This Great Country of Theirs

I find the news of late, just fascinating. I should reword that, and I will. I find what is going on in various places in the world horrendous and heartbreaking, but I find the statements made of late, from key leaders in our country just fascinating. I can't imagine, as an American citizen, thinking I could do and say some of the things I've heard from those with clout in this country. First, let's mention Alberto Gonzales. He's the guy that decides who gets charged with what in the big cases of this country. Well he is apparently over those whom he delegates this duty to, or well "I don't recall . . ." Can you imagine being on the witness stand under any sort of legal questioning, much less one of national interest, and your testimony was repeatedly "I don't recall?" Wouldn't the average American end up with some sort of contempt of court charge or something? Can you imagine going to court, because you were sure you hadn't run that stop sign, and shouldn't have to pay the ticket? Okay, now relate this to Alberto. He went before the committee because he was sure there was no wrong doing in the firing of these 8 individuals, so he didn't need to resign. Now, back to the stop sign scenario. The attorney sitting at the same table in the court room as the officer that wrote you the ticket, approaches the witness stand and asks you to relay the steps leading up to the event in question, and your response is "I don't recall." Not only would you pay the ticket! You'd pay court costs, and you might even get a tongue lashing from the judge about wasting the court's time, but you're just a citizen and he's Alberto Gonzales, Attorney General for the United States of America. He doesn't have to recall.
And Condoleezza has been in the news lately. She received a subpoena to appear before our government about the Iraq war and she says she's not going to worry about that, she's already answered those questions and something about division of powers. Now, what would happen if you received a subpoena telling you to appear somewhere and you decided you weren't going to worry about it? I would imagine somebody would make you worry about it. And interestingly, she did find the time to appear on a national political talk show to discuss Iraq in regard to George Tenet and his new book. So, Dr. Rice has time and interest to make statements on television, but as Secretary of State of the United States of America, she doesn't need to worry about discussing this on Capitol Hill? I dare say, when it comes to Dr. Rice's handling of a subpoena, don't try this at home!
Now that George Tenet has resurfaced, I find it fascinating that so many CIA members are telling so much of what they knew, to prove his new book wrong. I read that one even said George T. knew that Iraq was not a problem and that Saddam also considered AlQaida an enemy, but this CIA person said Tenet didn't have the courage to stand up and say that. Well, where was the courage of this CIA person if he knew about it? And why didn't Mr. Tenet's book come out before Saddam was murdered? Booksales? I think George Tenet should have been able to see the writing on the wall, considering the viciousness between the two parties. He was the only member of the Clinton administration kept over for the Bush administration. I personally wondered at the time, what would be happening that they might need a fall guy. Well, so much happened that really is going to need more than just one fall guy . . . The fact that the American public will probably never have a clue to the depths of this mess is what I would call a "slam dunk."

And while we are discussing Georges, let's talk about the main one. Consider for a moment, if you or I caused over 3,000 Americans to die, for an unknown or undefined purpose. What would that be called? I know, what it was called when 19 men supposedly did it on 9/11 . . . and I can't imagine how long you or I would be sitting at Gitmo and what they would be doing to us if we caused that magnitude of fatalities, but then, we are just citizens, not leadership. And all we have is a vote that may or may not influence the next four years of our lives as we live in "this great country of theirs.

And if ye call on the Father, who without respect of persons judgeth according to every man's work, pass the time of your sojourning here in fear:

We Have Nothing To Fear, Except the Fearful

We all know someone who has a horror story for every occasion and every event, right? To be honest, I just find those individuals pathetically ignorant and in great need of attention and/or control. And that opinion applies on an individual level or national. Is anyone as tired as I am of hearing about why we need to be fearful every waking hour, and then told while we sleep comfortably our government is protecting us? Isn't that kind of backward? If they are protecting us when we're not paying attention, why does all this fear-mongering require so much media and political attention through the day? When I was a kid, my parents told me one horror story after another about somebody getting murdered or kidnapped or something, and you know what after awhile, it was the fact that they kept focusing on the topic, that began to scare me. I remember when they told me about a child from a very wealthy family that was kidnapped and murdered for a ransom, and I thought then, 'but we're not wealthy.' The last story I remember listening to with any trust at all was the one about an escaped convict that hid out in someone's house, therefore we couldn't leave the place because another one might get out. Now two things, at that moment occurred to me. The first being, the fact that it was either a very old story or received very little coverage, because nobody at school had heard anything about it. And the second thing, I thought, if he hid in their house, why would walking down the road or walking to town put me in more danger?

It seemed that not being home would be safer . . . It was at that moment, that I really no longer believed in the fear inciting methods I had been raised in. And I've never considered fear again. Now, I'm not talking about living recklessly, although I am a firm believer that continuous exposure to unfounded fear first causes anxiety but ultimately desensitize many individuals. I don't believe in taking unnecessary risks, but I don't believe in living in fear, and most of the fearful only recognize the extremes. Let's face facts. If, Bin Laden really was after us, he's had nothing but opportunity to strike again. Our military strength is over in his part of the world and nobody knows where he is. Well supposed nobody knows where he is. See what I mean? When somebody keeps trying to scare me, I just quit believing them. Now, back to the facts. We have had four ordeals of terror in this nation in the past 12 years and every one of them was carried out by people who had all the proper paperwork to be here. So, just how many people are we supposed to fear now? Everyone except illegal immigrants??? And why should I relax and feel at ease about the fact that the fearful ones are the ones claiming to do the protecting. This is such a deja vu from childhood. Does our government think we will bow down and be grateful for protection and give up all our rights for safety if they scare us severely enough? Does this "one nation under G~d" know how many times G~d said to "FEAR NOT" or "DON'T BE AFRAID." Well let me share . . . it's well over a hundred times and interestingly it's frequently referring to the acenstors of the same people that our government and the "faithfully fearful" are telling us to fear, now.

Behold, G~d is my salvation; I will trust, and not be afraid . . .

With All Due Respect

I had planned to discuss further, my theory regarding our economy, but a quote from General Patraeus caused me to change my mind. So, we'll have more on economics, maybe tomorrow. Today, we're discussing the War and the so called Strategy. General David Patraeus has made some fairly bleak comments regarding the troop surge that is now the new strategy. He says it's going to get worse before it gets better . . . Isn't that the mindset for cleaning up any mess that makes no sense? It's always worse to have to redo something than it is to have just done it right to begin with, or in some cases, to have never started it. And how do you suppose that sentiment from their leader, makes the troops feel?

And with that, let's discuss the Iraq War again. I have left the topic alone for a little while. This new surge against the insurgency has me baffled. I see the root word of insurgent is surge. Now, who decides who is who, and how is that decision reached? I don't listen or read any of the Iraqi Arab news, but are they calling us insurgents? Since insurgent is defined as an armed rebellion against a constituted authority. And by the way, the definition addressing constituted authority, very much could describe the position of Saddam Hussein in the Iraqi government. Another thing that is really getting under my skin is the number of commanders this entire situation has, that have no combat experience. No wonder they all keep saying this is like no war before. None of them know what war was like before. I read a little history on our new General in charge. He's yet one more boomer in a high position that never saw Viet Nam. And interestingly, he is from a military family and just happened to marry the daughter of the superintendent of the United States Military Academy, at that time. I think we all know the potential connections for those at West Point. From the history I read, our General spent the Viet Nam years at West Point in Officer Training School, becoming an infantry officer. What a perfect place for a military man to spend at war time. I'm having trouble with this information. But there's more. Now he says Iraq is the global center for AlQaida. If that is the case, and frankly, I just don't know how they can know that; but if they do, then it's time for a new strategy in many areas. If Iraq is now the AlQaida headquarters, rather than monitoring American libraries and keeping all of us under surveillance, they can just trace every phone call coming out of Iraq and catch all those AlQaida operatives getting their instructions. We can let the civil war rage and let AlQaida be stuck in the middle of it or spend their effort on resolving it, because they won't get the Sunnis and Shiites in the same organization! We know that, already.

My last point is concerning Reid's comment and the time table. I think the conservatives have done their utmost to make certain it was broadcasted many times over and out of context, sort of like the Don Imus situation. Let me ask it this way. If you were a young person serving in Iraq and you have heard the following statements, which would discourage you and make you feel unsupported? The what is he; now the fourth general in charge of this "operation" says it's going to get worse before it gets better and we can expect more casualties and loss for awhile. Or some politician back home saying it's lost militarily . . . here's the quote from Senator Reid according to FOXNews "Now I believe, myself, that the secretary of state, the secretary of defense and you have to make your own decision as to what the president knows: that this war is lost, that the surge is not accomplishing anything," and there's more . . .

I ask again, which would have a greater influence on your level of hope, if you were there? And the sad thing is, in this "One Nation Under G~d," the outcome for Iraq has already been written in Genesis.

And the angel of YHVH said unto her, Behold, thou art with child, and shalt bear a son, and shalt call his name Ishmael; . . . And he will be a wild man; his hand will be against every man, and every man's hand against him; and he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren.

I Think I'm On To Something . . .

As I listen to these reports about a stable and good economy, I am just dumbfounded. I don't know if the people broadcasting this information are living in some sort of vacuum or if those analyzing the data are simply out of touch with reality, because some things are just blatantly obvious. I realize, many, many couples are now hitting the six figure income bracket, but . . . their expenses are also astronomical, and their debt is, for me, unfathomable. And who can save any more? Well, obviously saving has always been a bit tricky for most people, considering the number of people in their golden years that are dependent upon a government check, rather than living on their investments and savings. But savings or the lack thereof is not my point. I've been watching the interest rate for savings climb slightly and watching the interest rate for loans climb even more slightly and I find that odd. Banks cannot pay more interest than they are collecting, it just won't balance at the end of the month. The reports keep telling us how low the inflation rate is, but prices keep climbing. I realize the inflation rate has to do with prices and wages and interest and how all of that figures together, but all of that is figuring together and still doesn't really add up. Have you noticed how high the Dow Jones has gotten? Yet GM is no longer the number one car manufacturer and, well actually, very little is made and produced here in the US, but the Stock Market continues to climb . . . Is that where the inflation has been transferred? I'm thinking back to the the early 80's when the unions started really having their base taken out from under them and a number of union men became company men. And that was what was used to bring down inflation or did they simply transfer it to another area in life. We are paying over $2.50 a gallon for gasoline and over $3.00 a gallon for milk. The jobs that are being "created" amount to little more than minimum wage earnings, while the higher paying jobs are being eliminated by the thousands! And they tell us we have a strong economy? We have an inflated Wall Street that is no more than a house of cards. When a significant percentage of the union work force became salaried company men, the employees actually began to value the company, rather than the company value the employees. And now everyone is an associate or a stock holder where they work, or their work place is employee owned, which really means the employee is owned, or they are an independent contractor. As all the employees are now investing in their companies of employment, the value of the company continues to rise and inflate beyond what it produces. Inflation has been redefined and camouflaged. We are not hearing about inflation, because the dollar has been worthless for years and nobody is going to tell us the value of an employee has been deflated. As long as employees value their jobs and postitions more than a company values its employees, a decent product at a good value is no longer the issue and inflation just won't be a problem.

Charge them that are rich in this world, that they be not highminded, nor trust in uncertain riches . . .

I Have An Idea

Our granddaughter used to use that phrase, frequently; when she was about five. I don't think she was heard as intently as she hoped when she said it, but . . . And I'm about 10 times five and I probably won't be heard as intently as I'm hoping either, but . . . I think we need to get back to the beginning on some of these issues that just become endless partisan debates. Let's start with the latest resurgence of gun control. The conservatives are already blathering that the liberals will try to take our second amendment rights away from us, using the tragedy at Virginia Tech. Well, let's back up before April 16, 2007. The greatest leglislation ever passed over gun control is called the Brady Bill. The Brady bill is named for James Brady, who with the full support of his wife has lobbied for greater gun control after the assassination attempt on President Ronald Reagan that left the President's then assistant, James Brady, disabled for life. Does anyone remember the party to which Ronald Reagan belonged? I think it's a fair guess to assume the assistant to the President belonged to the same party. If gun control was part of a democrat liberal agenda, wouldn't this have become a major issue soon after November 22, 1963? I know I was young, but I don't remember hearing about any gun control or threat to our second amendment after the death of President Kennedy. Now, let's move on to the next point of origin that seems to have been lost in the discussion, and I have also been caught up in this one. We now have a Bush-Cheney White House that is as oppositional to Capitol Hill, as the Reid, Pelosi Capitol Hill is to the White House. I've compared this attitude to the Sunnis and Shiites of Iraq and now the Hamas/Fatah clash of the Palestinians, but I got things in the wrong order. America is the one that set the example for both of these situations with America's agenda of free elections. It was America's leader that has taken it upon himself to establish these "fledgling democracies." America isn't acting like them, they are following the example set by America, their mentor, sadly they have added weaponry to their words. Which is bringing me to my next point of origin in an issue. Let's talk about war and peace. I think I have the perfect solution. We need to reinstate the draft. Now, hang on here, keep reading. We need to reinstate the draft and rather than a birthday lottery like the guys of my generation endured, we need to make this a partisan issue, and make the term of service 2 years, no exceptions. Everyone that voted for this present administration needs to have their family members in the military service. Everyone that is voting for those opposed, need to make sure their family members are enlisted and ready for peace missions and rebuilding service after the military wins. That's right after victory is declared. And we need to make certain the fighting has ceased when the announcement of Mission Accomplished is made. We don't need to do any more buidling in the middle of "stay the course" war zones. That just senselessly takes lives and wastes money. And for everyone that has an issue with the southern border of this country, introduce your sons and grandsons to the Minute Man Project. With my plan, everyone can truly serve in the way they believe. We don't need to have anyone that believes in aggressive democracy suffering through mincing words or practicing diplomacy. And by the same token, those that would be conscientious objectors will serve their country and share the humanitarian ideals they espouse. In other words, everyone can actually serve their country in accordance to what they truly believe and vote. To state it succinctly, it's time for everyone to "Put Up or Shut Up."
An hypocrite with his mouth destroyeth his neighbour: but through knowledge shall the just be delivered.

Calling for Greater People Control

Now we'll hear the pundits up in arms promoting greater leverage for forced mental evaluation and demonizing the liberals for wanting more gun control , and we'll hear the liberals trying to be compassionate about mental illness and you know what, both sides are going to succeed in greater people control. That's really all this will result in. Look at how many laws have changed since Timothy McVeigh, or whoever, caused the devastation in Oklahoma City in 1995, and since the Columbine high school horror in 1999. I can't begin to count the rights that have been lost since 9/11, and yet we still had the massacre at Virginia Tech. And my heart and prayers go out to the families of the victims, but more people control didn't stop this and it won't stop the next horror. The people control that the conservatives and the liberals always call for, is controlling the people who are already abiding by the law. It's just more control on those that are already just trying to get through life and not cause anyone else any harm or have any visit them. These are the people that the conservatives want to evaluate and the ones that the liberals want to disarm. Well, they are working quite well in tandem and we law abiding citizens are just going to end up losing more. I have to tell a true example about gun control, because frankly it just fits right into all the political solutions being offered right now. I have actually seen NRA members tell individuals that it isn't safe for that particular individual to keep a gun in their own home. Now, do you see where this is going? The conservatives/NRA will determine who should have guns and who should not . . . my guess is, it will be that very group that will have them and everyone else will need to be evaluated or tested. But this is the same group that thought we nonconservatives made a big deal out of Cheney's hunting fiasco. The republican party and NRA's combined determination of gun safety and gun ownership is starting to really sound like Al Sharpton's perspective regarding racial slurs. We are getting so many areas of "I can and you can't" and the I cans decide who can and can't. So, if the liberals succeed in greater gun control laws and the NRA finds their political solace around those laws, but the conservatives take it upon themselves to see to mental health evaluations of people who do not embrace warmongering and materialism, what will we have? We will have greater people control laws and many more of them, and from the way things look, that seems to be the real goal for our leaders and legislators on both sides of the aisle.

And in those times there was no peace to him that went out, nor to him that came in, but great vexations were upon all the inhabitants . . .

Confidence

I read this morning that President Bush's White House spokesperson says the President has "confidence" in Attorney General Gonzales. And I think that is just "swell" after the man offered such a profound answer under questioning, time and time again. "I don't recall" was Mr. Gonzales' response numerous times. Now, he's an attorney, the top one in the nation, as a matter of fact and I just wonder, if he were questioning a witness, how he would receive that response time and time again. Would he think the witness was truly that forgetful? Would he think that witness should be accountable for the answers? Would he think that witness should hold such a high position with that kind of memory? I mean really, the people that were fired, were answerable to him. So, if they were doing a poor enough job to warrant being fired, wouldn't that be somewhat memorable, especially if they had been under scrutiny for two years? Well, let's say Mr. Gonzales just didn't consider these eight individuals a top priority. I mean he is a busy man, legislating torture and invasion of privacy, so perhaps their job performance wasn't at the top of his list. Then, why did they need to be fired after this long, if their presence, performance, and prolonged "probationary time" is difficult to recall? How does he know they were doing a bad job? But President Bush has "confidence" in Alberto Gonzales. Which makes me wonder how he assesses the people in which he chooses to place his confidence . . . Didn't he have so much confidence in George Tenet, that he kept him from the Clinton administration? And the "slam dunk" advice about invading Iraq? Didn't that just inspire Presidential confidence? Wasn't Brownie doing a heck of job, just a week and a half before he was fired? And didn't he have confidence in Don Rumsfeld's war strategy? I mean we heard "stay the course," until Capital Hill changed sides of the aisle and suddenly there was a new perspective on the course . . . And he had confidence in Harriet Miers. But even by then, his own party was beginning to doubt his vote of confidence. And now, we find members of the GOP making thier own assessment of some the individuals with whom our President gives a great deal of power and authority. And it just does seem a bit odd that an attorney, of all people, would have such difficulty recalling conversations?

Confidence in an unfaithful man in time of trouble is like a broken tooth, and a foot out of joint.

Keeping Us Occupied

I've previously, touched on the topic of the occupation of America. More information has now crossed my path and I have a slightly different perspective of just how this American occupation is coming to pass. I am aware that we are being influenced constantly. I mean, turn on the television and immediately a person is innundated with information regarding terrorism, the latest illness, the latest fear, the latest cure, and the latest advice for avoiding stress. I caught right on to that last one. Get rid of the source of the stress, and so out went the TV, but not soon enough. And now, I have been introduced to the latest number puzzle that is all the craze, which is what really got me thinking. I've been walking by those puzzle books in the stores, just knowing my weakness. I am one of those people that just cannot walk away defeated from a logic puzzle or a game. I just have a terrible time "quitting." I don't have to win, although that is nice, but I do have to finish! So, as I looked at this Sudoku that had come into my life in the paper on my table, I began to feel that surge rising in me. And I thought to myself, this is crazy, this thing is a flat rubix cube with numbers instead of colors. I have two particular fascinations when it comes to just losing all sense of time and space and that would be numbers and colors, so here I am realizing I have to move away from the table NOW or succumb until it is accomplished. Well, I didn't move quickly enough, and I found myself getting very absorbed in completing this puzzle, when it occurred to me, I was occupied. And something began to dawn upon me. As young people are playing their game boys and listening to their ipods, and the middle aged group is working and listening to talk radio, and the older generation is either working puzzles with the radio or doing handwork in front of the television, I realized we are all occupied. And while we are being occupied, we are being influenced in our thinking, which led me to the memory of just how the boardgame Monopoly came to be. It was through the depression, that both Hollywood and and this board game rose to great popularity. To take people's minds off of their troubles, they sought entertainment, but entertainment influences. Hollywood was glamor and a fantasy world of cosmopolitan sophistication, not a barren field with the bank waiting to foreclose. The big city commerce, romance and adventure on the silver screen was certainly more promising than agriculture. The Gold Standard Act effectively came to an end by 1934 and Monopoly was patented in 1935, introducing to America through entertainment the fundamentals of a perpetual motion economy.

Wilt thou set thine eyes upon that which is not? for riches certainly make themselves wings . . .

War Funding Veto

As I read about the stand-off that is forming in Washington over the war funding, I am disgusted. Our own leader and our own legislators are acting like this is simply a big game of poker and somebody is going to fold. Well, this isn't a game of poker and the repercussions that this Pre-Emptive Strike by America has caused in Iraq is no bluff. This is real and the lives and deaths are real. I am disgusted that Congress thinks we, the American people believe that they are not "politically grandstanding" and I am disgusted that Vice President Cheney claimed that Congress will have to back down for the sake of the troops. I do not like the fact that our military and the safety of the troops appear to mean so little to our leaders. Where is the troop support? This war has been funded for nearly four years past the date we were told it was finished. And more lives are lost every day trying to give something to people that do not want it badly enough to fight for it themselves. Can you imagine the leaders of Italy and France over here fighting England in 1776, for our freedom, then telling George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and John Hancock how to draw up a Declaration of Independence and a Constitution? Where would we be now, if some other country had told us they were here to "win the peace" and free us from our oppressive leader? Or perhaps rather than receive the statue of Liberty as a congratulatory gift of sorts, from France, their leader could have been in France telling his citizens that it was best to send a military presence and keep the battle"over there."

Obviously this is a ridiculous analogy, as ridiculous as treating our military like pawns in a partisan chess game between a Republican White House with a failed war strategy and a Democrat Congress that just wants to stay popular. I have an idea for this funding situation and not leaving these mislead troops without provision. I'd still prefer to just give them all a one way ticket home, but since no one is listening to that idea, here's another one. Rather than continue to pour hard earned American tax dollars into the rebuilding of a country that is still being torn down regularly in the midst of their own civil war, why not divert the over priced corporate building contracts to military funding?

Or what king, going to war with another king, will not first take thought if he will be strong enough . . .

Just What is a Peace Keeper?

I heard a song this morning that really got me thinking . . . One of the lines that was repeated in the refrain of this song was "Blessed are the Peacekeepers" and it was presented with a somewhat spiritual and ethereal, even eternal type message. I've noticed that the words Police Officer are now often interchanged with the title Peace Officer. Is society slowly hearing and becoming accustomed to yet another new usage of a word? I realize around the world, we have "peace keepers" and "peace keeping troops" implying that peace exists and is being kept, but . . . all the places where you find these so called "peace keepers," there is war. We must have peace before we can keep it! That seems like a simple logical statement. So will we forget that fact, if this phrase becomes defined by usage? Are we heading for the time when War is called Peacekeeping? Or are we already there? And let me ask you, don't Police Officers respond to disturbances or violence or crimes? How peaceful do any of those scenarios sound? A situation that requires an officer is not going to be handled by peace, now is it? These new uses for incorporating the word "peace" into the situation, sounds very much like someone is going to declare peace at gunpoint. And it would seem with this introduction that 'the powers that be' would like us to believe that. It isn't easy to be at peace in many situations, but the illusion that it can be enforced is truly delusional. And you know, peace is a very simple atmosphere and some people just don't seem to want it. But you know, if you attempt to battle over it or enforce it, you simply lose it. I have discovered the best way to have peace is to remain peaceable at a distance while allowing the combatant to tire of their own game. It works for individuals and for over 40 years with Cuba, we have proven it works internationally. By the way, spiritual truth doesn't change, but how many know that Messiah didn't say "blessed are the peace keepers?" There's no "call" for peacekeepers, but peacemakers are in High demand.

Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of G~d.

The Entitlement Scamming Class

It has finally dawned on me, just how simple the math is. As we figure the statistics and the probabilities, something just continues to elude the equation. Now, I have it. This American give-away and entitlement mentality has more variables than any algebra equation known. First and foremost, our tax system has nearly eliminated the working middle class, so we have the upper class and lower class. The upper class has come by their money one of three ways. Some have inherited, some have earned, and some have received a windfall of sorts, through invention or investment. And we have the lower class that for the most part work, but life costs just a little more than they make, so they have no assets acquired. The poverty level is yet another variable, as to how to assist without enabling. Sadly, what used to be the middle class is still making a reasonable salary, but the withholding is immense and the cost of living is substantially more than meets the eye. I realize minimum wage is high and interest is low and supposedly inflation is minimal, but there are also factors that have never been factored in before. What used to be middle class working toward acquiring is now, still the same wages that will buy nothing. There was a time when the price of gasoline only had to be budgeted by teen-agers. It was not figured in the cost of living for the working class. Obviously, all the variables cannot be addressed in this single blog, but I am going to address the ever expanding class of citizens in this country. I call it the entitlement scamming class and it is growing. Remember all the laws that Clinton changed to stop generational welfare? Well, this entitlement scamming class is just as generational, because it, also is taught in the home and obviously learned by those watching. This entitlement scamming usually begins with some sort of vague injury or issue to be addressed, or maybe a minor car accident which requires the company to accomodate the excessive days off as a result of the "severe but non-descript syndrome or injury." Then, something interesting occurs that involves a dispute or settlement to be reached with an insurance company, which of course leads to further symptoms and more time off, until ultimately the entitlement scammer obtains their goal, Permanent Disability. And this Permanent Disability must be the cure for most injuries, because once that prize is obtained, these people can do all sorts of physical feats that cannot be accomplished by we mere working drones. If this particular variable were figured in, I'm sure we would find, not only a vast sum of money spent by government agencies, defrauded pension plans, and insurance companies, we'd also realize a large factor in the profit/loss margin for the railroad, the airlines, and the Big 3. So, I guess we do still have three classes, here in America, they are just defined differently. We have the upper class, aka politicians and big business. We have the lower class, aka the working class. And we have the entitlement scamming class.
. . . that if any would not work, neither should he eat.

Just What is FAIR?

It's tax time and every year we start hearing about a reformation of the American tax system, but every year, it appears to just be talk. In reality, I think the fair tax sounds anything but fair, by description. In all "fairness," I've only heard the fair tax discussed on conservative radio, so I do not necessarily have the full picture. What I do have, sounds good on the surface, but . . . This word FAIR is tricky anyway. Some people think all people must receive the same thing to be fair, but some people may not want what someone else has, so to be fair, do they have to accept something they don't want? What would be entailed in this fair tax? How would it change our present economy? Those that support the fair tax say it is the best way to begin to reduce the deficit, so right away, we know it will be a tax increase. The deficit is huge and getting larger, so obviously if it is going to be reduced, more money will be needed. I have heard what is supposed to be an arbitrary figure of 23% on the purchase of goods and that will solve the tax debt, no income tax. But that translates to the purchase price of everything going up nearly 25% and remember with fair tax, there is no refund at the end of the year. Now, I heard that this tax will be so efficient that everyone will be entitled to a monthly or quarterly refund to offset increased groceries and pharmaceutical costs. And the good news about this entitlement? It doesn't matter how much you make, you just have to apply for it. So, this sounds like a great deal for the rich, now doesn't it? It also causes me to question the need for 23% federal sales tax. If everyone is guaranteed a refund, why not just charge less to begin with? Maybe this 23% is just figured too high. I guess my biggest question about this fair tax or federal sales tax has to do with the practical issue of employment. If there is a tax that is calculated at the point of purchase, then what happens to all the tax preparers? And what happens to the hundreds of employees at the IRS and the bureaucrats that enforce the tax laws we have now? What happens to all of these people if the present tax system is dissolved? Who is going to hire an unemployed IRS auditor?

Charge them that are rich in this world, that they be not highminded, nor trust in uncertain riches . . .

I Think We've All Learned Something . . .

This will be my last post about Don Imus for awhile, and I read that his radioathon is doing very well and he's received a great deal of support; but I just wanted to share how much I've learned from this event.

First, I think we all now realize that saying "I'm sorry" is simply not good enough for most people.

Second, the captain of the Rutger team was quoted saying that Mr. Imus "has stolen a moment of pure grace from us." So, obviously grace isn't what we thought it was, either. I would think Mr. Imus had given them the perfect opportunity to have a moment of pure grace, which they opted out of.

Third, I've learned that equal rights really isn't about equality, because it wasn't wrong for Alan Colmes black guest to use the "n" word several times on the radio and I'm not talking about the word "nappy." Nobody has asked for his career. There was no NAACP uproar through the stand-up comedy years of Richard Pryor. So, technically, I guess now, equal rights means some can and some can't and the ones that can are the ones that will decide who can't. It seems that now the "n" word has really divided us racially, reversed. Blacks use it, whites cannot. How interesting . . . So is the word itself offensive, or not?

Fourth, I have discoverd that Barack Obama apparently has no idea what it was like to live in the real world in U.S. until he became an adult, since he obviously thought racial issues were resolved in 1964, so his parents could get together and have him in 1961. Oh that's right, he went to private schools in other countries and Hawaii. Well, then perhaps, if he's so worried about his daughters, he needs to do as much for them as his mother did for him.

Fifth, I've learned that the title of Reverend doesn't necessarily mean G~d's loving nature will be displayed.

Sixth, I've realized how much Rev. Sharpton and Rev. Jackson on the subject of Imus, sound like Rush Limbaugh harping on the Clintons. Go back and read or listen, don't they sound just like him?

Seventh, I've learned that free speech is gone for most of us. And once again, I will say, what Don Imus said was a stupid remark, but isn't it interesting that so many of us thought the republican politicians were trying to take our free speech, when in reality it's turned out to be democrat preachers . . . hummmmmm

And last, I've learned whether it's sports or politics here in America . . . it doesn't matter if you win or lose, it's who you can ruin in the process!

A false balance is abomination to YHVH . . .

So Let's Consider Howard K. Stern

First let me qualify this blog with the statement that I am not going tabloid. I simply think this particular topic has been in the "news" for months now, and it's time for a different perspective. Granted, every man in Anna Nicole's life clearly wanted the world to know that they were "close" to Anna Nicole. Now, when Anna Nicole came into Howard's life, he was a young inexperienced attorney and frankly, I've seen many men make future limiting choices, based solely on physical opportunity or sex appeal. So, let's say just for a moment, that Anna Nicole was "the more experienced" regarding life in general. She was older than he was and she was older than her first husband, and between those two men, she'd gained a great deal of experience along the way. She is viewed as so maliable and gullible, but why? Her home in the Bahamas, her legal business before the Supreme Court . . . It really seems she could have been the one manipulating him. Women not nearly as pretty, do it to men all the time. And let's discuss these prescriptions. I know many of them were in Howard's name, well Rush had his housekeeper scoring his pain killers. The real accountability, in this medication mess, should fall on the doctor/friend. This person had to be aware that they were writing way too much medication for any one person to take, and then to even write herself one. If anybody wants to discuss causing her death, we need to look at the doctor, not the attorney. We have no evidence that Howard was buying these prescriptions for her or had given permission to use his name. I read that someone said if he really loved her, he'd have placed her in rehab. Well I know about being surrounded by people who know what's best for everyone else and frankly, I don't think they know nearly as much about love as they know about control.

Now, let's get on to this paternity situation. What if Howard knew that the only absolutely known relative of little Dannielynn was Virgie? Yes, Larry said he was the father, but so did a few other men, and then there was the possiblity of frozen sperm from Marshall. What Howard knew that everyone else seemed to disregard, was that if Larry wasn't little Dannielynn's father, Virgie was in control of this little girl and Anna Nicole had been very clear how she felt about her mother. So, Howard stayed firm on his stance and once paternity was confirmed, he immediately stepped back, but not one second before.

So what if Howard K. Stern was simply a young attorney, ten or twelve years ago, that fell in love with a Playboy Centerfold and model? And that playboy centerfold and model wanted him in her life . . . What if Howard K. Stern is like many other men that have put a woman ahead of everything else in their life? Queen Elizabeth's brother gave up the throne of England for woman. What if Howard K. Stern was the one that got into a lifestyle over his head, early on, and simply loved her the best he could? He has certainly been most protective of her wishes regarding her daughter, regardless of what's been said about him. Until that little girl had a closer relative than Virgie, he was unmovable.

. . . I discerned among the youths, a young man void of understanding . . . And, behold, there met him a woman with the attire of an harlot, and subtle of heart.

Free Speech Leaves Room for Dumb Comments

I've been reading all about the statement made by Don Imus, and he's right, and Rev. Sharpton is right, and Rev. Jackson is right, Don Imus should not have said what he did. So, since we all agree, Imus included, that the comment just wasn't "fit for polite society," where's the forgiveness espoused by the profession of these two accusers? Don Imus has a reputation for saying outlandish things. This certainly isn't the first questionable comment made by this gentleman, but we just haven't heard all the griping and unforgiveness by other offended individuals. And Don Imus has been very specific and disrespectful in many comments through his career. But really! We still have free speech and with free speech, comes freedom in listening. That's right, if what Don Imus did is so unforgiveable, then don't listen to his show. Most of us can remember in our lifetime many comments that were racial, and we didn't want to outlaw free speech, we just chose to not listen or not repeat it. We can't start insisting that everyone that says something dumb should lose their job. There are enough Americans not working, as it is.

I can't imagine sitting in front of a microphone for hours at a time, just talking and making commentary. I would think the law of averages alone would indicate, the more a person says, the greater the chances are, of saying something wrong. I figure it's kind of like baseball. The homerun kings have averages under 500, so that means they miss, more than they hit! Doctors only have to make 70% to graduate, so they get to be wrong 30% of the time. As a writer, I have the opportunity to read and edit before my text is published, and there are still typos. I am particularly amazed at the audacity of these two accusers. While they insist upon tolerance, I find theirs to be at a particularly low level. And really, they are black ministers, that I never hear talking about G~d. I've not heard Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson discuss anything but racial issues for years. How many white ministers get to be so famous politically for simply having outspoken opinions? Most white ministers aren't famous until they get caught in some sex or money scandal.

I am a woman and I am brown and although I don't really care to listen to the style of Don Imus, he said he was sorry. I completely support his right to free speech. So, is forgiveness only preached and not practiced?

But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses.

So Where Are the Judeo-Christian Values?

I keep hearing a number of religious laymen espousing their political views and supposedly basing these views on their interpretation of Scripture. I actually heard a man say that "Jesus" said we were to obey man's laws, when we know specifically that was the continuing difference between everything Messiah stood for and taught and the insistance of the Pharisees. Rome and the Pharisees wanted everyone to believe that G~d had ordained and blessed their assumed co-authority, yet Messiah peacefully and respectfully taught otherwise. Messiah said to give to Caesar what what Caesar's and to G~d, what was G~d's, and the Pharisees were just flat wrong. Clearly there was a difference between G~d's Sovereignty and the Roman government. Messiah plainly stated that G~d and country were not the same. So much has been lost in the translation in the time between Constantine and King James . . . I listened this morning to the "school lunch menus" and discovered that most of the schools in our area were closed, but many across the state were not. Now, I don't believe that Messiah died on Friday, but there is very little acknowledgment of His death, in our society at all by this time. I realize Passover and the week of Unleavened Bread are not recognized in our country as a holiday of national recognition, but rather of Judaism. Well, our nation espouses Judeo-Christian values, so if Passover and the week of Unleavened Bread are a Jewish observance and the Messiah observed these Holy Days, why wouldn't it be recognized as such, in a nation with Judeo-Christian values, or at least acknowledged? Actually these Holy Days are not limited to Judaism but are Biblical Holy Days. Every place I went this past week was decorated with colored eggs and bunnies, and that is recognition of a holiday in this country, but what does the celebration of fertility and Ishtar have to do with Judeo-Christian values? I have actually been told by someone that they were having a "dinner" not celebrating Christ, just spring . . . So, no national Passover, okay, freedom of religion or from religion. The kids still go to school and there is no national holiday for Good Friday. Okay, again freedom of or from religion and Scripturally, Friday just doesn't add up, anyway, but . . . Being surrouded by colored eggs and bunnies everywhere I go, is in fact a national pagan celebration, and most businesses will in fact, be closed Sunday. These pastel decorations with bunnies and eggs and little fluffy chicks are all part of a religious celebration also. Why is this pagan ritual and celebration accepted, year and after year, nationally and religiously in our nation of Judeo-Christian values?

Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.

A Volatile Situation Alleviated, Disaster Avoided

Dear Mr. Blair,
Please forgive me for not having written sooner. I'm really not a rude American. I wanted to write about three things and knowing how busy you are, I will be brief.

First, I'd like to tell you how happy and relieved I am that your soldiers have been returned safely and I hope and pray they are receiving a hero's welcome. I can't imagine all the things that must have gone through their minds these past several days. Please tell them to ignore our arrogant pundits and "what they would have done" and "what our military would have done." The whole world can see that we can't handle what we've done and we can't even get along in our own nation's capital, so all that bravado is simply embarrassing for those of us with a sense of reason.

Second, I'm sorry that our country and this misdirected war inwhich you have faithfully served as an ally to the United States has cost your country so much militarily and the faith of the Britons in your decision. I truly hope and pray you continue in your plan to withdraw your troops from the civil war in Iraq. And do you think you could get the President of the United States to listen to you? He won't listen to "we the people."

And last, but certainly not the least item I'd like to share is, to tell you is how much I admire the way you handled this tense situation with the President of Iran and the President of the United States. I was shocked and saddened that your ally, America, seemed to want so much more turmoil and tension to errupt. I'm so glad you were able to maintain a calm and rational perspective in the midst of a very tense situation. This is another of the areas, I really wish our President would listen to other world leaders. It seems so many situations are escalated by aggressive threats. Sir, you are to be commended for your diplomacy.

A soft answer turneth away wrath: but grievous words stir up anger.

So What's The Problem?

As I read the news and listened to the talk, I've done a bit of research. Now, I'll be honest, I haven't checked out all the individual religious teachings and books, but I have found an interesting bit of information that I think just may be worth looking at. Did you know that eight of the world's religions espouse some form of what we know to be The Golden Rule? And the prominent religions are in fact, in that list.
I'm going to share what I have, and again, I have not checked the actual books of the religions themselves, simply some websites that compile religious information that state this basic tenant to be comprised within their belief system.
Please let me share the list. I have chosen to just present this in alphabetical order.

Buddhism:
Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful.

Christianity:
Matthew 7: 12 Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.
(Messiah's words "the law and the prophets" of course attributes this belief to Judaism, as well)
Confucianism:
Do not do to others what you would not like yourself. Then there will be no resentment against you, either in the family or in the state.
Hinduism:
This is the sum of duty; do naught onto others what you would not have them do unto you.
Islam:
No one of you is a believer until he desires for his brother that which he desires for himself.
Judaism:
What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellowman. This is the entire Law; all the rest is commentary.
Taoism:
Regard your neighbor’s gain as your gain, and your neighbor’s loss as your own loss.
Zoroastrianism:
That nature alone is good which refrains from doing another whatsoever is not good for itself.

If the major world religions recognize this Golden Rule, what is the problem? Are we all waiting for the other religion to demonstrate the meaning?
But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only . . .

I'm Really Confused About Iran and Where We Stand

Tomorrow is a Holy Day, so I won't post a blog on Tuesday, but I shall return Wednesday. Meanwhile, as I have been reading about the captured Britons, I'm truly confused. If they were working under a U.N. mandate, where's the U.N. in all this? I read that the U.S. had the GPS information, but wouldn't release it, as it was top secret . . . Wouldn't the GPS of the ship, at the time of capture, resolve this issue? If there is simply an issue about the water itself, then everyone step back take a deep breath and form some committee or bilateral peace talks or whatever to determine where that line is, or just make it Duty Free! Meanwhile, if the crew was under the supervision of the U.N., then somebody besides Tony Blair needs to be stepping up and being heard, and it certainly shouldn't be G. W. He's already said he won't have discussions with Iran or Syria, so before he makes matters worse, he needs to just tend to his business, which is more than America can handle, anyway. Now, let's get back to just what the deal is with Iran. In November of 1979, the hostage situation began and lasted until January of 1981. It was resolved just moments after Ronald Reagan was inaugurated. I, personally remember the pressure through the campaign between Carter and Reagan, it was a huge issue. I thought then, that the Iranian government obviously preferred republicans in office in America. As a matter of fact, I kind of felt that Iran had played a very influential role in determining the President of the United States. President Carter had imposed an oil embargo. S,o we're right back to that interesting little natural resource, eh? From the 50's until the late 70's Iran was an American ally. Then, through the 80's Iraq and Iran battled and America didn't have to do too much in that region. As a matter of fact, our President at the time seemed to actually avoid that region, politically and militarily. The Middle East just wasn't in the forefront of Mr. Reagan's foreign policy, even after the attack in Lebanon. Then Bush 41 went after Saddam, and it became personal, or perhaps it already was! History indicates for the past 15 to 20 years, Iraq was the buffer between Iran and the rest of the world, then America removed the power in Iraq and Iran is getting more powerful . . . May I ask who is surprised at this fact besides our "fearless" leader and his gullible followers? So, when we invaded Iraq, did that make us backstage allies with Iran, again? Did this "generational Presidential obsession" against Saddam Hussein allow Iran the time to gain the advances they were seeking, because we do know the US has supplied Iran with arms, in the past. And don't think for a moment, in our materialistic, consumer based society, that an oil embargo between American buyers and Iranian providers is going to hurt them more than it does us? They can find other buyers, but in our global standing, right now, can we find other suppliers? Is this why our government has been discussing our gasoline dependency? Have they been preparing us for the inevitable consequences of Iran's response to American aggression? What are we thinking and are we considering what Iran or the rest of the world just might be thinking?

He that diligently seeketh good seeketh favor; But he that searcheth after evil, it shall come unto him.