Rev. Terry Jones and his 50 member Dove World Outreach church want to burn Korans in protest of the Cordoba House Mosque and community center...so what? Who cares? Right? I think most "SANE" people see this for what it is...a purely ignorant and self-serving act not worth the time to read about but certainly an act of protest protected under the First Amendment of the Constitution. He has the right to be a dumb-ass and his followers have a right to follow a dumb-ass.
But what started out as a protest and publicity stunt not worth mentioning has turned into an international incident and a serious threat to our national security, the security of other countries, and our men and women fighting over in the sand box. So what did the good Rev do?...He pulled his head out of his arse, lied to save face, and canceled the party! Problem solved right? Ummmm...nope...I think there are more than a few issues left to address here...Like these:
Issue One: Why was the media even covering this? I really can't decide who is more ignorant...Terry Jones or the media for covering him....it's a toss-up, I think! When I was a kid we used to make fun of "The National Enquirer" now it seems that sort of sensationalism is all that the news media is capable of producing. Of course, it could have just been a slow news day and they had nothing else to do. Good job media...you created the environment for an international incident and endangered lives by pushing a sensationalist, political, agenda.
Issue Two: Why have we allowed terrorist religious leaders, terrorist governments, and terrorist people to Dictate To Us what we do in our own country? So let me get this straight...the Muslim people all over the world are pissed off because some fool plans on burning books...they threaten to behead innocent people, burn American flags, and commit other wide-spread acts of terrorism... and the best we as a nation can do is lay down because we are afraid they might actually do it? What? Why? When did we as a nation get so weak minded? Sure, what this guy wants to do is stupid, but it is his right to do it. We have men and women all over the world who are fighting right now to protect that right. If we lay down on this we have made what they, and those who served before them, do worthless. If we lay down now the terrorists won on 9-11 and we might as well enact Sharia Law now!
Issue Three: Why has our government...once again...sided with the terrorists? What about defending The Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic? What about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Does that only count if it doesn't piss off other countries, groups, and organizations? Who's side are you on, Mr. President? How about backing up the American people for a change, Mrs. Clinton. How about supporting our rights ahead of the rights of non-Americans, Mr. Holder. I guess it's up to us (The American People) to defend ourselves now. Good thing we have the right to keep and bear arms.
What started out as a bunch of nut-jobs protesting has now turned into a threat to our national security and national sovereignty. We have to decide, as a nation, if the rights guaranteed to us by The U.S. Constitution are truly worth standing up for. I think the media should examine itself and start being responsible. I think the government should be careful not to become the enemy of the people. And I think We The People should reassert our authority and sovereignty once again. But that's just me!
In case ya want one of your very own to read...or burn!
Showing posts with label liberal. Show all posts
Showing posts with label liberal. Show all posts
Friday, September 10, 2010
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
The Cloward/Piven Strategy: The Perfect Storm
The Cloward/Priven Strategy was developed by Richard A. Cloward and Francis Fox Piven in the mod 60's as a way to affect social change by causing the collapse of the existing Welfare System by overwhelming it with new applicants. In Regulating the Poor: The Functions of Public Welfare
they lay out the plan, and give historical perspective for the strategy's implementation and success, to force government to expand social welfare programs. The ultimate goal in this plan, as explained in their 1966 article published in The Nation magazine, is to force the government to provide a guaranteed yearly income to the poor by the redistribution of wealth to the poor. The fundamental theory of this plan is found in historical revolts throughout history including the Great Depression that resulted in the New Deal plan of social reform.
The strategy was implemented in the 1960's successfully by enlisting militant civil rights activists to help mobilize the poor and overwhelm the welfare system with applicants who previously resisted entering into welfare due to the social stigma associated with it. The result of the ensuing protests and riots has been the continued expansion of the welfare system, the erosion of the negative social stigma associated with receiving welfare, and the expansion of a pseudo-socialist political agenda embraced by the Left. Prior to this many people (50% of those eligible) refused to apply for welfare because the community looked down on people who didn't take care of themselves and many who were on welfare received well below the level of assistance the program allowed for. Since the introduction of this theory the social stigma associated with welfare has been all but eliminated.
40 years later we have a society that has forgotten the principles of personal responsibility and and self reliance that drove our country to a level of innovation, ingenuity, and success that gave us an advantage over every other nation in the world. This trend can be reversed by returning to our roots and holding those who choose to be on welfare programs accountable to the country. A very wise man once said, "If a man will not work, then let him not eat as well." It may sound cruel to say, but if a person gets hungry enough they will either work, or starve to death...either way the problem is solved. This is not to say that we all don't need help from time to time. But isn't it the responsibility of the family or the religious organization to provide that help. Forcing the nation to provide for those who will not provide for themselves damages everyone's ability to participate in the American Dream. The American Dream is the opportunity to improve their quality of life and to accumulate personal wealth through hard work and personal responsibility. Welfare is not the American Dream.
they lay out the plan, and give historical perspective for the strategy's implementation and success, to force government to expand social welfare programs. The ultimate goal in this plan, as explained in their 1966 article published in The Nation magazine, is to force the government to provide a guaranteed yearly income to the poor by the redistribution of wealth to the poor. The fundamental theory of this plan is found in historical revolts throughout history including the Great Depression that resulted in the New Deal plan of social reform.The strategy was implemented in the 1960's successfully by enlisting militant civil rights activists to help mobilize the poor and overwhelm the welfare system with applicants who previously resisted entering into welfare due to the social stigma associated with it. The result of the ensuing protests and riots has been the continued expansion of the welfare system, the erosion of the negative social stigma associated with receiving welfare, and the expansion of a pseudo-socialist political agenda embraced by the Left. Prior to this many people (50% of those eligible) refused to apply for welfare because the community looked down on people who didn't take care of themselves and many who were on welfare received well below the level of assistance the program allowed for. Since the introduction of this theory the social stigma associated with welfare has been all but eliminated.
40 years later we have a society that has forgotten the principles of personal responsibility and and self reliance that drove our country to a level of innovation, ingenuity, and success that gave us an advantage over every other nation in the world. This trend can be reversed by returning to our roots and holding those who choose to be on welfare programs accountable to the country. A very wise man once said, "If a man will not work, then let him not eat as well." It may sound cruel to say, but if a person gets hungry enough they will either work, or starve to death...either way the problem is solved. This is not to say that we all don't need help from time to time. But isn't it the responsibility of the family or the religious organization to provide that help. Forcing the nation to provide for those who will not provide for themselves damages everyone's ability to participate in the American Dream. The American Dream is the opportunity to improve their quality of life and to accumulate personal wealth through hard work and personal responsibility. Welfare is not the American Dream.
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
Welfare Is Not the American Dream.
One simple statistic, 1 in 6 Americans receive some form of government assistance to survive, should scare the absolute hell out of all Americans. And it is only getting worse. As unemployment and under-employment (9.6% and 16% respectively) continues to skyrocket, and wages continue to fall, we are quickly becoming the Welfare State that our Government Dreams of. It seems that the American mentality has shifted from the founding notions of "American Self Reliance: and "Personal Responsibility" to the notion that the government must tell us how to think and live as well as provide our basic necessities of life. The virtues of hard work and innovation our country is founded on, and the liberties we enjoy because of them, are quickly being eroded by this New American Attitude that Everyone has a Right to Everything.
Many charitable organizations, that traditionally provided for people when they fell on hard times no longer support the people in the community. Today the charitable organizations have been replace by government programs that fund people who sometimes gain levels of comfort and quality of life most of us can only dream of. Private charitable organizations now support the people of foreign countries instead of our communities.
The evil sinister side to the welfare state, that most people do not understand, is the fact that there are strings attached. By allowing our government to fund social programs through the State government we enter into an agreement to allow them to control those aspects of life or risk losing the financial support of our government. We can have the money, but at the expense of our freedom to live how we want to.
We can seize control of our lives from the government if we want to. We simply have to choose to not listen to those who promote the welfare state and the idea that everyone is entitled to what We The People work our asses off for. We simply have to refuse to take a Federal Government Handout at the Personal, the Local, and the State level. We simply have to reaffirm that The American Dream is about the opportunity, through hard work and personal responsibility, for a better life. We have to send a message to Washington that says The American Dream is not an entitlement program.
Many charitable organizations, that traditionally provided for people when they fell on hard times no longer support the people in the community. Today the charitable organizations have been replace by government programs that fund people who sometimes gain levels of comfort and quality of life most of us can only dream of. Private charitable organizations now support the people of foreign countries instead of our communities.
The evil sinister side to the welfare state, that most people do not understand, is the fact that there are strings attached. By allowing our government to fund social programs through the State government we enter into an agreement to allow them to control those aspects of life or risk losing the financial support of our government. We can have the money, but at the expense of our freedom to live how we want to.
We can seize control of our lives from the government if we want to. We simply have to choose to not listen to those who promote the welfare state and the idea that everyone is entitled to what We The People work our asses off for. We simply have to refuse to take a Federal Government Handout at the Personal, the Local, and the State level. We simply have to reaffirm that The American Dream is about the opportunity, through hard work and personal responsibility, for a better life. We have to send a message to Washington that says The American Dream is not an entitlement program.
Sunday, September 5, 2010
Our Rights Under Attack By CFR and The New World Order
According to the United States Constitution the people of the United States are a sovereign people, the States we live in are sovereign States, and the Republic we belong to (The United States) is a sovereign nation. But there are people in this country who seek to tear down our Constitution and give our National sovereignty (and by default our State and Individual sovereignty) away to the United Nations.
In an Op Ed report by Richard N. Haass, President of The Counsel on Foreign Relations
(CFR), titled Sovereignty and Globalization Mr. Haass suggests that "Moreover, states must be prepared to cede some sovereignty to world bodies if the international system is to function...even if a particular decision requires that they alter a practice that is their sovereign right to carry out.." His examples of areas where we should be willing to do this, or have already done this include: Climate (Kyoto Protocol), Weapons, Human Rights, and International Trade (NATO). He sums it all up by saying, "Our notion of sovereignty must therefore be conditional, even contractual, rather than absolute." This report was published in February of 2007.
"The goal should be to redefine sovereignty for the era of globalization, to find a balance between a world of fully sovereign states and an international system of either world government or anarchy." This is a flat out attack on our Nation's sovereignty and would ultimately put our country under the control of a World Government (The U.N., NATO, IMF, and World Bank) that has already decided that strong countries like the United States should be required to fund and support less productive countries around the world. This would effectively create a world welfare state paid for by the citizens of wealthy nations by taxing the gross domestic product of our countries. In other words, we would be required to pay additional "WORLD TAXES" to The IMF in order to develop poor nations.
Other notable initiatives of the World Government include: Banning all small arms possessed by the citizens of The United States... Limits on the use of fossil fuels that drive our economy... Control of our trade regulations...etc. I'm not usually swayed by the NWO conspiracy theorists...I think the extrapolate events to the worst case scenario...but this is a real threat and the worst thing is the fact that our own government is paying attention to the CFR, G-20 and the U.N. and it is NOT listening to us. So, before you vote, check out your candidates position on globalization, the CFR, and the U.N. and the New World Order. Make no mistake about it...private groups The CFR, and The Trilateral Commission
do exist and they do not respect the sovereignty, traditions and founding principles of our country. Our rights, as guaranteed by The Constitution of the United States, are of little importance to them.
In an Op Ed report by Richard N. Haass, President of The Counsel on Foreign Relations
(CFR), titled Sovereignty and Globalization Mr. Haass suggests that "Moreover, states must be prepared to cede some sovereignty to world bodies if the international system is to function...even if a particular decision requires that they alter a practice that is their sovereign right to carry out.." His examples of areas where we should be willing to do this, or have already done this include: Climate (Kyoto Protocol), Weapons, Human Rights, and International Trade (NATO). He sums it all up by saying, "Our notion of sovereignty must therefore be conditional, even contractual, rather than absolute." This report was published in February of 2007."The goal should be to redefine sovereignty for the era of globalization, to find a balance between a world of fully sovereign states and an international system of either world government or anarchy." This is a flat out attack on our Nation's sovereignty and would ultimately put our country under the control of a World Government (The U.N., NATO, IMF, and World Bank) that has already decided that strong countries like the United States should be required to fund and support less productive countries around the world. This would effectively create a world welfare state paid for by the citizens of wealthy nations by taxing the gross domestic product of our countries. In other words, we would be required to pay additional "WORLD TAXES" to The IMF in order to develop poor nations.
Other notable initiatives of the World Government include: Banning all small arms possessed by the citizens of The United States... Limits on the use of fossil fuels that drive our economy... Control of our trade regulations...etc. I'm not usually swayed by the NWO conspiracy theorists...I think the extrapolate events to the worst case scenario...but this is a real threat and the worst thing is the fact that our own government is paying attention to the CFR, G-20 and the U.N. and it is NOT listening to us. So, before you vote, check out your candidates position on globalization, the CFR, and the U.N. and the New World Order. Make no mistake about it...private groups The CFR, and The Trilateral Commission
do exist and they do not respect the sovereignty, traditions and founding principles of our country. Our rights, as guaranteed by The Constitution of the United States, are of little importance to them.
Friday, September 3, 2010
TANF: Epic FAIL and the stupidity of congress.
According to the Huffington Post, Nancy Pelosi is absolutely livid at Senate Republicans (what else is new, right?) for allowing the TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) Emergency Fund to expire. Pelosi says that allowing it to expire will cost 240,000 jobs and and is screaming for the Senate to extend the benefit by authorizing a funding extension that would cost 2.5 Billion dollars. This fund subsidizes the payroll of companies so that they can hire workers and when it ends many of the owners of the businesses who use this program say they will have to let some of the workers go.
OK...I think, Madam Speaker, that you just don't get it, so I will try to explain it. In the economic environment we have today no business person in their right mind would hire employees they don't need...Right? So, if these employees are hired, it is only because they are needed...Right? What this fund does is allow these companies to hire a person for $10 an hour while only paying $5 an hour for them. The Government is picking up the tab on the remaining $5 an hour and buying 2.5 Billion dollars worth of labor for these companies. I have some issues with that.
Issue #1: Since the end of 2008 over 1.5 TRILLION dollars has been given to businesses to provide credit so people could get credit to purchase things, to subsidize company payrolls and help with a variety of other corporate induced problems. The problem is that for the most part the companies and corporations haven't kept their end of the bargain. Instead of using the money for what it was intended, Big Banking Interests used it to buy smaller local banks instead of extending credit to the public. HUGE corporations used it to pay equally HUGE bonuses to the very executives that caused their companies to nearly fail. Small businesses are sitting on the little bit left so that their profit margins improve. The fact is, we have learned, that when you give money to businesses they keep it for themselves...they don't stimulate the economy. I would think that you of all people, Mrs. Pelosi, would understand the failure of "Reaganomics".
Issue #2: The last I heard, 70% of our economy is CONSUMER driven...this means that if the middle class has no discretionary income (income over and above what the bills cost) or are too afraid to spend said income, then 70 % of our economy suffers. We, the middle class, are broke Madam Speaker...so until we have some discretionary income, and the confidence in our job security to spend it, 70% of the economy is going to remain stagnant and not move forward. It's really simple...if I don't have money, I don't spend money...if I don't spend money, businesses can't make sales...if businesses can't make sales they have to let people go...the more people who don't have money the more we don't spend and the more jobs that are lost. Ya see how that works...it's all about the people not the businesses.
Issue #3: This program costs 2.5 Billion dollars. Who, exactly, is going to pay for that? The poor don't have money to pay for it. The wealthy don't pay taxes. Did you not hear Warren Buffet brag about how he, one of the wealthiest men in the world, paid a lower tax rate than his secretary? How does that work? A secretary making less than 80K a year pays a higher percentage of her income in taxes than a Billionaire? It just pisses me off to know that. Madam Speaker...the middle class is broke...we have no money to spend on another entitlement program...and as a matter of fact, in protest of the unfair tax burden we have, I am never gonna buy another Diet Dr. Pepper again. It's my way of giving Big Business the old middle finger.
The truth is, you folks in congress are going about the whole idea of stimulus the wrong way. If you had divided the Trillions of dollars you have given away in the last two years by the number of citizens in the United States, legal citizens, and just sent everyone a check, we could have paid off our homes or sent our kids to college or bought a new car. The truth you are failing to realize is that if you put money in the middle class' pocket we instantly put it back into the economy, and if we use it to pay down our personal debt we have more discretionary income to keep stimulating the economy for a long time to come.
OK...I think, Madam Speaker, that you just don't get it, so I will try to explain it. In the economic environment we have today no business person in their right mind would hire employees they don't need...Right? So, if these employees are hired, it is only because they are needed...Right? What this fund does is allow these companies to hire a person for $10 an hour while only paying $5 an hour for them. The Government is picking up the tab on the remaining $5 an hour and buying 2.5 Billion dollars worth of labor for these companies. I have some issues with that.
Issue #1: Since the end of 2008 over 1.5 TRILLION dollars has been given to businesses to provide credit so people could get credit to purchase things, to subsidize company payrolls and help with a variety of other corporate induced problems. The problem is that for the most part the companies and corporations haven't kept their end of the bargain. Instead of using the money for what it was intended, Big Banking Interests used it to buy smaller local banks instead of extending credit to the public. HUGE corporations used it to pay equally HUGE bonuses to the very executives that caused their companies to nearly fail. Small businesses are sitting on the little bit left so that their profit margins improve. The fact is, we have learned, that when you give money to businesses they keep it for themselves...they don't stimulate the economy. I would think that you of all people, Mrs. Pelosi, would understand the failure of "Reaganomics".
Issue #2: The last I heard, 70% of our economy is CONSUMER driven...this means that if the middle class has no discretionary income (income over and above what the bills cost) or are too afraid to spend said income, then 70 % of our economy suffers. We, the middle class, are broke Madam Speaker...so until we have some discretionary income, and the confidence in our job security to spend it, 70% of the economy is going to remain stagnant and not move forward. It's really simple...if I don't have money, I don't spend money...if I don't spend money, businesses can't make sales...if businesses can't make sales they have to let people go...the more people who don't have money the more we don't spend and the more jobs that are lost. Ya see how that works...it's all about the people not the businesses.
Issue #3: This program costs 2.5 Billion dollars. Who, exactly, is going to pay for that? The poor don't have money to pay for it. The wealthy don't pay taxes. Did you not hear Warren Buffet brag about how he, one of the wealthiest men in the world, paid a lower tax rate than his secretary? How does that work? A secretary making less than 80K a year pays a higher percentage of her income in taxes than a Billionaire? It just pisses me off to know that. Madam Speaker...the middle class is broke...we have no money to spend on another entitlement program...and as a matter of fact, in protest of the unfair tax burden we have, I am never gonna buy another Diet Dr. Pepper again. It's my way of giving Big Business the old middle finger.
The truth is, you folks in congress are going about the whole idea of stimulus the wrong way. If you had divided the Trillions of dollars you have given away in the last two years by the number of citizens in the United States, legal citizens, and just sent everyone a check, we could have paid off our homes or sent our kids to college or bought a new car. The truth you are failing to realize is that if you put money in the middle class' pocket we instantly put it back into the economy, and if we use it to pay down our personal debt we have more discretionary income to keep stimulating the economy for a long time to come.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
