Pages

Thursday, January 31, 2013

band of brothers

BAND OF BROTHERS

 



LIFE IS A GAME OF CONNECT THE DOTS, IF YOU DON'T CONNECT ALL THE DOTS OR DON'T CONNECT THEM IN THE RIGHT ORDER YOU NEVER GET THE PICTURE

A POINT TO PONDER

01/31/2013

 A POINT TO PONDER


The secret of life won't be cooked up in a chemistry lab

Life's origins may only be explained through a study of its unique management of information



sperm samples liquid nitrogen
Even the simplest bacterium is incomparably more complicated than any
chemical brew ever studied. Photograph: Mads Nissen/ Panos Pictures
The origin of life is one of the great outstanding mysteries of science.
How did a non-living mixture of molecules transform themselves into a
living organism? What sort of mechanism might be responsible?
A century and a half ago, Charles Darwin produced a convincing explanation
for how life on Earth evolved from simple microbes to the complexity of the
biosphere today, but he pointedly left out how life got started in the first place.
 "One might as well speculate about the origin of matter," he quipped.
But that did not stop generations of scientists from investigating the puzzle.
The problem is, whatever took place happened billions of years ago, and all
 traces long ago vanished – indeed, we may never have a blow-by-blow
account of the process. Nevertheless we may still be able to answer the
 simpler question of whether life's origin was a freak series of events that
happened only once, or an almost inevitable outcome of intrinsically
 life-friendly laws. On that answer hinges the question of whether we are
alone in the universe, or whether our galaxy and others are teeming with life.
Most research into life's murky origin has been carried out by chemists.
They've tried a variety of approaches in their attempts to recreate the
first steps on the road to life, but little progress has been made. Perhaps that
 is no surprise, given life's stupendous complexity. Even the simplest bacterium
 is incomparably more complicated than any chemical brew ever studied.
But a more fundamental obstacle stands in the way of attempts to cook up
life in the chemistry lab. The language of chemistry simply does not mesh
 with that of biology. Chemistry is about substances and how they react,
 whereas biology appeals to concepts such as information and organisation.
 Informational narratives permeate biology. DNA is described as a genetic
 "database", containing "instructions" on how to build an organism. The genetic
 "code" has to be "transcribed" and "translated" before it can act. And so on.
 If we cast the problem of life's origin in computer jargon, attempts at chemical
synthesis focus exclusively on the hardware – the chemical substrate of life
– but ignore the software – the informational aspect. To explain how life began
 we need to understand how its unique management of information came about.
In the 1940s, the mathematician John von Neumann compared life to a
 mechanical constructor, and set out the logical structure required for a
 self-reproducing automaton to replicate both its hardware and software.
But Von Neumann's analysis remained a theoretical curiosity. Now a new
 perspective has emerged from the work of engineers, mathematicians and
 computer scientists, studying the way in which information flows through
 complex systems such as communication networks with feedback loops, logic
 modules and control processes. What is clear from their work is that the dynamics
of information flow displays generic features that are independent of the specific
 hardware supporting the information.
Information theory has been extensively applied to biological systems at many
levels from genomes to ecosystems, but rarely to the problem of how life actually
 began. Doing so opens up an entirely new perspective on the problem. Rather than
 the answer being buried in some baffling chemical transformation, the key to life's
origin lies instead with a transformation in the organisation of information flow.
Sara Walker, a Nasa astrobiologist working at Arizona State University, and I
 have proposed that the significant property of biological information is not its
 complexity, great though that may be, but the way it is organised hierarchically.
In all physical systems there is a flow of information from the bottom upwards,
 in the sense that the components of a system serve to determine how the system
 as a whole behaves. Thus if a meteorologist wants to predict the weather, he may
start with local information, such as temperature and air pressure, taken at various
locations, and calculate how the weather system as a whole will move and change.
In living organisms, this pattern of bottom-up information flow mingles with the inverse
- top-down information flow – so that what happens at the local level can depend
 on the global environment, as well as vice versa.
To take a simple example; whether a cell expresses a gene can depend on
mechanical stresses or electric fields acting on the whole cell by its environment.
 Thus, a change in global information (a pattern of force) at the macroscopic level
 translates into a change in local information movement at the microscopic level
 (switching on a gene). More generally, a range of signals received from its environment
help to dictate how a cell's DNA is distributed and transcribed. Walker and I propose
 that the key transition on the road to life occurred when top-down information flow first predominated. Based on simple mathematical models, we think it may have happened
 suddenly, analogously to a heated gas abruptly bursting into flame.
There is a second distinctive way in which life handles information processing. The
 language of genes is digital, consisting of discrete bits, cast in the language of a
 four-letter alphabet. By contrast, chemical processes are continuous. Continuous variables
can also process information – so-called analogue computers work that way – but less reliably than digital. Whatever chemical system spawned life, it had to feature a transition from analogue to digital.
The way life manages information involves a logical structure that differs fundamentally
 from mere complex chemistry. Therefore chemistry alone will not explain life's origin,
any more than a study of silicon, copper and plastic will explain how a computer can
execute a program. Our work suggests that the answer will come from taking
 information seriously as a physical agency, with its own dynamics and causal
 relationships existing alongside those of the matter that embodies it – and that
 life's origin can ultimately be explained by importing the language and concepts
of biology into physics and chemistry, rather than the other way round.




LIFE IS A GAME OF CONNECT THE DOTS, IF YOU DON'T CONNECT ALL THE DOTS OR DON'T CONNECT THEM IN THE RIGHT ORDER YOU NEVER GET THE PICTURE

Monday, January 28, 2013

MURDER DEFINED

01/28-2013
MURDER DEFINED

So far no one has come close to a solid and consistent definition of murder, we are not lacking in ideas, we just can't put a finger on it.  It is all about circumstances and customs,  it is about the outcome but the intentions, results, however, being the same. 

Let us then take a look at a few more examples and see what we can learn further.
The siege of Stalingrad caused numerous deaths, so did the people being placed in concentration camps.  Either situation caused many to die of  starvation and disease,  not from being gassed, shot or being bombed ( which some will consider military action), are these deaths murder? There is a reason why I ask this question,  I am still working on finding the answer ti what is murder and if abortion may be defined as murder also.

I admit, actually I have already proposed that defining murder is not an easy task, In my discussion the replies always come back either confused or  at least not so helpful at all, here are some examples


Gabriel , Murder, by definition, is the unlawful, intentional killing of a human being.. Death by starvation or infection due to war isn't classified as murder -- no more than a movie director who's horror movie caused someone to die of a heart attack.


Gabriel No, starvation and diseases caused by concentration camps are considered murder, but a town suffering because of war isn’t considered as murder. The former is intentional while the later is not.
hmmmm!
 Quirino murder is intentional killing with malice
 Graham Murder is the taking of a life outside of the rules under which you operate at the time. Quirino is correct for civil law. Military law has it's own definitions.
So a murder is only murder if committed by civilians,  if the military commits a murder then is it is not murder?

But it gets even more confusing if we throw in a few more variables, say, A women is terminally ill, severely injured, she is brain dead, and on life support,  her husband is called in by the doctors and told there is no hope of a recovery, he tells the doctors to pull the proverbial plug, did he commit murder? Alternately, he just goes to her bedside and either pulls the plug himself or just takes a pillow and smothers her till she expire, has a murder then been committed? 

Secondly. we were not at war with Iraq and had no siege, yet we placed a trade embargo against Iraq, it got more and more stringent,  ( As it is being done against North Korea these days you know,) , it is said that the embargo caused many to suffer and some to even died in Iraq due to our action, is anyone responsible for these deaths? Any murder here?

Thirdly, there is something called honor killing in Islamic countries, in the West, however, we do not have honor killing, yet in some states if a spouse comes home and finds the other  in a sexual tryst, say the said spouse takes a knife and kills the two, there is no murder, yet if a spouse comes home and tells the other of having an affair and thus is killed by the jilted spouse a murder is committed, how are the two different?



LIFE IS A GAME OF CONNECT THE DOTS, IF YOU DON'T CONNECT ALL THE DOTS OR DON'T CONNECT THEM IN THE RIGHT ORDER YOU NEVER GET THE PICTURE

Sunday, January 27, 2013

IS ABORTION MURDER?

01/27/2013

 IS ABORTION MURDER?


(2)
Is abortion murder?

  • Mohammed N. Razavi I think the humanity has yet to define murder,( at least for me). Is war murder? Is death penalty murder? Who do we murder and for what reason?
    Some texts define male masturbation as murder of the sperm, millions of them, each time, but yet even if a guy has sex and it only takes one sperm cell to impregnate the egg, millions still will end up dead. ( Is eating cum cannibalism? That is for anti abortion people). If a female is unmarried, she is still passing an ovum each month, is that murder? How about having sex with a pregnant female? The sperm is still destroyed.
    When does the life begin? If it is at the moment when the sperm enters the ovum, then most life is destroyed by nature it self.
    Recently the abortion debate has taken more of religious tone, most of the religious want to impose their own brand of morality on the rest, it has nothing to do with freedom and choice, it is blatant religious oppression where common sense and human rights take a back seat.
    Why do we so phoo phoo the Islamist morons yet we wish to pose our own kind of sharia on others. It is not about rights of the unborn, you kill babies when you have oral sex. if a fetus would not be viable outside the womb, it is not human being yet.

    Define Murder!
    The idea of a constant thinker, an observer of life, is not to answer your questions but to provoke you in to thinking, to look at things differently than you are used to.
    To say that you are thinking is not to mean thinking just to reaffirm your own thoughts and convictions, but to look at life differently, to try and understand and to try to make sense of what and why someone else will say what they say.
    I do not go out on the limb, I don't need to, I live here. So when I say we have yet to define murder I am not out on the limb, for me murder is YET to be defined.
    If murder is the killing of a person then it should be so, but it is not. Think, a person is dead as a result of another person causing that death, is that a murder? You know and you have agreed that it is not always. We have justifiable homicide, negligent homicide, even lawful killings. Is murder then defined as a matter of convenience for the norms of society. Much of the murder in the Islamic lands today is not by some criminals but at hands of the rulers and the clerics. Everyday, everywhere we are implored to "think outside the box", we commit ourselves to "think outside the box", yet most of the time we don't even know that we are permanently locked inside our own minds.
    What is a murder? Hitler killed six million Jews, yet if we had had a chance to kill him, how would that had evened it out? We dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki to save lives! And what if princess Di had been murdered so that the step father of the future king of England would not be an Arab and a Muslim to boot? The Pharaohs declared the were the givers of life and death, they were gods to be worshiped, in our own recent history kings and even presidents and prime ministers, of the "free world" have ordered killings of many without ever being called murderer by anyone. Obama himself has ordered murders of American civilians and their kids without trial and conviction, is Obama a murderer?
    Sadly most that are against abortion and consider it murder are one with Obama on this, while those that are for abortion are against these killings, define murder!



LIFE IS A GAME OF CONNECT THE DOTS, IF YOU DON'T CONNECT ALL THE DOTS OR DON'T CONNECT THEM IN THE RIGHT ORDER YOU NEVER GET THE PICTURE

Wednesday, January 23, 2013

FACTS OF LIFE

01/23/2013

 FACTS OF LIFE


 
If all carnivores became vegetarians, no plants will be left. Some animals must be eaten by humans, or you can teach lions to eat grass too. 

"With the populace so badly divided and constantly at loggerheads, the government had no other choice but to declare the Martial Law" 

Everything that is NOT your (government) theory, is a "Conspiracy Theory".

All philosophies are really just an illusion that you are on to something, when you really are not. 

"Happily ever after", begins right after you let the reality knock some sense into you. (M.N.R.)

 
"loneliness is just a place in your mind". 

Don't worry about the petty squabbles among the politicians, it is like they are all like the prostitutes working for the same pimp. 

You too can be a financial genius, political commentator, a philosopher or a psychoanalyst,find a computer keyboard and start typing. Easy! 

What is a successful suicide?

LIFE IS A GAME OF CONNECT THE DOTS, IF YOU DON'T CONNECT ALL THE DOTS OR DON'T CONNECT THEM IN THE RIGHT ORDER YOU NEVER GET THE PICTURE

Woodrow Guthrie shared Fractal Multiverse's photo.

01/23/2013



Your thoughts on this? Do you agree?
(2)
Give me one good reason why alcohol should be legal and "illicit" drugs shouldn't be.

1. Illegal drugs are deadly.

Legal drugs kill more people than all illegal drugs combined. And when I say "legal drugs", I mean alcohol, tobacco, and prescription drugs.

"In the United States, smoking is responsible for about one in five deaths annually (i.e., about 443,000 deaths per year, and an estimated 49,000 of these smoking-related deaths are the result of secondhand smoke exposure)."
http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/fast_facts/


In 2009, alcohol use killed 24,518 people, and FDA-approved drugs killed 63,846 people. "We estimate that illicit drug use resulted in approximately 17,000 deaths in 2000, we included deaths caused indirectly by illicit drug use in this category."
http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/Causes_of_Death


2. Illegal drugs make people crazy.

Alcohol makes people crazy. "Alcohol induced psychotic disorder is characterized by prominent hallucinations or delusions that are judged to be due specifically to the effects of alcohol."
http://www.psychtreatment.com/alcohol_related_psychotic_disorders.htm


3. Illegal drugs turn people into criminals.

"According to the Department of Justice (DOJ), 37% of almost 2 million convicted offenders currently in jail, report that they were drinking at the time of their arrest."
http://www.ncadd.org/index.php/for-youth/drugs-and-crime/230-alcohol-drugs-and-crime


Drug prohibition distracts law enforcement from actual crimes. "In 2011, arrests for marijuana exceeded arrests for violent crime by more than 100,000, according to a report from the FBI."
http://www.nationalmemo.com/marijuana-arrests-now-exceed-arrests-for-violent-crime/


-John-

Image: http://beaudeeley.deviantart.com/art/Omnia-Est-Intra-300358689



 
Mike,  In my Catholic high school's library we had a copy of the Consumer's Union Report - Licit and Illicit Drugs. They recommended decriminalization across the board as the only sensible strategy to reduce the harms associated with drug abuse. This was back..1986 and I've never believed differently since reading it. Apparently the whole thing is available online now (originally published in 1972):

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/library/studies/cu/cumenu.htm



LIFE IS A GAME OF CONNECT THE DOTS, IF YOU DON'T CONNECT ALL THE DOTS OR DON'T CONNECT THEM IN THE RIGHT ORDER YOU NEVER GET THE PICTURE

Monday, January 21, 2013

STRANGER THAN FICTION?

01/21/2013

 STRANGER THAN FICTION?

 Photo: The father of Adam Lanza is Peter Lanza, a VP and Tax Director at GE Financial, one of the many corporations owned and controlled by the international central banks, and was also a partner at Ernst & Young. ¹ The father of James Holmes is Robert Holmes, and, at the time of the shooting, the lead fraud scientist for the credit score company FICO. ²

FICO works with all major banks and is connected to the function of London Inter-Bank Offered Rate, or LIBOR, by way of the nature of their dealings in the industry. I have read the claim, in both cases, that these men were actually slated to testify in the LIBOR hearings before the U.S. Congress, but I have not been able to find anything substantial or conclusive to prove that. Both men, however, it has been evidenced, were quite knowledgeable on the LIBOR interest rate fixing scandal, with at least the potentiality to be subpoenaed for testimony in hearings regarding the fraudulent scheme.

16 international central banks have been implicated in this ongoing scandal, accused of rigging contracts worth trillions of dollars. This is assuredly the largest financial fraud scheme within our collective lifetimes, and I would venture to say, in the history of the world.

If you think that the international banking mafia/cartel is not capable of murder, and it all sounds too impossible to believe that these incidents are more than coincidences, consider the case of Kevin Krim. Kevin was a CNBC executive responsible for publishing news of a $43 trillion lawsuit that implicated "top government officials in the Obama White House along with several major US banks, bankers involved in the wrongdoing, and their profiteering cronies." ³

His family ended up murdered the day after with the mild-mannered, highly-praised nanny being blamed for the murders. If all of these situations sound more like coincidences rather than conspiracies to you, then it seems to me that you don't know exactly how ruthless these crooks are. Suffice it to say, that to compare them to the mafia in terms of murderous ruthlessness could best be paralleled by respectively comparing the New York Yankees to a Little League team.

They literally persuade governments to start wars, so that they can finance both sides, and no matter who wins or loses, they are always winners, because they will always be receiving their interest payments at the end of any given conflict. You need look no further than to investigate who financed the Nazis to build them up into a power that would be dangerous enough to justify a second world war, which they desperately sought, in order to increase support for the establishment of the UN, with the overall goal being one world government, otherwise known as the New World Order. The Rockefellers, the Morgans, and even Prescott Bush, father of George HW Bush, are all implicated in being party to the international banking cartel, and, at best, indirect financiers of Hitler's Nazi party.

Another factor of consideration is the fact that we have seen the most marked increase in "mass shootings," and incidents billed as "mass shootings," since the time that the UN small arms treaty has been being considered here in the US. Not only have these two incidents shown marked discrepancies between "official" accounts, the Sikh Temple shooting as well had eyewitness accounts of multiple suspects(four shooters with a paramilitary appearance, in this case), with the "official" story claiming that there was only one shooter.

As I understand it, one of the primary containments of the UN's global government grab is the fact that the US' citizenry is too heavily armed to force or coerce into the global government scheme without it becoming, most undoubtedly, the most monumental conflict in human history without a formal declaration of war. Any country, to the best of my knowledge, that has given up their gun rights, has experienced increased oppression and police brutality, as well as increased home invasions and gun related homicides perpetrated by outlaws.

Indeed, there is literally not much of an argument to make in the way of gun control, as most criminologists who were initially in favor of gun control, throughout their research on the subject, and their careers, have largely ended up supporting gun rights. 4 From the article that my annotation just referenced, this information is presented:

[Principal among the facts that [Dr.]Wolfgang [Kleck] was disappointed to learn, is that guns are used for self-defense between 2.1 million and 2.5 million times every year. The following facts from the Kleck/Gertz study, relate directly to this fact:

In the vast majority of those self-defense cases, the citizen will only brandish the gun or fire a warning shot.
In less than 8% of those self-defense cases will the citizen will even wound his attacker.
Over 1.9 million of those self-defense cases involve handguns.
As many as 500,000 of those self-defense cases occur away from home.
Almost 10% of those self-defense cases are women defending themselves against sexual assault or abuse.
This means that guns are used 60 times more often to protect the lives of law-abiding citizens than to take a life.
At an estimated 263 million US population, in 1995, when the study was released, it also means that an average of 1 out of every 105 to 125 people that you know will use a gun for self-defense every year.

Dr. Kleck also wrote in his book titled "Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America (Social Institutions and Social Change)" that burglars are more than three and a half times more likely to enter an occupied home in a gun control country than in the USA. Compare the 45% average rate of Great Britain, Canada and Netherlands with the 12.7% of the USA. He continued to point out that citizens shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals every year as do police (1,527 to 606). In a related article titled, "Are We a Nation of Cowards'?" in the November 15, 1993 issue of Newsweek Magazine, George Will reported that police are more than 5 times more likely than a civilian to shoot an innocent person by mistake.]

In my opinion, these incidents, as well as discrediting and/or intimidating potential witnesses in the LIBOR scandal hearings, are poorly disguised attempts at manipulating the population of the US into a state of fear that will provide popular support for increased restrictions on gun rights, with the eventual goal being gun confiscation. We have certainly seen similar tactics used by our government in the OKC bombing, which was perpetrated to gain support for un-Constitutional "anti-terrorism" legislation being passed by the Clinton Administration. 5

If we allow this to happen, I believe it will not be too long before we find ourselves in a dystopian nightmare of oppression and tyranny imposed by a global communistic government, and we will only have ourselves to blame if we allow this to happen, as we have seen the warning signs before, if only we have been paying attention.

These incidents are aimed at causing fear and reaction, and we should not be afraid, we should be aware, because then false flag attacks will no longer be enticing to our government, and hopefully we can be spared tragedies like this and OKC from ever happening again...

¹ http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/connecticut-shooter-adam-lanza/story?id=17975673#.UM-kh3fheSp
² http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021025002
³ http://www.nowpublic.com/world/children-cnbc-executive-murdered-day-after-lawsuit-announced
4 http://actionamerica.org/guns/guns1.shtml
5 www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.500915613270502.129574.296076410421091&type=3

Supporting video evidence:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGY8j7GJJI0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=me-IQ8iWhTM
(6)

 THIS IS NOT MY STORY, OR MY LINE, I JUST PLACE IT HERE FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION



AND NOW HERE GOES


The father of Adam Lanza is Peter Lanza, a VP and Tax Director at GE Financial, one of the many corporations owned and controlled by the international central banks, and was also a partner at Ernst & Young. ¹ The father of James Holmes is Robert Holmes, and, at the time of the shooting, the lead fraud scientist for the credit score company FICO. ²

FICO works with all major banks and is connected to the function of London Inter-Bank Offered Rate, or LIBOR, by way of the nature of their dealings in the industry. I have read the claim, in both cases, that these men were actually slated to testify in the LIBOR hearings before the U.S. Congress, but I have not been able to find anything substantial or conclusive to prove that. Both men, however, it has been evidenced, were quite knowledgeable on the LIBOR interest rate fixing scandal, with at least the potentiality to be subpoenaed for testimony in hearings regarding the fraudulent scheme.

16 international central banks have been implicated in this ongoing scandal, accused of rigging contracts worth trillions of dollars. This is assuredly the largest financial fraud scheme within our collective lifetimes, and I would venture to say, in the history of the world.

If you think that the international banking mafia/cartel is not capable of murder, and it all sounds too impossible to believe that these incidents are more than coincidences, consider the case of Kevin Krim. Kevin was a CNBC executive responsible for publishing news of a $43 trillion lawsuit that implicated "top government officials in the Obama White House along with several major US banks, bankers involved in the wrongdoing, and their profiteering cronies." ³

His family ended up murdered the day after with the mild-mannered, highly-praised nanny being blamed for the murders. If all of these situations sound more like coincidences rather than conspiracies to you, then it seems to me that you don't know exactly how ruthless these crooks are. Suffice it to say, that to compare them to the mafia in terms of murderous ruthlessness could best be paralleled by respectively comparing the New York Yankees to a Little League team.

They literally persuade governments to start wars, so that they can finance both sides, and no matter who wins or loses, they are always winners, because they will always be receiving their interest payments at the end of any given conflict. You need look no further than to investigate who financed the Nazis to build them up into a power that would be dangerous enough to justify a second world war, which they desperately sought, in order to increase support for the establishment of the UN, with the overall goal being one world government, otherwise known as the New World Order. The Rockefellers, the Morgans, and even Prescott Bush, father of George HW Bush, are all implicated in being party to the international banking cartel, and, at best, indirect financiers of Hitler's Nazi party.

Another factor of consideration is the fact that we have seen the most marked increase in "mass shootings," and incidents billed as "mass shootings," since the time that the UN small arms treaty has been being considered here in the US. Not only have these two incidents shown marked discrepancies between "official" accounts, the Sikh Temple shooting as well had eyewitness accounts of multiple suspects(four shooters with a paramilitary appearance, in this case), with the "official" story claiming that there was only one shooter.

As I understand it, one of the primary containments of the UN's global government grab is the fact that the US' citizenry is too heavily armed to force or coerce into the global government scheme without it becoming, most undoubtedly, the most monumental conflict in human history without a formal declaration of war. Any country, to the best of my knowledge, that has given up their gun rights, has experienced increased oppression and police brutality, as well as increased home invasions and gun related homicides perpetrated by outlaws.

Indeed, there is literally not much of an argument to make in the way of gun control, as most criminologists who were initially in favor of gun control, throughout their research on the subject, and their careers, have largely ended up supporting gun rights. 4 From the article that my annotation just referenced, this information is presented:

[Principal among the facts that [Dr.]Wolfgang [Kleck] was disappointed to learn, is that guns are used for self-defense between 2.1 million and 2.5 million times every year. The following facts from the Kleck/Gertz study, relate directly to this fact:

In the vast majority of those self-defense cases, the citizen will only brandish the gun or fire a warning shot.
In less than 8% of those self-defense cases will the citizen will even wound his attacker.
Over 1.9 million of those self-defense cases involve handguns.
As many as 500,000 of those self-defense cases occur away from home.
Almost 10% of those self-defense cases are women defending themselves against sexual assault or abuse.
This means that guns are used 60 times more often to protect the lives of law-abiding citizens than to take a life.
At an estimated 263 million US population, in 1995, when the study was released, it also means that an average of 1 out of every 105 to 125 people that you know will use a gun for self-defense every year.

Dr. Kleck also wrote in his book titled "Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America (Social Institutions and Social Change)" that burglars are more than three and a half times more likely to enter an occupied home in a gun control country than in the USA. Compare the 45% average rate of Great Britain, Canada and Netherlands with the 12.7% of the USA. He continued to point out that citizens shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals every year as do police (1,527 to 606). In a related article titled, "Are We a Nation of Cowards'?" in the November 15, 1993 issue of Newsweek Magazine, George Will reported that police are more than 5 times more likely than a civilian to shoot an innocent person by mistake.]

In my opinion, these incidents, as well as discrediting and/or intimidating potential witnesses in the LIBOR scandal hearings, are poorly disguised attempts at manipulating the population of the US into a state of fear that will provide popular support for increased restrictions on gun rights, with the eventual goal being gun confiscation. We have certainly seen similar tactics used by our government in the OKC bombing, which was perpetrated to gain support for un-Constitutional "anti-terrorism" legislation being passed by the Clinton Administration. 5

If we allow this to happen, I believe it will not be too long before we find ourselves in a dystopian nightmare of oppression and tyranny imposed by a global communistic government, and we will only have ourselves to blame if we allow this to happen, as we have seen the warning signs before, if only we have been paying attention.

These incidents are aimed at causing fear and reaction, and we should not be afraid, we should be aware, because then false flag attacks will no longer be enticing to our government, and hopefully we can be spared tragedies like this and OKC from ever happening again...

¹ http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/connecticut-shooter-adam-lanza/story?id=17975673#.UM-kh3fheSp


² http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021025002

³ http://www.nowpublic.com/world/children-cnbc-executive-murdered-day-after-lawsuit-announced

4 http://actionamerica.org/guns/guns1.shtml

5 www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.500915613270502.129574.296076410421091&type=3

Supporting video evidence:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGY8j7GJJI0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=me-IQ8iWhTM

(6)



LIFE IS A GAME OF CONNECT THE DOTS, IF YOU DON'T CONNECT ALL THE DOTS OR DON'T CONNECT THEM IN THE RIGHT ORDER YOU NEVER GET THE PICTURE

DOES THE UNIVERSE REALLY EXIST?

01/21/2013

DOES THE UNIVERSE REALLY EXIST?



A questions is asked om the "Woodrow Guthrie" Facebook page,"Does the universe really exist"?
Of course the question is as profound as it is meaningless, as the universe can only exist, and exists to the point that your mind can make sense of it, rest of it is useless. A fish in the ocean has no more awareness of it (far as we know) than say a deer in the woods, and a person in the desert and without education has no more comprehension of it than a high school dropout driving his truck on a freeway cross country it is just something out there, with no relation, meaning, use or purpose, "I see you, but it is as if you do not exist".

Yet we go through life, knowing only what someone told us, and that is all we know, that is how things are, they always just are, that way, that is it. "It is complicated" is not just a relationship status on Facebook, it is life and it's relationships to reality.
Something, a thing only exists if one can find some utility for it. Do we really care that there are over 7 billion people on this earth, does it make any difference to you, how? Can you even comprehend the concept, relate to it, we don't even know or care who lives five doors down, next door. It does not really matter, unless, until, it matters! All the rest is talk, useless, to make feel smart or to make us feel good about our self.
Most of us refuse to believe there are others, just like us, somewhere out there, we refuse to believe there are planets like ours, millions of them, ten of them, may be? To really believe there is a "UNIVERSE" out there we must accept that possibility.
To "understand" that there are 7 billion others on this earth, we must accept that our lives, our futures even our wealth and our freedoms are codependent. Or it does not really matter if the universe does or does not exist.

Of course there never need be a conspiracy per se,  but things do turn out the way do under the so called law of unintended consequences, such is the case with the so called War on Poverty,
when I was writing the article I knew that is how things were going, the poor had become a useful goat in the government plan, helping the poor had become a necessity not because it was a good way to help the poor, it was because the poor became a useful source of jobs and the reason for numerous  other endeavors and yes profits.

Long time ago there was a (Communist) scheme to take the children of the poor and raise them to be used in slave labor and other menial jobs and industries as needed, of course the "free world" could not approve and accept any such as that. My friend "Ryan" took an exception to my mention that we were imprisoning poor for profits, then the story broke about "

Putting Kids In Jail For Profit

so it goes, I do not argue to win points, I just try to make a point.

Going back to my article about War on Poverty  and my suggestion that we pay females a stipend, I quote here from the article in case you did not read the whole thing, "We should offer every female child over say 12 a stipend of a reasonable amount, say $400 per month till she has a baby at which time the stipend stops. That will take away the incentive to have child for benefits, tell guys they can not knock up a girl and use her money, stop parents from aborting female fetuses, reduce abortions in general, reduce poverty and unemployment, improve education of girls, but who cares, I presented the idea five or six years ago. It could also be used in the poorer nations where feasible."

 Of course I know that the idea is  radical and offensive, so I was ready to be slammed, so lets go back to the idea that the government takes over the kids and raises them for the a fore mentioned free labor, offensive again?  But let's look at it again, the government does not take over the kid and raise it but it pays the mother to raise the kid, and the kid stays home, the government knows, However, that in the long run the kid will be in trouble any way, law of averages says that more than likely the kid will be a drop out and hoodlum, end up making more babies be in a gang, a single mother, a drug dealer, and thus serve the same purpose as if the government had raised it for free labor. 


The prison industry in the United States: big business or a new form of slavery?

The Pentagon and Slave Labor in U.S. Prisons

Alexandros ''Get money for not having children''. I don't see how that lessens unemployment or how it tells men they can't have sex with a woman. I REALLY don't see how it increases education for girls, and I REALLY don't see how it stops parents from aborting female fetuses, I also don't understand why it decreases abortions. Exactly the opposite would happen, it would increase abortions so that you would get the benefits.


Justin Girls can get scholarships for pretty much any other sport though. And do you even realize how rich a nation would have to be to give money to every woman or girl without kids every month? That's billions of dollars a month for the US. And my first thoughts were the same as Alexandros'
I hope you have read the article, War on Poverty, and the other links I have provided with an open mind, and are willing to read the rest as I try to answer to the objections posted in the two quotes above, start with "tells a man not to have sex with a woman". It is not implied here that the girls will not have sex what I am proposing is that with a substantial stipend at risk,m the girl, or even her parents will make sure that a contraception method is used, a pill or may be even an injection of  depo provera shot so the girl will not get pregnant unintentionally.
"How it increases education for girls", It has been shown that the chance of a girl dropping out of school increases (also lessens that chance of her following higher education) if she gets pregnant and bears a child during school years, same is true for her employment opportunity. "And I really don't see how it stops parents from aborting female fetuses", if applied to the third world countries also as proposed you see that many in those countries abort female fetuses because the female children are considered a burden, if there is the incentive of that extra income being provided for a female child many poor families will keep the child to receive the stipend, it would be worth a try.
"I also don't understand why it decreases abortions. Exactly the opposite would happen, it would increase abortions so that you would get the benefits". Well it actually reduces the risk of abortion by insuring that the female is using birth control in the first place.

And do you even realize how rich a nation would have to be to give money to every woman or girl without kids every month? That's billions of dollars a month for the US. Let's consider what the government is giving out in support to single moms and their kids, add to that the reduction in crime rates, school drop out rates, reduced crime rate, and so on you will easily notice that overall outlays will be drastically reduced, we do not function in a vacuum, all these things are intertwined, study after study shows the relationships among teen pregnancy, crime rates, dropout rates etc.
BTW, did you know that at least in the US many guys get a girl pregnant just so that she can get benefits, and then they come by every month when she gets her "check" to help her spend that money, ever heard the phrase "baby mama"? If the guys knows she will lose her check instead you can rest assured he will make sure she used protection.





LIFE IS A GAME OF CONNECT THE DOTS, IF YOU DON'T CONNECT ALL THE DOTS OR DON'T CONNECT THEM IN THE RIGHT ORDER YOU NEVER GET THE PICTURE