People Watching

I have to admit, I'm a people watcher. I had a great opportunity yesterday to do just that. I went to the drag races with my husband. I've been to NASCAR, but never NHRA before. I have to admit, they are very similar, and they both quite surprised me.

Let me explain. When you listen to the media, you expect to find a certain thing when you go to a NASCAR or NHRA event. You expect to find beer swigging, gun toting rednecks and not much else. That's not the case. It's actually a varied cross section of America represented at an NHRA event. Take for instance just the people sitting right around me. There was a lady sitting directly in front of me who at first I identified very much with. She had on faded jeans and a race shirt. She spoke with about the same accent I did. She was slightly older than I was. She was sitting with a man about her age, dressed the same as she was. As we talked, we seemed to have about the same backgrounds. We liked the same music. I put her in my economic bracket, about $45-60,000. Then she pulled out one of those top of the line smart phones. I can't afford one of those. I had to re-evaluate. My brother-in-law, who works for AT&T has one of those and he makes about $120,000 a year. Suddenly, I couldn't quite identify with her as much. I don't know what it's like to make that much.

Sitting behind us was an African-American couple that made way more than us, and knew it. She acted a little snooty about it, though he didn't. My husband, who was explaining things to me, asked if this was her first time. He was meaning that he could explain things to her, too. She snottily said, no, I've been before. I guess she took it as if she couldn't afford it, and that he was acting like a redneck who had never been before.

Sitting beside us was another African-American couple. My husband cheered for the Army team. He let out a big Hooah! He must have been Army, or at least military himself. We're Navy, but when you don't have a dog in the hunt, there is no sibling rivalry. You cheer for the military. We must have looked a bit mixed up, my husband and I. We had forest camo jackets on, with our Navy hats. It was a bit cool and had been misting rain.

Actually, I had forgotten a hat all together. A man had caught us getting out of the car, and sold us a couple hats to help support Meals on Wheels. With it we got a free flag decal for our car. Yes, things are expensive and the capitalists come out at the race. But, that's capitalism. We had $10 each, so we went ahead and bought them. I needed a hat, and, no, I didn't know for sure it was going to Meals on Wheels, but $10 for a hat isn't bad. The food was outrageously expensive, and you can't take anything in with you, not even a bottle of water. We paid $4 for an ear of corn!

Across the isle was a group of white people who had been drinking a bit too much. The woman was close to 60 and another woman who looked young enough to be her daughter had been helping her up the stairs when she fell up them. If it hadn't been for a nice African-American man in his late 40's, with his teenage son, she'd have fallen real bad. Most people were real nice.

Now, here's where everyone is going to scream profiling, but I have to report it. I had only one incidence. Well actually, two, but I'll write of that one later. We had gone out to the car to eat the snack lunch we brought, and were on our way back in. So here we are, a couple strolling in, arm in arm, wearing our camo jackets and Navy hats. The jackets have no insignia because we aren't Army. They only have the American flag on them. I see walking towards us a Latino/Hispanic/whatever the politically correct term is. He was rather good looking man, young, probably early to mid 20's, a little heavy set, but not fat, it was more stocky like he lifted weights. His face was round, but again, not fat more of a shape. He had heavy tattoos, but not that I recognized. They were symbols not pictures. I'm not against tattoos; I have one. These reminded me of pictures I've seen when they do documentaries of gangs. I say it that way, because I don't know anyone in a gang. That's the only experience I have. When the news portrays someone in a gang, they have tats like that. That's what I'm saying. As he approached us, he turned the upper part of his body (from the waist up) at a 45 degree angle away from us, and his face even further. This made an extremely awkward picture of him walking. His legs continued to walk a straight line, but his waist turned like he was going to walk away from us, so that his back was to us, and the back of his head was showing and I could no longer see his face. It was like he couldn't even look at us.

Is this common? Is this a total dissing that we just got or what? Is this a cultural thing? I didn't say anything to my husband, who was totally oblivious to it as we walked by. I smiled, but didn't make eye contact. I didn't turn around to see if he looked back. I waited about 20 paces and then I looked back, but he was gone. The whole event made me want to walk out with a crowd, and not alone. To tell you the truth, for the first time in my life, it made me want to take that camo jacket off and blend in with the crowd. But I refused to take that jacket off even when the sun came out and it got hot.

The second event came when Al Anabi raced. Sheik Khalid Al Thani is the sponsor but he's not the driver. Matt Smith is the driver. Matt Smith lost his race, and someone behind me yelled "F***ing Arab!" That's not cool. The driver is just driving a car. But I have to tell you, it shows America is waking up. Nine years ago I knew absolutely nothing about Arabs beyond I Dream of Jeannie. I've done research and I don't like what I've found. If there are moderates, how come they don't speak up? And how come the only moderates that speak up are peons? There are no moderate Imams? That's all I've got to say on that matter.

So, all in all, it was a pleasurable day of people watching. There are a lot more designer jeans than I expected at such an event....a lot more cash being thrown around. And a lot more frozen margaritas mixed in with the beer. If they want more of the seats filled, I would suggest lowering the price a bit. Or making it like NASCAR, where you can bring your own food in.

It's Definitely a Buyer's Market

Well, I can tell you it's definitely a buyer's market out there. We've been trying to sell a house for almost 18 months. It's not pretty. For a bit of background, never buy a house with your in-laws. When we came to Texas, I was weeks out of the strongest Chemo on the market and radiation treatment for breast cancer and a stage IV diagnosis. My in-laws said they ought to just sell their house and go in on a house together with us. That way, we could get a better quality house than either of us could get on our own (should have been a big red flag) and they would be there for me should my cancer come back (another red flag - she'd never been there for me in the past). If my cancer didn't come back, we would be there for them in their old age - another red flag because she is a very selfish person to start with.

But, we didn't listen and 3.5 years later, we were looking for our own house. We're holding down 2 mortgages, which means we would have been capable of that better house on our own. But, water under the bridge. When we started this "adventure" our house appraised at $162,000. It's a 5 bedroom, 3.5 bath house with almost 3,000 square foot (if you count a sun room) and a 2 car garage and a 2 car covered car port. That's what we bought it for back in 2005. We had talked them down from $169,000. We had gotten a mortgage for our half and they had paid cash gotten a mortgage which they paid off when their house sold a month later.

When we originally put the house on the market we marked it up because we had done some improvements. We had put siding on the upstairs addition, replaced the AC fan on the upstairs unit, replaced the hot water heater, other minor things, and it appraised for more than when we bought it (we were told $169,000). My MIL wanted to list it for $174,500 because she wanted to get her investment after closing costs. That's why it sat there so long. We came down a little, but not much.

After 2 Realtors, that she claimed didn't do anything but list it on the MLS, which I believe is Multi-Listing Service (correct me if I'm wrong), I threatened to stop paying the mortgage and let the bank have it.

We're now working with my realtor. She has open houses, and really promotes it. But the master bedroom had a god-awful paint scheme that everyone commented on as a stopping point. No one wanted to put the time and/or money into having it redone. MY MIL can't understand why that would stop someone from buying a house. She's from the era when you repainted automatically when you bought a house anyway, so why would color stop you from buying? She just doesn't understand that today's buyer doesn't repaint/decorate AT ALL, so they want it to match their tastes already. Let me try and describe this room that they've been living in for 5 years now: It was all wallpaper for starters. 3 out of 4 walls had a pink background with a small almost paisley pattern. The 4th wall was a gray almost paisley print. The border around the top was an actual paisley (yes a different print) in gray stripe. The bathroom is accessed through 2 pocket doors in one wall. This room is done in the top border print of the gray paisley stripes. The Water Closet where the toilet is is done in the larger "almost paisley" pattern of the one wall in the bedroom. Can you say "puke?"

You saw my earlier blog about the contractor blues....if not, I'll summarize here. We hired a contractor to paint the bedroom. He tried to take the paint down and it was stubborn. So he went and got a special tool and chemical. Then, my realtor calls and says there's a new EPA rule that says you have to be lead based paint certified to "disturb" any paint in a space larger than 6ft by 6ft. Luckily, they couldn't get the paper off. They decided to paint over it. But they had agreed to swatch it, in case they needed Kilz. Our agreement on price was based on a set amount plus paint. They knocked off $100 when they didn't need to take the paper off. We were supplying the paint at our expense. The guy shows up and just starts painting, no swatch. MIL is livid. We back and forth, because it's a guy my husband works with who does this as a second job with his brother. We finally settle on giving them $75 for their trouble and deciding to paint ourselves.

So, after painting for 3 days (just a few hours a day), we have a "creamy beige" master bedroom. I got out-numbered 3 to 1 and they kept the gray paisley bathroom. They said it looks modern now against the creamy beige bedroom.

But we'll see if it sells better now that it's painted. No one wants to actually put in the 6.5 hours worth of painting and the $75 worth of money for the paint? Really? I won't count the $75 for the trouble of the painters. And actually, I've got half of it left. It would have taken about 3 gallons of paint. People today are that lazy? I'm in the wrong business. I should be a painter.

Feds sticking it to small business again

Well, the Lord is saving me and my small business contractor again. My husband works with someone who has a small business on the side. He is a contractor and paints and does small construction jobs on the side to earn extra money. We hired him to paint the master bedroom in the house we're trying to sell. He already painted the rest of the house for us last year. He and his brother did a great job. But my husband's mother was holding out on the master bedroom. It had been "professionally decorated." ...In paisly wallpaper. Yuck. No one liked it according to the reviews we were getting, so we finally convinced her to have it painted. It's hard to divorce her from this house. She doesn't want to sell. We had bought it together, and we moved out. We're tired of paying 2 mortgages and had to threaten to stop paying our mortgage on the house and have the bank come reposses it. You can't reposses half a house.

So, yesterday, our contractor came to try and get the wallpaper down. It's stuck on so well, that it took off some of drywall paper. He had already decided to just paint over the wallpaper.

I just got a call from my realtor. Back in April they came out with a new law. You have to be a lead based certified contractor to paint anything bigger than a closet now.



According to her email,

Lake Cities Association of REALTORS®
Education Source

Learn to do it Right!!

Since April 2010, federal law requires contractors that disturb lead-based paint in homes, child care facilities and schools, built before 1978 to be certified and follow specific work practices to prevent lead contamination. Ask to see your contractor’s certification.
Federal law requires that individuals receive certain information before renovating six square feet or more of painted surfaces in a room for interior projects or more than twenty square feet of painted surfaces for exterior projects in housing, child care facilities and schools built before 1978.

___________

At the end of that, it states that "individuals" receive certain information before renovating. I don't know if that means we can go to Home Depot and take a class on it, or if we HAVE to hire a contractor who is lead based certified, but it sounds like a racket to me. My husband's associate, I can guarentee you, does not know about this law. He will tomorrow.

This is nothing short of a way to drive out small business. Apparently there are heavy fines. If you fine heavy fines, men like my husband's associate will not be able to operate. And President Obama says he's FOR small business? This law proves otherwise.

All Voices Should be Heard

I recently watched a video of then Senator Obama talking about the fairness doctrine. He supported it, saying that all voices should be heard. He said that it would be difficult to do that in today's society of 500 channels. He thought that Fox had a right to say what they wanted to say, but that all voices should be heard.

Really, Mr. President? Then why do you not listen to the American public? We stood on the grounds of the Capitol and screamed at you that we didn't want health care, some 60% of us Americans, and you crammed it down our throats any way. I, as an American, have an outlet. This is it. I have a blog. And you want to take it away with Net Neutrality. This is your idea of all voices have a right to be heard? Or is it that too many Americans don't agree with you, so they need to be silenced? Dissension is good, unless they are against you? Rebellion was good in the 60's when it was get rid of government, but shrink government isn't good because you're the government now? Is that it?

I have a voice now, because I went out and got my own blog. That's the American way. But, along comes Big Brother and says, wait a minute, you have to present both sides of the argument. But, I don't think both sides of the argument. This is MY blog, and I don't want to present both sides of the argument in a positive light on MY blog.

How's that hope and change going for you? It hasn't passed yet, but it's coming. Do you like the Czars? The ones that the American people didn't get to vote for? The new regulatory Czar (Cass Sunstein) loves to nudge us into doing what he wants us to do. Have you seen the clip of him saying he's going to use the free-market to de-develop our country? Do you realize what de-develop means? It means to give up things that you have. It means to stop using things that you use. It means getting the takers to stop taking. And how was he going to do that? By using the free-market system. But he thinks the free-market system doesn't work. He just admitted it does. So how does he plan on doing that? He's going to either make THINGS so expensive to buy that we can't, or he's going to make it so cheap for businesses to move overseas instead of here, so that our wealth goes over there instead of here (redistribution of wealth). That is a 2-fold fix. By China building things it makes things also less durable, so when they break, all he has to do is raise the import tax and suddenly the price goes up and we can't afford it anymore to replace those things. Then suddenly he's a savior for keeping out Made In China products, but it's closing the barn door after the horses are out. The factories are gone, the work is gone, and our stuff is broken and we can't afford to buy new stuff. So we do without. We de-develop. It's the same with 500 channels on the TV...lower that back to the big 3 and you can use the fairness doctrine. All he has to do is regulate the Cable and Satelite industries to death. Everybody has a right to satelite. Make that a government take-over and then say it's going under we have to get rid of some of these channels.

I had older parents than my peers. My dad was 33 when I was born, thus his dad was older than most. My granddad was born in 1907. He told me all kinds of stories about the depression, and before. I have a tape recording of an interview I had to do in high school of him and grandma of the toys he had when he was a child. It's an eye opener. I remember him telling me about the games he played. They played a game called Easter pop. You took the died Easter egg that you got, and your friend took his egg and you both cracked them together. Who ever's egg didn't break got to keep the other person's egg. They rolled wagon wheel rims with a forked stick. They played kick the can. Are we going back to that with President Obama?

I'm about as white as you can get. I've seen the lady talk about propping Obama up and going back to beans and weanies and wondering if that was her future. Except for voting for Obama, I can SO identify with that woman. I was middle class at one time. I don't think I can count myself as middle class anymore. I'm not poor, because I've seen much poorer, so I guess I'm lower middle class.

I'm still blessed. I have a roof over my head, food on the table, clothes on my body and occasionally enough to help someone else.

I've heard liberals say things were bad under Bush and it makes me so mad. I hear Obama say that things are headed in the right direction. What, downhill? If I saw a train headed in this direction, I'd bail! If I saw a car headed for a train, I'd jump out! If this is the direction he wants America to head, he's headed for treason! He said we're going in the right direction (for him) just not fast enough? Well, let's go to hell in a hand basket, just faster, huh? When I heard them say the recession was over, my first thought was, oh, we hit the double-dip recession finally.

President Obama's policies are the definition of insanity. If you are doing something and you don't get the result you want, you have to CHANGE YOUR POLICY if you want to get a different result. To continue doing the same thing and expect a different result is pure insanity. To use Christian language, it's called repent....a total change in direction, a 180 degree turn. You're doing something that is sending you in a direction you DON'T want to go, so you do something that puts you in the opposite direction. Of course, I don't think Liberation Theology uses that term.


Lori Ann Smith

Think Sharia Law is for You?

I got this from Andrew Breitbart's Big Peace site. http://bigpeace.com/ndarwish/2010/08/26/sharia-for-dummies/. Posted by Nonie Darwish.



1- Jihad defined as “to war against non-Muslims to establish the religion” is the duty of every Muslim and Muslim head of state (Caliph). Muslim Caliphs who refuse jihad are in violation of Sharia and unfit to rule.

2- A Caliph can hold office through seizure of power meaning through force.

3- A Caliph is exempt from being charged with serious crimes such as murder, adultery, robbery, theft, drinking and in some cases of rape.

4- A percentage of Zakat (alms) must go towards jihad.

5- It is obligatory to obey the commands of the Caliph, even if he is unjust.

6- A caliph must be a Muslim, a non-slave and a male.

7- The Muslim public must remove the Caliph in one case, if he rejects Islam.

8- A Muslim who leaves Islam must be killed immediately.
9- A Muslim will be forgiven for murder of : 1) an apostasy 2) an adulterer 3) a highway robber. Making vigilante street justice and honor killing acceptable.

10- A Muslim will not get the death penalty if he kills a non-Muslim.

11- Sharia never abolished slavery and sexual slavery and highly regulates it. A master will not be punished for killing his slave.

12- Sharia dictates death by stoning, beheading, amputation of limbs, flogging and other forms of cruel and unusual punishments even for crimes of sin such as adultery.

13- Non-Muslims are not equal to Muslims and must comply to Sharia if they are to remain safe. They are forbidden to marry Muslim women, publicly display wine or pork, recite their scriptures or openly celebrate their religious holidays or funerals. They are forbidden from building new churches or building them higher than mosques. They may not enter a mosque without permission. A non-Muslim is no longer protected if he commits adultery with a Muslim woman or if he leads a Muslim away from Islam.

14- It is a crime for a non-Muslim to sell weapons to someone who will use them against Muslims. Non-Muslims cannot curse a Muslim, say anything derogatory about Allah, the Prophet, or Islam, or expose the weak points of Muslims. However, the opposite is not true for Muslims.

15- A non-Muslim cannot inherit from a Muslim.

16- Banks must be Sharia compliant and interest is not allowed.

17- No testimony in court is acceptable from people of low-level jobs, such as street sweepers or a bathhouse attendant. Women in such low level jobs such as professional funeral mourners cannot keep custody of their children in case of divorce.

18- A non-Muslim cannot rule even over a non-Muslims minority.

19- Homosexuality is punishable by death.

20- There is no age limit for marriage of girls under Sharia. The marriage contract can take place anytime after birth and consummated at age 8 or 9.

21- Rebelliousness on the part of the wife nullifies the husband’s obligation to support her, gives him permission to beat her and keep her from leaving the home.

22- Divorce is only in the hands of the husband and is as easy as saying: “I divorce you” and becomes effective even if the husband did not intend it.

23- There is no community property between husband and wife and the husband’s property does not automatically go to the wife after his death.

24- A woman inherits half what a man inherits.

25- A man has the right to have up to 4 wives and she has no right to divorce him even if he is polygamous.

26- The dowry is given in exchange for the woman’s sexual organs.

27- A man is allowed to have sex with slave women and women captured in battle, and if the enslaved woman is married her marriage is annulled.

28- The testimony of a woman in court is half the value of a man.

29- A woman looses custody if she remarries.

30- To prove rape, a woman must have 4 male witnesses.

31- A rapist may only be required to pay the bride-money (dowry) without marrying the rape victim.

32- A Muslim woman must cover every inch of her body which is considered “Awrah,” a sexual organ. Some schools of Sharia allow the face and some don’t.

33- A Muslim man is forgiven if he kills his wife caught in the act of adultery. However, the opposite is not true for women since he “could be married to the woman he was caught with.”

The above are clear cut laws in Islam decided by great Imams after years of examination and interpretation of the Quran, Hadith and Mohammed’s life. Now let the learned Imam Rauf tell us what part of the above is compliant with the US constitution?

_______________

My comments? I find this quite disturbing. I know on a gut level that they stand for everything I'm against, just based on the fact that they have to lie about what they stand for. This just outlines it for you. This is flat out, against women, against free speach, against freedom period. How could a free society even stand for this? How could any so-called party, Democrat or Republican, be for Islam and call themselves Americans? If you are for Muslims I suggest you leave America because you are not for a free society. Maybe you should check out one of the countries that have a government that supports that sort of ideology. Like maybe one of the Arab countries. or Afghanistan. I'm not too familiar with my geography over there. I know the free world much better.

I know I'm adding England to my prayer list.

Lori Ann Smith

The peaceful Religion of Islam

I got a disturbing email from a friend of mine. You won't see these pictures on American TV. They want to bury them, not show them, because this doesn't agree with their depiction of the Muslim religion, that they are a religion of peace. I have to warn you, it doesn't portray that image. It may disturb you. It was in her parents' home town of London, England. It may be coming to America next. I can't just copy the whole email because of the pictures, so I have to try to replicate it the best I can.

_____________________

These pictures are of Muslims marching through the STREETS OF LONDON during their recent ' Religion of Peace Demonstration. '












Why would anyone think that we should be at war with such nice, peaceful Muslims?!


You need to forward this one to everyone! These pictures tell it all!
Muslims have stated that England will be the first country they take over!


These are pictures not shown on American TV or in American Newspapers, but were forwarded by a Canadian friend who thought all Americans ought to know.

_________________

The Times says that the Muslim religion increased 10 times faster than any other religion than the rest of society. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article5621482.ece. The difference between the Muslim faith and any other faith is that Islam is not just a religion, it is an ideology.

ideology (ˌaɪdɪˈɒlədʒɪ)

— n , pl -gies
1. a body of ideas that reflects the beliefs and interests of a nation, political system, etc and underlies political action
2. philosophy, sociol the set of beliefs by which a group or society orders reality so as to render it intelligible
3. speculation that is imaginary or visionary
4. the study of the nature and origin of ideas

This ideology runs a nation. When Muslims take over a nation, they replace that nations political system with their "religion." They do not see a difference between their religion and their politics. You think you want separation of church and state now? They don't even know the concept. Their God IS their State. Sharia law was handed down to them from Allah. To do anything else is just plain wrong.

This is what we're facing, people, and 9/11 was our wake up call. If you don't wake up and realize that there are no moderate Muslims, only back-slidden ones, you are in for a rude awakening when we get taken over. You better start studying Sharia. I hope you don't drink. If you drink on a Muslim holiday, they can "discipline" you. If you're not married and you're out alone or with a man not a family member, they can stone you. And I'm sure there are a lot more punishments I don't know about. And bar the gate Katie, watch your little girls and look up the definition for Thighing. I don't even want to type it, it makes me want to puke.

The Collapse of America

I said this a year ago, and I'm saying it again. This President is not a Democrat. I was raised a Democrat. Sure, Democrats want to rule this country a bit differently than Republicans do, but they still want America to be America. Democrats still are Americans. They do traditionally want a bigger government than do Republicans. They are for (traditionally) higher taxes and more spending than and more government programs than are Republicans. But this president is not a Democrat. He wears the trappings of a Democrat, but he's not one of them. He doesn't want America to survive this battle intact. He said it in his election process. When he said we're 5 days from fundamentally transforming America.

What does that mean. I blinked when he said that but I didn't give it much thought at the time. It was just talk. It was campaign talk. Or was it? I'm not a radical. I never wanted to destroy my country. I never wanted to fundamentally transform my country. I wanted to get one set of people out who weren't running it right and get another set in who would run it right. These people who are in now are RADICALS from the 60's and 70's (or who studied at the feet of such people) and they DO want to destroy America. These are the people who threw bombs in the 60's and told everyone to not trust anyone over 30. What about that? They're over 30 now, why are we trusting them now? They know all the propaganda techniques that were used against them, and they're using them against us.

These people studied under people like Marx, Lenin, and Cloward and Piven. Is that a term you've heard before, tossed around? Cloward and Piven? They were radicals. They said, don't throw bombs, destroy from within. Just get everyone on welfare, sucking off the teat of handouts, and the government will collapse itself. They were convinced that capitalism wouldn't work, especially if you introduced a little socialism into the mix. People are lazy and if given the choice of the government doing everything for them, they would pick a handout over dignity. Nudge, nudge. Just like the free cell phone ad I got in the mail. They're giving away free cell phones now to anyone on a government program. No catch, so it seems. Free 200 minutes. If you want to text, you can add that for a fee, but they reserve the right to add applications at their discretion, without notifying you, remotely, and it could affect things you put on the phone. Does that mean they could remotely bug the phone? Or they could put a tracking device remotely into the phone? It already has a gps....so they will know where every sucker off the government is at all times. My son is on SSI, but he does not have one of those phones.

Here's an article on Cloward and Piven...I know most people won't click a link, so I'll play the government and print it here for you....see how condescending that makes you feel?

A Strategy of Manufactured Crisis

First proposed in 1966 and named after Columbia University sociologists Richard Andrew Cloward and Frances Fox Piven, the "Cloward-Piven Strategy" seeks to hasten the fall of capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with a flood of impossible demands, thus pushing society into crisis and economic collapse.

Inspired by the August 1965 riots in the black district of Watts in Los Angeles (which erupted after police had used batons to subdue a black man suspected of drunk driving), Cloward and Piven published an article titled "The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty" in the May 2, 1966 issue of The Nation. Following its publication, The Nation sold an unprecedented 30,000 reprints. Activists were abuzz over the so-called "crisis strategy" or "Cloward-Piven Strategy," as it came to be called. Many were eager to put it into effect.

In their 1966 article, Cloward and Piven charged that the ruling classes used welfare to weaken the poor; that by providing a social safety net, the rich doused the fires of rebellion. Poor people can advance only when "the rest of society is afraid of them," Cloward told The New York Times on September 27, 1970. Rather than placating the poor with government hand-outs, wrote Cloward and Piven, activists should work to sabotage and destroy the welfare system; the collapse of the welfare state would ignite a political and financial crisis that would rock the nation; poor people would rise in revolt; only then would "the rest of society" accept their demands.

The key to sparking this rebellion would be to expose the inadequacy of the welfare state. Cloward-Piven's early promoters cited radical organizer Saul Alinsky as their inspiration. "Make the enemy live up to their (sic) own book of rules," Alinsky wrote in his 1972 book Rules for Radicals. When pressed to honor every word of every law and statute, every Judaeo-Christian moral tenet, and every implicit promise of the liberal social contract, human agencies inevitably fall short. The system's failure to "live up" to its rule book can then be used to discredit it altogether, and to replace the capitalist "rule book" with a socialist one.

The authors noted that the number of Americans subsisting on welfare -- about 8 million, at the time -- probably represented less than half the number who were technically eligible for full benefits. They proposed a "massive drive to recruit the poor onto the welfare rolls." Cloward and Piven calculated that persuading even a fraction of potential welfare recipients to demand their entitlements would bankrupt the system. The result, they predicted, would be "a profound financial and political crisis" that would unleash "powerful forces … for major economic reform at the national level."

Their article called for "cadres of aggressive organizers" to use "demonstrations to create a climate of militancy." Intimidated by threats of black violence, politicians would appeal to the federal government for help. Carefully orchestrated media campaigns, carried out by friendly, leftwing journalists, would float the idea of "a federal program of income redistribution," in the form of a guaranteed living income for all -- working and non-working people alike. Local officials would clutch at this idea like drowning men to a lifeline. They would apply pressure on Washington to implement it. With every major city erupting into chaos, Washington would have to act. This was an example of what are commonly called Trojan Horse movements -- mass movements whose outward purpose seems to be providing material help to the downtrodden, but whose real objective is to draft poor people into service as revolutionary foot soldiers; to mobilize poor people en masse to overwhelm government agencies with a flood of demands beyond the capacity of those agencies to meet. The flood of demands was calculated to break the budget, jam the bureaucratic gears into gridlock, and bring the system crashing down. Fear, turmoil, violence and economic collapse would accompany such a breakdown -- providing perfect conditions for fostering radical change. That was the theory.

Cloward and Piven recruited a militant black organizer named George Wiley to lead their new movement. In the summer of 1967, Wiley founded the National Welfare Rights Organization (NWRO). His tactics closely followed the recommendations set out in Cloward and Piven's article. His followers invaded welfare offices across the United States -- often violently -- bullying social workers and loudly demanding every penny to which the law "entitled" them. By 1969, NWRO claimed a dues-paying membership of 22,500 families, with 523 chapters across the nation.

Regarding Wiley's tactics, The New York Times commented on September 27, 1970, "There have been sit-ins in legislative chambers, including a United States Senate committee hearing, mass demonstrations of several thousand welfare recipients, school boycotts, picket lines, mounted police, tear gas, arrests -- and, on occasion, rock-throwing, smashed glass doors, overturned desks, scattered papers and ripped-out phones. "These methods proved effective. "The flooding succeeded beyond Wiley's wildest dreams," writes Sol Stern in the City Journal. "From 1965 to 1974, the number of single-parent households on welfare soared from 4.3 million to 10.8 million, despite mostly flush economic times. By the early 1970s, one person was on the welfare rolls in New York City for every two working in the city's private economy." As a direct result of its massive welfare spending, New York City was forced to declare bankruptcy in 1975. The entire state of New York nearly went down with it. The Cloward-Piven strategy had proved its effectiveness.

The Cloward-Piven strategy depended on surprise. Once society recovered from the initial shock, the backlash began. New York's welfare crisis horrified America, giving rise to a reform movement which culminated in "the end of welfare as we know it" -- the 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, which imposed time limits on federal welfare, along with strict eligibility and work requirements. Both Cloward and Piven attended the White House signing of the bill as guests of President Clinton.

Most Americans to this day have never heard of Cloward and Piven. But New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani attempted to expose them in the late 1990s. As his drive for welfare reform gained momentum, Giuliani accused the militant scholars by name, citing their 1966 manifesto as evidence that they had engaged in deliberate economic sabotage. "This wasn't an accident," Giuliani charged in a 1997 speech. "It wasn't an atmospheric thing, it wasn't supernatural. This is the result of policies and programs designed to have the maximum number of people get on welfare."

Cloward and Piven never again revealed their intentions as candidly as they had in their 1966 article. Even so, their activism in subsequent years continued to rely on the tactic of overloading the system. When the public caught on to their welfare scheme, Cloward and Piven simply moved on, applying pressure to other sectors of the bureaucracy, wherever they detected weakness.

In 1982, partisans of the Cloward-Piven strategy founded a new "voting rights movement," which purported to take up the unfinished work of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Like ACORN, the organization that spear-headed this campaign, the new "voting rights" movement was led by veterans of George Wiley's welfare rights crusade. Its flagship organizations were Project Vote and Human SERVE, both founded in 1982. Project Vote is an ACORN front group, launched by former NWRO organizer and ACORN co-founder Zach Polett. Human SERVE was founded by Richard A. Cloward and Frances Fox Piven, along with a former NWRO organizer named Hulbert James.

All three of these organizations -- ACORN, Project Vote and Human SERVE -- set to work lobbying energetically for the so-called Motor-Voter law, which Bill Clinton ultimately signed in 1993. The Motor-Voter bill is largely responsible for swamping the voter rolls with "dead wood" -- invalid registrations signed in the name of deceased, ineligible or non-existent people -- thus opening the door to the unprecedented levels of voter fraud and "voter disenfranchisement" claims that followed in subsequent elections.

The new "voting rights" coalition combines mass voter registration drives -- typically featuring high levels of fraud -- with systematic intimidation of election officials in the form of frivolous lawsuits, unfounded charges of "racism" and "disenfranchisement," and "direct action" (street protests, violent or otherwise). Just as they swamped America's welfare offices in the 1960s, Cloward-Piven devotees now seek to overwhelm the nation's understaffed and poorly policed electoral system. Their tactics set the stage for the Florida recount crisis of 2000, and have introduced a level of fear, tension and foreboding to U.S. elections heretofore encountered mainly in Third World countries.

Both the Living Wage and Voting Rights movements depend heavily on financial support from George Soros's Open Society Institute and his "Shadow Party," through whose support the Cloward-Piven strategy continues to provide a blueprint for some of the Left's most ambitious campaigns.

From: DiscoverTheNetworks.org
___________________

This is racist in and of itself, because it insinuates that only blacks are on welfare (using black power). I know white people on welfare. It also assumes that they're stupid. It uses them as pawns. It assumes the educational system is broken beyond repair and the poor are so stupid that they won't even know they are being used. After all their ranting about the man using them in Vietnam, you'd think they would be tired of propaganda and want all propaganda destroyed, and instead, they turn around and use it for their own power base. So, to the left, propaganda is alright if it's used for themselves, just not if it's used against them. That's another Alinsky method....the ends justify the means.

These 2 white people (the husband I understand is now deceased) can be termed as modern day slave owners. They have caused more people to be owned by the United States government, both black and white, than any other person in history. There are multi-generational people on welfare. I know you've seen the articles on the Internet of the woman who was proud of the fact that she only worked for 1 year in her life, and was upset that she was relocated after Katrina and given a house with fake wood floors...and didn't even get a plasma TV. I don't have a plasma TV. And my husband works hard. I have a special needs adult at home, and I may have to put him in adult day care and find a job, times are so hard.

People have got to wake up. This is not about Republican vs Democrat. These anti-American fools in office are hiding behind the R and the D. And they lie like dogs. And yes, Mr. President, we will treat you like a dog if you act like one. We will begin demanding honesty, what a concept, from our elected representatives. We should stop electing slimy lawyers and start electing some other business representative. Doctors, teachers, Business owners, someone who honesty is a trait that is revered. Lawyers seem to be payed to twist the truth. Why in the world would we want them to represent us in Congress?

Lori Ann Smith

A Journey in Prose

I cry out to you from the empty halls of my heart.
And I get echoes.
"Be still and Know that I Am God."
I have questions that long to be answered.
Where have You been?
"Be still and Know that I Am God."
"I have always been here My child.
It is you who has wandered.
Be still and Know that I Am God."

I cry out to You from the halls of my heart
And the echoes are softer.
"To he who knocks, the door will be opened."
I called to you but you didn't answer.
Where were you?
"To he who knocks, the door will be opened.
But you have to come back through,
I won't force you.
To he who knocks, the door will be opened.

I whisper from a full heart
And the warmth overwhelms.
"To him who seeks, he shall find."
Answers are not so important anymore,
As the Presence.
"To him who seeks, he shall find.
Welcome back, My child,
It's been so long.
To him who seeks, he shall find."

Lori Ann Smith

Health Issues

With Michelle Obama coming out and trying to nudge us into making healthy choices in our fast food eating, I wanted to remind everyone of a bill in congress that they tried to sneak in on us with the first health care bill. I just looked it up, and it's still there. It's sitting in committee, I suppose hoping everyone will forget about it. It was actually what got me into this fight. You see, I read most of the first health care bill, the 1500 page one... I have an uncle who is a doctor, and he has a lot of patients who are on Medicare and this would adversely affect him. I was worried for him. I lost his daughter, my cousin, over this. She thought I was saying that he would charge his patients, or dump his patients, actually I don't know what she was saying. I think she was saying I was making it all up because she's an Obamazombie. The Messiah would never do anything to hurt her daddy, and I, her flesh and blood, would. She's only 36 and a product of the liberal educational system. I'm not.

But this bill is called the "Take Back Your Health Act of 2009" 1640. You have to look pretty hard for it, it's buried. http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:s1640is.txt.pdf I'm not sure if that link stays active or not, or it's a search link, but that's the link to it in pdf.

Here's the gist of it. If you have a certain condition, which they list, you will be forced to attend lifestyle change classes (if you are on Medicare). These classes will be 72 1-hour long classes. But, they can be with 14 other people, and up to 6 sessions a day, so don't worry, everyone will know you have this condition. Here are the conditions: Coronary heart disease, type 2 diabetes, metabolic syndrome, prostate cancer and breast cancer. So much for patient/doctor confidentiality, huh? So, it will only take 12 days, at 6 hours a day to fulfill your obligation. Do you have 2 weeks to do your obligatory lifestyle training if you have this condition? This is in addition to your cancer treatment. I suppose they'll make you watch films while you're getting your cancer treatment. What if you fall asleep? Will they come and wake you up? Will they use cattle prods? I know I slept during my chemo treatments. I was there for part of it for almost 8 hours.

Here's what may be provided:

‘‘(A) exercise;
‘‘(B) risk factor modification, including education, counseling, and behavioral intervention (to the extent such education, counseling, and behavioral intervention is closely related to the individual’s care and treatment and is tailored to the individual’s needs);
‘‘(C) psychosocial assessment;
‘‘(D) provider consultation;
‘‘(E) care coordination;
‘‘(F) medication management;
‘‘(G) medical nutritional therapy;
‘‘(H) tobacco cessation;
‘‘(I) outcomes assessment; and
‘‘(J) such other items and services as the Secretary determines appropriate, but only if such items and services are—
‘‘(i) reasonable and necessary for the diagnosis or active treatment of the individual’s condition;
‘‘(ii) reasonably expected to improve or maintain the individual’s condition and functional level; and
‘‘(iii) furnished under such guidelines relating to the frequency and duration of such items and services as the Secretary shall establish, taking into account accepted norms of medical practice and the reasonable expectation of improvement of the individual.

_________________

Kind of a blank check, isn't it? Now, speaking of blank check, you may be wondering who is going to pay for all this. Well, you may think since we're talking about Medicare recipients, that the government is picking up the tab....well, not entirely. You see, they foresaw that. This is where rationing comes in. They want you healthy, but it's all on you. They're going to pay half up front. If you don't play ball, you pay the other half, or the doctor has to be nice and write if off. Do you really think he's gonna do that? That's where I lost my cousin. "My dad won't do that to his patients!" Really? Is he gonna go broke? Is he gonna start seeing patients for half price? The government isn't giving him a choice in the matter, he has to put these people with chronic conditions on this program....and if they don't show measurable improvement, he isn't getting reimbursed. Lab reports don't lie.

___________________

‘‘(i) make a payment to such a program in an amount that is equal to 50 percent of the amount established under sub paragraph (A) upon completion of the initial consultation under the program; and
‘‘(ii) subject to the limitation described in sub paragraph (C), make a second payment to a program for the balance of the amount defined in sub paragraph (A) upon completion of treatment under the program.
‘‘(C) LIMITATION.—
‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding the provisions of sub paragraph (B), an intensive lifestyle treatment program shall not receive the payment described in sub paragraph)(ii) unless it documents, upon the completion of the program by an eligible beneficiary, that services provided to such beneficiary under the program are beneficially affecting the progression of chronic disease or diseases in the beneficiary, as measured under clause (ii) with respect to 2 or more of the following measures:
‘‘(I) Measures described in subclauses (I) through (V) of section 1861(eee)(4)(A)(ii).
‘‘(II) High density lipoprotein.
‘‘(III) Hemoglobin A1C.
‘‘(IV) C-reactive protein.
‘‘(V) Waist size.
‘‘(VI) Elimination of cotinine
level as evidence that the eligible beneficiary no longer uses tobacco.

______________

SOOOOO, you have to lower your cholesterol, improve your diabetic outlook, lower your stroke potential, lose weight, or quit smoking, Or they don't reimburse your doctor for the program you just went through. Wow. Can you say rationing, and blackmail? And this bill is sitting in congress waiting to go through. It was a rider on the first health bill, but I wrote every congressman who had an email and asked why. I put it out on Asamom.org. I made as big of a stink as I could. I don't know if I had an effect or not. I'm raising awareness again because it didn't go away. It's still there. And with this congress things don't go away, they just get renamed and recycled.

Lori Ann Smith

Contemplating my own politics

I was contemplating my own change in politics over the years. I have been pretty open on this forum. I was raised a Democrat. My parents still were Democrats, sometimes deviating and voting "split-ticket" but mostly Democrat in National politics, until this administration. Then they started correcting me and claiming Independent status.

I was trying to figure out in a deep analysis of myself what changed me. I've always attributed it to my Military experience. But now, I'm beginning to wonder. I've seen a lot of people come out of the military and stay liberals. My brother-in-law is one. He's what I deem a limousine liberal. He's all for the capitalist system when it works for him. But I'm beginning to think he hates America. He's constantly saying bad things about capitalism, even though it got him where he is. He makes twice as much money as I do (meaning my family, I'm a stay at home mom). He and his wife work for AT&T. He claims that since he does, he contributes more to the Republican party than we do. Fine, I'm paying 2 mortgages because I had to move out of his mother's house that we own together or go crazy. It has been 17 months and it hasn't sold yet. I've cashed in an IRA, a 529, spent my tax refund back into my budget in order to keep them in that house and not on the street because I couldn't make the mortgage payment anymore. I can't afford to give to the Republican party. If he gets extra money he buys more toys with it. He doesn't give anything out of his pocket.

So, I don't think it was from the military. He's a veteran, too, and spent about the same amount of time that I did. His parents were conservative to begin with. We actually have opposite backgrounds, which might be an influence. My parents drug me to church until the 4th grade, and then we had been in the country for about a year and a half and they decided it was too far to drive. We stopped going. My husband's parents we're sort of the opposite there. They were Easter Catholics in the beginning. The boys got saved at a Baptist church in their early teens, and dragged them to church, where they converted. Then they went overboard and dragged them to church every Sunday. My brother-in-law ran away once, not sure if that was before or after his "conversion experience," but came back. Joined the Army and spent 4 years in but came back to live with his mom while he went to college. He lived with her until his 30's, when he got married. She meanwhile, drug him to church with her. She, meanwhile, had adopted 2 girls, whom she drug to church.

He did get to see her hypocrisy. That might make a difference. He claims to be an atheist now.

I think, as I look back, that I have a strong sense of justice. I always have. I have to wonder, how can you have a strong sense of justice and remain a liberal? Liberals have a victim mentality. But, sooner or later everyone is a victim, and the victims will victimize. If you are playing the victim card and trying to get everything you can from the government, aren't you victimizing the government? You are no longer the victim. That makes the government the victim. It's no longer poor pitiful you. You become the stronger one because you have learned to work the system and get what you need. How are you weak? You have flipped the tables and now you are a predator.

I know from which I speak, because I have been a victim. I can spot a predator from across the room. I used to attract predators. I used to be a predator magnet. I used to be a narcissist magnet. They just seemed to come to me. My first husband was one. My mother in law is one. I can recognize them now, because of the large number in my life. They will use any tactic in their arsenals to get what they want. They will be aggressive, or passive aggressive, what ever it takes. They will even be persuasive. They will even pretend to like you. They will scream and fight if it upsets you and makes you give in. They sill sulk and give you the silent treatment, if it helps. Anything.

So I believe the people who are still liberals have no sense of justice, no sense of what is fair. They are only out for self. They have no empathy. They have no ability to put themselves in someone else's shoes. They think everyone is out for as much as they can get, because they are. The limousine liberals are feeling guilty for using the capitalist system when they really what to destroy it with every other principle they don't like. They only want to climb the ladder and then kick it out so no one else can use it. They're the ones who find a system that works, and won't tell you about it. They're the ones who have said that capitalism doesn't work, well, OK I used it, but I'm an exception, it doesn't really work. It won't work for you.

My dad always said find something you love to do, and then find a way to make money at it.

Lori Ann Smith

My first run-in with a Muslim

It was bound to happen. I'm not a Muslim hater. I have casual contact with Muslim women in the grocery store all the time. I smile at them, they smile at me. It's not a big deal. It's the Dallas metroplex, you're bound to run into just about every culture you can think of. I ran into a Hari Krishna Monk the other day. You know, the orange robes, high pony tails? I think they're Hindu, right? He didn't speak English. We just smiled at each other and nodded. He bowed to my son (who is Down syndrome) and my son bowed back to him. It was really cute. My son is 20. I'm surprised he didn't run up and hug the Monk. And I know he would have hugged him back.

I have never had a problem with any Muslim woman before. Like I said, I smile at them, and they smile back at me. Sometimes we nod at each other.

This time it was somehow different. It was a couple days ago. It was a torrential downpour outside. I don't know what brought her out, but I would NOT have been out if it hadn't been for needing milk, eggs and butter. Maybe she didn't normally go out because she didn't like shopping. Maybe she was already in a bad mood. I know she's lucky she caught me at the beginning of my day and not the end. I'll explain that later. I was already damp. I tried to carry an umbrella, but the rain was coming down sideways. It was really bad. I had on Capri's and a thick-strapped tank top. I emphasize thick strapped because I don't want anyone to think it was a spaghetti strap top. My whole shoulder was covered, but my arms were bare. I was walking in to Aldi's (which is a discount grocery store) and she was walking out. She was in full Burka, except for her face. I suppose that means she was married? I put a question mark there because to tell you the truth, I don't know a lot about the culture. I smiled at her. She looked me down, and then back up and gave me a frown that spoke total disapproval, as she walked very stiffly past me. She was younger than me, and I'm 46. He body was stiff, from what I could tell and her gait was very measured and slow. I don't know if she looked back, because I didn't look back. I was shocked at the hatred in her eyes. I had smiled at her. I was friendly. What had I done to deserve the hatred?

The rest of my day had not gone well, I went home to a leaking roof, a fire place that looked like a waterfall. Then there was a leak over the hot water heater, which if you've had the code updates you know that it turns off the water in your whole house because there's a sensor in the pan under the hot water heater. I collect clowns, and had them on the shelves over the fireplace, and they all got wet. Some are cloth. I was not in a good mood.

As I thought of that look of hatred on her face, I began to wonder if there are any Moderate Muslims. I kept thinking, I smiled at her and nodded hello. She looked me up and down like I was a whore when she doesn't even know me. I could have sniped at her, "Do you have a bomb in that Burka, lady?" I could have said, "Does your husband make you dress like that? I'm so sorry." But I didn't because I'm not a hater. And she hadn't caught me at the end of my day. Actually, had she caught me at the end of my day, I probably would have just complained about my day, and asked if she'd had anything like that happen to her.

It makes me wonder what lies she's been told about me, the average housewife. Are they told that because we show our legs we walk around trying to entice men because we're lonely? I'm happily married. I'm not some divorcee trying to find a man. If she had talked to me, she might have found out I'm rather nice. I would have talked to her, Muslim Burka or not. But I'm supposed to be the one that's intolerant.

Tell me there are moderate Muslims out there. Maybe I should have asked her if she was a moderate Muslim and if so would she condemn Hamas? Do they hate our freedom so much? Maybe they should give it a try.

Lori Ann Smith

God Breezes

I was preparing a lesson plan for the Sunday School class I'm about to teach when I got my own lesson. Isn't that how it always works? Our teacher is in Costa Rico taking care of his ill father, so we're taking turns teaching ourselves. We're a unique class and apparently no one wants to take over our class. We're a bunch of misfits, maybe? Maybe they hope if left to our own devices we'll eventually be absorbed into other classes? Not so. We're an independent lot. We're just team teaching each other.

Last week I followed the study guide introduction, but this week it seemed a bit condescending. I know the people in my class, and I knew they would feel that way, too. I had to come up with my own introduction.

Sometimes the introduction doesn't come until you're done with a study. That's the case here. We're in the first chapter of Ephesians. Paul is talking about the power of God and prayer. The study guide wanted to go the route of some people don't dig into God's word and have trouble with the hard principles of the Bible. My class does dig, and doesn't really have trouble understanding principles. I decided to go the route of Spiritual Gifts.

But that got me thinking of my own Spiritual Gifts. Ouch. I know I have the gift of Prayer and Faith. I used to Prayer walk my neighborhood when I lived in Hawaii. But I'm such an active person. I'm a veteran, a DO SOMETHING, DON'T JUST SIT THERE, sort of person. I started having an argument with God. It went something like this:

ME: But, God, You made me. You know how active I am. Why did you give me such a lame, do nothing Spiritual Gift?

GOD (via the Holy Spirit): To really teach you the meaning of Be still and know I am God. And to slow you down! To show you that you can truly do nothing apart from me.

You don't lose Spiritual Gifts. But you miss out on blessings if you don't use your Spiritual gifts. I think it's time I break out that old study of Beth Moore's that I did back in Hawaii on Spritual Gifts as a refresher course. We all are given Spiritual gifts when we are saved. We have our own individual mix in different proportions, according to our faith. And we are all called to pray. Maybe I'll pick up prayer walking my neighborhood again. New neighborhood, neighbors, new problems, blessings. We can all use prayers these days.

Lori Ann Smith

Critique of "Problems Facing our Socialism"

A while back I wrote a blog highlighting Barack Obama's Father's "Problems Facing Our Socialism" Article. I be lived that our President was using it as a platform for his policies. I want to re-post it to see just how correct I was. You be the judge.


Highlights from "Problems Facing Our Socialism"

This will basically be a critique of a paper published in 1965 in the East African Journal by Barak H. Obama. I assume it's Sr., though I don't know for sure if the H. stands for Hussein or not. I'm not familiar with Sr. Obama.

This paper was written as a critique of Sessional Paper No. 10, which was talking about the socialization of Africa, where Barak H. Obama wanted to Socialize Kenya specifically. He presented the unique problems Kenya faced as opposed to Africa in general, so some principals don't apply to the world in general, or to, say the United States, so I'll delete those. Any direct quotes taken from the paper will be put in quotation marks to give credit to Mr. Obama, Sr. He is very eloquent and speaks very well. I can see where his son gets his oratory skills from, or at least the ability to write. The paper he references is the Sessional paper no. 10.

The first topic to be discussed is population growth. "On population growth, the paper notes our high rate of growth and recognizes that this factor can be very detrimental to growth. The paper recognizes the detriments and adverse repercussions which nationalization can have on growth in this country. The policy of the government in this paper is to try to raise per capita incomes. This, it recognizes it can only do by getting high rates of growth and to achieve this high rate of growth there must be a high rate of capital accumulation."

Now, did you catch that? Nationalization would have a detrimental effect on growth rate. If you nationalize the nation, i.e., buy up businesses, make it nationally owned you stunt the growth of the population. That's what Obama, Jr. is trying to do to our nation. So you have to ask if his father proved that it will stunt our growth, why is he doing it? We're not so grossly overly populated, if you kick out the illegal aliens, that we need to be nationalized to fix it, are we? He has a Czar on his staff that asked the question would government consider forced birth control if faced with a crisis of population.

He goes on: "The first part of the paper deals with wide topics such as the objectives of societies. The paper states that there are universal desires of societies and these include political equality, social justice, human dignity and freedom of conscience, freedom from want, disease and exploitation, equal opportunities and lastly, a high and growing per capita income and equitable distribution."

Really? I didn't know it was universal that EVERYONE wanted equitable distribution. I don't want equitable distribution, do you? I want what I work for, and I want you to have what you work for, not what I work for.

Now, he goes on to talk about communal ownership: "African tradition is fundamentally based on communal ownership of major means of production and sharing of the fruits of labours, so expended in production, to the benefit of all; and yet the paper advocates title land deeds and private ownership of land --- a major means of production. How do these two conflicting factors reconcile...? In fact, one wonders how the statements made here differ from scientific socialism unless one takes the statement 'society in turn will reward these efforts' to be different from 'reward to each according to his needs.'"

He didn't like the paper advocating ownership of land. He wanted all land to be communally owned, as well as all farms. Fruits of the labor should be communally owned as well. So you work to put into a communal fund, and draw out according to your efforts. That almost sounds good, doesn't it? That almost sounds like it would work. Not according to your needs, but according to your efforts. Good argument. But listen on.

"Here the paper goes into use and control of resources. The first statement concerns conflict of opinion on attitude toward land ownership. ..."(deleted due to Africa specific.) "The paper says that because of credit requirements there has to be land titles and registration. If this is the case, must these land titles and registration be done on individual ownership? Does it mean that co-operatives cannot be registered or that what is owned in common cannot have title deeds? Is communal ownership of land incompatible with land consolidation?... It is true that mismanagement can occur both in private as well as in public ownership, but we ought to look at the matter within the social context. Looked at this way, we can avoid economic power concentration and bring standardized use and control of resources through public ownership, let alone the equitable distribution of economic gains that would follow. One need not talk of state ownership of everything from a small garden to a big farm."

Ok, he's arguing that communes can be registered, and the government can own communes, too, but they can leave small farms and gardens to the people. And there's that equitable distribution of economic gains again. Are we going to have to invest all of OUR profits in the nation? Is it going to be billed as the only patriotic thing to do?

"Will this be easily done through individual action, through co-operatives or through government ownership? Realizing social stickiness and inflexibility and looking at the society's distrust of change, one would see that, if left to the individual, consolidation will take a long time to come. We have to look at priorities in terms of what is good for society and on this basis we may find it necessary to force people to do things they would not do otherwise."

Did you catch that? They would like the people to do it, but that would take too long, so government will have to force them do it.

"Would it not seem then, that the government could bring more rapid consolidation through clan co-operatives? Individual initiative is not usually the best method of bringing land reform.......the government should take a positive stand and, if need be, force people to consolidate through the easiest way, which, I think would be through clan co-operatives, rather than through individual initiative. If one were to suppose that the stat is an instrument of society and if the society regards growth as well as the correction of the lopsided development which has characterized this country as important, than, the society, through the government, which is its instrument, should enforce means by which this growth and change can be brought about....If the government should, however, feel that individual ownership is the best policy to take in order to bring development, then it should restrict the size of farms that can be owned by one individual throughout the country by one individual and this should apply to everybody from the President to the ordinary man."

OK, this is where they restrict the size of your farm. This is where Obama, Jr. is headed next, I believe. If he can't use eminent domain to grab up all the land, he'll pass a bill that says your farm can't be beyond a certain size. I have no idea what that size will be, but not so small that the American people won't revolt. Be on the lookout for it and don't fall for it. It's a way to ease the path to nationalization.

Then he takes on the fact that they don't have a good education plan: "It is true that we do not have many people qualified to take up managerial positions in these enterprises nor those who could participate intelligently in policy-making functions. But this is not to say that there are none. At present, many highly qualified Africans are employed by commercial firms and are given very pompous titles...one would find that they actually have no voice in the companies which give them these high titles."

Sounds like ACORN, doesn't it?

Then he approaches taxation: "True, in the paper there is a realization that taxation can be used as a means of forced saving, but it is given a secondary place in this respect...It is a fallacy to say that there is a limit and it is a fallacy to rely mainly on individual free enterprise to get the savings. How are we going to rid ourselves of economic power concentration when we, in our blueprint, tend towards what we ourselves discredit?.... Marx even called it finance capitalism by which a few would control the finances of so many and through this have not only economic power but political power as well."

Tax the business and put it in the treasury. Economic power concentration? The people with the money have the power. That's vote with your dollars, and he wants to take your dollars away, or at least your choices. That could be buying up all the grocery choices. Does this sound familiar? With the standardized labeling? Make all the labeling look the same, and you can't boycott certain companies because all the labels look the same on the shelves. They know they can't buy up all the different grocery companies, so make them all look the same.

"Theoretically, there is nothing that can stop the government from taxing 100 per cent of income so long as the people get benefits from the government commensurate with their income, which is taxed. Assuming that development and the achievement of a high per capita income is a benefit to society as a whole I do not see why the government cannot tax those who have more and siphon some of these revenues into savings which can be utilized in investment for future development, thereby reducing our reliance on foreign aid."

Tax the wealthy at 100%, put them on public aid, and then put their taxes on the national debt? The poor would LOVE that, because it would make them realize what they've felt like all their lives. But, do you think the wealthy would continue to work hard, if all their wealth is going to just be taken away? I wouldn't. Why? I'd sit on my but and collect welfare. Why bother if no matter what you do, or how hard you work, you get a government check?

Then about nationalization: "Nationalization should not be looked at only in terms of profitability alone, but also, or even more, on the benefit to society that such services render and on its importance in terms of public interest. If we were to look at these things purely on profitability, then the railways would not have been nationalized worldwide since it is the least profitable so that in all countries."

Probably the most telling statement in the whole paper. Nationalize the car companies, we don't care if they make money after that. Nationalize the banks. We don't care if they make money after that; it's for the best of society. Nationalize the papers and we don't care about profits. What about subsidizing the railways.... Can we subsidize farmers? Can we nationalize talk radio? No? Well, lets destroy them, then.

And lastly, though out of order, I saved this one quote for last: "...so long as we maintain free enterprise one cannot deny that some will accumulate more than others, nor is it unlikely that in a country with low per capita incomes, to subject the poor into submitting to political ideologies and to persuade them to vote for those who offer them money, would not be difficult and has, in fact, been occurring."

This comes from a man who was sent abroad for his education. He didn't stay in Kenya and be forced to attend a local college. He attended Harvard. He married 3 women at the same time, according to the Internet, never obtaining a divorce. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Lori Ann Smith

FBI Opens 43 Year Case in Cape Girardeau, MO

I have to include the following article, because Cape Girardeau, MO is my home town, I was born in 1963, and I used to live on Lorimier St. Too many coincidences, huh? Of course, I didn't live on Lorimier until the 1990's. I pray they find her, and that it was a case of she wandered off, and someone raised her in a loving home. Or at least that she was raised in a loving home, not knowing she was kidnapped. But my prayers go out to the family, being separated from their daughter/sister for so many years, with unanswered questions. I'm unable to give any details, beyond what is in this article. I can neither confirm, nor deny anything beyond this information.

_____________________


Elizabeth Ann Gill

Elizabeth Ann Gill was last seen playing in the yard of her home on Lorimier Street on June 13, 1965 in Cape Girardeau, Missouri, USA. She was 2 years-old and has been missing for 45 years. The picture on the right shows how she might have looked at 44 years of age.



Searching for Elizabeth continued for several days, but they came up with few leads. The biggest lead was four Gypsy travelers who were staying at a motel behind her home, selling purses door to door in the neighborhood. They used various names and had different plates on their cars. Because of this the police could never trace them.

Several small leads were followed up over the years, but these dwindled and it became a cold case. Five years ago Elizabeth's family learned about her case being discussed on the Internet. They resumed their search by listing her on the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC). Family members' DNA was also put in a CODIS database. Technology has given the opportunity to bring her case to public attention again in the hope that it leads to her being found.

At the time she went missing she was described as 2' 6" tall, weighing 22lbs with brown hair and blue eyes. She was born on August 21, 1962. Her nicknames were Beth and Betsy.

ANYONE HAVING INFORMATION SHOULD CONTACT
National Center for Missing & Exploited Children
1-800-843-5678 (1-800-THE-LOST)
Cape Girardeau Police Department (Missouri) 1-573-335-6621, extension 2

Add new comment Post to Twitter.FBI joins hunt for Cape Girardeau girl missing since 1965
Submitted by Jasmine on 27 August, 2010 - 22:38.
Forty-five years after a toddler disappeared from outside her home in Cape Girardeau, Mo., the FBI has declared the case a kidnapping and joined the decades-old hunt for her.

Rebecca Wu, spokeswoman for the FBI's office in St. Louis, said Thursday it does not necessarily mean there is new evidence in the case of Elizabeth Ann Gill.

But Cape Girardeau police Detective Jim Smith said there is a possible break. Some transients staying in a motel and selling purses close to the family home "were considered persons of interest" at the outset, he said. "They were never located. Now we think we have located some members of that family."

Smith said they are out of the state, prompting a request for FBI assistance.

Elizabeth's sister, Martha Gill-Hamilton, who still lives in Cape Girardeau, said police at the time had a description of two vehicles with two couples in them and a license plate number, but no good way to track them.

Continues/...

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/article_1b68ea6a-290...


Case of missing Cape Girardeau girl reclassified to kidnapping
Submitted by Ellen on 26 August, 2010 - 23:10.
A Cape Girardeau missing person case area law enforcement began investigating again around five years ago was reclassified last week by the FBI as a kidnapping.

The case of Elizabeth Ann Gill, who disappeared from the front yard of her home on Lorimier Street in 1965, is officially an active investigation, Rebecca Wu, public affairs specialist for the FBI's St. Louis Division, said Wednesday.

"We are conducting the investigation now as if she was abducted," Wu said. "We'll actively work through the case, go through leads and see what happens now."

Gill, who was the youngest of 10 siblings, went missing at age 2.

Police and family members followed small leads after she disappeared, but the leads dwindled and it became a cold case. Five years ago, family members learned about Gill's case being discussed on the Internet and they resumed their search by listing their sister on the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children.

Since that time, leads have surfaced but didn't turn up any results for investigators.

Continues/...

http://www.semissourian.com/story/1659448.html


Family, friends celebrate "Elizabeth Ann Gill Day"
Submitted by Ellen on 26 August, 2010 - 23:05.
CAPE GIRARDEAU, MO (KFVS) - August 21st will now be known as "Elizabeth Ann Gill Day" in Cape Girardeau.

With the help of non profit group Missouri Missing, city leaders named August 21st, Gill's birthday, after her.

Gill went missing from her Cape Girardeau home in 1965. She was just two and a half years old.

Today, family and friends gathered at St. Vincents Church in Cape Girardeau to celebrate what would have been Elizabeth's 48th birthday. Everyone released colorful balloons.

http://www.kfvs12.com/Global/story.asp?S=13023740


Vigil for Elizabeth Gill
Submitted by Larry on 13 June, 2010 - 17:47.
There will be a candlelight vigil Sunday, June 13, 2010 at the site of the former Mississippi River bridge to mark the anniversary of Elizabeth Gill's disappearance.


The public is welcome to attend the vigil, which begins at 8:15 p.m. Per the organizers' request, individuals attending the event are asked to bring their own candle.

Brother David Migliorino, principal at Notre Dame Regional High School, will lead prayers for the vigil, which will end in a procession with an additional prayer session at Old St. Vincent's Church.

Source: Daily Dunklin Democrat
http://www.dddnews.com/story/1641910.html