Environmentalists worldwide believe that the earth is either “warming” or “cooling”. Depending, of course, upon to whom you are speaking, you may hear either answer. They also believe that man – specifically Americans – are having drastically deleterious effects on the earth’s environment and that we are responsible for some “really bad” stuff that’s either happened, happening, or shall definitely happen in the future. It’s all our fault, especially America’s, and the responsibility falls directly at our feet when it comes to making the earth so polluted, hurting and dangerous. It’s not the earth’s fault. It’s us. We are the demons. We are to blame.
Not only do they believe this, but they are teaching their offspring to believe the same thing as well. It’s Mommy and Daddy teaching Junior and Sally that if they do “X” that it’s bad for the planet. A deep guilt complex lays on the children’s breasts as they exhale and as they poop and pee; adding bad things to the atmosphere, the water, the earth. It’s wrong to throw things away, to drive an SUV or anything other than a little scooter car that has as much power as a roller skate. Deep sighs of regret break through as they fly over to Europe on their sixth European vacation in as many years; but it is not all guilt and regret. They shall be heading to Ethiopia after their European spa vacation to help feed the hungry, dig a new ditch for them to get dirty water to the village instead of the villagers walking six miles a day and to feel better about their travel because – after all – it is helping people. That makes it all okay.
Never mind that the children are exposed to disease, exposed to dangerous ideas that, if implemented at home, will endanger the welfare of their own children and grandchildren as well as the rest of the country. Never mind that even though they are “helping” people, there are organizations that are already there that – if given the proper support of the corrupt government the environmentalists support – would be able to solve the problems in that country with their own efforts without outside “help”. Never mind that – twenty-five years from now, the children of the environmentalists will be doing the same work, with the same groups, but with more power if we do not stand up to their parents now.
Fact of the matter is that environmentalists are building a power structure based upon their singular belief that the environment is part of their “god” and part of their god must be served, protected, obeyed and worshipped. If we do not do thus, we shall forever be screwed. The earth will fight back and we shall all perish because “we did it to ourselves.” That belief – as parents are wont to do – is passed on to their children, as is the parents’ positions in a lot of the organizations that support the environmentalists’ ideas. Junior becomes Chairman of the Board of “The Natural Conservatory Organization” after Dad has passed on. It means continuity of the pattern, continuity of the leadership ideal, continuity of the vision: Junior is more trustworthy than the VP because Junior has the same genes, was brought up with it, has it not just in his teaching, but in his blood. A birthright has been established and it shall not be denied.
I say “theocracy” because it’s a belief system that is based purely upon faith and the ideal that the environment is “god”. Faith that there is “global warming” or “global cooling”; man can have a lasting impact on the environment; that if we tried, we could equal God’s creation as to how destructive we can be, how much damage we can do to the earth (as compared to how much damage the earth can do to us), etc. Faith has it that the Exxon Valdez has so damaged the planet that it will never be the same (is that always such a bad thing?) and that if we don’t change now, we will never have the chance to make things right. Faith has it that it was our pollution that made the deserts bigger, hotter and more arid. Faith has it that man has to be responsible for every bad thing the earth has experienced since its creation. That’s true faith to think all of that. Faith takes things that one cannot see, cannot prove, cannot show physical evidence of and says it is true anyways. Such is environmentalism therefore a “theocracy” is established.
What harm can this “Hereditary Theocracy” of environmentalism do? If we do not resist environmentalism now, we can kiss our children’s futures goodbye. If we do not fight environmentalist teachings, laws (incandescent light bulbs are going away after 2011), school systems to indoctrinate our children, then we sign our own warrants.
Not only will there be more laws establishing “the environment” as the first and foremost consideration for everything, but it will also mean that we will be limited as to what types of jobs we can have, what types of appliances we can have, what building materials we can use for our personal property (homes and office buildings; sheds even), what kinds of cars we will drive, the fuel we put into them, the airplanes we can ride on and what types of fuel they can use, perhaps how often we can fly without special permission, or tracking our mileage as we use our personal vehicles and company cars. Those who are not “environmental wackos” will be made to kowtow to those who are because those who have been taught the mantra, the faith, will be those who have the power. That power will come via having more influence in D.C., having friends in the business, knowing the right folks to contact about “X”.
This will enable the noose that used to fit loosely around the necks of the American people to be slowly, steadily tightened and before they know it, Americans everywhere will be using a set number of electricity watts per day as prescribed by the federal government under the EPA, after studies done by the environmental group, “Citizens United for Environmental Freedom” (or some such nonsense) find that “it’s the only sustainable way.”
Junior’s legacy will be a single child’s adoption from a foreign country with too many live births per capita (deemed unsustainable via the U.N.) and that child’s parents were lucky to get rid of the child prior to their being punished severely with food rations cut in half because they had a pregnancy that was not approved beforehand. Junior’s single child will have the inherited position within the environmental groups that his adoptive daddy has prepared him to inherit. All those policies Junior discussed implementing, the child – heir – will now put into effect because it will honor his adoptive father. It’s like Obama trying to make sure his daddy’s hatred of America and England, those dreams of destruction, come true; with Junior’s child trying to please daddy just as Obama is trying. This shall be seen in the environmental circles as a laudable thing; while to the nonbelievers, it shall just be more pain, less freedom and fewer constitutional rights for us and our progeny.
As the environmentalists get more power, as their heirs get more power, we lose more of our freedoms, more of our choices, more of our futures and of our children’s futures. Yet, that is what the environmentalists wish: power at all costs, even freedom’s. Your future, your beliefs matter not, nor does your desire to “live long and prosper” in America. If you do that, you may drop a piece of paper down a drainage pipe and that piece of paper is going to end us all. Freedom’s loss will be the environmentalist’s gain; as seen with legislated washing machines, toilets, light bulbs and gas millage.
If environmentalists are not stopped here and now, and our freedom restored, then when and where will they be? What will it take to make sure that your children or grandchildren have as much freedom as you and I? Or will it happen that they go all the way and our children’s children shall be paying the price for our desire to ignore it, to get along, to not make waves? If so, what shall their futures look like besides so very limited?
Environmentalism screams that we are the cause of all bad things. Environmentalism has faith that we are harming the earth with our deeds. Theocratic beliefs or not, environmentalists have no right – constitutional or otherwise – to impose upon the rest of us their beliefs. Legislating environmentalism is just as wrong as legislating that the Baptist Church become the “official religion” of America. Yet, with environmentalism, because there is no god specified (although everyone knows what is being worshipped), it is hunky-dory with those who would scream bloody murder otherwise. As long as it’s not the God of the Christian Bible, than any other god is okay; environmental earth worship included. Without due diligence on our part, their children will have power to place limits over our children and thereby doom our children to be less than what they could be, to do less than what they could have done, to be less of who they could have been. Environmentalism needs to be stopped now, sanity and common sense smacked into the people who have been brainwashed into it, and a return to the Founding Father’s principles of freedom restored. Otherwise, the hereditary theocracy will rule and our children’s children are doomed.
Sunday, October 31, 2010
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
An Open Letter to Elected Conservatives
If Conservatives win the House and Senate this November 2nd – especially if they have a veto-proof majority – I have a list of things you need to do in order to be deemed to be worthy of the office. Others may or may not agree with my list, but these are the things I think you should make a priority in order to make your election – our hope and trust in you -- worthwhile.
1) De-fund every position that was created by the health care reform bill and revoke it immediately. This will ensure that the taxpayers’ money is not spent on administration of the bill that should have never passed because the vast majority of us did not want it anyways. Progressives love to talk about the “democracy” (i.e., majority rule) that they think is the law of the land, but when it comes to governing against the majority of the people with health care reform, they didn’t listen to the majority of the people. Remove the funding for every position created in this bill: every secretary, administrator, every computer person, every janitor.
2) De-fund every czar position that Obama has created. No more money should be given to people who have unconstitutional powers to create rules and regulations over us that we – without constitutional authority – have to obey. No internet czar, no food czar, no health care czar should receive a dime of taxpayer dollars after you are sworn in.
3) De-fund every bailout scheme. Any time the taxpayers of America are saddled with another bailout scheme – caulking windows to banks and car manufacturers – the taxpayer has no say in it and they are strapped with the debt that comes from it. Just stop that nonsense now. De-fund every scheme that the taxpayers are being made to pay. No more government involvement in business bailouts!
4) Do serious and complete investigations of the voter fraud that has happened during these 2010 elections as well as the 2008 elections – including this administration’s (and Eric Holder’s) decisions regarding the New Black Panther Party and their voter intimidation. Investigate every incident in Texas, Florida, Arizona, everywhere and anywhere in America there was voter fraud reported and make sure that there is someone held accountable. The American people no longer want their votes to be stolen from them, defrauded from them, their voices to be negated and silenced because – according to our Founding Fathers and the U.S. Constitution – we have the right to be heard. Those committing fraud have the right to go to jail! If George Soros is involved, the SEIU is involved, the ACORN people involved, throw them in jail! If Barney Frank is involved, Chris Dodd involved, Andy Stern or Obama himself involved, throw them in jail!
5) Revoke the incandescent light bulb law. We should be able to choose which kind of light bulb we have and the same goes for vehicles, washing machines, toilets, etc.! Get out of our wallets and out of our personal choices.
6) Remove Eric Holder as the U.S. Attorney General and stop all lawsuits of America vs. any U.S. state due to immigration laws. The States have the right to make their own laws. That’s set forth in the U.S. Constitution’s Article IV. The States have the right to make their own laws, to enforce those laws and to protect their residents – the U.S. Citizens – from anyone who will do them harm.
7) Make a law allowing America to find, drill for and refine its own natural resource oil, and any other natural resources that will enable America to build businesses here, make jobs here, be independent of other countries for our own resources and to be able to thumb our noses at OPEC nations, at Hugo Chavez, or anyone else who thinks that America should be kept dependent upon their country or company in order to have the resources we need to be able to function as a free and independent country.
8) Start impeachment proceedings against Barack Hussein Obama. He has broken his Oath of Office to “uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution” – not just once, but many, many times over with his socialist actions. Socialism is not part of the U.S. Constitution, yet Obama has made it his goal – nay, his life’s work – to destroy America and to tear down the very fabric of our lives and make America into a thing unrecognizable as a land of freedom and (dare I say it?) hope; a land where other aspire to come in order to live as only the freedom that America used to promise would allow. That dream, under Obama, has quickly become a distant memory and a whispered about “remember when”. That is not what he swore to do on his Inauguration Day. He swore – in front of the American people and the world – to uphold and defend America: America’s history, her freedoms, her promise, her goals as set forth by the Founding Father’s when he swore to “uphold and defend” our U.S. Constitution. He has not done that. He has done everything in his power – and some things that technically were NOT in his power – to remove America from its vaunted place in the world’s lexicon and to make America into a socialist third world power that is nothing like what we were set up to be. America used to be considered the best nation on earth and in less than two short years, Obama has changed that to America being considered the eighth freest country on earth. That’s not just wrong, that’s evil.
So, that’s my list so far. IF the new, Conservatives coming into public office will do these things, America’s freedoms will be restored, the faith of the American people will be renewed and your elections will be justified. You will have deserved being elected.
If, however, you go along and get along and do nothing of these eight suggestions, I see no reason to have elected you instead of any Obama kiss-ahem flunkie.
Do the right thing, Conservatives. Do the right thing and return freedom to America, return the purpose of America to the ideals of the Founding Fathers. Remember liberty and restore it.
1) De-fund every position that was created by the health care reform bill and revoke it immediately. This will ensure that the taxpayers’ money is not spent on administration of the bill that should have never passed because the vast majority of us did not want it anyways. Progressives love to talk about the “democracy” (i.e., majority rule) that they think is the law of the land, but when it comes to governing against the majority of the people with health care reform, they didn’t listen to the majority of the people. Remove the funding for every position created in this bill: every secretary, administrator, every computer person, every janitor.
2) De-fund every czar position that Obama has created. No more money should be given to people who have unconstitutional powers to create rules and regulations over us that we – without constitutional authority – have to obey. No internet czar, no food czar, no health care czar should receive a dime of taxpayer dollars after you are sworn in.
3) De-fund every bailout scheme. Any time the taxpayers of America are saddled with another bailout scheme – caulking windows to banks and car manufacturers – the taxpayer has no say in it and they are strapped with the debt that comes from it. Just stop that nonsense now. De-fund every scheme that the taxpayers are being made to pay. No more government involvement in business bailouts!
4) Do serious and complete investigations of the voter fraud that has happened during these 2010 elections as well as the 2008 elections – including this administration’s (and Eric Holder’s) decisions regarding the New Black Panther Party and their voter intimidation. Investigate every incident in Texas, Florida, Arizona, everywhere and anywhere in America there was voter fraud reported and make sure that there is someone held accountable. The American people no longer want their votes to be stolen from them, defrauded from them, their voices to be negated and silenced because – according to our Founding Fathers and the U.S. Constitution – we have the right to be heard. Those committing fraud have the right to go to jail! If George Soros is involved, the SEIU is involved, the ACORN people involved, throw them in jail! If Barney Frank is involved, Chris Dodd involved, Andy Stern or Obama himself involved, throw them in jail!
5) Revoke the incandescent light bulb law. We should be able to choose which kind of light bulb we have and the same goes for vehicles, washing machines, toilets, etc.! Get out of our wallets and out of our personal choices.
6) Remove Eric Holder as the U.S. Attorney General and stop all lawsuits of America vs. any U.S. state due to immigration laws. The States have the right to make their own laws. That’s set forth in the U.S. Constitution’s Article IV. The States have the right to make their own laws, to enforce those laws and to protect their residents – the U.S. Citizens – from anyone who will do them harm.
7) Make a law allowing America to find, drill for and refine its own natural resource oil, and any other natural resources that will enable America to build businesses here, make jobs here, be independent of other countries for our own resources and to be able to thumb our noses at OPEC nations, at Hugo Chavez, or anyone else who thinks that America should be kept dependent upon their country or company in order to have the resources we need to be able to function as a free and independent country.
8) Start impeachment proceedings against Barack Hussein Obama. He has broken his Oath of Office to “uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution” – not just once, but many, many times over with his socialist actions. Socialism is not part of the U.S. Constitution, yet Obama has made it his goal – nay, his life’s work – to destroy America and to tear down the very fabric of our lives and make America into a thing unrecognizable as a land of freedom and (dare I say it?) hope; a land where other aspire to come in order to live as only the freedom that America used to promise would allow. That dream, under Obama, has quickly become a distant memory and a whispered about “remember when”. That is not what he swore to do on his Inauguration Day. He swore – in front of the American people and the world – to uphold and defend America: America’s history, her freedoms, her promise, her goals as set forth by the Founding Father’s when he swore to “uphold and defend” our U.S. Constitution. He has not done that. He has done everything in his power – and some things that technically were NOT in his power – to remove America from its vaunted place in the world’s lexicon and to make America into a socialist third world power that is nothing like what we were set up to be. America used to be considered the best nation on earth and in less than two short years, Obama has changed that to America being considered the eighth freest country on earth. That’s not just wrong, that’s evil.
So, that’s my list so far. IF the new, Conservatives coming into public office will do these things, America’s freedoms will be restored, the faith of the American people will be renewed and your elections will be justified. You will have deserved being elected.
If, however, you go along and get along and do nothing of these eight suggestions, I see no reason to have elected you instead of any Obama kiss-ahem flunkie.
Do the right thing, Conservatives. Do the right thing and return freedom to America, return the purpose of America to the ideals of the Founding Fathers. Remember liberty and restore it.
Thursday, October 7, 2010
Health Care Scam?
Received a scanned image from a friend September 25, 2010. That image made me go webcrawling because it made me go, "Hmmm... That's not right." The image is of the letter my friend received from the
Research Triangle Institute and, to me, it's very questionable.
Why is it "very questionable"? First: Why on earth does the U.S. Government have to hire outside help to perform a U.S. Public Health Services survey? That's the header on the page; it's the U.S.P.H.S. letterhead. Why use an outside source to do this? After all, they have the resources and they have employees, or they could hire people to do the work without getting a third person involved. Why hire someone else to do this? And, why at this time (more on that later)?
Second: If you read the letter, they say that the people being interviewed are going to -- if qualified to participate in the actual survey (more on that later) -- receive thirty dollars each. There could be multiple people in the same household "chosen to participate", thus there could be almost one hundred dollars in the household given to people to answer questions regarding "health-related issues". So over 6 million taxpayer dollars are given to RTI to go house to house and ask "health-related issues" questions. Will you really be answering "health-related issues" questions, or will they be more related to something else?
Third: RTI states,
"Our activities both mirror and support national priorities and policies as well as diverse commercial, industrial, and academic endeavors." If they "both mirror and support" why choose them to give $6 million dollars walking around money to, when the administration could have and should have chosen an organization that is neutral. (BTW, was this contract put out to bid and if so, how many people/companies bid on this contract? What were the other bids? Who owns those other companies? What are the other companies' affiations [Soros?]?) Why choose an organization whose stated goals are "to mirror and support"? Why not choose a neutral organization unless there's a specific purpose to send the surveyors out to accomplish?
Fourth: Why the initial questions before you are "qualified" to participate? Are they looking for someone specific to give the money to? Someone, perhaps, who may be swayed by a little extra cash before they decide to vote for or against a certain person or idea? Why not just question everyone about their "health-related issues"? After all, we all have at least one thing to be thinking about, don't we? If we are healthy, we want to stay that way. If we are sick, we want to get treatment. If we are pregnant, we want a healthy baby and a good pregnancy and easy delivery. We all have "health-related issues" so why do they need to pre-screen the participants who will receive the thirty dollars? Is there another reason to do so?
Fifth: This survey is being conducted just prior to a mid-term election in which many of those who voted for shoving "health care reform" down our throats will be up for reelection. Where will these surveys be taking place: in whose districts? Will it be nationwide, no matter what? Or will it be only in those districts whose Senators/Congresspeople are facing defeat after voting in favor of "health care reform"? Isn't "healt care reform" a "health-related issue"? How many of those chosen to participate and receive that $30 will be those who will vote for the candidate up for reelection after they get that money? Congresswoman Suzanne Kosmas, is having a difficult time due to her support and vote in favor of "health care reform". Is it coincidence that the surveys are being conducted here?
Sixth: How accountable are the people walking around with this money going to be to the taxpayers? Will they be keeping copious records? Will they be getting identification, Social Security numbers, drivers' license numbers, or any other type of record-enabling thing? What is the surveyor's responsibility to the taxpayer since they already have the money? Or will it be something that they can go spend the money however they wish once they get out into the neighborhood and there will be no accounting?
Seventh: Will they be bonded, licensed, insured? Will they be vetted prior to them being given identification and told to enter people's homes under the auspices of the federal government program they are working for? Or will it be similar to the U.S. Census in which several Census workers were found to be sex offenders after they had been employed by the Census? Or will they be more careful this time?
Will you be safe? Will your children be safe?
Eighth: Why do people need to be cleared to answer questions? Is there a set of particular people they are trying to question: i.e., is the survey being weighted? For instance: If they are trying to get people who were not going to vote for Kosmas to participate in the survey and they ask questions like, "Congresswoman Suzanne Kosmas voted for the health care reform act. Does this tend to make you want to vote for Kosmas or against Kosmas?" Remember, it is a "health-related issues" survey. That question is related to health-related issues. After all, if it weren't for the people who voted for shoving the "Health Care Enslavement Act of 2010" we wouldn't have had that change and we wouldn't be facing the future difficulties we now are.
Ninth: If this information is being collected for "only for statistical purposes" why do the people need to be paid? And why screen people with initial questions? Why not ask the people in the household the questions, no matter their possible answers to the initial questions? Obviously, they are looking for a specific answer, a specific group of people, a specific result. So what result are they looking for? What statistic are they trying to secure: support for the "health care reform" supidity, or support for the candidate who supported it?
Tenth: Is this another "jobs" scam, similar to the
U.S. Census jobs? Remember how the U.S. Census kept getting busted for hiring people, having them work slowly for a few days, firing them, then re-hiring them for another portion of the U.S. Census? Remember that ridiculousness that made the summer jobs numbers supposedly better? Remember how all of that worked out? How about this stuff? Will all those RTI "surveyors" be part of the federal jobs program? And, if so, how about those people who take the survey and receive government money for participating? Will this administration be counting the survey takers as "government employees" also? What will that do to jobs numbers?
Eleventh: What benefits will the government get -- or does someone else benefit -- from this information? Find out the questions these RTI employees are going to be asking: both the initial questions and the survey questions. That will tell you the truth about what this survey is going to be doing for the "statistical purposes" of this administration. What will it benefit the government: or who within the government will it benefit? If it's benefiting the government, shouldn't we also get some benefit? After all, it is your six million dollars that is being spent, shouldn't you get some benefit of some sort?
Twelth: If RTI's stated goals and purposes are to "both mirror and support national priorities and policies", and it's going to be for "statistical purposes" that this survey is done, why bother spending six million dollars on a survey to be done by a company that already "mirrors and supports" the administration anyways? Does this make sense to you? Isn't that a bit like paying for an outcome that is already predetermined? Why pay six million dollars for something that is going to get the expected results anyways? Does this make any sense to you? Or is this being done for other purposes? After all, we already have the government agency upon whose letterhead this letter is written. Why hire an outside agency and pay give them six million dollars of walking around money, not to mention paying the employees to do this survey, and the contract amount? Why?
Which leads me to the last question:
Thirteenth: Is this Obama sending taxpayer dollars to his friends via another shady deal? Take a look at who RTI is. See any connections with this administration? How about
the fact that they lobby in favor of the health care issue? (Be sure to check out all of the tabs there, especially the "Issues" and the information on the group's lobbyists and revolving door info.) Or maybe you should consider
Erskine Bowles, President of the University fo North Carolina, which is part of RTI. Remember him?
He's part of the Obama appointed "Debt Commission". Nah. Nothing to see there. Then consider this RTI brochure that includes the line: "Education Reform Support, Soros Foundation/Bulgarian Ministry of Education (1998–2000)". Soros? As in George Soros? Is Obama paying back Soros with millions of your taxpayer dollars for the support Soros gave Obama in getting elected? Just asking, folks. Just asking. One more to look at would be
page five of
this RTI brochure. It has Soros in the brochure, too, as well as an organization called "USAID". There were 1,610 Google® search results for "Research Triangle Institute USAID Soros". RTI is the organization whose employees (vetted employees?) will be entering your house to ask you "health-related issues" questions.
USAID is a U.S. government aid organization that spends billions of your taxpayer dollars worldwide to help other nations. RTI is connected to USAID, to George Soros and has a history -- according to their own website -- of "mirror[ing] and support[ing}" the Obama administration. How much of your taxpayer dollars should be spent on a frivolous survey that an existing organization could conduct instead of giving Obama's supporters over six million dollars of your money to do the job?
I got the letter from a longtime friend who legitimately received it in the mail. He wasn't expecting to receive this letter, but he was not surprised to see that this administration was doing something so blatantly wrong. Thanks to my friend, I sent this information to Glenn Beck. I am also making sure Michelle Bachman and others know about it. I hope that they -- and that you -- will ask hard questions of the Obama administration and demand some real answers. Remember, it's your money. It's your right to ask questions about it and it's your right to demand that the government answer those questions. Contact the USPHS (they're the ones whose letterhead the letter is on) and
ask the USPHS why this survey, why now, and why RTI? Ask them under the the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Demand answers. It's your right to know.
Then, when you've asked the USPHS,
ask Obama, too. Use the FOIA to your advantage and get answers. Don't accept, "It's just a survey" as an answer. Find the TRUTH!
Research Triangle Institute and, to me, it's very questionable.
Why is it "very questionable"? First: Why on earth does the U.S. Government have to hire outside help to perform a U.S. Public Health Services survey? That's the header on the page; it's the U.S.P.H.S. letterhead. Why use an outside source to do this? After all, they have the resources and they have employees, or they could hire people to do the work without getting a third person involved. Why hire someone else to do this? And, why at this time (more on that later)?
Second: If you read the letter, they say that the people being interviewed are going to -- if qualified to participate in the actual survey (more on that later) -- receive thirty dollars each. There could be multiple people in the same household "chosen to participate", thus there could be almost one hundred dollars in the household given to people to answer questions regarding "health-related issues". So over 6 million taxpayer dollars are given to RTI to go house to house and ask "health-related issues" questions. Will you really be answering "health-related issues" questions, or will they be more related to something else?
Third: RTI states,
"Our activities both mirror and support national priorities and policies as well as diverse commercial, industrial, and academic endeavors." If they "both mirror and support" why choose them to give $6 million dollars walking around money to, when the administration could have and should have chosen an organization that is neutral. (BTW, was this contract put out to bid and if so, how many people/companies bid on this contract? What were the other bids? Who owns those other companies? What are the other companies' affiations [Soros?]?) Why choose an organization whose stated goals are "to mirror and support"? Why not choose a neutral organization unless there's a specific purpose to send the surveyors out to accomplish?
Fourth: Why the initial questions before you are "qualified" to participate? Are they looking for someone specific to give the money to? Someone, perhaps, who may be swayed by a little extra cash before they decide to vote for or against a certain person or idea? Why not just question everyone about their "health-related issues"? After all, we all have at least one thing to be thinking about, don't we? If we are healthy, we want to stay that way. If we are sick, we want to get treatment. If we are pregnant, we want a healthy baby and a good pregnancy and easy delivery. We all have "health-related issues" so why do they need to pre-screen the participants who will receive the thirty dollars? Is there another reason to do so?
Fifth: This survey is being conducted just prior to a mid-term election in which many of those who voted for shoving "health care reform" down our throats will be up for reelection. Where will these surveys be taking place: in whose districts? Will it be nationwide, no matter what? Or will it be only in those districts whose Senators/Congresspeople are facing defeat after voting in favor of "health care reform"? Isn't "healt care reform" a "health-related issue"? How many of those chosen to participate and receive that $30 will be those who will vote for the candidate up for reelection after they get that money? Congresswoman Suzanne Kosmas, is having a difficult time due to her support and vote in favor of "health care reform". Is it coincidence that the surveys are being conducted here?
Sixth: How accountable are the people walking around with this money going to be to the taxpayers? Will they be keeping copious records? Will they be getting identification, Social Security numbers, drivers' license numbers, or any other type of record-enabling thing? What is the surveyor's responsibility to the taxpayer since they already have the money? Or will it be something that they can go spend the money however they wish once they get out into the neighborhood and there will be no accounting?
Seventh: Will they be bonded, licensed, insured? Will they be vetted prior to them being given identification and told to enter people's homes under the auspices of the federal government program they are working for? Or will it be similar to the U.S. Census in which several Census workers were found to be sex offenders after they had been employed by the Census? Or will they be more careful this time?
Will you be safe? Will your children be safe?
Eighth: Why do people need to be cleared to answer questions? Is there a set of particular people they are trying to question: i.e., is the survey being weighted? For instance: If they are trying to get people who were not going to vote for Kosmas to participate in the survey and they ask questions like, "Congresswoman Suzanne Kosmas voted for the health care reform act. Does this tend to make you want to vote for Kosmas or against Kosmas?" Remember, it is a "health-related issues" survey. That question is related to health-related issues. After all, if it weren't for the people who voted for shoving the "Health Care Enslavement Act of 2010" we wouldn't have had that change and we wouldn't be facing the future difficulties we now are.
Ninth: If this information is being collected for "only for statistical purposes" why do the people need to be paid? And why screen people with initial questions? Why not ask the people in the household the questions, no matter their possible answers to the initial questions? Obviously, they are looking for a specific answer, a specific group of people, a specific result. So what result are they looking for? What statistic are they trying to secure: support for the "health care reform" supidity, or support for the candidate who supported it?
Tenth: Is this another "jobs" scam, similar to the
U.S. Census jobs? Remember how the U.S. Census kept getting busted for hiring people, having them work slowly for a few days, firing them, then re-hiring them for another portion of the U.S. Census? Remember that ridiculousness that made the summer jobs numbers supposedly better? Remember how all of that worked out? How about this stuff? Will all those RTI "surveyors" be part of the federal jobs program? And, if so, how about those people who take the survey and receive government money for participating? Will this administration be counting the survey takers as "government employees" also? What will that do to jobs numbers?
Eleventh: What benefits will the government get -- or does someone else benefit -- from this information? Find out the questions these RTI employees are going to be asking: both the initial questions and the survey questions. That will tell you the truth about what this survey is going to be doing for the "statistical purposes" of this administration. What will it benefit the government: or who within the government will it benefit? If it's benefiting the government, shouldn't we also get some benefit? After all, it is your six million dollars that is being spent, shouldn't you get some benefit of some sort?
Twelth: If RTI's stated goals and purposes are to "both mirror and support national priorities and policies", and it's going to be for "statistical purposes" that this survey is done, why bother spending six million dollars on a survey to be done by a company that already "mirrors and supports" the administration anyways? Does this make sense to you? Isn't that a bit like paying for an outcome that is already predetermined? Why pay six million dollars for something that is going to get the expected results anyways? Does this make any sense to you? Or is this being done for other purposes? After all, we already have the government agency upon whose letterhead this letter is written. Why hire an outside agency and pay give them six million dollars of walking around money, not to mention paying the employees to do this survey, and the contract amount? Why?
Which leads me to the last question:
Thirteenth: Is this Obama sending taxpayer dollars to his friends via another shady deal? Take a look at who RTI is. See any connections with this administration? How about
the fact that they lobby in favor of the health care issue? (Be sure to check out all of the tabs there, especially the "Issues" and the information on the group's lobbyists and revolving door info.) Or maybe you should consider
Erskine Bowles, President of the University fo North Carolina, which is part of RTI. Remember him?
He's part of the Obama appointed "Debt Commission". Nah. Nothing to see there. Then consider this RTI brochure that includes the line: "Education Reform Support, Soros Foundation/Bulgarian Ministry of Education (1998–2000)". Soros? As in George Soros? Is Obama paying back Soros with millions of your taxpayer dollars for the support Soros gave Obama in getting elected? Just asking, folks. Just asking. One more to look at would be
page five of
this RTI brochure. It has Soros in the brochure, too, as well as an organization called "USAID". There were 1,610 Google® search results for "Research Triangle Institute USAID Soros". RTI is the organization whose employees (vetted employees?) will be entering your house to ask you "health-related issues" questions.
USAID is a U.S. government aid organization that spends billions of your taxpayer dollars worldwide to help other nations. RTI is connected to USAID, to George Soros and has a history -- according to their own website -- of "mirror[ing] and support[ing}" the Obama administration. How much of your taxpayer dollars should be spent on a frivolous survey that an existing organization could conduct instead of giving Obama's supporters over six million dollars of your money to do the job?
I got the letter from a longtime friend who legitimately received it in the mail. He wasn't expecting to receive this letter, but he was not surprised to see that this administration was doing something so blatantly wrong. Thanks to my friend, I sent this information to Glenn Beck. I am also making sure Michelle Bachman and others know about it. I hope that they -- and that you -- will ask hard questions of the Obama administration and demand some real answers. Remember, it's your money. It's your right to ask questions about it and it's your right to demand that the government answer those questions. Contact the USPHS (they're the ones whose letterhead the letter is on) and
ask the USPHS why this survey, why now, and why RTI? Ask them under the the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Demand answers. It's your right to know.
Then, when you've asked the USPHS,
ask Obama, too. Use the FOIA to your advantage and get answers. Don't accept, "It's just a survey" as an answer. Find the TRUTH!
Friday, September 17, 2010
Obama's Religion: You Will Know Him By His Fruit
The question has recently arisen, "Is Obama a Muslim?" It's a fair and valid question. Knowing someone's religious beliefs -- true religious beliefs -- tells you something about that person.
In Matthew 7:16 we see these words, "You shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?" We see it elsewhere in the Bible as, "As the old saying goes, 'From evildoers come evil deeds,' so my hand will not touch you." (1 Samuel 24:13), or "My brothers, can a fig tree bear olives, or a grapevine bear figs? Neither can a salt spring produce fresh water." (James 3:12), and, "Even a child is known by his actions, by whether his conduct is pure and right." (Proverbs 20:11).
Say, for instance, your brother just announced he has recently become a Catholic. You believe he is sincere in his statement because he has been honest with you in every instance of conversation and written communication previously, so you believe his conversion to Catholicism to be genuine. You now know that he has accepted as important and -- hopefully -- factual, the teachings of the Catholic Church. That tells you that he will now be doing some predictable things: using a rosary, praying certain prayers, going to certain church services, eating certain things (or not eating them), etc. You know that he is now going to be crossing himself, wearing a Crucifix instead of an empty cross; he'll be praying to Saints and Martyrs instead of just God via Jesus Christ. You know what to expect. You're familiar with the signs and "symptoms" of being a Catholic. If your brother does not do those things, then you can seriously doubt his conversion statement as being legitimate and sincere.
Same holds true of Obama being a Christian. Obama says he is a Christian. Therefore, according to the Bible, we should see certain things from him as far as his actions and words are concerned. We should see him going to a church that teaches and preaches the Bible as the loving word of God. Instead, he spent twenty years as a member and regular attendee of the "Rev." Jeremiah Wright's, "Not God Bless America, but God d**n America!" and "America's chickens are coming home to roost!" Sitting under tutelage like that for twenty years, having the "Rev." Wright perform your marriage ceremony and baptise your daughters: Christian fruit, or hatred?
Considering that he has left Chicago and is now in the Red House (used to be the White House until a Marxist/Communist occupied it), his church going has changed. He no longer regularly attends any church. In fact, in his first year in office, he attended church only three times. So church attendance is not something that labels him a Christian. Of course, there is no truth to the fact that everyone who attends church is a Christian, nor that anyone who does not attend church is not a Christian. So with that, I will cut him some leeway. However, I must make two observations on the story linked above. 1) We are told that Obama "prays every day." So do Muslims, some Atheists, Druids, Hindus, Buddhists, etc. "[P]ray[ing] every day" proves nothing toward or against Christianity. 2) Obama supposedly gets his daily Christian lessons on his Blackberry (instead of from his Bible, but okay), but that does not mean that he reads them. Ever hear him spontaneously and accurately quote an appropriate Bible verse? Spontaneously, now, not in a scripted speech? No? Nor have I.
Let's look at some other indicators. In Malachi 3:10 we see that we are supposed to bring our tithes "into the storehouse" in obedience to God to further His kingdom. Leviticus 27:30 says for us to tithe of "everything from the land" and we are taught that one tenth of every bit of our income is supposed to go to God -- before deductions and "adjusted income" is figured. We're supposed to tithe our gross income. According to Obama's charitable donations, we see only $250 went to a church or Christian foundation/organization. The rest of his donations -- even the money from his Pulitzer Prize -- went to other kinds of non-Christian organizations. Is that being obedient to God's word? Is that how he demonstrates with the fruit he bears how much he loves the God of the Bible?
Another consideration is the story he tells of his conversion experience. What does he say about that first moment when God knocked on Obama's heart and called Obama to be His son? Where was he? How did it feel? Who else was there? What did God say? Who did Obama tell first? What happened next inside Obama's heart? How did Obama's heart change? How did Obama's actions change? What was Obama's first desire regarding Obama's service to God? How was Obama's life made different? Has anyone ever heard it and did it sound anything at all like the truth? It is in one of his books that "he wrote of it" (I put that in quotes because I am not sure it was he who wrote those books, there is evidence he did not). If it be someone else's words, then this testimony is not necessarily Obama's testimony and considering that it is not elsewhere mentioned within the book, in fact quickly forgotten, and not in evidence today, I think that the fruit of that testimony is lacking in freshness. Many have a "conversion" that lasts but a moment and no more. Many go forward in church and some even go so far as to be baptized (sometimes even to prove something to a girl within the church, or similar non-Christian motives), but unless that conversion experience changes your heart and life so that you are truly different -- and we've seen no evidence of that -- then it is not a conversion, but a show.
Does someone professing Christianity respect the Bible, quote it correctly, and follow its precepts? Or does he quote the Koran and claim it's part of the Bible, and mock the Bible? If the latter, then I would definitely say it's okay to doubt one's supposed Christianity because that person is mocking God. A true Christian does not mock God because a true Christian would be horrified at the idea of doing so, and would be too scared of the consequences. Someone who says they are a Christian would know better than to mock God. The fruit of that tree is total annhiliation via God's wrath, not the growth of God's kingdom. If the good fruit comes from the good tree, then the tree Obama is planting is a tree of death.
Questioning Obama's Christianity is legitimate because of the fact that he is hateful toward Christianity as a whole. Remember his quote, "it's not surprising that they cling to guns or religion"? Sorry, but a Christian would say that? Would a Christian say that it isn't surprising that people would be Christians? He said that it isn't "surprising that they cling to guns or religion". A Christian would down being a Christian? Is that the fruit of a good tree, or is that a thorn from a thorn tree?
Something else to take into consideration as a "fruit" is, if he is a Christian, does he preach what he supposedly practices? Does he tell others that it's good to be a Christian? Does he follow the Great Commission in Matthew 28:16-20 -- is Obama a witness for Christ? Or does Obama say he is still a Muslim and that the Islamic call to prayer is the one of the prettiest sounds on earth? Not every Christian is an evangelist, true, but there are things God calls us to do -- the things mentioned above, amongst others -- that are all witnesses of Christ. It's how we profess our Christianity in our daily walk, as well as with our mouths that speaks to others. If Obama is a Christian, why do so many Americans -- and others throughout the world -- believe him to be otherwise when they consider the way he lives, talks, treats others and governs? Where is the impression that he is a Christian for those who are closest to him, or furthest from him?
Another consideration is the people Obama is appointing as his advisors, czars and cabinet members. Does he appoint Christians, or does he appoint Communists, Marxists and other atheists? Does Obama surround himself with solid Christian counsel, or does he surround himself with those who hate the Lord? If he surrounds himself with those who hate the Lord, where are the converts Obama has made with his Christian witness? Where are the people saying that Obama's Christian leadership and godly counsel helped save their marriage, or that his prayer brought healing to their child's illness? Where is the "cloud of witnesses" to attest to Obama's Christianity? Who does he surround himself with and when do they become his "cloud of witnesses" to Obama's love of Jesus Christ, Obama's Lord and Savior?
When President Bush was in office, he attended a Christian church regularly and few doubted he was a Christian. He spontaneously prayed with people, he was approachable and people knew he cared. He quoted the Bible not just in prepared speeches, but in his everyday language. President Bush was a known entity and hated for being so outspoken a Christian. Do a Google® search for "George W. Bush Christian" and see how many sites come up that spew hatred for Bush and his Christianity. It amazed me. When you look at Obama's supposed Christianity, then it's we who have to take Obama's word for it, and -- even though he mocks us and he scorns us and denies America is a Christian nation -- we are supposed to take Obama's word that he is a Christian.
I beg to differ. When the Bible tells us what to look for, what facts to consider, what obedience is (tithing, praying, fasting, witnessing, etc.), and we see none of the fruit the Bible tells us to take into consideration, then we can make an educated -- and Biblical -- decision that Obama is not a Christian. After all, what true Christian would ever have the "slip up" of saying, "my Muslim faith"? I think that speaks volumes in and of itself.
So, is Obama a Christian? I think the Bible makes the final call on that. In Matthew 7:21 it says, "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven." I think "Lord, Lord" is Obama's act: doing the will of God "which is in heaven" is Obama's failing.
In Matthew 7:16 we see these words, "You shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?" We see it elsewhere in the Bible as, "As the old saying goes, 'From evildoers come evil deeds,' so my hand will not touch you." (1 Samuel 24:13), or "My brothers, can a fig tree bear olives, or a grapevine bear figs? Neither can a salt spring produce fresh water." (James 3:12), and, "Even a child is known by his actions, by whether his conduct is pure and right." (Proverbs 20:11).
Say, for instance, your brother just announced he has recently become a Catholic. You believe he is sincere in his statement because he has been honest with you in every instance of conversation and written communication previously, so you believe his conversion to Catholicism to be genuine. You now know that he has accepted as important and -- hopefully -- factual, the teachings of the Catholic Church. That tells you that he will now be doing some predictable things: using a rosary, praying certain prayers, going to certain church services, eating certain things (or not eating them), etc. You know that he is now going to be crossing himself, wearing a Crucifix instead of an empty cross; he'll be praying to Saints and Martyrs instead of just God via Jesus Christ. You know what to expect. You're familiar with the signs and "symptoms" of being a Catholic. If your brother does not do those things, then you can seriously doubt his conversion statement as being legitimate and sincere.
Same holds true of Obama being a Christian. Obama says he is a Christian. Therefore, according to the Bible, we should see certain things from him as far as his actions and words are concerned. We should see him going to a church that teaches and preaches the Bible as the loving word of God. Instead, he spent twenty years as a member and regular attendee of the "Rev." Jeremiah Wright's, "Not God Bless America, but God d**n America!" and "America's chickens are coming home to roost!" Sitting under tutelage like that for twenty years, having the "Rev." Wright perform your marriage ceremony and baptise your daughters: Christian fruit, or hatred?
Considering that he has left Chicago and is now in the Red House (used to be the White House until a Marxist/Communist occupied it), his church going has changed. He no longer regularly attends any church. In fact, in his first year in office, he attended church only three times. So church attendance is not something that labels him a Christian. Of course, there is no truth to the fact that everyone who attends church is a Christian, nor that anyone who does not attend church is not a Christian. So with that, I will cut him some leeway. However, I must make two observations on the story linked above. 1) We are told that Obama "prays every day." So do Muslims, some Atheists, Druids, Hindus, Buddhists, etc. "[P]ray[ing] every day" proves nothing toward or against Christianity. 2) Obama supposedly gets his daily Christian lessons on his Blackberry (instead of from his Bible, but okay), but that does not mean that he reads them. Ever hear him spontaneously and accurately quote an appropriate Bible verse? Spontaneously, now, not in a scripted speech? No? Nor have I.
Let's look at some other indicators. In Malachi 3:10 we see that we are supposed to bring our tithes "into the storehouse" in obedience to God to further His kingdom. Leviticus 27:30 says for us to tithe of "everything from the land" and we are taught that one tenth of every bit of our income is supposed to go to God -- before deductions and "adjusted income" is figured. We're supposed to tithe our gross income. According to Obama's charitable donations, we see only $250 went to a church or Christian foundation/organization. The rest of his donations -- even the money from his Pulitzer Prize -- went to other kinds of non-Christian organizations. Is that being obedient to God's word? Is that how he demonstrates with the fruit he bears how much he loves the God of the Bible?
Another consideration is the story he tells of his conversion experience. What does he say about that first moment when God knocked on Obama's heart and called Obama to be His son? Where was he? How did it feel? Who else was there? What did God say? Who did Obama tell first? What happened next inside Obama's heart? How did Obama's heart change? How did Obama's actions change? What was Obama's first desire regarding Obama's service to God? How was Obama's life made different? Has anyone ever heard it and did it sound anything at all like the truth? It is in one of his books that "he wrote of it" (I put that in quotes because I am not sure it was he who wrote those books, there is evidence he did not). If it be someone else's words, then this testimony is not necessarily Obama's testimony and considering that it is not elsewhere mentioned within the book, in fact quickly forgotten, and not in evidence today, I think that the fruit of that testimony is lacking in freshness. Many have a "conversion" that lasts but a moment and no more. Many go forward in church and some even go so far as to be baptized (sometimes even to prove something to a girl within the church, or similar non-Christian motives), but unless that conversion experience changes your heart and life so that you are truly different -- and we've seen no evidence of that -- then it is not a conversion, but a show.
Does someone professing Christianity respect the Bible, quote it correctly, and follow its precepts? Or does he quote the Koran and claim it's part of the Bible, and mock the Bible? If the latter, then I would definitely say it's okay to doubt one's supposed Christianity because that person is mocking God. A true Christian does not mock God because a true Christian would be horrified at the idea of doing so, and would be too scared of the consequences. Someone who says they are a Christian would know better than to mock God. The fruit of that tree is total annhiliation via God's wrath, not the growth of God's kingdom. If the good fruit comes from the good tree, then the tree Obama is planting is a tree of death.
Questioning Obama's Christianity is legitimate because of the fact that he is hateful toward Christianity as a whole. Remember his quote, "it's not surprising that they cling to guns or religion"? Sorry, but a Christian would say that? Would a Christian say that it isn't surprising that people would be Christians? He said that it isn't "surprising that they cling to guns or religion". A Christian would down being a Christian? Is that the fruit of a good tree, or is that a thorn from a thorn tree?
Something else to take into consideration as a "fruit" is, if he is a Christian, does he preach what he supposedly practices? Does he tell others that it's good to be a Christian? Does he follow the Great Commission in Matthew 28:16-20 -- is Obama a witness for Christ? Or does Obama say he is still a Muslim and that the Islamic call to prayer is the one of the prettiest sounds on earth? Not every Christian is an evangelist, true, but there are things God calls us to do -- the things mentioned above, amongst others -- that are all witnesses of Christ. It's how we profess our Christianity in our daily walk, as well as with our mouths that speaks to others. If Obama is a Christian, why do so many Americans -- and others throughout the world -- believe him to be otherwise when they consider the way he lives, talks, treats others and governs? Where is the impression that he is a Christian for those who are closest to him, or furthest from him?
Another consideration is the people Obama is appointing as his advisors, czars and cabinet members. Does he appoint Christians, or does he appoint Communists, Marxists and other atheists? Does Obama surround himself with solid Christian counsel, or does he surround himself with those who hate the Lord? If he surrounds himself with those who hate the Lord, where are the converts Obama has made with his Christian witness? Where are the people saying that Obama's Christian leadership and godly counsel helped save their marriage, or that his prayer brought healing to their child's illness? Where is the "cloud of witnesses" to attest to Obama's Christianity? Who does he surround himself with and when do they become his "cloud of witnesses" to Obama's love of Jesus Christ, Obama's Lord and Savior?
When President Bush was in office, he attended a Christian church regularly and few doubted he was a Christian. He spontaneously prayed with people, he was approachable and people knew he cared. He quoted the Bible not just in prepared speeches, but in his everyday language. President Bush was a known entity and hated for being so outspoken a Christian. Do a Google® search for "George W. Bush Christian" and see how many sites come up that spew hatred for Bush and his Christianity. It amazed me. When you look at Obama's supposed Christianity, then it's we who have to take Obama's word for it, and -- even though he mocks us and he scorns us and denies America is a Christian nation -- we are supposed to take Obama's word that he is a Christian.
I beg to differ. When the Bible tells us what to look for, what facts to consider, what obedience is (tithing, praying, fasting, witnessing, etc.), and we see none of the fruit the Bible tells us to take into consideration, then we can make an educated -- and Biblical -- decision that Obama is not a Christian. After all, what true Christian would ever have the "slip up" of saying, "my Muslim faith"? I think that speaks volumes in and of itself.
So, is Obama a Christian? I think the Bible makes the final call on that. In Matthew 7:21 it says, "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven." I think "Lord, Lord" is Obama's act: doing the will of God "which is in heaven" is Obama's failing.
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
You Have "The Dream", Just Pick It Up!
After all of the fussing over the Glenn Beck “Restoring Honor” rally “stealing”, or “hijacking” the Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., message, I read Dr. King’s “I Have A Dream” speech. What I saw in the speech surprised me. I have heard it several times, but by no means did I ever memorize it. A sentence or two stuck with me, but nothing close to the whole thing. Thus, reading it was something that would serve me well. A good idea and it was very interesting.
In that speech – whose message and idea were no more “hijacked” by Glenn Beck than the Lincoln Memorial was that day – I see that Glenn Beck was actually fulfilling that speech and Al Sharpton, et al, have no right to complain about it.
For instance, in his speech, Dr. King – who stood at the Lincoln Memorial but in a different spot than Beck – said this, “the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.” While there is no guarantee that former slaves and former slave holders were there or that if they were there, that they were together, there were both black and white at the rally and there was peace and brotherhood at the Restoring Honor rally.
Dr. King’s dream included the, “state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.” Mississippi is just that, as is the rest of America. And his dream included his “four little children” being judged “by the content of their character”, not the color of their skin. I think his four little children have been judged thusly. As has his niece, Dr. Alveda King, who spoke of her “Uncle Martin” at the Beck rally. Her character is impeccable and her voice for the Lord is loud and strong. “[I]n Alabama little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers.” This has come true, as well; not just holding hands, but “mixed” marriages also have become accepted as a normal thing, instead of a shock and scandal, a shame to both families.
Dr. King’s dream, however, did not include government housing being a standard freebie for every person of color who wanted to sit idly at home and do nothing but watch soap operas or talk on their welfare check purchased cell phone. It did not include “free” health care for all because it is never “free” and someone will have to pay for it; that someone being those who do work and pay their taxes. Dr. King’s dream never mentioned food stamps, a “right” to a job, legalized drugs like crack cocaine or marijuana. Dr. King’s dream had none of the “give it to me, I want it” in it that permeates the Al Sharptons of this world.
Dr. King’s dream spoke of one thing: Freedom. Not freedom from want, freedom from envy, freedom from someone else having more, better, bigger, easier than you; freedom to strive and work for what it is that someone else has that you desire. Dr. King’s dream never said you would be given it because you deserve it – after all, you had it bad, your dad had a tough road, your great-grandfather was a slave so now you deserve everything you want and you deserve to have it given to you by the sweat of someone else’s brow. Freedom is none of that. Freedom is the right to work hard and make your own way and to keep the results of your labor, or to decide for yourself what to do with those results. That is freedom.
The right to work is not the same as a right to a job. The right to work means that you have the right – as a citizen of the United States of America – to try to get a job and to be paid equally for that job as someone else with the same qualifications, same experience, same education and same level of expertise. You have that right. If you have those criteria met and you and I are going up for the same position, you do not have the right to get the job because of the color of your skin, but you do have the right to get the job if you have worked harder than I, put in longer hours than I, learned more about the position we both want, than I know. That’s the same criteria used for me getting the position as well, though, so if I get the job, I deserved it; not the color of my skin deserved it. Thus, you have no “right” to a job, but you do have the right to work. No one should interfere with you trying to be hired somewhere at a job you are qualified to do. Just as no one should interfere with me being hired somewhere for a job I am qualified to do. The key word there being “qualified”: whoever is most qualified should get the job and skin color should be ignored.
For someone to say that it is their “right” to government housing, welfare, food stamps, health care, or any other thing besides the right – true right, not made up right – to “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness” is just a lie. It means nothing legally and it should never have happened morally. Admittedly, America’s past did include racism and slavery; mostly due to the Democratic Party, but it was there. But does that past – and it is the past – give anyone the “right” to anything from those who had no part in that past? Do you pay for your grandfather’s sins, or just your own? Should you be jailed for your brother’s illegal activities, or just your own?
For anyone to claim “right” to what I have now because of someone else’s sins, is not just unfair, it is purely immoral. I had no part in slavery or in the racism of the sixties and earlier. I was not old enough to be part of either of those things, and my ancestors immigrated to America long after slavery was over, so my family had no part in that, either. Should I have to pay for the things that other people did when my family had no part whatsoever in the wrongs done by others? If so, is that not just another form of racism?
For Al Sharpton and the rally he led “reclaiming Dr. King’s message” was not just a falsehood, it was probably making Dr. King roll over in his grave. Considering the messages I heard when I watched the two hours or more of the Sharpton rally that I was able to stomach, I saw speakers demand that they be “given” this, they “deserve” that, I truly doubt they had read Dr. King’s famous words in light of how Dr. King meant them, instead of just trying to change the speech to their best advantage. They forgot the line, “Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred.” And they left out, “We must not allow our creative protest to degenerate into physical violence.” They ignore his statement, “Let us not wallow in the valley of despair” and to that “despair” they add anger, resentment, envy, self-righteousness, a feeling of “being owed”, the demand of “give it to me and give it to me now!”
Sharpton’s event was not of the same kind as Dr. King would have had. Sharpton preached all that King decried. Sharpton wants those who follow him to be in that place Dr. King did not want people: kept down by their own desire to have it handed to them instead of paying for it with the money earned from their own labor, kept enslaved by their own desire to make someone else “pay” – both in monetary payments and in societal retribution – for their own lack, ignoring the fact that their lack was their own doing, not someone else’s fault.
Sharpton, et al, don’t want their followers to realize that the dream Dr. King spoke so eloquently of is already theirs. If that were not the case, how could there be have been U.S. Supreme Court Justices who were black, a president who is black, U.S. Senators and Congresspersons of color, millionaires in America who are descendants of slaves? If the dream is not already given, how is there a black television network, black advertising agencies, or black owners of a hair product line for black people; how is Don King rich1? If the dream is not accomplished, if everyone does not have the equal right and equal chance to work hard, to seek their own legal path (illegal paths to riches are not part of the dream), then how are the accomplishments of so many black people explained away?
“Uncle Tom” will be cried; but it’s a false cry and they know it. It’s a convenient pejorative and nothing more. It helps keep black people “in their place” to have another black call them that. It’s a signal, “You better not step out of line, mister. You know we don’t want you doing that because it makes us look bad!” It’s not about the accomplishments of the achiever; it’s about the laziness and excuses of the non-achiever. It’s a slaver’s cry to trap someone who could achieve if given the support needed into the “Uncle Tom” crier’s own level of “under-achievement”. It is a leveler: none can do better than this because if one does, then we all can and we all don’t want to so you better not.
That false cry is their own jailer, their own limiter as are Sharpton and his words and demands. If the government and the people don’t do “X” for the black people, then it won’t get done because – according to Sharpton’s words – they can’t do it for themselves. Does this sound anything at all like the “I Have A Dream” speech of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., or does it sound like someone seeking to keep others down so he can be considered their spokesperson, helper, saint, rescuer? Sharpton no more wants people of his race to be capable achievers than he wants to be a nobody, ignored, overlooked, forgotten and that is why he must keep the lies going, the false accusations flowing, the hatred, despair and envy spewing from every mouth at every rally he leads, attends or feeds. It is not a “Dream” Sharpton has for the success and freedom of his people it is his worst nightmare for then he becomes nothing and vanishes into the dust from whence he came.
Sharpton and his ilk do not want people to realize that Dr. King’s dream has already been handed to them. Today they have the dream as Dr. King envisioned it. All they have to do is reach out and take it, pick it up. It’s that big, beautifully wrapped present over there. Go over and pick it up and see your name on it. Realize that with that present in hand you can do anything legal in America you dream of – go to school and get the education you desire, work at the job you are qualified to work at, save for your own retirement and pay your own way and live the life you want instead of watching and hating as others live the life you desire – as long as you believe in that dream and accept it for yourself. You see, there’s the rub. You must accept that dream for yourself, and no one else can do it for you.
That’s why those like Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and others will never tell you that the dream is already yours. They know that if you realize it, they will not be able to milk you for support – financial and political– for their own ideas, their own desire for the dream. Look at them, though, aren’t they living the dream while telling you that it isn’t available at all? Sharpton himself wears expensive suits, lives in an expensive house, flies all over the country and attends “the best” parties. If he’s living the dream while preaching that America has not yet delivered it, then who is he lying to? Considering that the answer to that question is “You”, don’t you think you need to sit down and figure out what the truth is?
1) http://www.buyingofthepresident.org/index.php/archives/2004/600/
In that speech – whose message and idea were no more “hijacked” by Glenn Beck than the Lincoln Memorial was that day – I see that Glenn Beck was actually fulfilling that speech and Al Sharpton, et al, have no right to complain about it.
For instance, in his speech, Dr. King – who stood at the Lincoln Memorial but in a different spot than Beck – said this, “the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.” While there is no guarantee that former slaves and former slave holders were there or that if they were there, that they were together, there were both black and white at the rally and there was peace and brotherhood at the Restoring Honor rally.
Dr. King’s dream included the, “state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.” Mississippi is just that, as is the rest of America. And his dream included his “four little children” being judged “by the content of their character”, not the color of their skin. I think his four little children have been judged thusly. As has his niece, Dr. Alveda King, who spoke of her “Uncle Martin” at the Beck rally. Her character is impeccable and her voice for the Lord is loud and strong. “[I]n Alabama little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers.” This has come true, as well; not just holding hands, but “mixed” marriages also have become accepted as a normal thing, instead of a shock and scandal, a shame to both families.
Dr. King’s dream, however, did not include government housing being a standard freebie for every person of color who wanted to sit idly at home and do nothing but watch soap operas or talk on their welfare check purchased cell phone. It did not include “free” health care for all because it is never “free” and someone will have to pay for it; that someone being those who do work and pay their taxes. Dr. King’s dream never mentioned food stamps, a “right” to a job, legalized drugs like crack cocaine or marijuana. Dr. King’s dream had none of the “give it to me, I want it” in it that permeates the Al Sharptons of this world.
Dr. King’s dream spoke of one thing: Freedom. Not freedom from want, freedom from envy, freedom from someone else having more, better, bigger, easier than you; freedom to strive and work for what it is that someone else has that you desire. Dr. King’s dream never said you would be given it because you deserve it – after all, you had it bad, your dad had a tough road, your great-grandfather was a slave so now you deserve everything you want and you deserve to have it given to you by the sweat of someone else’s brow. Freedom is none of that. Freedom is the right to work hard and make your own way and to keep the results of your labor, or to decide for yourself what to do with those results. That is freedom.
The right to work is not the same as a right to a job. The right to work means that you have the right – as a citizen of the United States of America – to try to get a job and to be paid equally for that job as someone else with the same qualifications, same experience, same education and same level of expertise. You have that right. If you have those criteria met and you and I are going up for the same position, you do not have the right to get the job because of the color of your skin, but you do have the right to get the job if you have worked harder than I, put in longer hours than I, learned more about the position we both want, than I know. That’s the same criteria used for me getting the position as well, though, so if I get the job, I deserved it; not the color of my skin deserved it. Thus, you have no “right” to a job, but you do have the right to work. No one should interfere with you trying to be hired somewhere at a job you are qualified to do. Just as no one should interfere with me being hired somewhere for a job I am qualified to do. The key word there being “qualified”: whoever is most qualified should get the job and skin color should be ignored.
For someone to say that it is their “right” to government housing, welfare, food stamps, health care, or any other thing besides the right – true right, not made up right – to “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness” is just a lie. It means nothing legally and it should never have happened morally. Admittedly, America’s past did include racism and slavery; mostly due to the Democratic Party, but it was there. But does that past – and it is the past – give anyone the “right” to anything from those who had no part in that past? Do you pay for your grandfather’s sins, or just your own? Should you be jailed for your brother’s illegal activities, or just your own?
For anyone to claim “right” to what I have now because of someone else’s sins, is not just unfair, it is purely immoral. I had no part in slavery or in the racism of the sixties and earlier. I was not old enough to be part of either of those things, and my ancestors immigrated to America long after slavery was over, so my family had no part in that, either. Should I have to pay for the things that other people did when my family had no part whatsoever in the wrongs done by others? If so, is that not just another form of racism?
For Al Sharpton and the rally he led “reclaiming Dr. King’s message” was not just a falsehood, it was probably making Dr. King roll over in his grave. Considering the messages I heard when I watched the two hours or more of the Sharpton rally that I was able to stomach, I saw speakers demand that they be “given” this, they “deserve” that, I truly doubt they had read Dr. King’s famous words in light of how Dr. King meant them, instead of just trying to change the speech to their best advantage. They forgot the line, “Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred.” And they left out, “We must not allow our creative protest to degenerate into physical violence.” They ignore his statement, “Let us not wallow in the valley of despair” and to that “despair” they add anger, resentment, envy, self-righteousness, a feeling of “being owed”, the demand of “give it to me and give it to me now!”
Sharpton’s event was not of the same kind as Dr. King would have had. Sharpton preached all that King decried. Sharpton wants those who follow him to be in that place Dr. King did not want people: kept down by their own desire to have it handed to them instead of paying for it with the money earned from their own labor, kept enslaved by their own desire to make someone else “pay” – both in monetary payments and in societal retribution – for their own lack, ignoring the fact that their lack was their own doing, not someone else’s fault.
Sharpton, et al, don’t want their followers to realize that the dream Dr. King spoke so eloquently of is already theirs. If that were not the case, how could there be have been U.S. Supreme Court Justices who were black, a president who is black, U.S. Senators and Congresspersons of color, millionaires in America who are descendants of slaves? If the dream is not already given, how is there a black television network, black advertising agencies, or black owners of a hair product line for black people; how is Don King rich1? If the dream is not accomplished, if everyone does not have the equal right and equal chance to work hard, to seek their own legal path (illegal paths to riches are not part of the dream), then how are the accomplishments of so many black people explained away?
“Uncle Tom” will be cried; but it’s a false cry and they know it. It’s a convenient pejorative and nothing more. It helps keep black people “in their place” to have another black call them that. It’s a signal, “You better not step out of line, mister. You know we don’t want you doing that because it makes us look bad!” It’s not about the accomplishments of the achiever; it’s about the laziness and excuses of the non-achiever. It’s a slaver’s cry to trap someone who could achieve if given the support needed into the “Uncle Tom” crier’s own level of “under-achievement”. It is a leveler: none can do better than this because if one does, then we all can and we all don’t want to so you better not.
That false cry is their own jailer, their own limiter as are Sharpton and his words and demands. If the government and the people don’t do “X” for the black people, then it won’t get done because – according to Sharpton’s words – they can’t do it for themselves. Does this sound anything at all like the “I Have A Dream” speech of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., or does it sound like someone seeking to keep others down so he can be considered their spokesperson, helper, saint, rescuer? Sharpton no more wants people of his race to be capable achievers than he wants to be a nobody, ignored, overlooked, forgotten and that is why he must keep the lies going, the false accusations flowing, the hatred, despair and envy spewing from every mouth at every rally he leads, attends or feeds. It is not a “Dream” Sharpton has for the success and freedom of his people it is his worst nightmare for then he becomes nothing and vanishes into the dust from whence he came.
Sharpton and his ilk do not want people to realize that Dr. King’s dream has already been handed to them. Today they have the dream as Dr. King envisioned it. All they have to do is reach out and take it, pick it up. It’s that big, beautifully wrapped present over there. Go over and pick it up and see your name on it. Realize that with that present in hand you can do anything legal in America you dream of – go to school and get the education you desire, work at the job you are qualified to work at, save for your own retirement and pay your own way and live the life you want instead of watching and hating as others live the life you desire – as long as you believe in that dream and accept it for yourself. You see, there’s the rub. You must accept that dream for yourself, and no one else can do it for you.
That’s why those like Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and others will never tell you that the dream is already yours. They know that if you realize it, they will not be able to milk you for support – financial and political– for their own ideas, their own desire for the dream. Look at them, though, aren’t they living the dream while telling you that it isn’t available at all? Sharpton himself wears expensive suits, lives in an expensive house, flies all over the country and attends “the best” parties. If he’s living the dream while preaching that America has not yet delivered it, then who is he lying to? Considering that the answer to that question is “You”, don’t you think you need to sit down and figure out what the truth is?
1) http://www.buyingofthepresident.org/index.php/archives/2004/600/
Sunday, August 15, 2010
Sam's House Grand Opening!
Sam's House Grand Opening on Saturday, August 21st, at 10:30 a.m. on Merritt Island in the Pine Island Conservation Area at 6195 North Tropical Trail. Info on its location is here.
Although it IS a Parks & Recs/EELs project, it is no longer listed on the Brevard County Parks & Recs Central Area website page. Nor is it listed on the EELs Calendar Page. However, I do have a printout about it from an e-mail someone sent around. I wonder why?
In case you were wondering: Yes, this invitation is a bit facetious. I post it to let you know that it is happening, but I want you to know that you are being treated differently than those who would support this effort. Did you get an e-mail from them with the invitation? No? Your money was spent on this project. You paid for it, but you don't get invited to attend, or even have it posted somewhere for you to find? Is that "fair and equal treatment under the law"? I don't think so. If the people in the "Friends of Ulumay", "Audubon Society", "Space Coast Progressive Alliance", or any other progressive, leftists, tree hugging, Scrub Jay worshipping group gets notified to be there, why didn't you?
That's why I posted this invitation. I want you to know that it's happening so you can attend and ask them why you were not notified of the event and you were not allowed to find out about it without my spreading the word. Attend. Ask them. Hold their feet to the fire. It's your money. Hold them accountable.
Although it IS a Parks & Recs/EELs project, it is no longer listed on the Brevard County Parks & Recs Central Area website page. Nor is it listed on the EELs Calendar Page. However, I do have a printout about it from an e-mail someone sent around. I wonder why?
In case you were wondering: Yes, this invitation is a bit facetious. I post it to let you know that it is happening, but I want you to know that you are being treated differently than those who would support this effort. Did you get an e-mail from them with the invitation? No? Your money was spent on this project. You paid for it, but you don't get invited to attend, or even have it posted somewhere for you to find? Is that "fair and equal treatment under the law"? I don't think so. If the people in the "Friends of Ulumay", "Audubon Society", "Space Coast Progressive Alliance", or any other progressive, leftists, tree hugging, Scrub Jay worshipping group gets notified to be there, why didn't you?
That's why I posted this invitation. I want you to know that it's happening so you can attend and ask them why you were not notified of the event and you were not allowed to find out about it without my spreading the word. Attend. Ask them. Hold their feet to the fire. It's your money. Hold them accountable.
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
Education: Prevention of Tyranny
In reading the book, “The Coming Insurrection” by The Invisible Committee I found quite a few things that I saw happening here in America. Used as part of the evidence in an anti-terrorism case in France, this book tells us how the progressives think. They believe in anarchy, completely and totally: until they get what they want. Then everything changes. What is it they want? They want to be in charge.
They don’t want “equality”. That’s for the bourgeoisie. They don’t want “freedom”. That’s for those who think too small. They want anarchy: murder, mayhem, burning whole cities if necessary to put them in charge. They’ll do what they think is needed in order to get it. They will kill police forces, murder innocents (for they are the only innocents; everyone cooperating with the capitalists are guilty), burn, loot, break, steal. Anarchy helps put them in charge and you are the servants who will do as their bidding tells you. Their egos demand it. Their self-gratification, self-aggrandizement craves it; it’s the driving force and their raison d’être. Nothing shall stand in their way. If you think you are part of them – even though they have used you, met with you, applauded you, dined with you -- you are wrong. Not only are you wrong, but you are a useful puppet that is to be discarded and thrown away as soon as your usefulness is gone. Some credit Stalin or Lenin with the phrase, “Useful Idiots”. I don’t know who came up with it, but does it surprise anyone that it was either one of those two dictators who coined the phrase? They used people the same way then discarded them as their usefulness came to an end. Their “discarding” meant a bullet through the head, but let’s not get picky. This is, after all, the twenty-first century. No one kills someone just because they are no longer “useful”. Right?
On page 124 of this little blue book, it states, “The circulation of knowledge hierarchy; it equalizes by raising up.” The Committee is talking about planning insurrections, attacks, fires, anarchy, but they inadvertently tell you the truth about their whole philosophy. If you educate the “proletariat” (the working class people), you raise them up. Education equals a better life. The anarchists – the Stalinists and Leninists – don’t want you raised up, don’t want you educated. If you get a better education, then you can figure out what they are up to. You can see through their plans and think things through yourselves. You won’t have to rely on them to tell you what they are doing is “good for you”. You’ll be able to see for yourselves that what they are doing is not good for you, but bad for you and will keep you poor, dependent and without being able to have a future you wish to have unless they “give” it to you.
The Democrats have always hated the idea of allowing school vouchers for the poorest children in any school district. They have fought against a good education for years. If your child is in a failing school in a poor district, your child is stuck. They can no more move to a private school than I can be a quantum physics professor. I don’t know how to do that sort of math; my brain doesn’t work that way. But your child’s brain may, and without interference if given the chance, you could put your child into a private school via vouchers and your child would have a brighter, better future. This is something Democrats don’t want. The less education your child has, the more likely they are to vote for Democrats. Imagine Condoleeza Rice, Dr. Thomas Sowell, Justice Clarence Thomas, or Dr. Walter Williams voting for Democrats. It doesn’t happen because they are well educated and they have the ability to think for themselves.
A quick side note here: Some call the people above “Uncle Toms” because they don’t stay on the Democratic vote plantation and keep “Massah” in power via obedience, subservience and vote. This is not just nonsense, it is stupidity. Any person can be a dolt and vote for people who are going to keep them down, to keep them poor, subservient. It takes a smart person, someone with courage, strength and discernment to not vote for the “Massah”. If the Dr. Thomas Sowells of this world are “Uncle Toms”, then what does that make you: the idiot Uncle Toms? A quick recalling of the story reminds us that it’s a false moniker anyways. After all, an “Uncle Tom” label would mean to me that someone was a person of faith, for that was the main characteristic of Uncle Tom in Harriett Beecher Stowe’s book. So by saying that people are “Uncle Toms”, they are being accused of nothing more than faith in Christ? OOoohhhh. Bad people. Bad. Don’t a lot of you go to church and profess a belief in God, too? Enough of that side note: back to the real subject matter.
When someone – anyone -- wants you to stay uneducated, to not know the truth, to be ill informed, to not have all the facts, it’s not because they trust you to make your own choices. It’s not because they trust you to make the correct choice. It’s because they think you will choose something that does not benefit them if you do have all the information, all the facts, a better education. That’s how politicians stay in office. Teddy Kennedy didn’t want you to have a better education because he wanted you to not know how inept he was. Check out his voting record on education here: Ted Kennedy. I think that speaks volumes. Let’s check someone else’s record Barbara Boxer’s record is that she voted “NO” on School Vouchers and on Education Savings Accounts. Another Democrat? Okay, how about Harry Reid? He also voted against School Vouchers and Education Savings Accounts, so that people whose children were in poorly performing Washington D.C. schools would be unable to move their children out of those schools. Nancy Pelosi joined Reid, Boxer and Kennedy in voting against School Vouchers and Education Savings Accounts. Pete Stark voted "No" on School Vouchers, Maxine Waters ditto. Our current president doesn’t like School Vouchers, either. All Democrats.
In “The Coming Insurrection”, they write about the anarchy that is heading our way. They write openly and – one must suppose – honestly about how they want to destroy our current civilization and create a new civilization of communism; organization without government, just with themselves in charge. This is the talk of someone whose ego has gotten the better of them and who is a dangerous individual. That is why they are on trial in France: sedition is a crime in most countries. When those preaching this kind of anarchy – Bill Ayers, Saul Alinsky, Bernardine Dohrn, you know: Obama’s buddies, associates and closest friends – try to intimidate others with the idea of their inferiority – and lack of education is in their minds an “inferiority” – and they tell people that they – the “Ruling Class” – know best, know what is “good for you”, they are banking on your lack of knowledge, insight and street smarts. If you keep them in political power, you prove them correct about you. When you continue to vote for those who want to keep you on welfare, keep you on the government checks (W.I.C. program, food stamps, government housing; “free” this, that and the other), you are proving to them that you are capable of being bought. You are proving to them that you are disinterested in having more, being better, being smarter, having a brighter future. All you want is to be on “easy street” and have everything handed to you on a silver platter.
I’ve got news for you, “Silver Platter Boy/Girl”. It’s not free, there is no silver platter and your vote comes at too high a price. When the ultimate goal is reached and they are in power, you will be the first to go, the first “useful idiot” who will be out of their realm. Their eyes will be pained by seeing you and they will discard you as quickly as Marie Antoinette is rumored to have said, “Let them eat cake”. Your entire life will be nothing but dross for them and you will be forfeit. After all, if you are that stupid, you will be a drain on them, on their plans, on their power because they will be continually slowing down to bring you up with the other folks, those who are more educated and who think as they and are willing accomplices, not useful idiots. Your “government teat mentality” will then be hooked upon their “government teat” and they don’t want to feed you when it is their account that pays for it. Otherwise, how do you explain why conservatives give so much more to charitable causes than liberals? Conservatives give 30% more than liberals: don’t you think that trend will continue once they are controlling the world as well? Leopards don’t change their spots. Do you think that just because you are somehow “special” that you will be the exception rather than the rule, and they will enjoy taking care of you when they are in power? Look in that mirror again, “Silver Platter Boy/Girl”. You ain’t that special. After all, “People who reject the idea that "government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality" give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition.” If you are voting for those who believe in “social justice”, you are more than scre**d.
Stop and think, people. If you want to believe that those who are saying, “We’ll take care of you, vote Democratic” are actually going to take care of you, you are wrong. They want to keep you stupid, down, attached at the wallet to the government and to keep you subservient, therefore controlling you. After all, when someone is paying for everything you have because you’re too lazy, or inept to provide for yourself, if that’s not controlled – puppetted, your definition of “Uncle Tommed”, under their thumb – I don’t know what is.
Get a good education. Fight for it. Prepare for life via a real education. I don’t mean an education that will teach you the same things the Democrats are doing and telling you and controlling you with (preparing you to control others the same way: that’s tyranny, not leadership). I mean an education that will teach you to stand on your own two feet, think for yourselves, think critically, think logically (not circular logic; not illogic), and to be ready to argue with your betters for your point of view, beliefs and political stances: and win. If you can do that, you have a great education and you are ready for this world and ready to lead in it, not just sit back and allow others to dictate for whom you should vote.
Tyranny has many faces: the first shown is a lack of education, for tyranny will always use that as a whip against you. If someone is trying to prevent your education, you know their wishes for your future are not good and that, sooner or later, it will come down to tyranny with you on the receiving end.
They don’t want “equality”. That’s for the bourgeoisie. They don’t want “freedom”. That’s for those who think too small. They want anarchy: murder, mayhem, burning whole cities if necessary to put them in charge. They’ll do what they think is needed in order to get it. They will kill police forces, murder innocents (for they are the only innocents; everyone cooperating with the capitalists are guilty), burn, loot, break, steal. Anarchy helps put them in charge and you are the servants who will do as their bidding tells you. Their egos demand it. Their self-gratification, self-aggrandizement craves it; it’s the driving force and their raison d’être. Nothing shall stand in their way. If you think you are part of them – even though they have used you, met with you, applauded you, dined with you -- you are wrong. Not only are you wrong, but you are a useful puppet that is to be discarded and thrown away as soon as your usefulness is gone. Some credit Stalin or Lenin with the phrase, “Useful Idiots”. I don’t know who came up with it, but does it surprise anyone that it was either one of those two dictators who coined the phrase? They used people the same way then discarded them as their usefulness came to an end. Their “discarding” meant a bullet through the head, but let’s not get picky. This is, after all, the twenty-first century. No one kills someone just because they are no longer “useful”. Right?
On page 124 of this little blue book, it states, “The circulation of knowledge hierarchy; it equalizes by raising up.” The Committee is talking about planning insurrections, attacks, fires, anarchy, but they inadvertently tell you the truth about their whole philosophy. If you educate the “proletariat” (the working class people), you raise them up. Education equals a better life. The anarchists – the Stalinists and Leninists – don’t want you raised up, don’t want you educated. If you get a better education, then you can figure out what they are up to. You can see through their plans and think things through yourselves. You won’t have to rely on them to tell you what they are doing is “good for you”. You’ll be able to see for yourselves that what they are doing is not good for you, but bad for you and will keep you poor, dependent and without being able to have a future you wish to have unless they “give” it to you.
The Democrats have always hated the idea of allowing school vouchers for the poorest children in any school district. They have fought against a good education for years. If your child is in a failing school in a poor district, your child is stuck. They can no more move to a private school than I can be a quantum physics professor. I don’t know how to do that sort of math; my brain doesn’t work that way. But your child’s brain may, and without interference if given the chance, you could put your child into a private school via vouchers and your child would have a brighter, better future. This is something Democrats don’t want. The less education your child has, the more likely they are to vote for Democrats. Imagine Condoleeza Rice, Dr. Thomas Sowell, Justice Clarence Thomas, or Dr. Walter Williams voting for Democrats. It doesn’t happen because they are well educated and they have the ability to think for themselves.
A quick side note here: Some call the people above “Uncle Toms” because they don’t stay on the Democratic vote plantation and keep “Massah” in power via obedience, subservience and vote. This is not just nonsense, it is stupidity. Any person can be a dolt and vote for people who are going to keep them down, to keep them poor, subservient. It takes a smart person, someone with courage, strength and discernment to not vote for the “Massah”. If the Dr. Thomas Sowells of this world are “Uncle Toms”, then what does that make you: the idiot Uncle Toms? A quick recalling of the story reminds us that it’s a false moniker anyways. After all, an “Uncle Tom” label would mean to me that someone was a person of faith, for that was the main characteristic of Uncle Tom in Harriett Beecher Stowe’s book. So by saying that people are “Uncle Toms”, they are being accused of nothing more than faith in Christ? OOoohhhh. Bad people. Bad. Don’t a lot of you go to church and profess a belief in God, too? Enough of that side note: back to the real subject matter.
When someone – anyone -- wants you to stay uneducated, to not know the truth, to be ill informed, to not have all the facts, it’s not because they trust you to make your own choices. It’s not because they trust you to make the correct choice. It’s because they think you will choose something that does not benefit them if you do have all the information, all the facts, a better education. That’s how politicians stay in office. Teddy Kennedy didn’t want you to have a better education because he wanted you to not know how inept he was. Check out his voting record on education here: Ted Kennedy. I think that speaks volumes. Let’s check someone else’s record Barbara Boxer’s record is that she voted “NO” on School Vouchers and on Education Savings Accounts. Another Democrat? Okay, how about Harry Reid? He also voted against School Vouchers and Education Savings Accounts, so that people whose children were in poorly performing Washington D.C. schools would be unable to move their children out of those schools. Nancy Pelosi joined Reid, Boxer and Kennedy in voting against School Vouchers and Education Savings Accounts. Pete Stark voted "No" on School Vouchers, Maxine Waters ditto. Our current president doesn’t like School Vouchers, either. All Democrats.
In “The Coming Insurrection”, they write about the anarchy that is heading our way. They write openly and – one must suppose – honestly about how they want to destroy our current civilization and create a new civilization of communism; organization without government, just with themselves in charge. This is the talk of someone whose ego has gotten the better of them and who is a dangerous individual. That is why they are on trial in France: sedition is a crime in most countries. When those preaching this kind of anarchy – Bill Ayers, Saul Alinsky, Bernardine Dohrn, you know: Obama’s buddies, associates and closest friends – try to intimidate others with the idea of their inferiority – and lack of education is in their minds an “inferiority” – and they tell people that they – the “Ruling Class” – know best, know what is “good for you”, they are banking on your lack of knowledge, insight and street smarts. If you keep them in political power, you prove them correct about you. When you continue to vote for those who want to keep you on welfare, keep you on the government checks (W.I.C. program, food stamps, government housing; “free” this, that and the other), you are proving to them that you are capable of being bought. You are proving to them that you are disinterested in having more, being better, being smarter, having a brighter future. All you want is to be on “easy street” and have everything handed to you on a silver platter.
I’ve got news for you, “Silver Platter Boy/Girl”. It’s not free, there is no silver platter and your vote comes at too high a price. When the ultimate goal is reached and they are in power, you will be the first to go, the first “useful idiot” who will be out of their realm. Their eyes will be pained by seeing you and they will discard you as quickly as Marie Antoinette is rumored to have said, “Let them eat cake”. Your entire life will be nothing but dross for them and you will be forfeit. After all, if you are that stupid, you will be a drain on them, on their plans, on their power because they will be continually slowing down to bring you up with the other folks, those who are more educated and who think as they and are willing accomplices, not useful idiots. Your “government teat mentality” will then be hooked upon their “government teat” and they don’t want to feed you when it is their account that pays for it. Otherwise, how do you explain why conservatives give so much more to charitable causes than liberals? Conservatives give 30% more than liberals: don’t you think that trend will continue once they are controlling the world as well? Leopards don’t change their spots. Do you think that just because you are somehow “special” that you will be the exception rather than the rule, and they will enjoy taking care of you when they are in power? Look in that mirror again, “Silver Platter Boy/Girl”. You ain’t that special. After all, “People who reject the idea that "government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality" give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition.” If you are voting for those who believe in “social justice”, you are more than scre**d.
Stop and think, people. If you want to believe that those who are saying, “We’ll take care of you, vote Democratic” are actually going to take care of you, you are wrong. They want to keep you stupid, down, attached at the wallet to the government and to keep you subservient, therefore controlling you. After all, when someone is paying for everything you have because you’re too lazy, or inept to provide for yourself, if that’s not controlled – puppetted, your definition of “Uncle Tommed”, under their thumb – I don’t know what is.
Get a good education. Fight for it. Prepare for life via a real education. I don’t mean an education that will teach you the same things the Democrats are doing and telling you and controlling you with (preparing you to control others the same way: that’s tyranny, not leadership). I mean an education that will teach you to stand on your own two feet, think for yourselves, think critically, think logically (not circular logic; not illogic), and to be ready to argue with your betters for your point of view, beliefs and political stances: and win. If you can do that, you have a great education and you are ready for this world and ready to lead in it, not just sit back and allow others to dictate for whom you should vote.
Tyranny has many faces: the first shown is a lack of education, for tyranny will always use that as a whip against you. If someone is trying to prevent your education, you know their wishes for your future are not good and that, sooner or later, it will come down to tyranny with you on the receiving end.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)