Money Laundering

This article, with the link below, makes my stomach churn.  We are so concerned with the porosity of our Southern border, yet all the while, American banks thumb their nose at regulations and wash the money that pays for the activity.  Is this absurdity?  The article is longer than I have room to present here, but please read through it to see the absolute gall and disrespect displayed by these banks.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-06-29/banks-financing-mexico-s-drug-cartels-admitted-in-wells-fargo-s-u-s-deal.html

Wachovia admitted it didn’t do enough to spot illicit funds in handling $378.4 billion for Mexican-currency-exchange houses from 2004 to 2007. That’s the largest violation of the Bank Secrecy Act, an anti-money-laundering law, in U.S. history -- a sum equal to one-third of Mexico’s current gross domestic product.

“Wachovia’s blatant disregard for our banking laws gave international cocaine cartels a virtual carte blanche to finance their operations,” says Jeffrey Sloman, the federal prosecutor who handled the case.

Since 2006, more than 22,000 people have been killed in drug-related battles that have raged mostly along the 2,000-mile (3,200-kilometer) border that Mexico shares with the U.S. In the Mexican city of Ciudad Juarez, just across the border from El Paso, Texas, 700 people had been murdered this year as of mid- June. Six Juarez police officers were slaughtered by automatic weapons fire in a midday ambush in April.

In May, President Barack Obama said he’d send 1,200 National Guard troops, adding to the 17,400 agents on the U.S. side of the border to help stem drug traffic and illegal immigration.

Behind the carnage in Mexico is an industry that supplies hundreds of tons of cocaine, heroin, marijuana and methamphetamines to Americans. The cartels have built a network of dealers in 231 U.S. cities from coast to coast, taking in about $39 billion in sales annually, according to the Justice Department.

‘You’re Missing the Point’

Twenty million people in the U.S. regularly use illegal drugs, spurring street crime and wrecking families. Narcotics cost the U.S. economy $215 billion a year -- enough to cover health care for 30.9 million Americans -- in overburdened courts, prisons and hospitals and lost productivity, the department says.

“It’s the banks laundering money for the cartels that finances the tragedy,” says Martin Woods, director of Wachovia’s anti-money-laundering unit in

London from 2006 to 2009. Woods says he quit the bank in disgust after executives ignored his documentation that drug dealers were funneling money through Wachovia’s branch network.

The amount of money listed above, from the Department of Justice, is staggering.  Is legalization the answer?  I think not.  My personal thoughts on this is that drugs are used to fill a void within a person, they are seeking comfort and peace from whatever it might be that is causing pain.  Filling this void with the Holy Spirit, given freely by God, would help replace the need and desire for illegal drugs.

American Slavery

Just what the American people need.  This current piece of legislation, introduced by a man who is buried in ethics violations, making his last hurrah, knowing there is no possible way he will win the next election, to enslave the American people, specifically the younger generation.  We all need to pay attention to the wording used here.

To require all persons in the United States between the ages of 18 and 42 to perform national service, either as a member of the uniformed services or in civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, to authorize the induction of persons in the uniformed services during wartime to meet end-strength requirements of the uniformed services, and for other purposes.

FOR OTHER PURPOSES!!!!!!!!!!

Every person, both male and female between 18 and 42 will be forced into government service to do the bidding of the president.  This is obscene!!!  Below is the text of the bill which has been sent to the Armed Services Committee.  Let it die there!!

H.R.5741 -- Universal National Service Act (Introduced in House - IH)

HR 5741 IH

111th CONGRESS

2d Session

H. R. 5741

To require all persons in the United States between the ages of 18 and 42 to perform national service, either as a member of the uniformed services or in civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, to authorize the induction of persons in the uniformed services during wartime to meet end-strength requirements of the uniformed services, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

July 15, 2010

Mr. RANGEL introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services

---

A BILL

To require all persons in the United States between the ages of 18 and 42 to perform national service, either as a member of the uniformed services or in civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, to authorize the induction of persons in the uniformed services during wartime to meet end-strength requirements of the uniformed services, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

(a) Short Title- This Act may be cited as the `Universal National Service Act'.

(b) Table of Contents- The table of contents for this Act is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

TITLE I--NATIONAL SERVICE

Sec. 101. Definitions.

Sec. 102. National service obligation.

Sec. 103. Induction to perform national service.

Sec. 104. Two-year period of national service.

Sec. 105. Implementation by the President.

Sec. 106. Examination and classification of persons.

Sec. 107. Deferments and postponements.

Sec. 108. Induction exemptions.

Sec. 109. Conscientious objection.

Sec. 110. Discharge following national service.

TITLE II--AMENDMENTS TO MILITARY SELECTIVE SERVICE ACT

Sec. 201. Registration of females.

Sec. 202. Registration and induction authority.

TITLE I--NATIONAL SERVICE

SEC. 101. DEFINITIONS.

In this title:

(1) The term `contingency operation' has the meaning given that term in section 101(a)(13) of title 10, United States Code.

(2) The term `military service' means service performed as a member of an active or reserve component of the uniformed services.

(3) The term `national service' means military service or service in a civilian capacity that, as determined by the President, promotes the national defense, including national or community service and service related to homeland security.

(4) The term `Secretary concerned' means the Secretary of Defense with respect to the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps, the Secretary of Homeland Security with respect to the Coast Guard, the Secretary of Commerce, with respect to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the Secretary of Health and Human Services, with respect to the Public Health Service.

(5) The term `United States', when used in a geographical sense, means the several States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and Guam.

(6) The term `uniformed services' means the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Coast Guard, commissioned corps of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and commissioned corps of the Public Health Service.

SEC. 102. NATIONAL SERVICE OBLIGATION.

(a) Obligation for Service- It is the obligation of every citizen of the United States, and every other person residing in the United States, who is between the ages of 18 and 42 to perform a period of national service as prescribed in this title unless exempted under the provisions of this title.

(b) Forms of National Service- The national service obligation under this title shall be performed either--

(1) as a member of an active or reserve component of the uniformed services; or

(2) in a civilian capacity that, as determined by the President, promotes the national defense, including national or community service and service related to homeland security.

(c) Age Limits- A person may be inducted under this title only if the person has attained the age of 18 and has not attained the age of 42.

SEC. 103. INDUCTION TO PERFORM NATIONAL SERVICE.

(a) Induction Requirements- The President shall provide for the induction of persons described in section 102(a) to perform their national service obligation.

(b) Limitation on Induction for Military Service- Persons described in section 102(a) may be inducted to perform military service only if--

(1) a declaration of war is in effect;

(2) the President declares a national emergency, which the President determines necessitates the induction of persons to perform military service, and immediately informs Congress of the reasons for the declaration and the need to induct persons for military service; or

(3) members of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps are engaged in a contingency operation pursuant to a congressional authorization for the use of military force.

(c) Limitation on Number of Persons Inducted for Military Service- When the induction of persons for military service is authorized by subsection (b), the President shall determine the number of persons described in section 102(a) whose national service obligation is to be satisfied through military service based on--

(1) the authorized end strengths of the uniformed services;

(2) the feasibility of the uniformed services to recruit sufficient volunteers to achieve such end-strength levels; and

(3) provide a mechanism for the random selection of persons to be inducted to perform military service.

(d) Selection for Induction-

(1) RANDOM SELECTION FOR MILITARY SERVICE- When the induction of persons for military service is authorized by subsection (b), the President shall utilize a mechanism for the random selection of persons to be inducted to perform military service.

(2) CIVILIAN SERVICE- Persons described in section 102(a) who do not volunteer to perform military service or are not inducted for military service shall perform their national service obligation in a civilian capacity pursuant to section 102(b)(2).

(e) Voluntary Service- A person subject to induction under this title may--

(1) volunteer to perform national service in lieu of being inducted; or

(2) request permission to be inducted at a time other than the time at which the person is otherwise called for induction.

SEC. 104. TWO-YEAR PERIOD OF NATIONAL SERVICE.

(a) General Rule- Except as otherwise provided in this section, the period of national service performed by a person under this title shall be two years.

(b) Grounds for Extension- At the discretion of the President, the period of military service for a member of the uniformed services under this title may be extended--

(1) with the consent of the member, for the purpose of furnishing hospitalization, medical, or surgical care for injury or illness incurred in line of duty; or

(2) for the purpose of requiring the member to compensate for any time lost to training for any cause.

(c) Early Termination- The period of national service for a person under this title shall be terminated before the end of such period under the following circumstances:

(1) The voluntary enlistment and active service of the person in an active or reserve component of the uniformed services for a period of at least two years, in which case the period of basic military training and education actually served by the person shall be counted toward the term of enlistment.

(2) The admission and service of the person as a cadet or midshipman at the United States Military Academy, the United States Naval Academy, the United States Air Force Academy, the Coast Guard Academy, or the United States Merchant Marine Academy.

(3) The enrollment and service of the person in an officer candidate program, if the person has signed an agreement to accept a Reserve commission in the appropriate service with an obligation to serve on active duty if such a commission is offered upon completion of the program.

(4) Such other grounds as the President may establish.

SEC. 105. IMPLEMENTATION BY THE PRESIDENT.

(a) In General- The President shall prescribe such regulations as are necessary to carry out this title.

(b) Matter To Be Covered by Regulations- Such regulations shall include specification of the following:

(1) The types of civilian service that may be performed in order for a person to satisfy the person's national service obligation under this title.

(2) Standards for satisfactory performance of civilian service and of penalties for failure to perform civilian service satisfactorily.

(3) The manner in which persons shall be selected for induction under this title, including the manner in which those selected will be notified of such selection.

(4) All other administrative matters in connection with the induction of persons under this title and the registration, examination, and classification of such persons.

(5) A means to determine questions or claims with respect to inclusion for, or exemption or deferment from induction under this title, including questions of conscientious objection.

(6) Standards for compensation and benefits for persons performing their national service obligation under this title through civilian service.

(7) Such other matters as the President determines necessary to carry out this title.

(c) Use of Prior Act- To the extent determined appropriate by the President, the President may use for purposes of this title the procedures provided in the Military Selective Service Act (50 U.S.C. App. 451 et seq.), including procedures for registration, selection, and induction.

SEC. 106. EXAMINATION AND CLASSIFICATION OF PERSONS.

(a) Examination- Every person subject to induction under this title shall, before induction, be physically and mentally examined and shall be classified as to fitness to perform national service.

(b) Different Classification Standards- The President may apply different classification standards for fitness for military service and fitness for civilian service.

SEC. 107. DEFERMENTS AND POSTPONEMENTS.

(a) High School Students- A person who is pursuing a standard course of study, on a full-time basis, in a secondary school or similar institution of learning shall be entitled to have induction under this title postponed until the person--

(1) obtains a high school diploma;

(2) ceases to pursue satisfactorily such course of study; or

(3) attains the age of 20.

(b) Hardship and Disability- Deferments from national service under this title may be made for--

(1) extreme hardship; or

(2) physical or mental disability.

(c) Training Capacity- The President may postpone or suspend the induction of persons for military service under this title as necessary to limit the number of persons receiving basic military training and education to the maximum number that can be adequately trained.

(d) Termination- No deferment or postponement of induction under this title shall continue after the cause of such deferment or postponement ceases.

SEC. 108. INDUCTION EXEMPTIONS.

(a) Qualifications- No person may be inducted for military service under this title unless the person is acceptable to the Secretary concerned for training and meets the same health and physical qualifications applicable under section 505 of title 10, United States Code, to persons seeking original enlistment in a regular component of the Armed Forces.

(b) Other Military Service- No person shall be liable for induction under this title who--

(1) is serving, or has served honorably for at least six months, in any component of the uniformed services on active duty; or

(2) is or becomes a cadet or midshipman at the United States Military Academy, the United States Naval Academy, the United States Air Force Academy, the Coast Guard Academy, the United States Merchant Marine Academy, a midshipman of a Navy accredited State maritime academy, a member of the Senior Reserve Officers' Training Corps, or the naval aviation college program, so long as that person satisfactorily continues in and completes at least two years training therein.

SEC. 109. CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTION.

(a) Claims as Conscientious Objector- Nothing in this title shall be construed to require a person to be subject to combatant training and service in the uniformed services, if that person, by reason of sincerely held moral, ethical, or religious beliefs, is conscientiously opposed to participation in war in any form.

(b) Alternative Noncombatant or Civilian Service- A person who claims exemption from combatant training and service under subsection (a) and whose claim is sustained by the local board shall--

(1) be assigned to noncombatant service (as defined by the President), if the person is inducted into the uniformed services; or

(2) be ordered by the local board, if found to be conscientiously opposed to participation in such noncombatant service, to perform national civilian service for the period specified in section 104(a) and subject to such regulations as the President may prescribe.

SEC. 110. DISCHARGE FOLLOWING NATIONAL SERVICE.

(a) Discharge- Upon completion or termination of the obligation to perform national service under this title, a person shall be discharged from the uniformed services or from civilian service, as the case may be, and shall not be subject to any further service under this title.

(b) Coordination With Other Authorities- Nothing in this section shall limit or prohibit the call to active service in the uniformed services of any person who is a member of a regular or reserve component of the uniformed services.

TITLE II--AMENDMENTS TO MILITARY SELECTIVE SERVICE ACT

SEC. 201. REGISTRATION OF FEMALES.

(a) Registration Required- Section 3(a) of the Military Selective Service Act (50 U.S.C. 453(a)) is amended--

(1) by striking `male' both places it appears;

(2) by inserting `or herself' after `himself'; and

(3) by striking `he' and inserting `the person'.

(b) Conforming Amendment- Section 16(a) of the Military Selective Service Act (50 U.S.C. App. 466(a)) is amended by striking `men' and inserting `persons'.

SEC. 202. REGISTRATION AND INDUCTION AUTHORITY.

(a) Registration- Section 4 of the Military Selective Service Act (50 U.S.C. App. 454) is amended by inserting after subsection (g) the following new subsection:

`(h) This section does not apply with respect to the induction of persons into the Armed Forces pursuant to the Universal National Service Act.'.

(b) Induction- Section 17(c) of the Military Selective Service Act (50 U.S.C. App. 467(c)) is amended by striking `now or hereafter' and all that follows through the period at the end and inserting `inducted pursuant to the Universal National Service Act.'.

Christian Responsibilty

Regardless of your ideologies, I have found that there is truly ONE important factor we all need to see.

Do you believe in the presence and power of God or the complete absence of God.  Do you believe that God is in control of the world or do you believe that man is in control of the world?

We see these quite clearly in the issues of abortion, public education and the debate over the separation of church and state.

The concepts and ideals of Christianity are interwoven with our thoughts of government.  One must be very careful though, to ensure that we are talking about our God given human rights, or our man given civil rights.

Scripture does tell us that God sets government in place, whether good or bad.  Christians in the Bible have disobeyed government when they believed government was requiring them to do something that violated their faith

Christians need to be sure that if they decide disobedience to government is warranted, that they be sure the basis really is the faith and not some other reason.  And, of course, if the disobedience is for the faith, then they must be prepared to pay the consequences as Paul and others did in the New Testament.  God calls on Christians to obey their government the vast majority of the time--- unless the issue is important enough for the faith to pay the consequences.  In America, however, the government is by the people, so in this type of government, the people are expected to change the government when they do not like what government is doing, not to disobey it.  Those who make our laws in America are elected by the people.  If we do not like what they are doing, we need to elect others who will be more consistent with our American Christian heritage.  This gives us an advantage over the New Testament Christians who had no say in who ruled over them. 

We, as Christians and citizens of America must stand up for our Lord Jesus Christ and remember His words, given to us in Matthew 10:11-22 about our journey and expression of His peace.

These words, I also believe, need to remain in the forefront of our mind.

Mat 10:32   Then everyone who shall confess Me before men, I will confess him before My Father who is in Heaven.    

Mat 10:33   But whoever shall deny Me before men, I will also deny him before My Father in Heaven.

Believe in what God has given to us, show courage in proclaiming His name.   If we do not like what they are doing, we need to elect others who will be more consistent with our American Christian heritage. 

Will you remain an ostrich, with your head buried, or will you speak out?

Words Matter

I read this last night, it has stirred my heart and sped up the gears of my mind.  I want to share this with all of you, it is of utmost importance.  Thank You,  Kevin Earley.

Words Matter: Substitute ONE word for another and change the course of history.

Share

 Yesterday at 10:54am

In God We Trust
Motto of Strength-Psalms 125
Legislated as official motto of the United States of America July 11, 1955 - Remember in November 2010 fb page commenced on July 11, 2010.

Worshipful Hatred - Digital Publius - July 18, 2010
The best deceptions are those that look most truthful. The subtle replacement of a word here, the rearranging of a term there, and you have something that on the surface seems right, but is really just plain old chicanery! No “natural” group is more adept at this sort of dishonest communication than the American liberal.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;…”

Thus begins the United States of America’s celebrated Bill of Rights. The founders of our nation thought freedom of religion so important that they made religious interference the very first restriction upon our fledgling government.

Government cannot prohibit the free exercise of an individual or group’s religious beliefs. What does this mean? It means that people are free to express their faith or lack of faith freely, in the public square or in their places of worship or the privacy of their own homes.

Trust but verify.
Protect and defend the U.S. Constitution.

It has been pointed out by the observant and concerned that since President Obama’s 2009 speech in Cairo where he used the term “freedom of religion”, there has been a switch in language in the administration to the term “freedom of worship.” The shift began with the President’s address at the Fort Hood terrorist attack memorial.

Subsequently, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has switched to freedom of worship as well. Freedom of religion or freedom of worship, does it matter? Is this just hair splitting? Well the two links I supplied above lead to articles that deal with the implications of the switch quite capably. I’m more interested in asking the question why?

The answer is simple: hatred.

“Be ye angry, and sin not: let not the sun go down upon your wrath:” Ephesians 4:26

That simple scripture cannot be adhered to by the left, they can never allow the wrath of their supporters to be abated. It is from that wrath that the left’s power flows. Without grievance there is no liberal agenda. To forgive the past is to lose the future for the Democrats.

Has there ever been a movement as obsessed with hatred and at the same time so unforgiving as the American Left? Hatred is the left’s religion. It is their eternal paradox. It’s like the atheists who cannot disbelieve in God without hating God and all those who choose to believe in Him.

Nothing is more hateful to a liberal than the God of the Holy Bible. In America, when a liberal attacks religion, he really means Christianity. This tenet of leftist thinking is illustrated beautifully by Brad Pitt in a conversation with Bill Maher. Pitt establishes his belief system when he states that if he ran for political office his platform would be “No God, legalization and taxation of pot and pro gay marriage."

Pitt then establishes what he means by no religion by attacking Christianity directly much to the delight of Maher and his audience. This is not unlike the statement made by Aldous Huxley:

“I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning; consequently assumed it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption…. The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics; he is also concerned to prove there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do…. For myself, as no doubt for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom.”

Pitt, Maher and Huxley are pegged by their desire to do away with God exposing the fact that they are not so much interested in liberty as they are in living as libertines. It is essential to recognize that liberalism as it exists today in America is rebellion against the God of the Holy Bible.

The first thing the founders wanted was to keep the recognition of God from being prohibited -The first thing the progressive liberal wants is to do away with God all together or at the very least to marginalize God.

In the mind of a liberal, if you defend traditional marriage, it is because you hate homosexuals and lesbians. If you are for immigration reform, it is because you hate Latinos. If you oppose the Presidents agenda it is because you hate Black people…and so the storyline goes.

The left loves to promote diversity. While many hardcore leftists oppose religion (really just Christianity) the paradox returns when it comes to liberal enthusiasm for religious diversity. The promotion of religious diversity is the ultimate anti-religious strategy. By championing the idea of equal validity for all belief systems, you effectively nullify them all.

If all religions are equally valid, then when they contradict each other they become equally invalid. As I am wont to say on occasion, we can all be wrong, but we can’t all be right.

This is why so many Bible-believing Christians find it so troubling for the President to say he is a Christian and then say that he believes there are many paths to God.

Much of what the Obama administration and liberalism in general want for America should be troubling to Christians—that is, if you believe the Holy Bible is in fact God’s Word. It is important to the liberal agenda to make the transition from freedom of religion to freedom of worship.

Worship can be confined—we see this at play right now in China with the house church movement and state sanctioned churches. But a Chinese Christian is not free to disseminate literature or to spread the Gospel freely in society.

Educating Our Future
Humanities and Primary Sources
Educators, parents, and students dedicated to truth, challenge, and access in every level of learning.

This is where we are headed in America. We see crosses being removed from roadside memorials, and the President covering references to Christ when he speaks at religious universities. We see “Under God” under attack. We see children unable to express their gratitude to their God for seeing them through high school in valedictory speeches.

Students can’t read the Bible in school, you can’t share your faith with a co-worker. If you are a liberal working to convince your constituents that the Defense of Marriage Act is an act of hatred, you certainly can’t abide a pastor standing on a street corner teaching that marriage is a holy sacrament to be entered into between one man and one woman.

If a pastor has to fear losing his tax exempt status because he preaches that homosexuality is a sin or abortion is murder, that certainly seems to be the government prohibiting the free exercise of religion. When most people don’t read the constitution for themselves, it’s easy to change terms to fit an agenda.

The left has convinced many Christians that they should not be involved in public discourse. Liberals claiming to be Christians love to say they practice a Christianity akin to the sermon preached by the Lord on the mountainside. But they hate the Lord’s great commission given to the disciples on the side of another mountain.

“Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them. And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted. And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.” Matthew 28:16-20

When you remove “…Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world”, it becomes possible for you to reinvent what the Sermon on the Mount truly meant. The left likes the idea of Christ, but they don’t believe Christ! You certainly can’t go around telling people that all power is given unto Him. What about Buddha? What about Allah?

Fomenting the perception of hatred has become the left’s worshipful act. When the only thing you can see is hatred manifested in some way or another, you have become devoted to seeing hatred. Whatever you are devoted to, that thing becomes your de facto god.

I have stated many times that I have not been able to figure out how to reconcile being a Christian and voting Democrat, given the platform the Democrats run on. I am open to hearing an explanation from those of you who can.

Digital Publius
Note: The text is a post of a Digital Pulbius article published July 18, 2010.
Note: All photos were not part of the original article and were added for purposes of this post on July 20, 2010.

Remember in November 2010 (Profile Pic)
Votes Count - bring friends
Remember the essence of citizenship is your informed vote.
LINK: http://www.facebook.com/pages/I-BET-WE-CAN-FIND-100000000-PEOPLE-WHO-WILL-REMEMBER-IN-NOVEMBER-2010-/111954245520628

Official 100 Million Challenge to REMEMBER IN NOVEMBER 2010: Remember that November is just around the corner and we have REAL work to do. Start researching principled candidates such as: Stephen Broden (TX), Tim Scott (SC), Fenn Little (GA), Allen West (FL), Star Parker (CA), Earl Sholley (MA), Sharron Angle (NV) John Dennis (CA), Marco Rubio (FL), Beth Beskin (GA) and many others, all of whom protect and defend our constitution exactly as it is written and all of whom, among others, will be listed for your consideration on the REMEMBER IN NOVEMBER 2010 page. Please send your friends to the 100 Million Challenge to REMEMBER IN NOVEMBER 2010, use the profile pic to the right, re-post and re-tweet the link to this page: http://www.facebook.com/pages/I-BET-WE-CAN-FIND-100000000-PEOPLE-WHO-WILL-REMEMBER-IN-NOVEMBER-2010-/111954245520628

Racism

The following Bible verses come from the King James Version.

Gen 1:27  So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Gen 9:6   Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.
1Co 11:7  For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.
Col 1:15  Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

As we are created in God’s image, why does racism exist?

The Merriam-Webster's Dictionary defines racism as a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority or inferiority of a particular racial group, and that it is also the prejudice based on such a belief. The Macquarie Dictionary defines racism as: "the belief that human races have distinctive characteristics which determine their respective cultures, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule or dominate others."
The concept that discrimination can be based on "race" presupposes the existence of "race" itself. However, the US Government's Human Genome Project has announced that the most complete mapping of human DNA to date indicates that there is no distinct genetic basis to racial types. Based on this evidence, "racial characteristics" logically cannot exist either, such as group differences in eye color or human hair color.

Inter-minority racism is sometimes considered controversial because of theories of power in society. Prejudiced thinking among and between minority groups does occur, for example conflicts between blacks and Korean Americans (notably in the Los Angeles riots of 1992), by blacks towards Jews (such as the riots in Crown Heights in 1991), between new immigrant groups (such as Latinos), or towards whites. One particularly pernicious form of racism in the United States is racial segregation, which arguably continues to exist today.
There has been a long-running racial tension between African Americans and Mexican Americans. There have been several significant riots in California prisons where Mexican American inmates and African Americans have specifically targeted each other based on racial reasons. There have been reports of racially motivated attacks against African Americans who have moved into neighborhoods occupied mostly by Mexican Americans, and vice versa. In the late 1920s in California, there was animosity between the Filipinos and the Mexicans and between whites and Filipinos since they competed for the same jobs. Recently, there has also been an increase in racial violence between African immigrants and Blacks who have already lived in the country for generations.

A method used by most organizations is groupthink. They say their way is right, watch out for any who think otherwise. Because of fear of being an “outsider” people follow along. It becomes very clear, through the use of this, an age old saying rings true. “If you don’t stand for something, you’ll fall for anything.”

Groupthink is a type of thought within a deeply cohesive in-group whose members try to minimize conflict and reach consensus without critically testing, analyzing, and evaluating ideas. It is a second potential negative consequence of group cohesion.
Individual creativity, uniqueness, and independent thinking are lost in the pursuit of group cohesiveness, as are the advantages of reasonable balance in choice and thought that might normally be obtained by making decisions as a group. During groupthink, members of the group avoid promoting viewpoints outside the comfort zone of consensus thinking. A variety of motives for this may exist such as a desire to avoid being seen as foolish, or a desire to avoid embarrassing or angering other members of the group. Groupthink may cause groups to make hasty, irrational decisions, where individual doubts are set aside, for fear of upsetting the group’s balance. The term is frequently used pejoratively, in hindsight. Additionally, it is difficult to assess the quality of decision making in terms of outcomes all the time, but one can almost always evaluate the quality of the decision-making process.

In our world, there are SO many groups so concerned that their views are not being heard. It seems to have become common practice to disparage another group, because they don’t see things the same way.

Hate speech is, outside the law, any communication which disparages a person or a group on the basis of some characteristic such as race or sexual orientation. In law, hate speech is any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group. The law may identify a protected individual or a protected group by race, gender, ethnicity, nationality, religion, sexual orientation, or other characteristic. In some countries, a victim of hate speech may seek redress under civil law, criminal law, or both.
Critics have claimed that the term "Hate Speech" is a modern example of Newspeak, used to silence critics of social policies that have been poorly implemented in a rush to appear politically correct.
A website that uses hate speech is called a hate site. Most of these sites contain Internet forums and news briefs that emphasize a particular viewpoint. There has been debate over how freedom of speech applies to the Internet. Conferences concerning such sites have been sponsored by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.

Are we our own worst enemy?

What is America? We are a nation of consumers, which can easily be seen in our trade deficit. A current number is $236 BILLION dollars and growing at rate of approximately $15,000 dollars a second.

What does this number actually mean?
A trade deficit is a calculation of the difference between the goods and services Americans sell to foreigners and the goods and services that Americans purchase from foreigners. A trade deficit with one country or in one year is not necessarily worrisome, and according to standard economic theory, will correct itself over time. But the theory has been proved wrong over the last 30 years as the United States has run consistent and increasing trade deficits. The enormous size of the trade deficits over the last several years raises the possibility of a severe international economic crisis should foreigners begin to dump the dollars they hold in world currency markets. The trade deficit is calculated on an annual basis.(americaneconomicalert.org)

We buy goods from all over the world. We do produce things but certainly not a level that would help America to become a more self-sustaining nation.

The solution? On the surface, seems pretty simple. Become a manufacturing nation again. We can do it. Unprecedented levels of manufacturing were achieved to support our nation as we entered into WWII. Am I saying we should stop consuming? Not at all, consuming helps keep the economy going. To bring back economic prosperity, we must become manufacturers again.

Do we not learn?

Reprinted from Investors.com
Policy Failure: Greece was told that if it wanted a bailout, it needed to consider privatizing its government health care system. So tell us again why the U.S. is following Europe's welfare state model.
The requirement, part of a deal arranged by the IMF, the European Union and the European Central bank, is a tacit admission that national health care programs are unsustainable. Along with transportation and energy, the bailout group, according to the New York Times, wants the Greek government to remove "the state from the marketplace in crucial sectors."

America continues to move forward to create nationalization in; health-care, elections, student loans, automotive, banking and Public Service Unions. When will America, or should I say the Government, learn that nationalization is not the answer. Private sector ownership in these areas give that prime motivation of profit.
Learning from the past, watching the former Soviet Union collapse, what was one of the main reasons for this collapse? Lack of incentive. Perhaps this may be a psychological aspect, none the less, real.
The following except is from Wikipedia, providing an understanding of nationalization.
“The motives for nationalization are political as well as economic. It is a central theme of certain brands of 'state socialist' policy that the means of production, distribution and exchange, should be owned by the state on behalf of the people or working class to allow for rational allocation of output, consolidation of resources, and rational planning or control of the economy. Many socialists believe that public ownership enables people to exercise full democratic control over the means whereby they earn their living and provides an effective means of distributing output to benefit the public at large, and a means for providing public finance.
Nationalized industries, charged with operating in the public interest, may be under strong political and social pressures to give much more attention to externalities. They may be obliged to operate some loss making activities where social benefits are clearly greater than social costs - for example, rural postal and transport services. As an instance, the United States Postal Service is guaranteed its nationalised status by the Constitution. The government has recognized these social obligations and, in some cases, provides subsidies for such non-commercial operations.
Since the nationalised industries are state owned, the government is responsible for meeting any debts incurred by these industries. The nationalized industries do not normally borrow from the domestic market other than for short-term borrowing. However, if profitable, the profit is often used as a means to finance other state services such as social programs and government research which can help lower the tax burden.
Nationalization may occur with or without compensation to the former owners. If it takes place without compensation it is a case of expropriation. Nationalization is distinguished from property redistribution in that the government retains control of nationalized property.”
We find ourselves in a large economic hole. Should it be the will of the people to own these industries that have found themselves in dire financial straits? Based on that alone, why? Nationalization of industry sectors is not the answer. There are obvious sectors where nationalization is important the postal system for example.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Despite Chavez, Venezuela economy not socialist (seattletimes.nwsource.com)

America Lite (pt 1)

Yes, America lite....all the rights and none of those pesky responsibilities.

I'm working on the premise that government's role is to maintain order. Yes, maintaining order does encompass a lot of things. What that doesn't cover is education, procreation, lifestyle and thoughts.

I'll simply comment on education here, as an aide for myself to help keep me on topic. I'll save comments on the other areas to be discussed in another post.

I must have missed the memo saying it was the government's job to provide an education, not only to its citizen's, but to those who really should not be here.

Education spending increases as a percentage of GDP, while graduation rates decline. Should the federal government continue?

Related articles by Zemanta

• Graduation Rates, by State and Race (economix.blogs.nytimes.com)
• Feds: On-time graduation for U.S. remains flat at about 75 percent (cnn.com)

Public schools are increasingly becoming much more secular, denying the use of materials that have been deemed "religious" even though such documents contain important historical information. Currently sex-ed is a HUGE topic of discussion, with many parents shut out of any decisions there.

These areas should be of prime importance to parents who take their responsibility of educating their children seriously. What we will see from this is parents who are serious about this, will remove their children from public schooling and either home-school them or enroll them in a private school.

Tax dollars, regardless if there are children using the public school system are taken from paychecks. If children are home-schooled or enrolled in a private educational facility, the costs have now gone up as paying for these methods comes from after tax dollars.

Would you remove your children from the public school system if you disagreed with content?

America, the unemployed

Unemployment in this country is a pretty large issue, it affects millions. The current unemployment rate is 9.5%. What this number does not represent is the total population not in the labor force and not receiving Unemployment Insurance. The numbers for this vary, as there is no statistical data available. Currently, if one were to add in the total of all unemployed, that percentage would be much closer to 16%.

Retail salespersons and cashiers were the two largest occupations in May 2009, representing nearly 1 out of every 17 jobs. Just 15 occupations accounted for over one-quarter of U.S. employment. In addition to retail salespersons and cashiers, these occupations included general office clerks, janitors, heavy and tractor-trailer truck drivers, and elementary school teachers. Of the 15 largest occupations, only 3—general and operations managers, registered nurses, and elementary school teachers—had mean wages above the U.S. average of $20.90 per hour or $43,460 annually. (BL

S)


The public sector is growing, government is expanding and become THE employer. The private sector continues to hemorrhage jobs. Government gets larger, completely against the ideals of the Founding Fathers.

Currently there is debate about unemployment benefits, should we extend them or not? I truly feel for all those who might lose benefits or those who do not even receive them (I am one of them). As tragic as it might seem, continuing benefits leads to dependence upon the government. There is NO incentive whatsoever to seek employment.

Discussion of expanding the employment base must wait for a future time, an issue itself.

We are faced with a growing public sector (government at all levels) and a shrinking private sector. Through history, we have seen that the key to economic expansion lies not with the public sector, but the private sector. Once again lessons our current government has failed to learn from the past.

Smaller government to carry out its primary function of maintaining order and a private sector to grow GDP. Not too difficult of a concept. Now we need to take control and make this the reality our Founding Fathers envisioned.

Did the government really stimulate the economy?

As we all have seen, the "stimulus" package, that we were told was an absolute need to help bring the economy around and create growth has failed.

Something must be understood. You cannot spend your way to better economic times. Lets reflect on our personal budgets. If funds are tight and scarce and meeting obligations is becoming a problem, do you go and borrow more money and spend it hoping your situation gets better? Of course not!

Related articles by Zemanta

• William Watson: Fiscal inflation (financialpost.com)

Sounds as though we all need to send shovels to Washington D.C. so they might begin to fill in the HUGE hole they have created

Socialism in American Economics

We are in quite the financial straits, both here in America and around the world. There are advocates which say you must spend your way to a recovery. There is just one fatal flaw in this assumption. Where does that money come from to spend? You will hear that we have the lowest tax rate in the world, so raising taxes isn’t much of an issue. What you will not hear is that the tax cuts put in place by Bush (2003)are due to expire at the end of the fiscal year. When all the “dust” settled, enacted were $350 million in cuts. On top of this, we can expect a tax increase, on top of the increase that will occur from the expiring tax cuts.

One of the primary schools of thought have been Keynesian economics. One of the tenets of this school of thought is to spend more to recover from a crisis. Another tenet of the Keynesian school is the concept of “excessive savings”. Excessive savings are bad thing that lead to recession or depression. The goal is to reach the equilibrium level and to maintain it.

According to the US Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, savings rates have plummeted into negative territory. Yes, the numbers there are staggering to digest, but I suppose, the bottom line is; if you spend more than you make, you must dip into savings to cover the difference. Do this enough times and you not only have no savings left, but you begin to run a deficit budget, or begin to borrow. How long would it be possible to do this before lenders say no?

Excerpts from the Wikipedia entries for Keynesian economics and Socialist economics.

“Keynesian economics advocates a mixed economy—predominantly private sector, but with a large role of government and public sector—and served as the economic model during the latter part of the Great Depression, World War II, and the post-war economic expansion (1945–1973), though it lost some influence following the stagflation of the 1970s. The advent of the global financial crisis in 2007 has caused a resurgence in Keynesian thought. The former British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, President of the United States Barack Obama, and other world leaders have used Keynesian economics to justify government stimulus programs for their economies.^[2]”

“Non-revolutionary socialists took inspiration from the work of John Stuart Mill, and later Keynes and the Keynesians, who provided theoretical justification for (potentially very extensive) state involvement in an existing market economy. According to the Keynesians, if the business cycle could be solved by national ownership of key industries and state direction of their investment, class antagonism would be effectively tamed; a compact would be formed between labour and the capitalists. There would be no need for revolution; instead Keynes looked to the eventual "euthenasia of the rentier" sometime in the far future. Joan Robinson and Michael Kalecki employed Keynesian insights to form the basis of a critical post-Keynesian economics that at times went well beyond liberal reformism. Many original socialist economic ideas would also emerge out of the trade union movement (see Guild Socialism).”

Is spending the answer to climb out of an economic hole? Is spending a way to stimulate an economy? In my opinion, the answer is no to both questions.

As a nation, we need to take back control and place some “common sense” into the programs we put forward. Electing the proper people to reach these goals are paramount.

Cutting these huge expenditures needs to start with changing the WAY in which government functions. Remove the greed and selfishness that dominates our current government and replace it with the self-interest that was a cornerstone of “Wealth of Nations”. When this is done, the people can take back control of government, something the founding fathers envisioned with the creation of the document known as The Constitution of the United States.