Obama Care and America's Entitlement Kids
-----
Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:
posted by Aaron Turpen @ 4:19 PM
0 Comments
Saturday, September 12, 2009
-----
Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:
Doctors Making Sense
by John Stossel
While the I-like-to-sit-in-committee-rooms kind of doctors, who rise to high bureaucratic positions at the American Medical Association, have thrown their support to ObamaCare, many doctors aren’t sold. In Sunday’s Washington Post, cardiologist Arthur M. Feldman makes some good points:
We urgently need tort reform, but it's nowhere to be seen.
Malpractice costs rise each year, as do the number of frivolous lawsuits. Our practice has seen a 10 percent increase in malpractice expenses this year. Sure, doctors make mistakes, and patients deserve fair compensation for their injuries and lost wages, but in this area of the law, physicians and hospitals are too often at the mercy of capricious juries.
We do need tort reform, but it’s naïve to think that capricious juries are the cause of the problem. Even when cases never get to a jury, the tort system is ruinously slow and expensive. It doesn’t matter much if a judge or jury makes the final ruling. Also, the biggest harm comes not from the doctors’ malpractice costs, but from the defensive medicine they practice out of fear of the lawsuits.
Dr. Feldman also takes on the great “prevention” myth:
Obama has called for disease prevention on a national scale, but that won't be a cure-all. Louise Russell, a researcher at Rutgers University, analyzed hundreds of studies on prevention and medical costs and found that, in general, prevention adds to costs instead of reducing them.
And Feldman, unlike the politicians, recognizes the enormous costs imposed by the FDA’s bureaucratic hurdles:
Creating and producing new drug therapies in the United States is a nightmare. Regulatory hurdles, disorganization and a lack of leadership at the FDA, as well as burdensome conflict-of-interest policies, have made the drug-approval process grindingly slow. At the same time, development costs are close to $1 billion per drug. Federal regulations are so convoluted that most clinical trials are now performed outside the country -- taking billions of dollars out of the U.S. economy and making it harder for American patients to be first in line for new treatments.
Congress should listen to doctors like Feldman rather than AMA bureaucrats.
-----
Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:
While the I-like-to-sit-in-committee-rooms kind of doctors, who rise to high bureaucratic positions at the American Medical Association, have thrown their support to ObamaCare, many doctors aren’t sold. In Sunday’s Washington Post, cardiologist Arthur M. Feldman makes some good points:
We urgently need tort reform, but it's nowhere to be seen.
Malpractice costs rise each year, as do the number of frivolous lawsuits. Our practice has seen a 10 percent increase in malpractice expenses this year. Sure, doctors make mistakes, and patients deserve fair compensation for their injuries and lost wages, but in this area of the law, physicians and hospitals are too often at the mercy of capricious juries.
We do need tort reform, but it’s naïve to think that capricious juries are the cause of the problem. Even when cases never get to a jury, the tort system is ruinously slow and expensive. It doesn’t matter much if a judge or jury makes the final ruling. Also, the biggest harm comes not from the doctors’ malpractice costs, but from the defensive medicine they practice out of fear of the lawsuits.
Dr. Feldman also takes on the great “prevention” myth:
Obama has called for disease prevention on a national scale, but that won't be a cure-all. Louise Russell, a researcher at Rutgers University, analyzed hundreds of studies on prevention and medical costs and found that, in general, prevention adds to costs instead of reducing them.
And Feldman, unlike the politicians, recognizes the enormous costs imposed by the FDA’s bureaucratic hurdles:
Creating and producing new drug therapies in the United States is a nightmare. Regulatory hurdles, disorganization and a lack of leadership at the FDA, as well as burdensome conflict-of-interest policies, have made the drug-approval process grindingly slow. At the same time, development costs are close to $1 billion per drug. Federal regulations are so convoluted that most clinical trials are now performed outside the country -- taking billions of dollars out of the U.S. economy and making it harder for American patients to be first in line for new treatments.
Congress should listen to doctors like Feldman rather than AMA bureaucrats.
-----
Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:
posted by Aaron Turpen @ 11:51 AM
0 Comments
Camp FEMA: Will You Go Quietly?
-----
Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:
posted by Aaron Turpen @ 7:48 AM
0 Comments
Friday, September 11, 2009
This is Heroes' Day
I'm going to stick my neck out and say something that some might consider inappropriate for this day, the anniversary of 9/11/2001.
Today is not Patriot's Day.
We all know the history of 9/11 and what happened on this day in 2001. We also know why it is called Patriot's Day and why President George W. Bush and Congress thought it appropriate to name this day Patriot's Day.
They were wrong.
Today is not Patriot's Day and what happened on 9/11 was not a patriotic thing. What happened on that fateful day was the willful slaughter of thousands of innocent Americans who were going to work that day like they would any other day. Some worked in an office, some wore badges, some carried wrenches, but all were just men and women, regular people, going to work.
What happened on 9/11 was a massive group and individual showing of bravery by the men and women tasked with responding to emergencies such as what happened at the Twin Towers on that sad day in our history.
Those people were not Patriots, they were Heroes. Patriots are those who fight for their country, whether with words, deeds, or both. Heroes are those who put themselves at risk in order to save others whose lives are already at risk.
On 9/11/2001, Heroes ran to the rescue of those who were in peril.
On 9/11/2001, people who normally would consider a good game of racquetball or getting on the subway after 10pm to be a nerve-rending event were called, instead, to care for wounded and bloody co-workers, to carry the injured down smoky stairwells, or otherwise commit acts of bravery beyond what any worker in the Twin Towers ever imagined themselves being required to do. Heroes responded to an event that occurred without warning, heedless of the danger to themselves as they helped their fellow man.
Patriots, by contrast, amassed in Lexington Square on April 19 in 1775 and decided to tell their oppressors, once and for all, that they weren't going to stand for the tyranny any longer. Patriots, on that day, fought and died for their beliefs and their country.
The biggest difference between a Hero and a Patriot is the thought behind the actions taken. A Hero must decide in a split second whether they are to be a hero or a coward. A Patriot has time to consider the options and decide the best course of action to achieve the goals that will save his or her ideals.
Neither is better or worse than the other. Both require a strong inner resolve and a dedication to the welfare of others. Heroes are required to be reactionary, ready to respond right away and to not worry about putting their lives on the line to help others. Patriots are required to be strategists who put their lives on the line when it will cause the most harm to the enemy.
9/11 is Heroes Day. A day when true American Heroes showed that no matter how soft the world thinks we are, no matter how compliant the enemies of this country might believe us to be, there are always plenty of Americans who're willing to jump in to do what needs to be done. To do what's right.
Hopefully we can count on those Heroes amongst us today to also be Patriots. Because the time is coming when the job of Heroes will take a back seat and the role of the Patriot will need to be filled.
Today, we remember the Heroes. Take your hat off and pray for those Heroes who didn't make it. Tomorrow, I hope you'll then look to your flag, your rifle, and your resolve and remind yourself that our country needs Patriots now more than ever.
-----
Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:
We all know the history of 9/11 and what happened on this day in 2001. We also know why it is called Patriot's Day and why President George W. Bush and Congress thought it appropriate to name this day Patriot's Day.
They were wrong.
Today is not Patriot's Day and what happened on 9/11 was not a patriotic thing. What happened on that fateful day was the willful slaughter of thousands of innocent Americans who were going to work that day like they would any other day. Some worked in an office, some wore badges, some carried wrenches, but all were just men and women, regular people, going to work.
What happened on 9/11 was a massive group and individual showing of bravery by the men and women tasked with responding to emergencies such as what happened at the Twin Towers on that sad day in our history.
Those people were not Patriots, they were Heroes. Patriots are those who fight for their country, whether with words, deeds, or both. Heroes are those who put themselves at risk in order to save others whose lives are already at risk.
On 9/11/2001, Heroes ran to the rescue of those who were in peril.
On 9/11/2001, people who normally would consider a good game of racquetball or getting on the subway after 10pm to be a nerve-rending event were called, instead, to care for wounded and bloody co-workers, to carry the injured down smoky stairwells, or otherwise commit acts of bravery beyond what any worker in the Twin Towers ever imagined themselves being required to do. Heroes responded to an event that occurred without warning, heedless of the danger to themselves as they helped their fellow man.
Patriots, by contrast, amassed in Lexington Square on April 19 in 1775 and decided to tell their oppressors, once and for all, that they weren't going to stand for the tyranny any longer. Patriots, on that day, fought and died for their beliefs and their country.
The biggest difference between a Hero and a Patriot is the thought behind the actions taken. A Hero must decide in a split second whether they are to be a hero or a coward. A Patriot has time to consider the options and decide the best course of action to achieve the goals that will save his or her ideals.
Neither is better or worse than the other. Both require a strong inner resolve and a dedication to the welfare of others. Heroes are required to be reactionary, ready to respond right away and to not worry about putting their lives on the line to help others. Patriots are required to be strategists who put their lives on the line when it will cause the most harm to the enemy.
9/11 is Heroes Day. A day when true American Heroes showed that no matter how soft the world thinks we are, no matter how compliant the enemies of this country might believe us to be, there are always plenty of Americans who're willing to jump in to do what needs to be done. To do what's right.
Hopefully we can count on those Heroes amongst us today to also be Patriots. Because the time is coming when the job of Heroes will take a back seat and the role of the Patriot will need to be filled.
Today, we remember the Heroes. Take your hat off and pray for those Heroes who didn't make it. Tomorrow, I hope you'll then look to your flag, your rifle, and your resolve and remind yourself that our country needs Patriots now more than ever.
-----
Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:
posted by Aaron Turpen @ 7:08 AM
0 Comments
Thursday, September 10, 2009
From 1944 To Nineteen Eighty-Four
by Sheldon Richman
I’m inclined to think of George Orwell and F. A. Hayek at the same time. Both showed great courage in writing the truth, undaunted by the consequences awaiting them. Both valued freedom, though they understood it differently.
Orwell, a man of the “left,” could not remain silent in the face of the horrors of Stalinism. Twice — during the Spanish Civil War and again at the dawn of the Cold War — he refused to permit his comrades to blind themselves to where their collectivism had led and could lead again. For his favor he was called a conscious tool of fascism, a stinging accusation considering he had gone to Spain to fight fascism. (But for a few inches, the bullet that penetrated Orwell’s neck in Spain would have denied us the latter warnings, Animal Farm and Nineteen Eighty-Four. We would have never known what the fascists had cost us.)
Hayek, a man of the “right,” risked ostracism and worse in 1944 by publishing The Road to Serfdom, in which this Austrian-turned-Briton, writing in England at the height of World War II, warned that central economic planning would, if pursued seriously, end in a totalitarianism indistinguishable from the Nazi enemy. That couldn’t have been easy to write at that time and place — central planning was much in vogue among the intelligentsia. While a good deal of the reception was serious and respectful, a good deal of it was not. Herbert Finer, in Road to Reaction, called Hayek’s book “the most sinister offensive against democracy to emerge from a democratic country for many decades”; it expressed “the thoroughly Hitlerian contempt for the democratic man.”
Not surprisingly, it was The Road to Serfdom that brought Orwell and Hayek together in print. Orwell briefly reviewed the book along with Konni Zilliacus’s The Mirror of the Past in the April 9, 1944 issue of The Observer. The man who would publish Animal Farm a year later and Nineteen Eighty-Four five years later found much to agree with in Hayek’s work. He wrote:
Shortly, Professor Hayek’s thesis is that Socialism inevitably leads to despotism, and that in Germany the Nazis were able to succeed because the Socialists had already done most of their work for them, especially the intellectual work of weakening the desire for liberty. By bringing the whole of life under the control of the State, Socialism necessarily gives power to an inner ring of bureaucrats, who in almost every case will be men who want power for its own sake and will stick at nothing in order to retain it. Britain, he says, is now going the same road as Germany, with the left-wing intelligentsia in the van and the Tory Party a good second. The only salvation lies in returning to an unplanned economy, free competition, and emphasis on liberty rather than on security. In the negative part of Professor Hayek’s thesis there is a great deal of truth. It cannot be said too often — at any rate, it is not being said nearly often enough — that collectivism is not inherently democratic, but, on the contrary, gives to a tyrannical minority such powers as the Spanish Inquisitors never dreamed of.
This is a significant endorsement, for no one understood totalitarianism as well as Orwell. Indeed, in Why Orwell Matters, Christopher Hitchens points out that Nineteen Eighty-Four impressed Communist Party members behind the Iron Curtain. He quotes Czeslaw Milosz, the Polish poet and Nobel laureate, who before defecting to the West was a cultural attaché for the Polish communist government: “Orwell fascinates them [members of the Inner Party] through his insight to the details they know well…. Even those who know Orwell only by hearsay are amazed that a writer who never lived in Russia should have so keen a perception into its life.” (An audio interview with Hitchens about Orwell is here.)
But true to his left state-socialism, Orwell could not endorse Hayek’s positive program:
Professor Hayek is also probably right in saying that in this country the intellectuals are more totalitarian-minded than the common people. But he does not see, or will not admit, that a return to “free” competition means for the great mass of people a tyranny probably worse, because more irresponsible, than that of the State. The trouble with competitions is that somebody wins them. Professor Hayek denies that free capitalism necessarily leads to monopoly, but in practice that is where it has led, and since the vast majority of people would far rather have State regimentation than slumps and unemployment, the drift towards collectivism is bound to continue if popular opinion has any say in the matter.
…Capitalism leads to dole queues, the scramble for markets, and war. Collectivism leads to concentration camps, leader worship, and war. There is no way out of this unless a planned economy can somehow be combined with the freedom of the intellect, which can only happen if the concept of right and wrong is restored to politics.
Short Shrift
It’s disappointing to see Orwell give such short shrift to Hayek’s positive thesis. He is glib and dogmatic, which is unbecoming a serious intellectual such as Orwell. His ignorance of economics leaps from the page.
Read the rest of this great article at this link.
-----
Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:
I’m inclined to think of George Orwell and F. A. Hayek at the same time. Both showed great courage in writing the truth, undaunted by the consequences awaiting them. Both valued freedom, though they understood it differently.
Orwell, a man of the “left,” could not remain silent in the face of the horrors of Stalinism. Twice — during the Spanish Civil War and again at the dawn of the Cold War — he refused to permit his comrades to blind themselves to where their collectivism had led and could lead again. For his favor he was called a conscious tool of fascism, a stinging accusation considering he had gone to Spain to fight fascism. (But for a few inches, the bullet that penetrated Orwell’s neck in Spain would have denied us the latter warnings, Animal Farm and Nineteen Eighty-Four. We would have never known what the fascists had cost us.)
Hayek, a man of the “right,” risked ostracism and worse in 1944 by publishing The Road to Serfdom, in which this Austrian-turned-Briton, writing in England at the height of World War II, warned that central economic planning would, if pursued seriously, end in a totalitarianism indistinguishable from the Nazi enemy. That couldn’t have been easy to write at that time and place — central planning was much in vogue among the intelligentsia. While a good deal of the reception was serious and respectful, a good deal of it was not. Herbert Finer, in Road to Reaction, called Hayek’s book “the most sinister offensive against democracy to emerge from a democratic country for many decades”; it expressed “the thoroughly Hitlerian contempt for the democratic man.”
Not surprisingly, it was The Road to Serfdom that brought Orwell and Hayek together in print. Orwell briefly reviewed the book along with Konni Zilliacus’s The Mirror of the Past in the April 9, 1944 issue of The Observer. The man who would publish Animal Farm a year later and Nineteen Eighty-Four five years later found much to agree with in Hayek’s work. He wrote:
Shortly, Professor Hayek’s thesis is that Socialism inevitably leads to despotism, and that in Germany the Nazis were able to succeed because the Socialists had already done most of their work for them, especially the intellectual work of weakening the desire for liberty. By bringing the whole of life under the control of the State, Socialism necessarily gives power to an inner ring of bureaucrats, who in almost every case will be men who want power for its own sake and will stick at nothing in order to retain it. Britain, he says, is now going the same road as Germany, with the left-wing intelligentsia in the van and the Tory Party a good second. The only salvation lies in returning to an unplanned economy, free competition, and emphasis on liberty rather than on security. In the negative part of Professor Hayek’s thesis there is a great deal of truth. It cannot be said too often — at any rate, it is not being said nearly often enough — that collectivism is not inherently democratic, but, on the contrary, gives to a tyrannical minority such powers as the Spanish Inquisitors never dreamed of.
This is a significant endorsement, for no one understood totalitarianism as well as Orwell. Indeed, in Why Orwell Matters, Christopher Hitchens points out that Nineteen Eighty-Four impressed Communist Party members behind the Iron Curtain. He quotes Czeslaw Milosz, the Polish poet and Nobel laureate, who before defecting to the West was a cultural attaché for the Polish communist government: “Orwell fascinates them [members of the Inner Party] through his insight to the details they know well…. Even those who know Orwell only by hearsay are amazed that a writer who never lived in Russia should have so keen a perception into its life.” (An audio interview with Hitchens about Orwell is here.)
But true to his left state-socialism, Orwell could not endorse Hayek’s positive program:
Professor Hayek is also probably right in saying that in this country the intellectuals are more totalitarian-minded than the common people. But he does not see, or will not admit, that a return to “free” competition means for the great mass of people a tyranny probably worse, because more irresponsible, than that of the State. The trouble with competitions is that somebody wins them. Professor Hayek denies that free capitalism necessarily leads to monopoly, but in practice that is where it has led, and since the vast majority of people would far rather have State regimentation than slumps and unemployment, the drift towards collectivism is bound to continue if popular opinion has any say in the matter.
…Capitalism leads to dole queues, the scramble for markets, and war. Collectivism leads to concentration camps, leader worship, and war. There is no way out of this unless a planned economy can somehow be combined with the freedom of the intellect, which can only happen if the concept of right and wrong is restored to politics.
Short Shrift
It’s disappointing to see Orwell give such short shrift to Hayek’s positive thesis. He is glib and dogmatic, which is unbecoming a serious intellectual such as Orwell. His ignorance of economics leaps from the page.
Read the rest of this great article at this link.
-----
Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:
posted by Aaron Turpen @ 4:44 PM
0 Comments
Revisiting America's Sugar and Corn Policies
by W.E. Messamore
With the recent news that US food companies are frantic about a looming sugar shortage, it's definitely time to revisit and rethink our entire sugar policy. It simply makes no sense. Not even a little. There is no good (non-lobbying) reason why the US should continue to impose quotas on the importation of sugar.
Restricting the sugar trade is an American tradition nearly as old as the Founding Fathers. Indeed, "The U.S. government has devotedly jacked up American sugar prices far above world market prices since the close of the War of 1812," writes James Bovard at the Future of Freedom Foundation in an article that chronicles the ugly history of sugar price and quantity fixing in America, concluding that, "Few cases better illustrate how trade policy can be completely immune to economic sense."
(Read here for an in-depth economic analysis that quantifies the effects of sugar quotas and their cost to the US economy.)
The fact is that capping the amount of sugar Americans are allowed to import is unambiguously pro (sugar) producer and unambiguously anti consumer (as well as anti producers-who-use-sugar like Hershey's or Coca-Cola). Why should sugar growers get legal benefits at the expense of other companies that are coerced into paying higher prices for the sugar they use, the employees of those companies who compete with raw materials for their wages, and the American consumers who are forced to buy goods at inflated prices from those companies?
Coupled with our absurd policy of subsidizing corn production, sugar quotas create even more problems for Americans. By giving subsidies to corn growers, the US government (aside from picking the taxpayer's pocket) artificially increases the quantity of corn produced and artificially decreases its price. Meanwhile, the quantity of cane sugar is forced down while its price is artificially increased. The result is that American companies use less natural cane sugar and more (of the less healthy) high fructose corn syrup to gratify America's notorious sweet tooth. Our sugar and corn policies work together to dramatically worsen the obesity epidemic. These policies are literally killing us.
The thing about these issues is that they aren't partisan issues. They're lobbying issues. Conservative Republicans should oppose these policies because they are an intrusion into the free market. Liberal Democrats should oppose these policies because they blatantly favor corporate special interests at the expense of workers, consumers, and farmers in developing and third world countries. Both sides must acknowledge the reality that these policies are making us fat and unhealthy- an important acknowledgment in a country scrambling for solutions to both its obesity problem and the associated soaring costs of health care.
The only people who have an interest in keeping these policies in place are American corn growers and American sugar growers. Why should the government buy them favors at the expense of other American companies and consumers? If you agree, please help promote this article on the Internet and feel free to leave comments about practical steps we can take to fix this problem. It would be really sweet if we could bring this matter to national attention and force an end to these twin policies in the year to come.
-----
Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:
With the recent news that US food companies are frantic about a looming sugar shortage, it's definitely time to revisit and rethink our entire sugar policy. It simply makes no sense. Not even a little. There is no good (non-lobbying) reason why the US should continue to impose quotas on the importation of sugar.
Restricting the sugar trade is an American tradition nearly as old as the Founding Fathers. Indeed, "The U.S. government has devotedly jacked up American sugar prices far above world market prices since the close of the War of 1812," writes James Bovard at the Future of Freedom Foundation in an article that chronicles the ugly history of sugar price and quantity fixing in America, concluding that, "Few cases better illustrate how trade policy can be completely immune to economic sense."
(Read here for an in-depth economic analysis that quantifies the effects of sugar quotas and their cost to the US economy.)
The fact is that capping the amount of sugar Americans are allowed to import is unambiguously pro (sugar) producer and unambiguously anti consumer (as well as anti producers-who-use-sugar like Hershey's or Coca-Cola). Why should sugar growers get legal benefits at the expense of other companies that are coerced into paying higher prices for the sugar they use, the employees of those companies who compete with raw materials for their wages, and the American consumers who are forced to buy goods at inflated prices from those companies?
Coupled with our absurd policy of subsidizing corn production, sugar quotas create even more problems for Americans. By giving subsidies to corn growers, the US government (aside from picking the taxpayer's pocket) artificially increases the quantity of corn produced and artificially decreases its price. Meanwhile, the quantity of cane sugar is forced down while its price is artificially increased. The result is that American companies use less natural cane sugar and more (of the less healthy) high fructose corn syrup to gratify America's notorious sweet tooth. Our sugar and corn policies work together to dramatically worsen the obesity epidemic. These policies are literally killing us.
The thing about these issues is that they aren't partisan issues. They're lobbying issues. Conservative Republicans should oppose these policies because they are an intrusion into the free market. Liberal Democrats should oppose these policies because they blatantly favor corporate special interests at the expense of workers, consumers, and farmers in developing and third world countries. Both sides must acknowledge the reality that these policies are making us fat and unhealthy- an important acknowledgment in a country scrambling for solutions to both its obesity problem and the associated soaring costs of health care.
The only people who have an interest in keeping these policies in place are American corn growers and American sugar growers. Why should the government buy them favors at the expense of other American companies and consumers? If you agree, please help promote this article on the Internet and feel free to leave comments about practical steps we can take to fix this problem. It would be really sweet if we could bring this matter to national attention and force an end to these twin policies in the year to come.
-----
Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:
posted by Aaron Turpen @ 11:41 AM
0 Comments
Obamas Unconstitutional Agenda Plan For A New World Order
-----
Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:
posted by Aaron Turpen @ 8:08 AM
0 Comments
Wednesday, September 09, 2009
Obama Health Reform and Wait Times Visualization
-----
Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:
posted by Aaron Turpen @ 4:08 PM
0 Comments
$2.7 Billion for Captain Morgan?
John Stossel's Take
It looks like the company that makes Captain Morgan rum is going to open a new state-of-the-art distillery in the Virgin Islands, and the entire $165 million cost of construction will be paid for with US tax dollars. In total, $2.7 billion in tax credits and other benefits will go to British company Diageo PLC, the world's largest liquor producer, so that they can start up operations on the Virgin Islands.
The U.S. Virgin Island officials who arranged the deal with the rum-producers say that this new distillery will create 40-70 new jobs.
Wow! 40-70 jobs for the bargain price of nearly $3 billion?
Of course government doesn't really create jobs. Even if the politicians could magically create jobs, this deal still stinks. Turns out Diageo currently makes rum in Puerto Rico, so jobs there will be lost if the company relocates to the Virgin Islands.
"It's insulting that the money we give is essentially paying for a foreign corporation to move from one U.S. location to another, while cutting jobs," said Steve Ellis of Taxpayers for Common Sense in an interview with the Los Angeles Times.
Yes, it is.
-----
Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:
It looks like the company that makes Captain Morgan rum is going to open a new state-of-the-art distillery in the Virgin Islands, and the entire $165 million cost of construction will be paid for with US tax dollars. In total, $2.7 billion in tax credits and other benefits will go to British company Diageo PLC, the world's largest liquor producer, so that they can start up operations on the Virgin Islands.
The U.S. Virgin Island officials who arranged the deal with the rum-producers say that this new distillery will create 40-70 new jobs.
Wow! 40-70 jobs for the bargain price of nearly $3 billion?
Of course government doesn't really create jobs. Even if the politicians could magically create jobs, this deal still stinks. Turns out Diageo currently makes rum in Puerto Rico, so jobs there will be lost if the company relocates to the Virgin Islands.
"It's insulting that the money we give is essentially paying for a foreign corporation to move from one U.S. location to another, while cutting jobs," said Steve Ellis of Taxpayers for Common Sense in an interview with the Los Angeles Times.
Yes, it is.
-----
Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:
posted by Aaron Turpen @ 12:05 PM
0 Comments
Glenn Beck is a Neocon
-----
Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:
posted by Aaron Turpen @ 8:00 AM
0 Comments
Tuesday, September 08, 2009
A Wake-Up Call
by David Mason
We are living in a plutocratic oligarchic society. There are a small group of wealthy eugenicists who own our political parties, our media, our industry, our military, our economy and our education system.
They put fluoride in our drinking water and tell us brush with fluoride toothpaste twice a day to lower our I.Q.’s and our fertility. They vaccinate us with syringes full of mercury, squalene and polysorbate to cause brain inflammation and auto-immune diseases which destroy our natural immune system, thereby making us more susceptible to chronic disease. They spray bromide ions and aluminium dioxide into the atmosphere to lower our I.Q.’s, sterilise us, and give us cancer. They feed us genetically modified food, interfering with our D.N.A. and reducing the gene pool of the plants and animals we humans need to survive. They sweeten our drinks with aspartame, an industrial waste product, which lowers I.Q. and interferes with brain function. They flood our streets with harmful drugs which reduce brain function and induce dependency, amongst a myriad of other health issues. At the same time, they have banned the cure for cancer; vitamin B-17 which can be found in the pips of apples. An apple a day keeps cancer away.
They indoctrinate our children between 6 and 7 hours a day, 5 days a week, 40 weeks a year, for up to 15 years. They own and run all major television, radio and internet communication networks. They tell us what to think about and how to think about it. They tell us the world is over populated, that earth cannot sustain 6.5 billion people. In fact, there is enough room on the land of this planet for every man, woman and child to have 175m by 175m of land each. We accept the lie of overpopulation because of the rat-maze, prison-like cities which they have created and we find ourselves in. They tell us global warming is caused by carbon dioxide, when in reality carbon dioxide levels increase after a period of warming has begun, due to the abundance of life which flourishes in warm environments. Carbon dioxide is what humans breathe out and plants breathe in. Most life forms on this planet are carbon based and produce or require carbon dioxide in their respiration. They use the excuse of global warming to increase our taxes and demonise our fellow human beings. In fact, the entire solar system is going through a period of warming. Your carbon footprint is not responsible for the melting of the ice-caps of Mars and the frozen seas of Europa. Global warming is an excuse to reduce population and raise taxes. They own, fund and operate abortion clinics.
They are the largest contributors to all major political parties, set their policies and thereby control our government. They pass thousands of laws each year without congressional or parliamentary debate. They frame political discussion in a false left-right paradigm, thereby dividing the people so as to never allow the people to resist them. The political parties do not represent us, but instead represent an ideology put forward by their funders and their funder’s eugenicist researchers, such as Obama’s Science Czar John P. Holdren. They have set up supra-national governmental institutions, such as the United Nations and European Union, to erode our national sovereignty and distance the individual from the political decision making process.
They conduct foreign wars of aggression. These wars are murder in the name of corporate greed. They control the oil fields of Iraq and the poppy fields of Afghanistan. They conduct staged terror attacks and invent phantom enemies to frighten the public into accepting appalling losses of liberty in the name of national security. Al-Qaeda, in Arabic ‘The Database’, was a list of C.I.A.-Mujahedeen agents who thwarted the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in the 1980’s. Osama bin Laden was on the C.I.A. payroll until, at least, 1999. They use the phantoms to force us to accept that our every action is tracked, traced and scanned, that privacy no longer exists, that you have to present your papers on a daily basis, even to purchase cigarettes and alcohol. All in the name of national security, and the health of our children.
Perhaps most pervasive of all, and the reason for their continued wealth, is their control of the money supply by use of public-private banking partnerships such as the Bank of England and the Federal Reserve. These institutions are run purely for the benefit of their investors. They print at least 10 times more money than they have in their reserves. They lend this money, which is printed out of thin air, to governments and other banks, at interest, on the security of that government’s people and the people’s taxes. This is why national debt exists; to fund the wealthy elite. They have created a debt black-hole from which we cannot escape. This system has led to, and will further lead to the debasement, robbery and rape of our domestic populations. On a supra-national level, private off-shore banks, such as the I.M.F. and World Bank, impose their will upon poor countries which are in need of financial investment. These off-shore banks openly control the governments of the countries which are indebted to them.
It is this controlled system of wealth which is in control of our lives. For this is the truth of our existence; we are slaves. We are money-slaves, debt-slaves and mind-slaves. We cannot escape this system until we recognise it for what it is; a plutocratic oligarchic slave system. And we cannot escape this system until we do something about it.
This is my hope; that each recognise his bonds and rends them asunder, so that each may live their lives with the freedom of the earth, and with love, hope and charity in their hearts.
Freedom is Strength, Ignorance is Slavery, War is Unneccessary.
-----
Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:
We are living in a plutocratic oligarchic society. There are a small group of wealthy eugenicists who own our political parties, our media, our industry, our military, our economy and our education system.
They put fluoride in our drinking water and tell us brush with fluoride toothpaste twice a day to lower our I.Q.’s and our fertility. They vaccinate us with syringes full of mercury, squalene and polysorbate to cause brain inflammation and auto-immune diseases which destroy our natural immune system, thereby making us more susceptible to chronic disease. They spray bromide ions and aluminium dioxide into the atmosphere to lower our I.Q.’s, sterilise us, and give us cancer. They feed us genetically modified food, interfering with our D.N.A. and reducing the gene pool of the plants and animals we humans need to survive. They sweeten our drinks with aspartame, an industrial waste product, which lowers I.Q. and interferes with brain function. They flood our streets with harmful drugs which reduce brain function and induce dependency, amongst a myriad of other health issues. At the same time, they have banned the cure for cancer; vitamin B-17 which can be found in the pips of apples. An apple a day keeps cancer away.
They indoctrinate our children between 6 and 7 hours a day, 5 days a week, 40 weeks a year, for up to 15 years. They own and run all major television, radio and internet communication networks. They tell us what to think about and how to think about it. They tell us the world is over populated, that earth cannot sustain 6.5 billion people. In fact, there is enough room on the land of this planet for every man, woman and child to have 175m by 175m of land each. We accept the lie of overpopulation because of the rat-maze, prison-like cities which they have created and we find ourselves in. They tell us global warming is caused by carbon dioxide, when in reality carbon dioxide levels increase after a period of warming has begun, due to the abundance of life which flourishes in warm environments. Carbon dioxide is what humans breathe out and plants breathe in. Most life forms on this planet are carbon based and produce or require carbon dioxide in their respiration. They use the excuse of global warming to increase our taxes and demonise our fellow human beings. In fact, the entire solar system is going through a period of warming. Your carbon footprint is not responsible for the melting of the ice-caps of Mars and the frozen seas of Europa. Global warming is an excuse to reduce population and raise taxes. They own, fund and operate abortion clinics.
They are the largest contributors to all major political parties, set their policies and thereby control our government. They pass thousands of laws each year without congressional or parliamentary debate. They frame political discussion in a false left-right paradigm, thereby dividing the people so as to never allow the people to resist them. The political parties do not represent us, but instead represent an ideology put forward by their funders and their funder’s eugenicist researchers, such as Obama’s Science Czar John P. Holdren. They have set up supra-national governmental institutions, such as the United Nations and European Union, to erode our national sovereignty and distance the individual from the political decision making process.
They conduct foreign wars of aggression. These wars are murder in the name of corporate greed. They control the oil fields of Iraq and the poppy fields of Afghanistan. They conduct staged terror attacks and invent phantom enemies to frighten the public into accepting appalling losses of liberty in the name of national security. Al-Qaeda, in Arabic ‘The Database’, was a list of C.I.A.-Mujahedeen agents who thwarted the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in the 1980’s. Osama bin Laden was on the C.I.A. payroll until, at least, 1999. They use the phantoms to force us to accept that our every action is tracked, traced and scanned, that privacy no longer exists, that you have to present your papers on a daily basis, even to purchase cigarettes and alcohol. All in the name of national security, and the health of our children.
Perhaps most pervasive of all, and the reason for their continued wealth, is their control of the money supply by use of public-private banking partnerships such as the Bank of England and the Federal Reserve. These institutions are run purely for the benefit of their investors. They print at least 10 times more money than they have in their reserves. They lend this money, which is printed out of thin air, to governments and other banks, at interest, on the security of that government’s people and the people’s taxes. This is why national debt exists; to fund the wealthy elite. They have created a debt black-hole from which we cannot escape. This system has led to, and will further lead to the debasement, robbery and rape of our domestic populations. On a supra-national level, private off-shore banks, such as the I.M.F. and World Bank, impose their will upon poor countries which are in need of financial investment. These off-shore banks openly control the governments of the countries which are indebted to them.
It is this controlled system of wealth which is in control of our lives. For this is the truth of our existence; we are slaves. We are money-slaves, debt-slaves and mind-slaves. We cannot escape this system until we recognise it for what it is; a plutocratic oligarchic slave system. And we cannot escape this system until we do something about it.
This is my hope; that each recognise his bonds and rends them asunder, so that each may live their lives with the freedom of the earth, and with love, hope and charity in their hearts.
Freedom is Strength, Ignorance is Slavery, War is Unneccessary.
-----
Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:
posted by Aaron Turpen @ 4:13 PM
0 Comments
The Pathetic Argument for Prohibiting Drunk Driving
by Mark R. Crovelli
For people who have grown accustomed to having the government monitor, regulate and enforce every facet of their miserable lives, it can be very difficult for them to conceive of the idea of legalizing drunk driving without at the same time picturing in their heads mangled cars, dead babies, and carnage generally. They have been told year after year by the government that created and enforces these laws, that drunk driving is one of the very worst crimes a man can commit, and that, were it not for the government’s ruthless pursuit of these dangerous criminals, there would indeed be unchecked slaughter in the streets.
Any arguments to the contrary, claiming that we could reduce both the incidence and danger of drunk driving by legalizing it, appear completely absurd to these people. They dismiss these arguments out of hand because they have adopted the government’s ridiculous conception of the drunk-driving issue, which looks something like this:
A) Drunk drivers are dangerous, and can kill other drivers
B) The government has outlawed drunk driving, and punishes drunk driving ruthlessly
Ergo, C) The government’s prohibition and punishments do actually reduce the incidence and danger of drunk driving
It does not take a professor of logic, however, to see that this type of argument is fallacious. The conclusion simply does not follow from the premises. We are not entitled to conclude that the government is successfully reducing either the incidence or the danger of drunk driving, just because they have prohibited it and are mercilessly punishing violators. It could be the case that the government’s prohibitions and punishments themselves are actually exacerbating the problem rather than ameliorating it.
The preceding point is exceedingly important, and is worth emphasizing with an analogous example from the so-called "War on Drugs." The federal government takes an analogous position with regard to drug trafficking and consumption, after all. The claim has always been that all the prohibitions and brutal punishments do reduce drug production and consumption (otherwise, what would be the point of the "war"?). Spokesmen for the drug warriors periodically appear in the news claiming that they have just busted a behemoth cocaine or marijuana smuggling ring, and that the bust will be a major blow to drug pushers and consumers. We all know what happens in the real world of drug production once the government cracks down on drugs in some way, however: the market participants adjust to the increased pressure by shifting their base of operation (e.g., from peaceful Caribbean beaches to the blood-drenched calles of Mexico), switching to more concentrated and dangerous drugs to produce and sell to avoid getting caught (e.g., switching from marijuana to cocaine and heroin), and the more vicious risk-takers among the drug producers take market share away from those who fear prison and God if they, say, cut off a police chief’s head.
Needless to say, the mere fact that the government has prohibited certain drugs, and has gone so far as to wage "war" against them, is insufficient to establish that the government is truly reducing drug consumption or production. If anything, the government’s prohibition of and "war" on drugs has itself caused drugs to become more potent, has created a drug gulag system in the United States (that is, ironically, itself rife with drugs) and a mafia state in Mexico – and yet has not reduced anyone’s ability to purchase coke, pot and meth in the slightest degree.
With regard to the drug "war," and all of its obvious failures and disasters, no one with half a brain would think of making an argument claiming that the government is actually reducing drug consumption, just because they have made them illegal and ruthlessly punish offenders. No one would offer an argument, like the one above, claiming:
A) Drug addicts are dangerous, and can kill or hurt themselves and others
B) The government has outlawed consuming or selling drugs, and punishes consumers and sellers ruthlessly
Ergo, C) The government’s prohibition and punishments do actually reduce the incidence and danger of drugs
No one would make such an argument because the conclusion obviously does not follow from the premises. Some sort of further argument or evidence is necessary to establish that the prohibition is working, or else the argument is question-begging. And, once one takes even the slightest peek at the evidence (i.e., the destruction, death and incarceration that the Drug War has delivered to this continent, and the ease with which anyone can buy virtually any drug in any city, school, or prison on this continent), the argument falls apart immediately.
The same ought to be true for what might be aptly called the "War on Drunk Driving." One ought not to simply assume that the government’s prohibitions and medieval punishments actually work to reduce drunk driving – unless there exist good arguments to that effect.
When one looks at the arguments about the efficacy of the government’s war on drunk driving, however, they all point to the opposite conclusion; namely, that the government’s prohibition and punishments are actually making things worse, rather than better. For example, the government’s prohibitions have created incentives for drunk drivers to drive much more dangerously than they otherwise would. They have resulted in a massive loss of income and freedom for hundreds of thousands – if not millions – of Americans who have been arrested, fined and imprisoned for drunk driving without ever hurting anyone. They have created an interlocking structure of incentives that actually encourage drunk driving. They have created a blatantly hypocritical standard for driving on the nation’s roads – with some dangerous drivers let off with a wag of the finger, while others are arrested, fined and incarcerated for doing exactly the same thing; namely, putting other people’s lives at risk. And they have created a police state on the nation’s roads and highways; with Israeli-like random checkpoints, a massive propaganda campaign to intimidate drivers, and mandatory removal of blood from people’s bodies.
The challenge, then, for people who believe in prohibiting drunk driving is to show that these laws do actually reduce drunk driving. Like proponents of drug prohibition, they must be able to show that all of the obvious suffering these laws inflict, billions of lost dollars spent in waging the "war," loss of individual liberties, and counterproductive incentives the laws create have actually reduced drunk driving.
For decades we have been waiting for the drug prohibitionists to give us some similar proof that their favored war has given us some tangible benefits besides millions of men in prison, ever-more potent and dangerous drugs, and a police state run amok. They have failed miserably. So, too, will the proponents of drunk-driving prohibition when we look back on decades of fighting a "war" against our own people, when they have never even hurt any other people.
-----
Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:
For people who have grown accustomed to having the government monitor, regulate and enforce every facet of their miserable lives, it can be very difficult for them to conceive of the idea of legalizing drunk driving without at the same time picturing in their heads mangled cars, dead babies, and carnage generally. They have been told year after year by the government that created and enforces these laws, that drunk driving is one of the very worst crimes a man can commit, and that, were it not for the government’s ruthless pursuit of these dangerous criminals, there would indeed be unchecked slaughter in the streets.
Any arguments to the contrary, claiming that we could reduce both the incidence and danger of drunk driving by legalizing it, appear completely absurd to these people. They dismiss these arguments out of hand because they have adopted the government’s ridiculous conception of the drunk-driving issue, which looks something like this:
A) Drunk drivers are dangerous, and can kill other drivers
B) The government has outlawed drunk driving, and punishes drunk driving ruthlessly
Ergo, C) The government’s prohibition and punishments do actually reduce the incidence and danger of drunk driving
It does not take a professor of logic, however, to see that this type of argument is fallacious. The conclusion simply does not follow from the premises. We are not entitled to conclude that the government is successfully reducing either the incidence or the danger of drunk driving, just because they have prohibited it and are mercilessly punishing violators. It could be the case that the government’s prohibitions and punishments themselves are actually exacerbating the problem rather than ameliorating it.
The preceding point is exceedingly important, and is worth emphasizing with an analogous example from the so-called "War on Drugs." The federal government takes an analogous position with regard to drug trafficking and consumption, after all. The claim has always been that all the prohibitions and brutal punishments do reduce drug production and consumption (otherwise, what would be the point of the "war"?). Spokesmen for the drug warriors periodically appear in the news claiming that they have just busted a behemoth cocaine or marijuana smuggling ring, and that the bust will be a major blow to drug pushers and consumers. We all know what happens in the real world of drug production once the government cracks down on drugs in some way, however: the market participants adjust to the increased pressure by shifting their base of operation (e.g., from peaceful Caribbean beaches to the blood-drenched calles of Mexico), switching to more concentrated and dangerous drugs to produce and sell to avoid getting caught (e.g., switching from marijuana to cocaine and heroin), and the more vicious risk-takers among the drug producers take market share away from those who fear prison and God if they, say, cut off a police chief’s head.
Needless to say, the mere fact that the government has prohibited certain drugs, and has gone so far as to wage "war" against them, is insufficient to establish that the government is truly reducing drug consumption or production. If anything, the government’s prohibition of and "war" on drugs has itself caused drugs to become more potent, has created a drug gulag system in the United States (that is, ironically, itself rife with drugs) and a mafia state in Mexico – and yet has not reduced anyone’s ability to purchase coke, pot and meth in the slightest degree.
With regard to the drug "war," and all of its obvious failures and disasters, no one with half a brain would think of making an argument claiming that the government is actually reducing drug consumption, just because they have made them illegal and ruthlessly punish offenders. No one would offer an argument, like the one above, claiming:
A) Drug addicts are dangerous, and can kill or hurt themselves and others
B) The government has outlawed consuming or selling drugs, and punishes consumers and sellers ruthlessly
Ergo, C) The government’s prohibition and punishments do actually reduce the incidence and danger of drugs
No one would make such an argument because the conclusion obviously does not follow from the premises. Some sort of further argument or evidence is necessary to establish that the prohibition is working, or else the argument is question-begging. And, once one takes even the slightest peek at the evidence (i.e., the destruction, death and incarceration that the Drug War has delivered to this continent, and the ease with which anyone can buy virtually any drug in any city, school, or prison on this continent), the argument falls apart immediately.
The same ought to be true for what might be aptly called the "War on Drunk Driving." One ought not to simply assume that the government’s prohibitions and medieval punishments actually work to reduce drunk driving – unless there exist good arguments to that effect.
When one looks at the arguments about the efficacy of the government’s war on drunk driving, however, they all point to the opposite conclusion; namely, that the government’s prohibition and punishments are actually making things worse, rather than better. For example, the government’s prohibitions have created incentives for drunk drivers to drive much more dangerously than they otherwise would. They have resulted in a massive loss of income and freedom for hundreds of thousands – if not millions – of Americans who have been arrested, fined and imprisoned for drunk driving without ever hurting anyone. They have created an interlocking structure of incentives that actually encourage drunk driving. They have created a blatantly hypocritical standard for driving on the nation’s roads – with some dangerous drivers let off with a wag of the finger, while others are arrested, fined and incarcerated for doing exactly the same thing; namely, putting other people’s lives at risk. And they have created a police state on the nation’s roads and highways; with Israeli-like random checkpoints, a massive propaganda campaign to intimidate drivers, and mandatory removal of blood from people’s bodies.
The challenge, then, for people who believe in prohibiting drunk driving is to show that these laws do actually reduce drunk driving. Like proponents of drug prohibition, they must be able to show that all of the obvious suffering these laws inflict, billions of lost dollars spent in waging the "war," loss of individual liberties, and counterproductive incentives the laws create have actually reduced drunk driving.
For decades we have been waiting for the drug prohibitionists to give us some similar proof that their favored war has given us some tangible benefits besides millions of men in prison, ever-more potent and dangerous drugs, and a police state run amok. They have failed miserably. So, too, will the proponents of drunk-driving prohibition when we look back on decades of fighting a "war" against our own people, when they have never even hurt any other people.
-----
Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:
posted by Aaron Turpen @ 12:12 PM
1 Comments
ASTROTURF JERKS!!
-----
Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:
posted by Aaron Turpen @ 8:11 AM
0 Comments
Monday, September 07, 2009
Ted Kennedy & The Health Care Town Halls
-----
Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:
posted by Aaron Turpen @ 4:33 PM
0 Comments
Jesse Ventura gives Alex Jones an inside look at his new TV show
-----
Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:
posted by Aaron Turpen @ 12:06 PM
0 Comments
42% of Parents Don't Want their Children Watching Obama Speech
the National Expositor
In a poll taken by KSL.com in their article - School districts cautious ahead of Obama speech to students, 42 percent of parents in Utah want their schools to opt out or keep their children home during President Obama's speech.
If this video is shown in your children's school, would you?
1. Let them watch it - 58% (418)
2. Opt out, if available - 22% (159)
3. Keep home from school - 20% (145)
Total Votes: 722
-
According to Fox News, concern arose when one of the lesson plans was released. The lesson plans stated, students in pre-kindergarten through grade 6, are suggested to "write letters to themselves about what they can do to help the president." After the speech students are supossed to discuss what, "the president wants us to do."
-
After much controversy, the White House changed their lesson plans for children to "write letters to themselves about how they can achieve their short-term and long-term education goals. These would be collected and redistributed at an appropriate later date by the teacher to make students accountable to their goals."
Some school districts are not allowing parents to opt-out.
-
At least one school district, Tempe Elementary School District No. 3 in Arizona, is not permitting parents to pull their children out of class during Obama's speech.
-
"I have directed principals to have students and teachers view the president's message on Tuesday," Superintendent of Schools Dr. Arthur Tate Jr. said in a statement Thursday. "In some cases, where technology will not permit access to the White House Web site, DVDs will be provided to classes on subsequent days. I am not permitting parents to opt out students from viewing the president's message, since this is a purely educational event."
-
Oklahoma State Senator Randy Brogdon is concerned, “President Obama has shown time and time again that he has little regard for the Constitution or our founding principles... President Obama seems intent on bypassing the parents to speak to the children directly, I don’t like that, it's just one step too far.”
Is Senator Brogdon's concern valid? This week, President Obama's Green Job Czar, Van Jones, explains the incremenatlist strategy of the Obama administration. While speaking about Green Jobs, Jones states that you cannot appear too radical at the beginning of any movement. In other words, in order not to alarm people, "You have to pursue these same steps in stages."
Larger concern revolves around what the full agenda is in all this? In April, president Obama signed into law the "Serve America Act." The law uses 1.1 billion dollars to increase the membership in AmeriCorp from 75,000 to 250,000 children by the year 2017.
What is the role of AmeriCorp? If the idea were to create a civilian stasi type security force, Van Jones reminds us that it would be done in incremental steps. Evidence already points towards these civilian security forces being used for law enforcement duties.
In his article, Homeland Defense: The Pentagon Declares War on America, Frank Morales writes,
"In the wake of 9/11, CNCS (Corporation for National and Community Service) was fully integrated into "homeland defense efforts". In March 2002, the Corporation issued a "notice of availability of funds to strengthen communities and organizations in using service and volunteers to support homeland security." With an emphasis on "public safety" and "freeing up police time", the grants offered under the announcement "are to assist communities in getting involved in the war against terrorism on the home front." In the area of "public safety" the grants "will help provide members to support police departments…in tasks and other functions that can be performed by non-sworn officers." Now mind you, the volunteers "are not armed, nor can they make arrests, but they carry out vital tasks including organizing neighborhood watch groups…" They also "organize communities to identify and respond to crime and disorder problems…"
Children do not have the knowledge of history or experience to understand what they are being drawn into. AmeriCorp and City Year pray on children's innocence in the same way John Taylor Gatto states public schools do. "Schools teach emotional dependency. By stars, checks, smiles, frowns, prizes, honors, and disgraces, schools condition children to lifelong emotional dependency. It’s like training a dog. The reward/punishment cycle, known to animal trainers from antiquity, is the heart of a human psychology distilled in late nineteenth-century Leipzig and incorporated thoroughly into the scientific management revolution of the early twentieth century in America. Half a century later, by 1968, it had infected every school system in the United States, so all-pervasive at century’s end that few people can imagine a different way to go about management. And indeed, there isn’t a better one if the goal of managed lives in a managed economy and a managed social order is what you’re after."
In the videos below, both Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and President Obama state that their end goal is to have a cumpulsory civilian security force. What better way would there be to achieve their goal, than to bypass parental supervision and sell the idea straight to the children? This mode of operation and agenda has been implemented several times throughout history. I'm sure you are all aware of the result.
-----
Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:
In a poll taken by KSL.com in their article - School districts cautious ahead of Obama speech to students, 42 percent of parents in Utah want their schools to opt out or keep their children home during President Obama's speech.
If this video is shown in your children's school, would you?
1. Let them watch it - 58% (418)
2. Opt out, if available - 22% (159)
3. Keep home from school - 20% (145)
Total Votes: 722
-
According to Fox News, concern arose when one of the lesson plans was released. The lesson plans stated, students in pre-kindergarten through grade 6, are suggested to "write letters to themselves about what they can do to help the president." After the speech students are supossed to discuss what, "the president wants us to do."
-
After much controversy, the White House changed their lesson plans for children to "write letters to themselves about how they can achieve their short-term and long-term education goals. These would be collected and redistributed at an appropriate later date by the teacher to make students accountable to their goals."
Some school districts are not allowing parents to opt-out.
-
At least one school district, Tempe Elementary School District No. 3 in Arizona, is not permitting parents to pull their children out of class during Obama's speech.
-
"I have directed principals to have students and teachers view the president's message on Tuesday," Superintendent of Schools Dr. Arthur Tate Jr. said in a statement Thursday. "In some cases, where technology will not permit access to the White House Web site, DVDs will be provided to classes on subsequent days. I am not permitting parents to opt out students from viewing the president's message, since this is a purely educational event."
-
Oklahoma State Senator Randy Brogdon is concerned, “President Obama has shown time and time again that he has little regard for the Constitution or our founding principles... President Obama seems intent on bypassing the parents to speak to the children directly, I don’t like that, it's just one step too far.”
Is Senator Brogdon's concern valid? This week, President Obama's Green Job Czar, Van Jones, explains the incremenatlist strategy of the Obama administration. While speaking about Green Jobs, Jones states that you cannot appear too radical at the beginning of any movement. In other words, in order not to alarm people, "You have to pursue these same steps in stages."
Larger concern revolves around what the full agenda is in all this? In April, president Obama signed into law the "Serve America Act." The law uses 1.1 billion dollars to increase the membership in AmeriCorp from 75,000 to 250,000 children by the year 2017.
What is the role of AmeriCorp? If the idea were to create a civilian stasi type security force, Van Jones reminds us that it would be done in incremental steps. Evidence already points towards these civilian security forces being used for law enforcement duties.
In his article, Homeland Defense: The Pentagon Declares War on America, Frank Morales writes,
"In the wake of 9/11, CNCS (Corporation for National and Community Service) was fully integrated into "homeland defense efforts". In March 2002, the Corporation issued a "notice of availability of funds to strengthen communities and organizations in using service and volunteers to support homeland security." With an emphasis on "public safety" and "freeing up police time", the grants offered under the announcement "are to assist communities in getting involved in the war against terrorism on the home front." In the area of "public safety" the grants "will help provide members to support police departments…in tasks and other functions that can be performed by non-sworn officers." Now mind you, the volunteers "are not armed, nor can they make arrests, but they carry out vital tasks including organizing neighborhood watch groups…" They also "organize communities to identify and respond to crime and disorder problems…"
Children do not have the knowledge of history or experience to understand what they are being drawn into. AmeriCorp and City Year pray on children's innocence in the same way John Taylor Gatto states public schools do. "Schools teach emotional dependency. By stars, checks, smiles, frowns, prizes, honors, and disgraces, schools condition children to lifelong emotional dependency. It’s like training a dog. The reward/punishment cycle, known to animal trainers from antiquity, is the heart of a human psychology distilled in late nineteenth-century Leipzig and incorporated thoroughly into the scientific management revolution of the early twentieth century in America. Half a century later, by 1968, it had infected every school system in the United States, so all-pervasive at century’s end that few people can imagine a different way to go about management. And indeed, there isn’t a better one if the goal of managed lives in a managed economy and a managed social order is what you’re after."
In the videos below, both Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and President Obama state that their end goal is to have a cumpulsory civilian security force. What better way would there be to achieve their goal, than to bypass parental supervision and sell the idea straight to the children? This mode of operation and agenda has been implemented several times throughout history. I'm sure you are all aware of the result.
-----
Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:
posted by Aaron Turpen @ 7:55 AM
5 Comments
Sunday, September 06, 2009
WHO Admits to Releasing Pandemic Virus into Population via 'Mock-Up' Vaccines
by Dr. Mercola
The document on the WHO website linked below states that it is common procedure to release pandemic viruses into the population in order to get a jump ahead of the real pandemic, so as to fast track the vaccine for when it is needed.
In Europe, some manufacturers have conducted advance studies using a so-called "mock-up" vaccine. Mock-up vaccines contain an active ingredient for an influenza virus that has not circulated recently in human populations and thus mimics the novelty of a pandemic virus.
According to the website, “Such advance studies can greatly expedite regulatory approval.”
On June 11 the World Health Organization (WHO) raised its swine flu pandemic alert from a 5 to a 6. Phase 6 is the highest level alert, and reflects the speed with which a virus is spreading -- not its severity.
This classification also allows for a vaccine to qualify for a “fast-track” procedure for licensing and approval, and this process is now ongoing for the swine flu vaccine.
What you may not know, however, is that WHO, together with health officials, regulatory authorities and vaccine manufacturers, have been working since 2007 – long before this new “threat” of swine flu emerged – to “explore a broad range of issues surrounding the regulatory approval of pandemic vaccines.”
According to the WHO website:
“Ways were sought to shorten the time between the emergence of a pandemic virus and the availability of safe and effective vaccines.”
One such method used in Europe is to conduct advance studies using a “mock-up” vaccine that contains an active ingredient for an influenza virus that has not circulated recently in human populations.
When testing these mock-up vaccines, it is very possible to release the novel influenza virus into the population, as its purpose is to “mimic the novelty of a pandemic virus” and “greatly expedite regulatory approval.”
Government officials have other tricks up their sleeves to ensure these new, barely tested vaccines easily make it to market as well, such as:
*
Labeling the vaccine a “strain change” rather than an entirely “new” vaccine. This method states the new vaccine has built on technology used to produce vaccines for seasonal influenza, and the change for the pandemic vaccine is similar to a strain change used to produce a new seasonal vaccine each flu season.
In the United States, vaccine manufacturers are required to submit fewer data if they already have a licensed flu vaccine and will use the same manufacturing process for the pandemic vaccine.
*
Using a “rolling review procedure.” This allows manufacturers to submit sets of data for regulatory review “as they become available.” In other words, they’re free to distribute the vaccine and then submit the safety data later on.
Would You Want a Fast-Tracked Vaccine Injected Into Your Body?
By very definition, fast-tracked vaccines are those that have received very little safety testing prior to being used. So any time you agree to get one, you are essentially a guinea pig.
Vaccine manufacturer GlaxoSmithKline has actually stated:
"Clinical trials will be limited, due to the need to provide the vaccine to governments as quickly as possible. Additional studies will therefore be required and conducted after the vaccine is made available."
And WHO likewise says:
“Time constraints mean that clinical data at the time when pandemic vaccines are first administered will inevitably be limited. Further testing of safety and effectiveness will need to take place after administration of the vaccine has begun.”
Why would anyone who knows the facts sign up for a vaccine that really needs further safety studies … but won’t receive them until AFTER it’s already been given out? By then it will be too late.
So please realize that if you or your child receive a swine flu vaccine, you will be acting as a TEST subject.
Remember this vaccine will not be made using the methods of the past. In order to speed up the cultivation of the virus and the manufacturing process, they’re using human liver cells instead of chicken eggs. Whether this new procedure is better or worse than the old method, I can’t say … but it’s never been used before and they have not had time to conduct any human testing.
So, it’s a giant game of Russian Roulette that you simply want to avoid.
Nearly all of the vaccines created will also include thimerosal (mercury), and the toxic adjuvant squalene, both of which have been clearly shown to carry significant health risks.
You should know, too, that vaccine makers and federal officials have been rendered immune from lawsuits. Should anything go wrong with this current vaccine they will not have to pay a single cent to anyone!
Who Stands to Benefit From the Swine Flu Pandemic (and Future Pandemics)?
This is the question you need to ask yourself when you hear the media dishing out the latest statistics about the swine flu pandemic.
In the last few days alone, I’ve seen major news outlets warning that come flu season, the swine flu could kill 90,000 Americans and hospitalize 2 million. This sounds a lot like the fear-mongering that went on during the Bird Flu pandemic (that never materialized) back in 2005.
Back then scientists and governments were congratulating themselves for averting a threat that never was by stockpiling worthless vaccines. Now I’m having déjà vu.
In response to this newest swine flu pandemic, what did the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently suggest?
Swine flu shots for all! Of course, what else would you expect?
As the Washington Post reported, CDC said: “As soon as a vaccine is available, try to get it for everyone in your family.”
Well, you might be tempted to do just that if you believe the sensational number of swine flu deaths they’re predicting. But, really, these numbers are not based on facts.
WHO continues to define the severity of the H1N1 virus to be moderate, generally defined as an illness requiring neither hospitalization nor even medical care. Most cases are having MILD symptoms that clear up on their own.
Further, no one really knows for sure just how many cases of swine flu there are, because some countries are no longer confirming them by lab.
In the UK, for example, they now appear to be collecting swine flu data online and via the phone, based on nothing but self-assessment.
So did they really contract the swine flu?
Or did the vast majority of them simply have a case of the sniffles or a seasonal flu bug? Without laboratory confirmation, no one will ever know, but they sure are using those numbers to scare you!
Going back to my original question though, you must ask yourself who stands to benefit from all of this paranoia and hysteria.
Of course you know the answer to this one.
Big Pharma … which stands to gain up to $49 billion a year on the swine flu vaccine alone plus an infinite amount on top of that for future pandemic vaccines.
The vaccine manufacturers would love for every man, woman, and child to heed the CDC’s advice to get vaccinated. But now you know better.
The swine flu is typically a mild illness.
The swine flu vaccine has not been tested for safety or efficacy, but we DO know it will contain harmful additives.
The choice, to me, is obvious. And in the future, anytime a new “pandemic” appears and officials urge you to rush out and get a shot, please remember this article and ask yourself if it’s really you who stands to benefit from their advice.
-----
Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:
The document on the WHO website linked below states that it is common procedure to release pandemic viruses into the population in order to get a jump ahead of the real pandemic, so as to fast track the vaccine for when it is needed.
In Europe, some manufacturers have conducted advance studies using a so-called "mock-up" vaccine. Mock-up vaccines contain an active ingredient for an influenza virus that has not circulated recently in human populations and thus mimics the novelty of a pandemic virus.
According to the website, “Such advance studies can greatly expedite regulatory approval.”
On June 11 the World Health Organization (WHO) raised its swine flu pandemic alert from a 5 to a 6. Phase 6 is the highest level alert, and reflects the speed with which a virus is spreading -- not its severity.
This classification also allows for a vaccine to qualify for a “fast-track” procedure for licensing and approval, and this process is now ongoing for the swine flu vaccine.
What you may not know, however, is that WHO, together with health officials, regulatory authorities and vaccine manufacturers, have been working since 2007 – long before this new “threat” of swine flu emerged – to “explore a broad range of issues surrounding the regulatory approval of pandemic vaccines.”
According to the WHO website:
“Ways were sought to shorten the time between the emergence of a pandemic virus and the availability of safe and effective vaccines.”
One such method used in Europe is to conduct advance studies using a “mock-up” vaccine that contains an active ingredient for an influenza virus that has not circulated recently in human populations.
When testing these mock-up vaccines, it is very possible to release the novel influenza virus into the population, as its purpose is to “mimic the novelty of a pandemic virus” and “greatly expedite regulatory approval.”
Government officials have other tricks up their sleeves to ensure these new, barely tested vaccines easily make it to market as well, such as:
*
Labeling the vaccine a “strain change” rather than an entirely “new” vaccine. This method states the new vaccine has built on technology used to produce vaccines for seasonal influenza, and the change for the pandemic vaccine is similar to a strain change used to produce a new seasonal vaccine each flu season.
In the United States, vaccine manufacturers are required to submit fewer data if they already have a licensed flu vaccine and will use the same manufacturing process for the pandemic vaccine.
*
Using a “rolling review procedure.” This allows manufacturers to submit sets of data for regulatory review “as they become available.” In other words, they’re free to distribute the vaccine and then submit the safety data later on.
Would You Want a Fast-Tracked Vaccine Injected Into Your Body?
By very definition, fast-tracked vaccines are those that have received very little safety testing prior to being used. So any time you agree to get one, you are essentially a guinea pig.
Vaccine manufacturer GlaxoSmithKline has actually stated:
"Clinical trials will be limited, due to the need to provide the vaccine to governments as quickly as possible. Additional studies will therefore be required and conducted after the vaccine is made available."
And WHO likewise says:
“Time constraints mean that clinical data at the time when pandemic vaccines are first administered will inevitably be limited. Further testing of safety and effectiveness will need to take place after administration of the vaccine has begun.”
Why would anyone who knows the facts sign up for a vaccine that really needs further safety studies … but won’t receive them until AFTER it’s already been given out? By then it will be too late.
So please realize that if you or your child receive a swine flu vaccine, you will be acting as a TEST subject.
Remember this vaccine will not be made using the methods of the past. In order to speed up the cultivation of the virus and the manufacturing process, they’re using human liver cells instead of chicken eggs. Whether this new procedure is better or worse than the old method, I can’t say … but it’s never been used before and they have not had time to conduct any human testing.
So, it’s a giant game of Russian Roulette that you simply want to avoid.
Nearly all of the vaccines created will also include thimerosal (mercury), and the toxic adjuvant squalene, both of which have been clearly shown to carry significant health risks.
You should know, too, that vaccine makers and federal officials have been rendered immune from lawsuits. Should anything go wrong with this current vaccine they will not have to pay a single cent to anyone!
Who Stands to Benefit From the Swine Flu Pandemic (and Future Pandemics)?
This is the question you need to ask yourself when you hear the media dishing out the latest statistics about the swine flu pandemic.
In the last few days alone, I’ve seen major news outlets warning that come flu season, the swine flu could kill 90,000 Americans and hospitalize 2 million. This sounds a lot like the fear-mongering that went on during the Bird Flu pandemic (that never materialized) back in 2005.
Back then scientists and governments were congratulating themselves for averting a threat that never was by stockpiling worthless vaccines. Now I’m having déjà vu.
In response to this newest swine flu pandemic, what did the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently suggest?
Swine flu shots for all! Of course, what else would you expect?
As the Washington Post reported, CDC said: “As soon as a vaccine is available, try to get it for everyone in your family.”
Well, you might be tempted to do just that if you believe the sensational number of swine flu deaths they’re predicting. But, really, these numbers are not based on facts.
WHO continues to define the severity of the H1N1 virus to be moderate, generally defined as an illness requiring neither hospitalization nor even medical care. Most cases are having MILD symptoms that clear up on their own.
Further, no one really knows for sure just how many cases of swine flu there are, because some countries are no longer confirming them by lab.
In the UK, for example, they now appear to be collecting swine flu data online and via the phone, based on nothing but self-assessment.
So did they really contract the swine flu?
Or did the vast majority of them simply have a case of the sniffles or a seasonal flu bug? Without laboratory confirmation, no one will ever know, but they sure are using those numbers to scare you!
Going back to my original question though, you must ask yourself who stands to benefit from all of this paranoia and hysteria.
Of course you know the answer to this one.
Big Pharma … which stands to gain up to $49 billion a year on the swine flu vaccine alone plus an infinite amount on top of that for future pandemic vaccines.
The vaccine manufacturers would love for every man, woman, and child to heed the CDC’s advice to get vaccinated. But now you know better.
The swine flu is typically a mild illness.
The swine flu vaccine has not been tested for safety or efficacy, but we DO know it will contain harmful additives.
The choice, to me, is obvious. And in the future, anytime a new “pandemic” appears and officials urge you to rush out and get a shot, please remember this article and ask yourself if it’s really you who stands to benefit from their advice.
-----
Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:
posted by Aaron Turpen @ 4:37 PM
0 Comments
Let poppies grow; bring troops home
by Al Neuharth, USA Today founder
August was the deadliest month ever for U.S. troops in Afghanistan. Yet press releases this week bragged that U.S. and NATO soldiers have reduced the opium poppies being raised there to make the drug heroin.
That's poppycock!
We properly invaded Afghanistan eight years ago to try to get Osama bin Laden after he engineered the 9/11 attack. He got away to Pakistan.
So, instead of going after him there as we should have, we shifted our troops to Iraq because President George W. Bush wanted to get Saddam Hussein. He did.
Now, with an agreement to get out of Iraq, we're shifting more troops back to Afghanistan.
Afghans are unstable, ungovernable and unconquerable. Great Britain tried it in the 19th century and failed. The Soviet Union (now Russia) tried in the 20th century and failed. We will fail now.
The solution is to let Afghans grow their poppies and get out.
If you're not sure, here are facts about our Iraq-Afghanistan misadventure.
• We have lost 4,340 military lives in Iraq.
• We have lost 738 in Afghanistan, 51 in August.
The Iraq fiasco is Bush's biggest blunder. Unless he gets it and gets out, Afghanistan will be President Obama's albatross.
The lesson we all should learn is bigger than Vietnam, Iraq or Afghanistan. The world has many countries where leaders (and many people) really don't understand or want democracy. Hopefully, more will get it.
But to risk the lives of our military men and women to teach them about it is hopeless nonsense. We should keep our troops at home to protect us from disaster here, rather than send them on silly misadventures abroad.
-----
Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:
August was the deadliest month ever for U.S. troops in Afghanistan. Yet press releases this week bragged that U.S. and NATO soldiers have reduced the opium poppies being raised there to make the drug heroin.
That's poppycock!
We properly invaded Afghanistan eight years ago to try to get Osama bin Laden after he engineered the 9/11 attack. He got away to Pakistan.
So, instead of going after him there as we should have, we shifted our troops to Iraq because President George W. Bush wanted to get Saddam Hussein. He did.
Now, with an agreement to get out of Iraq, we're shifting more troops back to Afghanistan.
Afghans are unstable, ungovernable and unconquerable. Great Britain tried it in the 19th century and failed. The Soviet Union (now Russia) tried in the 20th century and failed. We will fail now.
The solution is to let Afghans grow their poppies and get out.
If you're not sure, here are facts about our Iraq-Afghanistan misadventure.
• We have lost 4,340 military lives in Iraq.
• We have lost 738 in Afghanistan, 51 in August.
The Iraq fiasco is Bush's biggest blunder. Unless he gets it and gets out, Afghanistan will be President Obama's albatross.
The lesson we all should learn is bigger than Vietnam, Iraq or Afghanistan. The world has many countries where leaders (and many people) really don't understand or want democracy. Hopefully, more will get it.
But to risk the lives of our military men and women to teach them about it is hopeless nonsense. We should keep our troops at home to protect us from disaster here, rather than send them on silly misadventures abroad.
-----
Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:
posted by Aaron Turpen @ 12:00 PM
0 Comments
Make September 8 a Family Day!
by Linda Schrock Taylor
I wouldn't send my child to school on September 8, unless I had a strong death wish for America. On September 8, President Obama will be broadcasting a prepared speech to every school child, grades K-12, in America. On September 8, Obama the Change Agent begins his takeover of the schools…but not with my child, and hopefully not with yours.
Consider the implications of his grand plan. In a style typical of dictators, he is preempting the communications into every school in the nation. He has not sought the permission of parents or local school boards. He will not sign in at the office to get clearance and a visitor badge as everyone else must do.
As a parent, I expect the schools to notify me in writing if a controversial person or group would be making any kind of presentation. I could then decide whether to keep my child home, or ask that he be sent to the library to read during that time. But Barack Obama, with one huge broadcast, will dismiss the rights of everyone, ignore laws, and kick dust on the Constitution.
Parents will not be warned — except by a few like myself, Jeff Bennett at the Federal Observer, and others who stumbled upon the information that was sent to schools and teachers in advance of this controversial speech. The State will attempt to defend itself by pointing out that Obama will be encouraging children to work hard in school and learn all they can for a global economy. (He will cross his fingers behind his back and then tell how he approves of citizens being well informed, better educated, and more active, but Acorn thugs at health care town halls have already proven such talk to be a travesty, at best.)
The problem with the usurpation of nationwide instructional time on September 8 is not so much the message, but the manner. What gives Obama the legal right to trod upon the Constitution in this, and other matters? Nothing gives him the right. But this time, his timing is excellent because….
There is no time like September 8, 2009, to begin homeschooling your children. There are a multitude of successful examples to follow. There are books to guide parents. There are web sites offering help, lesson plans, and worksheets. At Exodus Mandate, Ray Moore and his group encourage every Christian to remove their children from secular schools. I agree with them. Why should parents be expected to enroll their children in today’s unholy schools … schools run by people who deeply disapprove of students being taught that ethics, morals, and religion will be their personal, safe anchors in a frightening and deceitful world?
Other resources include the Home School Legal Defense Association. Visit their site to learn the homeschooling laws for your state. For suggestions on curriculum, teaching methods and more, visit my archives. Beware of reading programs that are as ineffective as the public schools and look into The Spalding Method. Learn how fuzzy progressive math is destroying the mathematical potential of millions of children and learn which books NOT to buy. Visit sites like The Well-Trained Mind for suggestions and support. Scour the Internet! The lives and educations of your children are worth every effort, every sacrifice, on your part.
Do not say, “We would like to but simply cannot.” Make the commitment and you will find a way. Look about you as you put together a homeschooling plan. Can grandparents give some or even much of the instruction? What about other relatives? Would neighbors be interested in forming a homeschooling co-op? Could members of your church work together to school the children of the congregation? How much instruction could be done in the evenings after work days? Bing the topic! Google the topic! Visit the library! Put an ad in the paper asking if there are others seeking to accomplish the same thing.
On September 8, keep your children out of school and take the whole family out for a great day of adventure and real learning. Better yet, on September 8, keep your children out of school and homeschool them for at least kindergarten through grade 12.
-----
Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:
I wouldn't send my child to school on September 8, unless I had a strong death wish for America. On September 8, President Obama will be broadcasting a prepared speech to every school child, grades K-12, in America. On September 8, Obama the Change Agent begins his takeover of the schools…but not with my child, and hopefully not with yours.
Consider the implications of his grand plan. In a style typical of dictators, he is preempting the communications into every school in the nation. He has not sought the permission of parents or local school boards. He will not sign in at the office to get clearance and a visitor badge as everyone else must do.
As a parent, I expect the schools to notify me in writing if a controversial person or group would be making any kind of presentation. I could then decide whether to keep my child home, or ask that he be sent to the library to read during that time. But Barack Obama, with one huge broadcast, will dismiss the rights of everyone, ignore laws, and kick dust on the Constitution.
Parents will not be warned — except by a few like myself, Jeff Bennett at the Federal Observer, and others who stumbled upon the information that was sent to schools and teachers in advance of this controversial speech. The State will attempt to defend itself by pointing out that Obama will be encouraging children to work hard in school and learn all they can for a global economy. (He will cross his fingers behind his back and then tell how he approves of citizens being well informed, better educated, and more active, but Acorn thugs at health care town halls have already proven such talk to be a travesty, at best.)
The problem with the usurpation of nationwide instructional time on September 8 is not so much the message, but the manner. What gives Obama the legal right to trod upon the Constitution in this, and other matters? Nothing gives him the right. But this time, his timing is excellent because….
There is no time like September 8, 2009, to begin homeschooling your children. There are a multitude of successful examples to follow. There are books to guide parents. There are web sites offering help, lesson plans, and worksheets. At Exodus Mandate, Ray Moore and his group encourage every Christian to remove their children from secular schools. I agree with them. Why should parents be expected to enroll their children in today’s unholy schools … schools run by people who deeply disapprove of students being taught that ethics, morals, and religion will be their personal, safe anchors in a frightening and deceitful world?
Other resources include the Home School Legal Defense Association. Visit their site to learn the homeschooling laws for your state. For suggestions on curriculum, teaching methods and more, visit my archives. Beware of reading programs that are as ineffective as the public schools and look into The Spalding Method. Learn how fuzzy progressive math is destroying the mathematical potential of millions of children and learn which books NOT to buy. Visit sites like The Well-Trained Mind for suggestions and support. Scour the Internet! The lives and educations of your children are worth every effort, every sacrifice, on your part.
Do not say, “We would like to but simply cannot.” Make the commitment and you will find a way. Look about you as you put together a homeschooling plan. Can grandparents give some or even much of the instruction? What about other relatives? Would neighbors be interested in forming a homeschooling co-op? Could members of your church work together to school the children of the congregation? How much instruction could be done in the evenings after work days? Bing the topic! Google the topic! Visit the library! Put an ad in the paper asking if there are others seeking to accomplish the same thing.
On September 8, keep your children out of school and take the whole family out for a great day of adventure and real learning. Better yet, on September 8, keep your children out of school and homeschool them for at least kindergarten through grade 12.
-----
Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:
posted by Aaron Turpen @ 7:38 AM
0 Comments
