Foster Care
- An estimated 905,000 children were victims of maltreatment;
- The rate of victimization was 12.1 per 1,000 children in the population; and
- Nearly 3.6 million children received a CPS investigation or assessment.
We can do the right thing to create positive change within ourselves and the world around us! I have created this blog with the intention of keeping you informed of news that is affecting humanity and nature throughout the world! There is no better time than the present to become a global participant and not just an innocent bystander. I have provided you with several websites to help empower yourself and a list of global organizations that you can choose from to make a difference.
Foster Care
Oh my beloved God! I could not stop crying watching this video. My soul is still crying out as I write this... The audio for this video has been swapped with a new song titled, "African Plains" by Aalborg World Soundtracks. I'll leave you with this last thought, we must do everything we can to try to stop the madness ie; death and destruction caused by man. However, I have confidence in knowing that God ALWAYS has the last Word. God Almighty is Alpha and Omega! God IS the beginning and the END! Do you BELIEVE?
Earth Song ~ by Michael Jackson
What about sunrise
What about rain
What about all the things
That you said we were to gain.. .
What about killing fields
Is there a time
What about all the things
That you said was yours and mine...
Did you ever stop to notice
All the blood we've shed before
Did you ever stop to notice
The crying Earth the weeping shores?
What have we done to the world
Look what we've done
What about all the peace
That you pledge your only son...
What about flowering fields
Is there a time
What about all the dreams
That you said was yours and mine...
Did you ever stop to notice
All the children dead from war
Did you ever stop to notice
The crying Earth the weeping shores
I used to dream
I used to glance beyond the stars
Now I don't know where we are
Although I know we've drifted far
Hey, what about yesterday
(What about us)
What about the seas
(What about us)
The heavens are falling down
(What about us)
I can't even breathe
(What about us)
What about the bleeding Earth
(What about us)
Can't we feel its wounds
(What about us)
What about nature's worth
(ooo,ooo)
It's our planet's womb
(What about us)
What about animals
(What about it)
We've turned kingdoms to dust
(What about us)
What about elephants
(What about us)
Have we lost their trust
(What about us)
What about crying whales
(What about us)
We're ravaging the seas
(What about us)
What about forest trails
(ooo, ooo)
Burnt despite our pleas
(What about us)
What about the holy land
(What about it)
Torn apart by creed
(What about us)
What about the common man
(What about us)
Can't we set him free
(What about us)
What about children dying
(What about us)
Can't you hear them cry
(What about us)
Where did we go wrong
(ooo, ooo)
Someone tell me why
(What about us)
What about babies
(What about it)
What about the days
(What about us)
What about all their joy
(What about us)
What about the man
(What about us)
What about the crying man
(What about us)
What about Abraham
(What was us)
What about death again
(ooo, ooo)
Do we give a damn???
This song couldn't be any more appropriate! This is Michael Jackson performing "Man in the Mirror" live at the 1988 Grammy Awards with a Gospel Choir. Michael Jackson STILL remains one of the GREATEST performers of ALL time. His music is original, sincere and heartfelt.
Michael Jackson had the COURAGE to carve out his very own UNIQUE trail. Even after being rejected, scorned and abandoned by most of the African American community. He wasn't black enough or urban enough or they just envied him because he became a HUGE success around the WORLD! Because of this he had to sacrifice his roots in order to live out his divine destiny!!! This is what it means to be TRUE TO YOURSELF! He always remained humble and has served the World as a GENEROUS HUMANITARIAN! Let his story be a good example for all of you to follow! ENJOY & LISTEN TO THE LYRICS! Take it in...
Man in the Mirror ~ by Michael Jackson
I'm Gonna Make A Change,
For Once In My Life
It's Gonna Feel Real Good,
Gonna Make A Difference
Gonna Make It Right . . .
As I, Turn Up The Collar On
My Favourite Winter Coat
This Wind Is Blowin' My Mind
I See The Kids In The Street,
With Not Enough To Eat
Who Am I, To Be Blind?
Pretending Not To See Their Needs
A Summer's Disregard,
A Broken Bottle Top
And A One Man's Soul
They Follow Each Other On
The Wind Ya' Know
'Cause They Got Nowhere To Go
That's Why I Want You To Know
I'm Starting With The Man In The Mirror
I'm ASKING Him To Change His Ways
And No Message Could Have Been Any Clearer
If You Wanna Make The World
A Better Place
TAKE A LOOK AT YOURSELF, And
Then Make A Change
Take A Look At Yourself, And
THEN MAKE A CHANGE
I've Been A Victim Of A Selfish Kind Of Love
It's Time That I Realize
That There Are Some With No Home,
Not A Nickel To Loan
Could It Be Really Me,
Pretending That They're Not Alone?
A Widow Deeply Scarred,
Somebody's Broken Heart
And A Washed-Out Dream
They Follow The Pattern Of The Wind, Ya' See
Cause They Got No Place To Be
That's Why I'm Starting With Me
Starting With Me!
I'm Starting With The Man In The Mirror
I'm Asking Him To Change His Ways
And No Message Could Have Been Any Clearer
If You Wanna Make The World A Better Place
If You Wanna Make The World A Better Place
Take A Look At Yourself And Then Make A Change
Take A Look At Yourself And Then Make A Change
I'm Starting With The Man In The Mirror
I'm Asking Him To Change His Ways
And No Message Could've Been Any Clearer
If You Wanna Make The World
A Better Place
Take A Look At Yourself And
Then Make That . . .
Change!
I'm Starting With The Man In The Mirror,
I'm Asking Him To Change His Ways
Better Change!
No Message Could Have Been Any Clearer
If You Wanna Make The World A Better Place
Take A Look At Yourself And
Then Make The Change
You Gotta Get It Right, While You Got The Time
Cause When You Close Your Heart
You Can't Close Your . . . Your Mind!
Then You Close Your . . . Mind!
That Man, That Man, That Man, That Man
With That Man In The Mirror
That Man, That Man, That Man
I'm Asking Him To Change His Ways
Better Change!
You Know . . .That Man
No Message Could Have Been Any Clearer
If You Wanna Make The World
A Better Place
Take A Look At Yourself And
Then Make A Change
Gonna Feel Real Good Now!
Yeah Yeah! Yeah Yeah!
Yeah Yeah!
I'm Gonna Make A Change
It's Gonna Feel Real Good!
Come On!
Change . . .
Just Lift Yourself
You Know
You've Got To Stop It.
Yourself!
Yeah!-Make That Change!
I've Got To Make That Change, Today!
Man In The Mirror
You Got To
You Got To Not Let Yourself . . .
Brother . . .
Yeah!-Make That Change!
You Know-I've Got To Get
That Man, That Man . . .
Man In The Mirror
You've Got To
You've Got To Move! Come On! Come On!
You Got To . . .
Stand Up! Stand Up!
Stand Up!
Yeah-Make That Change
Stand Up And Lift Yourself, Now!
Man In The Mirror
Yeah-Make That Change
Gonna Make That Change . . .
Come On!
Man In The Mirror
You Know It!
You Know It!
You Know It!
You Know . . .
Change . . .
Make That Change!!!
Start digging!
Democracy NOW!
Nobel Prize-Winning Economist Joseph Stiglitz: Obama Has Confused Saving the Banks with Saving the Bankers
February 25, 2009
VERY IMPORTANT click here to read the entire transcript of this interview!
We get reaction to President Obama’s speech from Nobel economics laureate and former World Bank chief economist, Joseph Stiglitz. Stiglitz says the Obama administration has failed to address the structural and regulatory flaws at the heart of the financial crisis that stand in the way of economic recovery. Stiglitz also talks about why he thinks Obama’s strategy on Afghanistan is wrong and that Obama’s plan to keep a “residual force” in Iraq will be “very expensive.” On health care, Stiglitz says a single-payer system is “the only alternative.” [includes rush transcript]
AMY GOODMAN: President Obama on Tuesday night. Joe Stiglitz, is he holding the banks accountable?
JOSEPH STIGLITZ: Well, so far, it hasn’t happened. I think the more fundamental issues are the following. He says what we need is to get lending restarted. If he had taken the $700 billion that we gave, levered it ten-to-one, created some new institution guaranteed—provide partial guarantees going for, that would have generated $7 trillion of new lending. So, if he hadn’t looked at the past, tried to bail out the banks, bail out the shareholders, bail out the other—the bankers’ retirement fund, we would have easily been able to generate the lending that he says we need.
So the question isn’t just whether we hold them accountable; the question is: what do we get in return for the money that we’re giving them? At the end of his speech, he spent a lot of time talking about the deficit. And yet, if we don’t do things right—and we haven’t been doing them right—the deficit will be much larger. You know, whether you spend money well in the stimulus bill or whether you’re spending money well in the bank recapitalization, it’s important in everything that we do that we get the bang for the buck. And the fact is, the bank recovery bill, the way we’ve been spending the money on the bank recovery, has not been giving bang for the buck. We haven’t gotten anything out.
What we got in terms of preferred shares, relative to what we gave them, a congressional oversight panel calculated, was only sixty-seven cents on the dollar. And the preferred shares that we got have diminished in value since then. So we got cheated, to put it bluntly. What we don’t know is that—whether we will continue to get cheated. And that’s really at the core of much of what we’re talking about. Are we going to continue to get cheated?
Now, why that’s so important is, one way of thinking about this—end of the speech, he starts talking about a need of reforms in Social Security, put it—you know, there’s a deficit in Social Security. Well, a few years ago, when President Bush came to the American people and said there was a hole in Social Security, the size of the hole was $560 billion approximately. That meant that if we spent that amount of money, we would have guaranteed the—put on sound financial basis our Social Security system. We wouldn’t have to talk about all these issues. We would have provided security for retirement for hundreds of millions of Americans over the next seventy-five years. That’s less money than we spent in the bailouts of the banks, for which we have not been able to see any outcome. So it’s that kind of tradeoff that seems to me that we ought to begin to talk about.
AMY GOODMAN: Why is Obama saving these bankers?
JOSEPH STIGLITZ: Well, we could all guess about the politics. We know one of the problems about American politics is the role of campaign contributions, and that’s plagued every one of our major problems. Under the Bush administration, we couldn’t deal with a large number problems, like the oil industry, like the pharmaceutical, the healthcare, because of the influence of campaign contributions. Now, my view is, one of the problems is that whether it’s because of that or not, it lends an aura of suspicion. The fact that there was so much campaign contributions from the financial sector at least raises the concern.
Now, there is one other legitimate concern, that Wall Street has done a very good job of fear mongering. They say, “If you don’t save us, the whole system will go down.” But, you know, when these banks that I talked about before, when they go down, there’s not even a ripple. The fact is, you change ownership. It happens on airlines all the time. An airline goes bankrupt, a new ownership, financial reorganization—not a big deal. What they’ve succeeded in doing is instilling a sense of fear, so that it’s a kind of paralysis that hangs over what we’re doing. And you could understand a politician. He’s been told if you do one thing, the whole system—the sky is falling, it’s going to fall. That induces political leaders to try to do the smallest incremental step, and that’s what got Japan in trouble.
World Net Daily
Soldier questions eligibility, doubts president's authority
Written by Bob Unruh
February 23, 2009
The New York Times
U.S. Concedes Afghan Attack Mainly Killed Civilians
By RICHARD A. OPPEL Jr.
Published: February 21, 2009
A "I Swear I am Not a Socialist" Merit Badge for the Administration
Read: "The Appearance of Nationalization Avoidance Fund"
I have no sympathy whatsoever for the Administration's public relations predicament when it comes to the "bank nationalization issue," that would appear to be forcing them to pour money into flagging financial institutions. A host of commentators have pointed out that nationalizing a bank should look like it does when the FDIC takes the handlebars and peddles the institution into an asset sale, or otherwise transfers the deposits therein into a viable institution. Most quick. Mostly clean. Why should we fear the "N-word" then? It happens all the time, technically.
This would be fine, if the Administration had stuck to this from the beginning. It did not. Quite the reverse it was used, quite nefariously, as a means to incite class warfare, implement particular pet theories of industrial policy and provide the foundation of a re-election platform. Even as I type this, banking firms that took TARP money when Paulson insisted the entire financial edifice may crumble and collapse (and anyhow if you don't we'll pull out your fingernails slowly- we have some influence with your regulators, after all, you understand) are coming to find it came attached with retroactive political license to brutalize executives (deserved or not) and subject them to the gentle mercies of e.g. Maxine Waters for hours at end. (Incidentally, only Dr. Vikram Pandit is possessed of a sufficient mastery of the dark arts of passive aggression to judo these crude attacks back onto e.g. Bank of America. Ken Lewis never knew what hit him).5
After some reflection, it should be clear that it really is worth examining Pandit's testimony carefully. This, dear reader, is the new face of the executive: obedient lapdog to an Administration that is beholden to so many interest groups that the hope of any legislation with less than a four-digit page count is long gone. The executive corps will quickly become a cadre of perfectly saccharine sycophanta, their image-conscious, public-spin expertise honed over dozens of appearances in front of legislative committees and oversight boards almost as varied as the fractional interests they owe their power to. An executive far more concerned with avoiding the ire of their varied masters than with obtaining praise- for the latter is all but impossible when the committee you must please has seventy members. The safest course is the least active. Lots of motion, little action. Light and noise is the new standard. Don't think it is limited to financial institutions either. One need only recall the spectacle that was Big Auto's hearings to realize that no one is immune.
In short, the Administration made it very clear that even small, minority stakes with no voting rights would be leveraged to the full extent of the law of mob rule to impose the populist schizophrenia of political and industrial policy on those institutions unfortunate enough to be caught up. You better be lending to who we tell you to... or else.
Given this, we are surprised that the word "nationalization" is now met with a recoiling horror? Even if Americans can not quite articulate it yet, this is the essence of fear that lurks deep in that rarely accessed and never discussed part of a common understanding of the dangers of legislative committee rule.
BONUS
“There is more hunger for love and appreciation in this world than for bread.”
—Mother Theresa (1910-1997), founder of the Missionaries of Charity
3. The Past Century
In truth, the amount of taxes we now pay compared to 100 years ago is shocking. There is little philosophic condemnation by the intellectual community, the political leaders, or the media of this immoral system. This should be a warning sign to all of us that, even in less prosperous times, we can expect high taxes and that our productive economic system will come under attack. Not only have we seen little resistance to the current high tax system, it has become an acceptable notion that this system is moral and is a justified requirement to finance the welfare/warfare state. Propaganda polls are continuously cited claiming that the American people don't want tax reductions. High taxes, except for only short periods of time, are incompatible with liberty and prosperity.
There was no welfare state in 1900. In the year 2000 we have a huge welfare state, which continues to grow each year. Not that special-interest legislation didn't exist in the 19th Century, but for the most part, it was limited and directed toward moneyed interests--the most egregious example being the railroads.
The modern-day welfare state has steadily grown since the Great Depression of the 1930s. The federal government is now involved in providing health care, houses, unemployment benefits, education, food stamps to millions, plus all kinds of subsidies to every conceivable special-interest group. Welfare is now part of our culture, costing hundreds of billions of dollars every year. It is now thought to be a "right," something one is "entitled" to. Calling it an "entitlement" makes it sound proper and respectable and not based on theft. Anyone who has a need, desire, or demand and can get the politicians' attention will get what he wants, even though it may be at the expense of someone else. Today it is considered morally right and politically correct to promote the welfare state. Any suggestion otherwise is considered political suicide.
The acceptance of the welfare ethic and rejection of the work ethic as the accepted process for improving one's economic conditions are now ingrained in our political institutions. This process was started in earnest in the 1930s, received a big boast in the 1960s, and has continued a steady growth, even through the 1990s, despite some rhetoric in opposition. This public acceptance has occurred in spite of the fact that there is no evidence that welfare is a true help in assisting the needy. Its abject failure around the world where welfarism took the next step into socialism has even a worse record.
The transition in the past hundred years from essentially no welfare to an all-encompassing welfare state represents a major change in attitude in the United States. Along with its acceptance, the promoters have dramatically reinterpreted the Constitution from the way it had been for our first 150 years. Where the general welfare clause once had a clear general meaning (which was intended to prohibit special-interest welfare, and was something they detested and revolted against under King George), it is now used to justify any demand of any group, as long as a majority in Congress votes for it.
But the history is clear and the words in the Constitution are precise. Madison and Jefferson in explaining the general welfare clause left no doubt as to its meaning.
Madison said: "With respect to the words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of power connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs not contemplated by its creators." Madison argued that there would be no purpose whatsoever for the enumeration of the particular powers if the general welfare clause was to be broadly interpreted. The Constitution granted authority to the federal government to do only 20 things, each to be carried out for the benefit of the general welfare of all the people. This understanding of the Constitution, as described by the Father of the Constitution, has been lost in this century.
Jefferson was just as clear, writing in 1798, when he said: "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare but only those specifically enumerated."
With the modern-day interpretation of the general welfare clause, the principle of individual liberty and the doctrine of enumerated powers have been made meaningless. The goal of strictly limiting the power of our national government as was intended by the Constitution is impossible to achieve as long as it is acceptable for Congress to redistribute wealth in an egalitarian welfare state. There's no way that personal liberty will not suffer with every effort to expand or make the welfare state efficient. And the sad part is that the sincere efforts to help people do better economically through welfare programs always fail. Dependency replaces self-reliance while the sense of self worth of the recipient suffers, making for an angry, unhappy, and dissatisfied society. The cost in dollar terms is high, but the cost in terms of liberty is even greater, but generally ignored, and in the long run, there's nothing to show for this sacrifice.
Today, there's no serious effort to challenge welfare as a way of life, and its uncontrolled growth in the next economic downturn is to be expected. Too many citizens now believe they are "entitled" to monetary assistance from the government anytime they need it, and they expect it. Even in times of plenty, the direction has been to continue expanding education, welfare, and retirement benefits. No one asks where the government gets the money to finance the welfare state. Is it morally right to do so? Is it authorized in the Constitution? Does it help anyone in the long run? Who suffers from the policy? Until these questions are seriously asked and correctly answered, we cannot expect the march toward a pervasive welfare state to stop, and we can expect our liberties to be continuously compromised.
Talks by Krishnamurti in India; November 1, 1964
(Verbatim Report) Madras, Bombay, New Delhi, Varanasi
The Question of Fear? part 5 of 5
Talks by Krishnamurti in India; November 1, 1964
(Verbatim Report) Madras, Bombay, New Delhi, Varanasi
The Question of Fear? part 4 of 5