This is as good a time and place as any to discuss morality. The problem, as I see it, is a world growing less moral, and more secular or bound by law, as apposed to being grounded in the morality of religion. I will take a big step backward here and say that the Bible was not written by G_d, it was written by wise monks who knew what happens to societies without a moral compass, so they tried to provide an everlasting code of morality in a guide book that G_d would approve, if you choose to believe in a Supreme Being.
I am not suggesting that we all need to go to church on Friday, Saturday or Sunday. I am suggesting that without an internal sense of right and wrong, many people act based on what they can get away with, and many companies are now run by leaders and BoDs that make decisions based on the fact that it's not against the law. And with that comes low paid jobs while execs get huge salaries and Golden Parachutes -- aka greed, exported work in 'free-trade' that isn't free because American workers paid the price by not getting jobs and we paid when these unemployed American workers sought welfare, because they could have chosen otherwise.
So, a group of like-minded secular 'Democrats' is not a friend to Americans or America, but takers rather than givers, as they are constantly trying to take away some of our constitutionally protected liberties and gun rights, and replacing them with laws to 'guide us' when the conviction of self-derived moral guidance should be enough. Having 'morals' also determines what we do in a moment of panic -- act responsibility or wait for someone else to act responsibly. Or accept the consequences.
Natural Laws and Morality
Former Hitler Youth Whistleblower Warns Of America's Nazi Future
Pitfalls of Entitlements: see War on Poverty below
Ethics and Morality in the headlines (ObamaCare)
Obama Budgets: Democrat Propaganda: They are good for America and Americans
Understanding US Budget: Democrat Propaganda: Cutting the US budget will hurt the job recovery/economy
Sticker shock - here is your national debt bill. No fooling!
Bush and Jobs: Democrat Propaganda: G.W. Bush had a very poor record of creating new jobs
No Inheritance: Forced Medicaid can cause loss of all assets -- home, automobile, etc. -- upon death!
Those that are forced onto Medicaid by ObamaCare must forfeit all assets upon death to repay medical expenses paid by Medicaid! [Link removed at source.] Therefore, there can be no inheritance of assets — homes, automobiles or anything else of value — if medical bills previously paid remain to be repaid. And there usually are. This provision can therefore cause severe circumstances for traumatized children due to an untimely death. And it prevents upward mobility for those families that try to work themselves out of poverty. Thus, perpetuating the psychological burdens of the socialist state. Please read the article, then distribute it and work to repeal this awful healthcare law.
We are born into a world of natural laws. These laws put upon us the same rights as all mammals to go and do as we please. They grant us without encumbrances the right of freedom to live our lives as we see fit, without constraints. But groups require some agreed-to rules or the aggressive ’takers’ among us will simply end up taking what they want and killing without regard for life. So society has developed rules to live by in safety, but still protect our natural rights, which are now written into our US Constitution. That is, we maintain our rights to freedom of speech, religion, property rights, assembly, and so on, without government interference. As a moral code, Judaism developed the Ten Commandments more than two thousand years ago, which have served as general guidelines for proper moral behavior.
The problem we face today is that the ‘disrupters’ and ‘control freaks’ among us, are using rules and regulations to disrupt nature laws, while attempting to replace our moral code with just rules by government. For example, a disrupter will claim that a voluntary religious ‘symbol’ (prayer, hymn, cross, etc.) has no right in a given place, even though they do no harm to anyone. Therefore, there should be a law that simply says, No harm, no foul, especially with regard to natural laws, because a nation without morality is doomed to anarchy, and strict authoritarian rule. Neither of which normal humans want.
Common Core Education
K-12 Education and Common Core — the way to create the future Marxists dream society
"Common Core /College and Career Readiness Standards"
"The goal is to bring all educational standards under one common roof of compliance and global academic, philosophical and religious sameness. That requires removing the “extremes” of fundamentalist and evangelical religion, including those religions that have strong missionary outreaches to non-Christians and that teach the biblical principles of marriage and the sanctity of Life. In order to do that, certain compromises must be made, and this is the essence of the Common Core curriculum" Source
Common Core is the federal government mandate for what it claims is either excellence or proficiency in eduction. But what it really is, is federal government intrusion into states' rights in a way that interferes with state, local and family ties, reducing the role of the teacher/educator to one of reader/conveyer, which dumbs-down education, increases student dropout rates, and places controls on what students can learn. In a truly free society teacher/educators would be free to select what they teach to meet a specific set of desired outcomes or parent-teacher-state standards. Instead the federal government is now manipulating education through a reward-punishment system that rewards states with money for accepting their Common-Core Program and punishes states by withholding funds from those that don't.
The curriculum in the Common Core system then 'teaches' in ways that reflect badly on America, families, religion, freedom, and individual rights and responsibilities, in favor of beliefs favored by Communists: Central government control, state control of children, limited rights and freedoms, and group rather than individual behavior. This then creates duty-bound Communists with no allegiances to America or their families, and disrespect for religion, with little ability to reason outside the teachings of the Communist belief system. The end result is a worker-bee society of people only smart enough to do the assigned jobs, controlled by a 'superior' class of entitled bureaucrats.
What is even more disturbing is that the Obama Administration has agreed to allow the Muslim Brotherhood to partner with the US Department of Education to connect Muslim school children in other countries to US school children. This can only lead to teaching hate against Christianity and Christians, and Judaism and Jews, and acceptance of Islam and Muslims, and acceptance of Shariah Law. (Teaching bias and or propaganda to children is commonly known as the takeover of the US from within.)
Rather than educating our children to become smart Americans, Common Core dumbs down their education in order to create a future “managed economy” — a Progressive/Communism/Marxist managed society — while collecting every possible type of personal information about each student through to age 20, which is against several laws and the US Constitution. To receive educational funding from the federal government states’ must accept Common Core. Thus, Common Core, bribes states’ to accept it, then brainwashes our children to become managed workers in a future managed society — the Progressive/Communism/Marxist utopia.
Read analysis of Common Core and what experts say here: ("http://stopcommoncore.com" target="_blank">Stop Common Core Link removes at source.). And here: Truth in American Education.
Can anyone still doubt who Obama is and what he stands for?
Democrat Propaganda: The President's 2012 budget proposal reflects sensible budget management and the desire to fix America (the President's 2014 Budget has the same answers)
Truth: No. It doesn't. "Obama’s budgets don’t actually cut overall spending at all. Spending rises by 30% in real terms over the ten-year projections, and publicly-held debt (which excludes that held by the Social Security Administration) rises by 57% in the same period. Instead of limiting mandatory spending, Obama attempts to hide discretionary spending by transferring pet areas of spending into the mandatory category. It’s a three-card Monty attempt to distract from Obama’s agenda of continued federal spending and regulatory adventurism while claiming fiscal responsibility.
How many times does a politician get to repeat an easily disprovable “factually incorrect” statement before it can be called a lie?"
"President Obama's Fiscal Year 2012 federal budget is an example of shoddy math and non-transparent government at work. The 2012 Federal Budget fiscal shell game is as curious for what items are included as for what Team Obama chose to exclude."
OPINION: Sticker shock - here is your national debt bill. No fooling!
It occurs to us that protesters in Wisconsin, union members everywhere, and Democrats in general would sing a different tune if everyone received a bill to pay their share of the national debt. No fooling. This would be a real obligation to be paid in legal tender, and never allowed to be diminished by any form of negotiation, trade, or union agreement.
There would be no exceptions. Upon reaching the age to vote the bill would be sent, or earlier if desired by the person or parent. Right now the bill is $45,648/person [Note 1], but it would be updated every year based on increases or decreases to the national debt and the changing population. If some citizens paid their current bill they would still be obligated to pay their portion of any future national debt increases. The bill would also follow them after death with any balance to be paid out of net assets.
Note 1: For current debt obligation, use the debt clock link at the bottom of the page.
Low income earners and the poor would still be obligated to pay their portion out of any state or federal subsistence payments. For example, and worst case, a person is determined to need subsistence for his or her entire life, from birth to death. Let's use 75 years to assess the debt payments. That person's monthly subsistence payments would be reduced by ($45,648 / (75 x 12) =) $50.72/month, for life, adjusted annually to debt conditions and the US population.
Citizens would be able to make any reasonable arrangement they wish to pay their portion of the national debt, automatically, out of income, but safeguards would be adopted to prevent cheating.
Punishment for non-payment? Those in default would not be eligible to vote.
I have no doubt what the outcome wold be.
Democrat Propaganda: Cutting the US budget will hurt the job recovery and the economy
To believe this one must believe that giving away money that we don't have helps the economy, at the risk of our precarious debt situation, more than the private sector could. But, of course, it is the classical big government solution that will only lead to the inevitable - paralyzing debt. This will eventually demand higher taxes on the rich, which will stifle economic growth without increasing tax revenue [Note 1], damage the stock market, and lower returns in publicly-invested pension funds. Or, it will eventually demand the confiscation of privately-owned retirement accounts (like 401K's) to solve the debt problem.
Truth: It's not the duty of the federal government to hire government employees (with salaries, benefits and pensions) to give away money that we don't have to create more government programs and more government jobs (that also offer benefits and pensions). This means that by reducing government spending we actually cut two sets of costs.
Products and services that are in demand are always supported by the private sector. Therefore, government only supports products and service that the private sector economy won't support. Like Ethanol. Or won't support as long as the government offers to provide the money. Like PBS. Does this sound like wasteful government spending to you?
Cutting the US budget will actually help the job recovery and the economy. When the government spends less money, 1) our debt goes down, 2) taxes actually pay for government spending, 3) the need to support something is reviewed more carefully, 4) citizens and businesses start to respect politicians for their ability to manage well, 5) confidence in the government and overall economy increases, 6) with increased confidence everyone begins to plan for the future and spend again, 7) with more planning and spending more private sector jobs become available, 8) with more jobs unemployment goes down, 9) with more produced the GDP goes up, 10) with higher GDP tax revenues increase, 11) with higher collected tax revenues we can pay down the debt. Does this sound like a more sensible plan to you?
Democrat Propaganda: G.W. Bush had a very poor record of creating new jobs during his 8 years as president
Truth: Here is another trick played on Democrat voters. The claim is true. The Bush economy didn't create many new jobs. And misguided Democrats then try to match this with the Obama U3 unemployment [Note 1], and U6 marginally-employment rate [Note 2], to try to show that President Bush did no better. What they are not told is that the Bush economy could not hire more if it wanted to because his supply-side (investment driven) economy had nearly full employment for 7 years [Note 3], with generally less than 5% unemployment [Note 4], while dealing with 9/11 and experiencing the dot com market crash, until the democrat controlled Federal Reserve started to mess it up by allowing too much money to flood the market, and Democrat politicians started to create fears of a possible socialist as president. This fear suggested much greater government interference in the economy and higher spending, which would cause the economy to come to a halt and cause many layoffs. They were right.
Note 1: The U3 9.1% unemployment rate is the phony political rate reported by the government and news media. It's phony because, for example, it does not include those no longer eligible to receive unemployment compensation checks and stopped coming to the unemployment office. And it doesn't include the tens of thousands who finish their education each month and go looking for jobs, or about 80,000 legal immigrants - Green Card holders - that come to the US every month. Right now the federal government is changing the U3 by adjusting the US population upward, then adjusting the unemployed population downward, which lowers the unemployment rate because it's a ratio of those unemployed to the total job market.
Note 2: Gallup is reporting the U6 marginally-employment rate at 18.5%. [ September 2011]
Note 4: Practically speaking, an unemployment rate of less than 5% is considered full employment because of natural fluctuations in the job market.
Cautionary note: At low unemployment rates the U3 and the U6 will be the same because by definition many jobs are available, but as unemployment grows and jobs become more difficult to find, and the unemployed reach their maximum limit to receive unemployment checks, the U6 continues to grow. In a very bad economy, there is the possibility of having the absurd condition of a reported U3 unemployment rate that is very low while 40-50M people are actually of out work - with a 25-30% U6 unemployment rate!