Our very intelligent Justice Department has decided to kill the goose that laid the golden egg. In a rush to teach big business a lesson, the socialists are gleeful at the prospect of forcing Bill Gates to redistribute his wealth. He is being forced to basically cut his company in two and give half away.
Well, I have a suggestion for Microsoft who employs thousands of people in the US, and contributes billions in taxes whether directly, indirectly. Close down all operations in the United States and shop for a country that really is pro-free market, and invest in it. Stimulate their economy, hire their people, grow their infrastructure, increase their tax revenue base.
There are many countries with a GNP less than Microsoft’s annual income. And then, with products made offshore, of course it will increase the price for consumers at home, so they will be forced to go out and find competing software and not complain that they have no choice and were FORCED to settle for whatever Microsoft products.
Maybe finally the whiners will stop whining, and Bill can get on with his life where hard work, industry, and creativity are rewarded… not punished.
This is Nina May wondering… who’s next?
The Boston Transit Authority has taken that very progressive leap of installing transgender bathrooms at it facilities. This is for the conflicted person who doesn’t know daily if they are male or female.
But what they have actually done is marginalize this person as a non-person who is not worthy of visiting either the men’s room or the ladies room.
By creating a special bathroom, the Transit Authority is saying that transsexuals are less than human, less than people, less than men or women. They have bought into sexual Jim Crow laws that identify a class of people and then proceed to alienate them from the rest of society, very similar to the separate water fountains and toilets a few decades ago.
The homosexual community, in its haste to carve out special considerations and protections for its adherents, is actually creating a class system where they are perceived as less than worthy, less than able, less than gifted or articulate.
They need the government to speak for them, fight their battles, protect their every desire.
This special treatment engenders a type of pity from the rest of society who feel sorry that they are trapped in that lifestyle anyway, and they treat them as physically, emotionally and sexually challenged individuals.
But they have no one to blame but themselves because they have determined they need special care, special laws, special protections . . . therefore, they must know they are different.
They then should not be surprised if they are treated differently because it is, after all, themselves who have defined themselves to be different and deserving to be treated differently.
Do you remember the days of the Vietnam conflict when a handful of communist sympathizers successfully turned America against its own military for the first time in our history?
Never before had the people been so hostile toward the military in its defense of freedom for others. Ironically those same anti-war protestors, became pro-war sympathizers when someone more philosophically aligned became the Commander in Chief.
But the military is always under scrutiny or attack from one source or another and if you look at the incredible sacrifice they make to join the forces . . .you have to ask yourself why?
Why does an individual join an institution that is regularly slandered and maligned? Why do they work for a fraction of what their civilian counterparts do? Why do they sacrifice their comforts, freedoms and relationships to give the rest of America the freedom to enjoy these same things?
That same question could be asked of people who enter the ministry to fight similar battles but on a spiritual level.
They make similar sacrifices in order to bring liberation to the soul of the lost and imprisoned.
What if they all decided to just join the civilian ranks, get theirs first, forget both the physical and spiritual well-being of their fellow Americans? Would this be a better place to live? A safer place to live?
I wonder what group we would begin to complain about . . . If we are still allowed to complain about anything?
This is Nina May . . . asking what you think. Let us know at ninamay.com.
In Fernandina Beach, Florida, two teenagers were charged with car jacking and killing a 71 year old man.
In Port Saint Lucie, Florida, a 14 year old was fleeing from police when he crashed his parents’ car into a swimming pool, killing a 12-year old passenger.
This is Florida, which has one of the most lenient handgun laws in the country… but both of these crimes and deaths involved automobiles, a swimming pool, and children, not guns.
Should Florida have stricter laws against driving without a licence and proper registration? Oh, they already have those laws?
Hmm. What about laws that say it is illegal to steal a car . . . .and for someone under 16 to drive?
What could have prevented either one of these crimes involving kids? There are already laws on the books about the age kids can drive, the requirement of a license and registration of a car, and stealing.
Could it be . . . the families might have some accountability in raising a child so they are taught right from wrong and how to obey the laws? If not. Then no amount of new laws on the books will make any difference, if children aren’t taught to obey them. This is Nina May at ninamay.com.
According to recent studies “there has been a startling increase in heroin use among suburban teens in the last decade.”
A White House Drug Policy spokesman said the number of heroin users has doubled since 1996. The rate of use by kids from 12 to 17 almost tripled in ten years. Juvenile offenders, between the ages of 12-17 commit 25% of the violent crimes.
Kids in that same age group are victims of over 2 million cases of theft at school. So what is happening with kids from 12-17 that they are being victimized by drugs, violence and theft?
Aren’t kids that age supposed to be in school? So what is the school teaching them that we see such an increase in their involvement in deadly drug use and crime?
Will throwing more money at it solve the problem? No, no more than banning guns would.
What these kids need are families that teach absolutes, parents who aren’t consumed with their own agendas, and a government that doesn’t pay lip service to problems concerning youth, while exploiting them for political gain.
If people really cared about kids . . . they would start focusing on what really hurts them . . . not creating a straw man in the name of gun control. A little honesty please. We are at ninamay.com
Moms on the Mall are concerned about their kids carrying guns to school . .. but they don’t seem to be upset by their eight and nine year-old kids calling Howard Stern and getting some very mature advice on killing, exploiting, degrading and dehumanizing.
Perhaps these moms who are so open-minded . . .except when it comes to teaching kids about the safe handling of guns . . . should keep a closer eye on their kids.
And if they really are concerned about their safety, I am assuming they are teaching them to abstain from sex before marriage to avoid sexually transmitted diseases . . . They are telling them that drugs aren’t safe, tatoos and nose rings can get infected, and protesting with explosives can be dangerous to their health.
But if this rally is not just a ruse to further the cause of gun control then these women will have to prove it to other moms.
Prove they are Moms who really care about how other life-threatening issues affect their kids and they are not just exploiting kids for political purposes.
Please show a little consistency mom . . . because you have millions of OTHER moms who will be noting every hypocritical line you utter . . . in their collective name. This is one of them at ninamay.com.
A couple of years ago a study was done to see if little boys and girls could be programmed at an early age to identify with the toys of the opposite sex.
The idea was that boys are trained to be boys. They wanted to un-train them and let them experience the fullness of being both male and female.
They were convinced that boys were taught to be aggressive and if given the chance to play with dolls, they would get in touch with their sensitive side.
But what they were not prepared for was the creative mind of a child to conform to the person God created him to be . . . not what psychologists hoped he would be.
They caught on film the Doctors giving a little three-year-old boy a Barbie Doll to watch his interaction with this feminization tool. This little boy held the doll by the legs and looked at it, turned it over, still inspecting it, then instantly, bent it at the waist and began shooting imaginary bullets out of its head.
Everyone, but the mind-control expert, laughed.
This little boy today would be suspended from nursery school for doing that. But, so much for indoctrination.
The next step is intimidation . . . then confiscation. There is historical proof of that process in every totalitarian country that has ever existed.
Gee, does this mean we should ban Barbie Dolls? Let us know what you think at ninamay.com.
We kept hearing liberals referring to the 80’s as the decade of greed. That was really the only way they could spin the prosperity story without betraying their socialist tendencies.
In reality, the 80’s was a decade of economic renewal. If you recall, the end of the 70’s, during the Carter Administration, the unemployment rate was over 13%, inflation was over 20% and interest rates were 18%. Then President Reagan came into office, much to the chagrin of the liberal elite and the tooth-grinding Tom Brokaw who could barely bring himself to say that Reagan was the landslide winner.
As their paychecks got fatter, jobs safer, cars faster, houses bigger, the millionaire talking heads, continued to refer to the 80’s as the “decade of greed.”
Maybe for them it was. But for the rest of America, it was a decade of unprecedented opportunity and personal growth.
Interest rates plummeted along with unemployment and inflation.
It was not a decade of greed any more than the 90’s under the Clinton’s has been.
Everyone today is benefitting from that growth and not to admit it is intellectual dishonesty and political hypocrisy. This is Nina May at ninamay.com.
Let’s compare notes on the Microsoft trial and the impeachment trial of Bill Clinton.
Bill Gates is punished for stimulating the economy, opening up computer technology to the average non-techno-geek, and making the government tons of money. His crime… he was creative, hardworking and made the fatal mistake of believing that we live in a free market system where hard work is rewarded and not punished.
Bill Clinton on the other hand commits perjury that has caused the average citizen to spend time in jail and he is hailed as a hero as though he discovered a cure for cancer.
When Bill Clinton showed incredible creativity in refusing to answer even the simplest question with evasive nuances, he is applauded as being sharp and a tough advocate.
When Bill Gates stumbles on a few sentences or gets a little testy they practically have the padded wagon waiting to cart him away.
There are two Bills and two different judicial systems that tried these men. One Justice Department was determined to destroy big business, the other was determined to hold up as a paradigm of virtue actions that if committed by anyone else, would have put them in jail.
Do we have double standards in America? You tell me at ninamay.com.
Imagine… Alexander Graham Bell is taken to court for providing technology to make sure every home in America has a phone because this is considered a monopoly.
Thomas Edison is sued for billions of dollars, dragged through the courts and congressional hearings, because his brilliance and perseverence brought light to a darkened 20th century.
Jonas Salk is berated on the evening news for creating a monopoly that has stopped the threat of polio for millions of people. No one can compete with the vaccine and he is on trial for this monopolistic practices.
Bill Gates figures out a way to make computers user friendly so that millions of additional people can benefit from the new technology, the government gets rich, the information technology market booms and he is considered bottom feeding pond scuz.
If the government must break up a monopoly, the anti-trust monopoly that needs to be addressed is the liberal media that has in its cross-hairs business, entrepreneurship, individual liberties, alternative points of view, ideas that reflect value and tradition, and people who have integrity and honor as their paradigm of character.
This is Nina May .. . still challenging double standards and hypocrisy.