Monday, August 20, 2012

Product of Canada, U.S.

Saturday I pulled a pork tenderloin from the chest freezer to thaw for barbecuing Sunday afternoon.  (It’s not really a pork tenderloin, but mechanically separated pork parts pressed together into a tube.)

On the package I noticed something that I had not observed before:

Wow!  Is this for real?

Product of CANADA, U.S.!

What does this mean?

It means that the big international global elite structure is now established.

This is really very bold and in our faces!  This is didactic or pedantic, meaning that we are being indoctrinated to accept this.  It is an established fact.  It is no longer something that is coming in the future.  It is upon us.

No longer are we the U.S.A.  Now we are the North American Union, of which the U.S. is central and Canada is a northern district or region.

I find it startling to realize that most people are already programmed to think and say: “So what?”

Saturday, August 18, 2012

Futility & Politics

This photograph brought to my recollection a perplexing, or perhaps disillusioning, conversation that I had with a lady this week.  It occurred as I called regarding a financial matter.  The lady had asked me a question, and I responded with a negative comment about how the Obama has caused me and the nation hardship and heartache.

The lady immediately responded, saying, “I like Obama.”

I asked her why she likes Obama.  I asked what he has done that she likes.

She could not answer.

I gave a few specific ways in which he has harmed me and our nation.

She became noticeably disengaged and seemingly agitated.  So I let the matter drop and pursued the answers from her that I desired, but she could not sufficiently supply.  Such is the way with banks and credit card companies and telephone carriers and nearly every company today.  The answers that the customer needs are not supplied.  We are simply to accept that the Obama, the government, the corporation, the agency, and Big Brother, is looking out for us.

But Obama supporters are not the end of the matter.  Seeing this video reveals the same concerning the other side:

Here is a group supporting Romney.  The event is reported at Protester spits on Romney supporter in Wisconsin.  Here is a portion of the report from the Post Crecent:

The event featured Wisconsin state Sen. Alberta Darling and Lt. Gov. Rebecca Kleefisch.

During Darling’s remarks, the protester, Mary Hoglund, 83, of Appleton, interrupted the event to ask about Republican opposition to Planned Parenthood.

A local Romney supporter began arguing with Hoglund, who then spit in her face. Hoglund was escorted out and received medical attention for a scratch she received on her neck.

Later in the report it says that Mary claims that she was attacked.

She speaks truthfully, but ignores the fact that she attended this rally and attacked the group.  She did not belong at this rally.  She came to cause trouble.  But then, she also came to defend her view that Planned Parenthood is a group that she should defend for their killing of babies in order to make money and grant women the freedom to have sex without taking responsibility for their sexual activities.

I have no respect for this woman and her views.  I consider her to be an accomplice to murder, as an accomplice with Planned Parenthood and the abortion industry.  These I do not respect but oppose vehemently.

Nevertheless, she also was wronged.  The lady on whom she spat, first began to attack her verbally, getting in her face and accosting her and trying to intimidate her.  Both women were in the wrong.

Moreover, Mary was stricken by at least two people.

Which side of this is acting worthily concerning the responsibility of voting?

Finally, after the interloping Mary has been ejected from the premises, the group begins its mindless mantra: Romney!  Romney!  Romney!

In Romney’s political career, what has he actually done to overturn the abortion industry and protect the unborn?  What has he done that sets him apart from the Obama and the so-called progressives?  Yet these women support him as though he were a genuine opponent of what they oppose and a genuine proponent of what they embrace.

In reality, they may be right.  Mindless and meaningless rhetoric seems to be what truly represents the American mindset today.  Just fight to defeat the other side.  The fact that both sides are pushing us into cattle chutes that lead to the same destruction seems to have no place in people’s thinking.  All that seems to matter is to have “our” guy win.

Which of these guys can really be called “our” guy?

What has either of these so-called representatives actually sacrificed on our behalf?  Which has actually gone to battle personally to defend the common citizenry?  In connection with their time of leadership, has the economy improved?  Have they helped to restore any of our Constitutionally guaranteed liberties and freedoms?  Has the USA been protected from unnecessary conflict and war?

What has either of these men done that anyone with a brain and a conscience should say, “He’s OUR guy!”?

Obamney!  Obamney!  Robama!  Robama!   @#$%^@#$%^!

Happy campaigning!

In the meantime, “Happy Hunger Games! And may the odds be ever in your favor!”


Facebook Users Prefer Looks Over Intelligence

Study: Facebook Users Prefer Looks Over Intelligence

Studies such as this indicate as much about those who waste time and money surveying as it does regarding those being surveyed.  Does anyone really need to conduct a “study” in order to observe that Facebook is a medium where intelligent conversation and postings are rarely observed?

A very cursory perusing of Facebook chatter leaves an immediate impression concerning the interests of those who use it regularly.  Pursuit of deep wisdom, insightful observations, and matters of genuine importance do not prevail.

For what purpose do people utilize the Facebook medium?  Is it not primarily for a sense of connection to others?  Is it not an exercise in reacquiring the sense of connectedness that has largely disintegrated through years of television addiction and broken homes and materialistic pursuits?

Facebook is a medium for people who are like this Pointer puppy who followed my wife home from her daily walk.

This rather spastic puppy followed her home from about two miles away.  It has a collar but no licence or identification tags.  It darted into the house and tracked mud onto the carpet before I could gain voice control and direct it back out the door.  Afterward it scratched at the door, whining and barking.  After ignoring it for about half an hour or more, it noticed another dog on a walk with its master and darted off after them.

Its desire was to obtain attention for self and a sense of belonging.  As soon as it felt that this desire was not being met to its satisfaction, it darted off again after another momentary and fleeting snippet of imaginary satisfaction.  How many of these attempts will this puppy make yet today?

Will it find its way home again?  Will it find a new haven of refuge and belonging?  Has it been abandoned?  Will it find that for which it seeks?

Is this not the way of most who use Facebook?

They call it a “Community.”

What does this indicate?  What does this reveal about those who subject themselves to the requirements of the Facebook controllers in order to be adopted into this community or family or assembly (ecclesia - church)?

How many people even realize what this is into which they are asking to be adopted/accepted/incorporated?

Today, when I typed, this is the screen that appeared:

In order to become a part of this family, one must accept the adoption process, including the submission of personal information that only close and trusted family should know.

If a person clicks on the “About” link, before one is permitted to learn about the Facebook family, one is required to subject oneself to the adoption process:

Or at least, so this screen shot would seem to imply.  The information that is supplied farther down the web page is not presented in an organized and intelligent fashion, but with pictures like a presentation intended for a kindergarten child, and sporadically.

What is revealed about the depth of desperation for connectedness of those who willingly submit to this treatment?

If one accepts this so as to subject oneself to it, as I did when I bowed down to the Facebook requirements when I received my first “friend invitation,” what is the motivation?

Intelligence and wisdom and caution certainly are not in the picture.

Speaking for myself, I have long wanted to divorce myself from this entrapment.  However, every time that I sign on to terminate my account, I am reminded of someone for whom I care with whom I have no other ordinary regular contact.  Then I feel trapped.  Then I bow down again to the demand to allow Facebook to own my information and to use it as these tyrants choose.

Am I really much different from the silly Pointer puppy?

+ + +