Wired - Threat Level - New York Legislation Would Ban Anonymous Online Speech.
I think I have written about this in the past. On the internet, no conversation and nothing you do is private and in the future, they will no who you are everytime you use a cell phone or the internet.
In the last couple of posts I already talked about how Europe wants to assign everyone an individual internet identification. Now I want to show how all of this was planned. It is called IPv6. Internet Protocol Version 6 is a change that will occur on June 26, 2012 and involves changing how many digits are used in your internet address. Put in simplest terms, currently the internet allows for 5 billion individual ip addresses. The new addresses will allow for every person on earth (7 billion) to use billions and billions more. This means that every device can have a new address that is assigned based on who owns the device. If it were not for the fact that the governments want an individual ip address for everyone then none of this would be necessary. The conversion was tested within the last year and I wrote a post about it at the time.
The change in the Internet Protocol is required if you are going to have electronic money and if you are going to give everyone and individual electronic identification; but, the don't mention those things when discussing the change. Having said that, it did come up from privacy groups such as EPIC (Electronic Privacy Information Center). EPIC has also been very vocal regarding the pending legislation that would require new Social Security Cards to include your biometric information. Hmmm, lets see, everyone gets a social security card and new ones will have your unique biometric information to identify you positively.
Wednesday, May 23, 2012
Tuesday, May 22, 2012
Electronic Identities for Europeans
This article from EurActiv.com is entitled "Brussels wants e-identities for EU citizens". What I particularly like about the article and website is that it includes links to the actual European Union papers. That being said, the European Union is promoting a individual electonic (internet) identification code for each and every person in the union. If you go to the end of the article and click on the link to the EU's paper, you will discover that they also propose that everyone have personal control over their verification (biometrics should be able to do the job).
I just had an odd thought. We are now performing face replacements. I wonder how that would work bio-metrically, I mean would you show up as the old you or as the person whose face you had transplanted? Just my mind wandering. The point is that you are going to have all electronic cash and in order to make that work, you have to have an electronic identification that can be proven to be yours. There are many who believe that we will be required someday to have an electronic chip implanted in us (and many who see that as the Mark of the Beast). Aaron Russo was a movie producer and ran for office, he made the claim that the globalists (including his friend Nick Rockefeller) wanted to put RFID chips in us. YouTube - Aaron Russo says Rockefeller told him of One World gov't and RFID chips. Mr. Russo continued to say the same things as he was dying of bladder cancer. While I would not accept a chip, I still do not believe it will be required or is necessary for identification purposes.
This is like conspiracy day at the Pimpernel's blog. No, these are real things; but, I don't think you can find total agreement in any of the groups promoting internationalism, electronic currency or electronic identification. What I do think you will find is sufficient consensus and the issue becomes one of how and in what manner these things are adopted. The goodie that will make people accept all of them is the elimination of current debt, nationally and personally.
You will be required to have an electronic profile as is being done in India (that I have already written about). Many people think these are great things and we should have an open discussion about where we are headed and why. Right now, in Africa, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (along with the assistance from others) is spearheading a move to vaccinate every child in Africa and as part of this program a cell phone is provided to take a picture of each child that is vaccinated and record their identity into an international database. I had previously written about that and provided links. Sorry, when I repeat myself I prefer just to mention my previous posts rather than track them down. If you are interested in the detail, you can search my blog.
Now lets get down to something you have never heard about. SC37. SC37 is the standardization of international biometrics. It is the effort to have every nation use the same standards for biometrics. According to the Chinese government in 2007, they are doing all they can to implement and meet the goals of the program. If you want a real kick, here is a link to a presentation given by the Chinese in London regarding their progress in the area and how it is to be used to access your computer, your money and to travel.
Whether you see biometrics as good or bad, whether you see it as securing your identity or one step closer to the end times. There is still an issue of our knowledge and acceptance of such things and the truth is, most people are not even aware of how close we are to achieving the ends proposed by the international organizations funding these things. Here is what is clear, we have cameras photographing us all the time and we don't even know it. These photos document most aspects of our lives and once taken can be bio-metrically identified. I question the need and question how it could be used to control us.
It has been said that 75% of England's laws are now written by the European Union. How will you feel and what will you think when a mere 25% of all the laws of the world are written by the United Nations? How will you feel and what will you think when you cannot go anywhere without having to live under these laws which will be written by unelected officials as is done in the EU?
One of my biggest problems with biometrics and an over reliance on electronic data is fundamental. What happens when it goes down? What is the backup plan? Traditionally, paper identification took care of that and without a backup, you would not be able to travel or purchase needed supplies. The internet provides convenience in obtaining information; but, it relies on a complex series of servers and computers to work. Once we have gone fully electronic, we are at risk of catastrophic failures.
Hope that gives you all something to think about.
I just had an odd thought. We are now performing face replacements. I wonder how that would work bio-metrically, I mean would you show up as the old you or as the person whose face you had transplanted? Just my mind wandering. The point is that you are going to have all electronic cash and in order to make that work, you have to have an electronic identification that can be proven to be yours. There are many who believe that we will be required someday to have an electronic chip implanted in us (and many who see that as the Mark of the Beast). Aaron Russo was a movie producer and ran for office, he made the claim that the globalists (including his friend Nick Rockefeller) wanted to put RFID chips in us. YouTube - Aaron Russo says Rockefeller told him of One World gov't and RFID chips. Mr. Russo continued to say the same things as he was dying of bladder cancer. While I would not accept a chip, I still do not believe it will be required or is necessary for identification purposes.
This is like conspiracy day at the Pimpernel's blog. No, these are real things; but, I don't think you can find total agreement in any of the groups promoting internationalism, electronic currency or electronic identification. What I do think you will find is sufficient consensus and the issue becomes one of how and in what manner these things are adopted. The goodie that will make people accept all of them is the elimination of current debt, nationally and personally.
You will be required to have an electronic profile as is being done in India (that I have already written about). Many people think these are great things and we should have an open discussion about where we are headed and why. Right now, in Africa, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (along with the assistance from others) is spearheading a move to vaccinate every child in Africa and as part of this program a cell phone is provided to take a picture of each child that is vaccinated and record their identity into an international database. I had previously written about that and provided links. Sorry, when I repeat myself I prefer just to mention my previous posts rather than track them down. If you are interested in the detail, you can search my blog.
Now lets get down to something you have never heard about. SC37. SC37 is the standardization of international biometrics. It is the effort to have every nation use the same standards for biometrics. According to the Chinese government in 2007, they are doing all they can to implement and meet the goals of the program. If you want a real kick, here is a link to a presentation given by the Chinese in London regarding their progress in the area and how it is to be used to access your computer, your money and to travel.
Whether you see biometrics as good or bad, whether you see it as securing your identity or one step closer to the end times. There is still an issue of our knowledge and acceptance of such things and the truth is, most people are not even aware of how close we are to achieving the ends proposed by the international organizations funding these things. Here is what is clear, we have cameras photographing us all the time and we don't even know it. These photos document most aspects of our lives and once taken can be bio-metrically identified. I question the need and question how it could be used to control us.
It has been said that 75% of England's laws are now written by the European Union. How will you feel and what will you think when a mere 25% of all the laws of the world are written by the United Nations? How will you feel and what will you think when you cannot go anywhere without having to live under these laws which will be written by unelected officials as is done in the EU?
One of my biggest problems with biometrics and an over reliance on electronic data is fundamental. What happens when it goes down? What is the backup plan? Traditionally, paper identification took care of that and without a backup, you would not be able to travel or purchase needed supplies. The internet provides convenience in obtaining information; but, it relies on a complex series of servers and computers to work. Once we have gone fully electronic, we are at risk of catastrophic failures.
Hope that gives you all something to think about.
The Club of Rome
I was recently asked about a group known as "The Club of Rome" and agreed to post some information about it. The organization was founded in 1968 as a think tank. It's membership is limited to 100 (though I also read that they would have another 200 who made the total membership 300, with only 100 active at any time) and you select your replacement. Members have included retired heads of state, scientists and businessmen. 1968 was an interesting year, the hippy movement was in full swing and Woodstock was setting the tone. It was a time when it looked like "the establishment" might just be replaced in the future.
The focus of the Club of Rome is on the environment and population control and world government globalization). The first book published by the Club of Rome was "Limits to Growth". While the book sold over 12 million copies, I think it is fair to say that most people are unaware of the organization. Membership has included Al Gore and Mikhail Gorbachev. While their primary site is being non-responsive, I will provide a link to their sister organization, The United States Club of Rome.
If you followed the link then I hope you also checked out some of their links, such as this one. World Federalist Manifesto. It basically calls for world government and the end of cash. Now, if you don't believe these people have any real influence I ask you to go back and look into it's membership. It was originally created by two men, Aurellio Peccei and Alexander King (a scientist). Here is a little history of the organization. The Club of Rome popularized (and created I believe) the phrase, "Think globally, act locally" and was a proponent of the United Nations Agenda 21.
I am including a link to the United Nations website which gives the text of Agenda 21. The short of it is that it is the United Nations calling for international control over the environment and taking actions to drive down the population.
The beliefs of the Club of Rome are very similar to the program laid out by the Rockefeller Commission in their report entitled "Population and the American Future - The Report of The Commission on Population Growth and the American Future." While I have included a link to the actual report, I will sum up some of it's conclusions. Basically it said that they anticipated that the United States would continue to increase it's population, having children should be regulated (some said no more than 2 and others wanted 0); but, their assumptions all proved wrong. The truth is that the western societies and Japan are not having children, our populations are going down. Fewer people are having children, fewer people are getting married and those who do are getting married later in life.
There are groups such as the John Birch Society that believe this is all the work of international communists. I don't quite see it that way. This is the logical extension of the belief that we are at odds with nature, that we are the enemy to the planet and they have said so. Ted Turner has called for reducing the world population to around 2 billion people (we are currently at 7 billion). Mr. Turner claims that if we do not, we will kill the planet. He is also said to have been a member (though it may have been honorary of) of the Club of Rome. It should also be pointed out that Mr. Turner in the Audubon Magazine had said, "A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal."
While their website was down, I was able to find the Declaration of the Club of Rome online. DECLARATION of The Club of Rome
Brussels, April 25, 1996. The Club of Rome also calls for organizing the world through ten regions. This caught my friends attention and is why he asked me to write about them. He was unaware of the organization and had heard that it viewed the world in 10 regions. He wondered how this might relate to the ten horns described in Revelations. As I was searching the net I found others had questioned this. Some seemed to focus on the fact that Prince Hassan bin Talal had been the head of the Club of Rome and even asked if he was the anti-Christ. The truth is he left his position in 2007 from what I can tell.
I have to say something. As I read through the internet, I am constantly finding people pointing at this person or that person and asking if they are the anti-Christ. I have read how some people accuse Obama of being him. While I support people asking questions about everything, I think they should be careful in making accusations.
What we should be concerned about regarding groups like the Club of Rome, the Bilderbergs, the Tri-Lateral Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations is how they work outside of the public view. They do not appear to believe in transparency while promoting it for others. The other thing we should be concerned about is what they are promoting. I have provided links to their own websites so that the reader can see for themselves.
Each one of these organizations believes in population reduction, less sovereignty and more international law over traditionally national policies and decision making by unelected experts. This is a common complaint by Nigel Farage regarding the European Union. The term used to describe these people in Europe is Technocrats (we would call them Bureaucrats). My issue with these people is that they believe we are all idiots and need them to decide how the world will work. I do not question their motives, they really do believe they are better than us and know what is best for us.
History is full of people who thought that the world government should be centralized and many who tried to achieve that goal through wars. These people seem to be against war; but, are more than happy to use politics, economics and control over food to motivate countries to agree to greater international control over their lives. I believe like the founding fathers that the greater control should be local.
Not everyone is going to want to read this post, I wrote it for one person to give some background information as requested. As for the globalists, their own words speak for them. "We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected the promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world-government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the National autodetermination practiced in past centuries".-- David Rockefeller in an address to a Trilateral Commission meeting in June of 1991.
The focus of the Club of Rome is on the environment and population control and world government globalization). The first book published by the Club of Rome was "Limits to Growth". While the book sold over 12 million copies, I think it is fair to say that most people are unaware of the organization. Membership has included Al Gore and Mikhail Gorbachev. While their primary site is being non-responsive, I will provide a link to their sister organization, The United States Club of Rome.
If you followed the link then I hope you also checked out some of their links, such as this one. World Federalist Manifesto. It basically calls for world government and the end of cash. Now, if you don't believe these people have any real influence I ask you to go back and look into it's membership. It was originally created by two men, Aurellio Peccei and Alexander King (a scientist). Here is a little history of the organization. The Club of Rome popularized (and created I believe) the phrase, "Think globally, act locally" and was a proponent of the United Nations Agenda 21.
I am including a link to the United Nations website which gives the text of Agenda 21. The short of it is that it is the United Nations calling for international control over the environment and taking actions to drive down the population.
The beliefs of the Club of Rome are very similar to the program laid out by the Rockefeller Commission in their report entitled "Population and the American Future - The Report of The Commission on Population Growth and the American Future." While I have included a link to the actual report, I will sum up some of it's conclusions. Basically it said that they anticipated that the United States would continue to increase it's population, having children should be regulated (some said no more than 2 and others wanted 0); but, their assumptions all proved wrong. The truth is that the western societies and Japan are not having children, our populations are going down. Fewer people are having children, fewer people are getting married and those who do are getting married later in life.
There are groups such as the John Birch Society that believe this is all the work of international communists. I don't quite see it that way. This is the logical extension of the belief that we are at odds with nature, that we are the enemy to the planet and they have said so. Ted Turner has called for reducing the world population to around 2 billion people (we are currently at 7 billion). Mr. Turner claims that if we do not, we will kill the planet. He is also said to have been a member (though it may have been honorary of) of the Club of Rome. It should also be pointed out that Mr. Turner in the Audubon Magazine had said, "A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal."
While their website was down, I was able to find the Declaration of the Club of Rome online. DECLARATION of The Club of Rome
Brussels, April 25, 1996. The Club of Rome also calls for organizing the world through ten regions. This caught my friends attention and is why he asked me to write about them. He was unaware of the organization and had heard that it viewed the world in 10 regions. He wondered how this might relate to the ten horns described in Revelations. As I was searching the net I found others had questioned this. Some seemed to focus on the fact that Prince Hassan bin Talal had been the head of the Club of Rome and even asked if he was the anti-Christ. The truth is he left his position in 2007 from what I can tell.
I have to say something. As I read through the internet, I am constantly finding people pointing at this person or that person and asking if they are the anti-Christ. I have read how some people accuse Obama of being him. While I support people asking questions about everything, I think they should be careful in making accusations.
What we should be concerned about regarding groups like the Club of Rome, the Bilderbergs, the Tri-Lateral Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations is how they work outside of the public view. They do not appear to believe in transparency while promoting it for others. The other thing we should be concerned about is what they are promoting. I have provided links to their own websites so that the reader can see for themselves.
Each one of these organizations believes in population reduction, less sovereignty and more international law over traditionally national policies and decision making by unelected experts. This is a common complaint by Nigel Farage regarding the European Union. The term used to describe these people in Europe is Technocrats (we would call them Bureaucrats). My issue with these people is that they believe we are all idiots and need them to decide how the world will work. I do not question their motives, they really do believe they are better than us and know what is best for us.
History is full of people who thought that the world government should be centralized and many who tried to achieve that goal through wars. These people seem to be against war; but, are more than happy to use politics, economics and control over food to motivate countries to agree to greater international control over their lives. I believe like the founding fathers that the greater control should be local.
Not everyone is going to want to read this post, I wrote it for one person to give some background information as requested. As for the globalists, their own words speak for them. "We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected the promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world-government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the National autodetermination practiced in past centuries".-- David Rockefeller in an address to a Trilateral Commission meeting in June of 1991.
Monday, May 21, 2012
One Last Thing For the Night
A little rant if you will. I have a problem with people who complain about losing our constitutional rights in this country while they at the same time bother to care about homosexuals marrying. To be fair, I could care less if homosexuals have access to the same contracts as straight people (government sanctioned marriage is nothing more than a contractual arrangement). The point is, how can you complain about losing your rights while denying others the same right? The fact is that we are losing our Constitutional rights because people are too focused on garbage and non-issues.
The only secular reason for believing in governmental authority is the social contract, the idea that we all agree on certain basic rights and fundamentals. For those who claim that our government or any government is God blessed, guess again. The bible says that we are to obey our leaders and that Satan is the leader of the world working through princes and principalities.
I have issue with control and controlling others. I don't have a problem with leadership or being in a leadership position. I don't believe in manipulating people, I believe in seeing to it that if you do the wrong thing, you pay consequences and I believe this should be understood by others. The issue has always been how much should the government be involved in our private lives, how much we should regulate one another. As much as you believe you have the right to regulate others personal relationships determines how much your choices should be regulated by the government. If you regulate homosexuality, do you not also agree to have your actions (or religious practices) regulated.
Having said all of that, I would not conduct a gay marriage in a religious service. I should have that right, the right to making my choices. If you are gay and believe that you should have the right to get married, then you would believe that I should have the right to not be involved. The issue should be rights and not restrictions or regulation. The best government is the one that is there to prevent you from doing things that you should not and the worst government is the one that is there to force you to do what it believes you should, that is tyranny.
I don't react well to people imposing their will on me and therefore I don't try and impost my will on others. Maybe we should stop trying to regulate personal relations which are not controlling or abusive. Maybe we should stop trying to regulate everything parents do to teach their children. Lets face it, we are polarized over issues related to regulating each other rather than finding where we don't need to regulate each other.
The only secular reason for believing in governmental authority is the social contract, the idea that we all agree on certain basic rights and fundamentals. For those who claim that our government or any government is God blessed, guess again. The bible says that we are to obey our leaders and that Satan is the leader of the world working through princes and principalities.
I have issue with control and controlling others. I don't have a problem with leadership or being in a leadership position. I don't believe in manipulating people, I believe in seeing to it that if you do the wrong thing, you pay consequences and I believe this should be understood by others. The issue has always been how much should the government be involved in our private lives, how much we should regulate one another. As much as you believe you have the right to regulate others personal relationships determines how much your choices should be regulated by the government. If you regulate homosexuality, do you not also agree to have your actions (or religious practices) regulated.
Having said all of that, I would not conduct a gay marriage in a religious service. I should have that right, the right to making my choices. If you are gay and believe that you should have the right to get married, then you would believe that I should have the right to not be involved. The issue should be rights and not restrictions or regulation. The best government is the one that is there to prevent you from doing things that you should not and the worst government is the one that is there to force you to do what it believes you should, that is tyranny.
I don't react well to people imposing their will on me and therefore I don't try and impost my will on others. Maybe we should stop trying to regulate personal relations which are not controlling or abusive. Maybe we should stop trying to regulate everything parents do to teach their children. Lets face it, we are polarized over issues related to regulating each other rather than finding where we don't need to regulate each other.
More Technology - It is Early
It's still early here so I thought I would drop a couple of extra links and words. We will start with this from Science Daily - Totally RAD: Bioengineers Create Rewritable Digital Data Storage in DNA. The article is about how some scientist has been able to program binary code into living DNA cells or turn them on or off at will. The inventor of this process says in the article that he doesn't even care how this might be used.
I also came across this from MSNBC - Gadgetbox - That 'Minority Report' interface? It's now only $70 away. It is about a new visual motion detector that allows you to interact with things without actually touching them physically. The article includes a video that shows how it works. You won't even have to know how to spell to use the internet in the future. I want to talk about this for a minute, the importance of writing.
While I enjoy the spoken word and am a good public speaker, it is not the same as writing. When one writes out one's thoughts, you have time to consider what you are saying and go back and modify it before presenting your final word on the matter. We are more and more using videos to communicate and relying less and less on the written word. We have already given up on teaching cursive handwriting to kids and it is easier and quicker than block writing.
I also came across this from MSNBC - Gadgetbox - That 'Minority Report' interface? It's now only $70 away. It is about a new visual motion detector that allows you to interact with things without actually touching them physically. The article includes a video that shows how it works. You won't even have to know how to spell to use the internet in the future. I want to talk about this for a minute, the importance of writing.
While I enjoy the spoken word and am a good public speaker, it is not the same as writing. When one writes out one's thoughts, you have time to consider what you are saying and go back and modify it before presenting your final word on the matter. We are more and more using videos to communicate and relying less and less on the written word. We have already given up on teaching cursive handwriting to kids and it is easier and quicker than block writing.
Some Tech Stuff
The first article is Gizmodo - There’s Not an App for That: When Will Our Smartphones Be Recognized as Valid Forms of ID? An interesting perspective from a young person. What do you think, should your phone be a valid form of identification? How would you verify that it was that particular person's phone? You could if biometrics were added to your phone and I have written about that recently.
The second article is from the Activist Post - Facial Recognition Goes Trendy with SceneTap's Biometric Barhopping App. I recommend you read the whole article; but, what is says is that facial recognition technology will be used at bars in San Francisco and it will allow you to know information (limited for the moment) regarding other people.
We also have this from WZZM - Facial Recognition Software Unveiled in Grand Rapids. Watch the video. It is about how restaurants and other businesses are using facial recognition software to help you make choices by tailoring them to you. Do you really want to live in a world where your choices are made for you, mistakes can help us to learn more than always getting what you want.
In the future, well actually now, you will be scanned, analyzed and presented with the options that a computer thinks you want and you won't even know it. Google does it for you already, it presumes what you would be the most interested in when you do a search using it. This type of information filtering will only lead to people learning less as they are not presented with information that they would dislike.
The future is here and it doesn't believe in privacy. About a billion people on Facebook, one seventh of the world and supposedly we live in a world of six degrees of separation. This is why things can go "viral", a video made of a baby laughing can be seen by most of the world within minutes. A single thought can be communicated to the whole world in a moment. Those are game changers and we don't know exactly it will effect the future. For my money, if the anti-Christ were to show up, he would definitely use the internet to spread his message. Just imagine what the world would be like if Hitler had been on the internet.
The second article is from the Activist Post - Facial Recognition Goes Trendy with SceneTap's Biometric Barhopping App. I recommend you read the whole article; but, what is says is that facial recognition technology will be used at bars in San Francisco and it will allow you to know information (limited for the moment) regarding other people.
We also have this from WZZM - Facial Recognition Software Unveiled in Grand Rapids. Watch the video. It is about how restaurants and other businesses are using facial recognition software to help you make choices by tailoring them to you. Do you really want to live in a world where your choices are made for you, mistakes can help us to learn more than always getting what you want.
In the future, well actually now, you will be scanned, analyzed and presented with the options that a computer thinks you want and you won't even know it. Google does it for you already, it presumes what you would be the most interested in when you do a search using it. This type of information filtering will only lead to people learning less as they are not presented with information that they would dislike.
The future is here and it doesn't believe in privacy. About a billion people on Facebook, one seventh of the world and supposedly we live in a world of six degrees of separation. This is why things can go "viral", a video made of a baby laughing can be seen by most of the world within minutes. A single thought can be communicated to the whole world in a moment. Those are game changers and we don't know exactly it will effect the future. For my money, if the anti-Christ were to show up, he would definitely use the internet to spread his message. Just imagine what the world would be like if Hitler had been on the internet.
Sunday, May 20, 2012
An Interesting Development
Apparently my ex-wife has found someone new and is going to move in with him. I cannot say that I had any reaction to the news, it has been five years. I guess I wish her well; but, I cannot say I really care. I guess I was surprised by my lack of response. If she moves in with him, I stop paying alimony; but, she still gets half of my pension. If they do marry she still gets half of my retirement. I find it odd that if she does marry him, I will be paying for him and her both. It is especially odd seeing as how she cheated on me and left me for another man (not this man).
Anyways, she is introducing this man to our children. I don't know how I feel about that. I mean, if she is going to live with him and possibly marry him then they should know him. They are adults and can decide for themselves what relationship they wish to have with him. My youngest said that she wanted to see us both happy and hoped that I would find someone too; but, I'm not looking and am happy with that for the moment. As I have said before, I don't know if I want to be with someone again.
The whole thing reminded me of a song by Don Henley. It sums up how I feel, I wish them the best and hope that they are right for each other and find happiness and fulfillment.
YouTube - The Eagles - Heart of the Matter
Anyways, she is introducing this man to our children. I don't know how I feel about that. I mean, if she is going to live with him and possibly marry him then they should know him. They are adults and can decide for themselves what relationship they wish to have with him. My youngest said that she wanted to see us both happy and hoped that I would find someone too; but, I'm not looking and am happy with that for the moment. As I have said before, I don't know if I want to be with someone again.
The whole thing reminded me of a song by Don Henley. It sums up how I feel, I wish them the best and hope that they are right for each other and find happiness and fulfillment.
YouTube - The Eagles - Heart of the Matter
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)