hillary Clinton accepted (thereby volunteering) to be in an office of trust as Secretary of State and was fully apprised that all information obtained in that capacity is subject to the law governing government property and disclosure, and that the government can prosecute her for wrongdoing in disclosure, omission, and erasure of information in her possession or control as Secretary of State.
Compare further: I am a small business owner. I agree with the Tea Party and volunteer to set up a non-profit organization to receive donations so I can help those who are like-minded win the next election. At signing my IRS application it explains I am subject to the penalties (civil and criminal) of perjury if I made any misstatements. I make no misstatements, am not prosecuted, but the IRS wants records from me, audits my unrelated personal business, wants lists of members of my Tea Party group, and after years of providing this information, continues to stonewall and fail to issue or reject my application to be a political non-profit organization.
Note in this last example, that if I deleted any records, claiming, “those are personal,” I'd be prosecuted for obstruction of justice, and, if what was deleted had anything to do with money, tax evasion.
Yes, special rules apply for the Clintons, rules that admit that Progressivism is about subjective tyrannical fairness for and by those who will tow the Progressive Party line. Any other American, when asked by the government to “produce your books and records” would be, at minimum, fined per record for each record deleted, and could be jailed by an IRS agent who wants to make an example out of them. But no one wants to make an example of Hillary Clinton, of what happens when corruption is treated properly. Make no mistake, denial of access to records that belong to the office, as we paid her salary in that office, is corruption.
Obama's snubbing of the Gay Community
While President Obama said things like, “the election is over, I won” in answer to his previous opponent, a sitting Senator, who was asking him a question in that capacity, let us remember the gay community votes Democrat and Liberal. So I ask, where are you now gay community, are you ecstatic that Barack Obama, who you voted for for 2 terms, negotiated a treaty with Iran, which didn't in any way whatsoever address that Iran hangs gays by the neck just for being gay? Please, let it sink in if that was too heavy, that you, gay community, voted in a President who only wanted your vote but didn't actually care enough about you to do anything about gays being killed in Iran as part of a treaty deal, not even a mention!
As a Christian I don't agree with your lifestyle, but it is your choice, not mine to make. I wouldn't want you stoned and killed for your choice, for that's another imposing force upon you that is not their right. And I just as well do not want you trying to force me, through law or otherwise, to do something I can't do in good conscience. I'd think this is a mutually respectable and able to be appreciated position. Explain, oh gay community, how Barack Obama and the Democrats celebrating a treaty with Iran that didn't even make the slightest effort to end the hanging of gays for being gay is showing you even a modicum of respect.
“You’re attacking Obama because he's black!”
I'll make this quick: Anyone who says that about you when criticizing Obama's policies, is admitting in the reverse, “I am defending Obama because he's black” and thereby, they, not you, they are the racist! If race is the reason to defend, it is just as racist as it would be if it were a reason to attack, and for anyone to jump to that conclusion about criticisms of Barack Obama is to jump to a conclusion of convenience for the over-hyped weight of the racist charge. A black man whose middle name is “Hussein” was elected President of the United States twice. Bury your notions of racism, especially any institutional or educated idea of it, for they do not exist EXCEPT in the reverse. And that will only keep racism alive, to never end. If you want racism to end, be objective in reply, don't accuse me or anyone else criticizing Obama of attacking him for his skin color, to also admit that's the only reason you're defending him, and instead address the policy criticism raised.
That's how we end racism, through objectivity, through reason and not maligning people by innuendo and baseless claims for sake of repeating them enough so a group will believe it. Winning elections, as has been proven by all that's fallen apart around the world in the last 6 years, is not the point to electing our representatives in government, but, instead, to achieve the maximum Freedom and Individual Liberty possible so all can prosper.
God Bless you and thank you for reading and sharing this,
So happy to see you back from your Hiatus, Toddy! Outstanding, all of it! Tweeting this out!
Hillary Clinton's Paperless Office
“…she has decided that she is the most objective …”
Well said. It must be this way for those who have no humility; no allegiance to a higher authority; or no belief in God.
Whenever reason will win the day, they use race: "Hands up don't shoot" never happened, but it emphasized a race issue, that the officer had been punched, michael brown tried to take his gun, is ignored, because, by reason, he would be in fear for his life then yes?
This is why that cop who wrongfully shot a black teen, saying "I was in fear for my life he took my tazer" is busted, lodging 5 bullets 8 in the back of a running away black man after a stop for a fix it ticket. That cop is a disgrace for even trying to claim what Officer Wilson claimed in the Michael Brown shooting. By all appearances this recent shooting was race motivated, though it could be just a disgruntled liberal cop trying to marginalize the validity of cops who will have similar circumstances to Officer Wilson. The divisiveness of the whole police shooting people who are a different color than the cop is in play because some clown wants to win an argument by talking about race, while pretending they aren't a racist for bringing it up. So thank you and I am glad this helps :)