February 28, 2009

The Foster Care System in AMERICA!



Foster Care


Rosie O'Donnell and the cast of "America" discuss the foster care system as it is portrayed in the film and as it exists in real life. As it stands, there are great strides to be made on behalf of the MILLIONS of foster kids living in America.

To obtain factual data concerning our foster care system please click here to visit The United States Department of Health and Human Services: Administration for Children & Families; Statistics and Research!

Child protective services (CPS) agencies respond to the needs of children who are alleged to have been maltreated to ensure that they are safe. National estimates for FFY 2006 are based on child populations for the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.

During Federal fiscal year (FFY) 2006:
  • 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.

Lifetime Presents AMERICA! Please Watch This Movie Premiere Tonight at 8pm It's IMPORTANT We Understand What a Child in the Foster Care System Endures


Lifetime TV presents America
Airs Feb. 28 at 9 pm et/pt. Encores Mar. 1 at 8 pm & Mar. 3 at 9 pm et/pt

About the Movie: Dr. Maureen Brennan (Rosie O'Donnell), a psychiatrist at a youth treatment center, encounters her newest patient, a 16-year-old biracial boy named America. Through their sessions, Dr. Brennan helps America come to terms with his roller-coaster life, which began when he was taken by authorities from his crack-addicted mother and placed into foster care as an infant. In this emotional story, Dr. Brennan works to help him open up about his painful past and discover the support and courage he needs to get his life back on track. This Lifetime Original Movie is based on the book “America” by E.R. Frank.

Earth Song ~ by Michael Jackson


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???

February 26, 2009

Man In The Mirror ~ by the GREAT Michael Jackson

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!!!

This Is How I See YOU President Barack Obama... Honest John the Conman From Pinnochio!

I can see through that VENEER of yours President Obama!!! President Barack Obama has portrayed himself like Honest John. Remember the Fox from Pinnochio?! And here I thought nobody could be worse than former President Bush. I have NOW been proven WRONG! President Obama is the MOST conniving deceitful President I have every witnessed or studied!! He promises the American people one thing and turns around and does another every time. He is a MASTER manipulator of words. Expert at sleight of hand and the use of smoke and mirrors. Shame on you!

How can you stand there and look us straight in the face and tell us there are NO EARMARKS in your bills??? You have NO conscience! Even your buddy Democratic Senator Schumer said this straight out, "AND LET ME SAY THIS TO ALL OF THE CHATTERING CLASS THAT SO MUCH FOCUSES ON THOSE LITTLE, TINY, YES, PORKY AMENDMENTS, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE REALLY DON'T CARE. THE AMERICAN PEOPLE CARE FAR MORE THAT THERE'S A PROPOSAL IN THE BILL"


Honest John is a sly anthropomorphic fox who tricks Pinocchio twice in the film. His full name is possibly John Worthington Foulfellow.

The Fox and the Cat (Italian: La Volpe e il Gatto) are a pair of fictional characters who appear in Carlo Collodi's book The Adventures of Pinocchio (Le avventure di Pinocchio). Both are depicted as con-men, who lead Pinocchio astray and unsuccessfully attempt to murder him. The pair pretend to sport disabilities; the Fox lameness and the Cat blindness. The Fox is portrayed as the more articulate of the two, with the Cat usually limiting itself to repeating the Fox' words.

House OKs $410 Billion Bill to Boost Domestic Spending! Taxpayers for Common Sense Found 8,570 Disclosed EARMARKS Worth $7.7 BILLION

You have got to be fricken kidding me!!! President Obama says one thing to the American people and turns around and does another. Didn't you just declare yesterday that you intended to reduce the deficit??? Listen, I get that your democratic cronies were pissed the last 8 years when the Republicans plundered our tax revenue coffers and left us screwed! Nevertheless, it does NOT give you the right to RAM the taxpayers even further! Haven't the American people been VIOLATED enough?! All of you in Washington are guilty of ABUSING the POWER bestowed unto you by the American people!

Your actions WILL cause our economy to sink even further into the abyss!! TWO WRONGS DO NOT MAKE A RIGHT! Shame on all of you!

This is the STATUS QUO we can believe in...

************************************************************
CNBC
By: AP 25 Feb 2009 04:56 PM ET

The Democratic-controlled House approved $410 billion legislation Wednesday that boosted domestic programs, bristled with earmarks and chipped away at policies left behind by the Bush administration. The vote was 245-178, largely along party lines.

Republicans assailed the measure as too costly—particularly on the heels of a $787 billion stimulus bill that President Barack Obama signed last week. But Democrats jabbed back.

The debate occurred one day after Obama told Congress in a prime time television address that he intends to cut deficits in half over the next four years, and one day before he submits tax and spending plans for the coming year.

Given the extraordinary costs of the financial industry bailout and the stimulus, the White House projects this year's budget shortfall will be $1.5 trillion, triple the previous record of $455 billion in 2008.

After persuading lawmakers to keep earmarks off the stimulus bill, Obama made no such attempt on the first non-emergency spending measure of his presidency.

The result was that lawmakers claimed billions in federal funds for pet projects _ a TOTAL of 8,570 EARMARKS at a cost of $7.7 billion, according to Taxpayers for Common Sense. Majority Democrats declined to provide a number of earmarks, but said the cost was far smaller, $3.8 billion, 5 percent less than a year ago.

February 25, 2009

Following the money in the Wall Street shakeout? Start here... Can you guess who is the #1 Recipient in Every Category? Yep. President Barack Obama!

Open Secrets - Center for Responsive Politics
Published by Massie Ritsch
February 25, 2009 1:07 PM

Click here to view Top Industries Giving to Members of Congress, 2008 Cycle! This is a HUGE CONFLICT OF INTEREST and it has got to STOP!

OpenSecrets.org has many, many resources for anyone interested in following the money as Washington policymakers continue to craft and implement their solutions to the floundering economy. Here's a guide to what we at the Center for Responsive Politics have for you online:
  • Overviews of federal campaign contributions and lobbying by the finance, insurance and real estate sector
  • Within that sector, we have similar data for the two industries getting the most attention right now: the securities and investment industry (contributions, lobbying) and commercial banks (contributions, lobbying)
  • How much have members of Congress received from these industries? OpenSecrets.org can show you: securities/investment, banking. Play around with the dropdowns and slider menu to change the timeframe or see totals to specific members of the House and Senate.
  • Which companies are the biggest contributors within these industries and how do they split their money between Democrats and Republicans? Banking. Securities/investment.
  • For the biggest givers in American politics, which would include most of the major investment firms and commercial banks that have received federal bailout money, OpenSecrets.org has detailed "Heavy Hitter" profiles. You can review their contributions and lobbying over time and see how much they've contributed to particular politicians. Here's the full list, and here's direct access to Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, Merrill Lynch, Bank of America and American International Group (AIG).
  • The U.S. automotive industry has had its hand out, too. We track federal campaign contributions and lobbying by vehicle manufacturers and dealers.
  • Don't forget Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. We have a list of politicians who've received contributions from their PACs and employees. And we have profiles of contributions and lobbying by the mortgage banking industry.
  • In addition to all that's linked above, we've posted a number of other analyses in our Capital Eye blog in the last few months. You can find these posts here.

Start digging!

Democracy NOW! Interview with Nobel Prize-Winning Economist Joseph Stiglitz: Obama Has Confused Saving the Banks with Saving the Bankers

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.

Soldier Questions Eligibility, Doubts President's Authority! The Plot Thickens

World Net Daily
Soldier questions eligibility, doubts president's authority
Written by Bob Unruh
February 23, 2009

A U.S. soldier on active duty in Iraq has called President Obama an "impostor" in a statement in which he affirmed plans to join as plaintiff in a challenge to Obama's eligibility to be commander in chief.

The statement was publicized by California attorney Orly Taitz who, along with her DefendOurFreedom.us Foundation, is working on a series of legal cases seeking to uncover Obama's birth records and other documents that would reveal whether he meets the requirements of the U.S. Constitution.

"As an active-duty officer in the United States Army, I have grave concerns about the constitutional eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama to hold the office of president of the United States," wrote Scott Easterling in a "to-whom-it-may-concern" letter.

Obama "has absolutely refused to provide to the American public his original birth certificate, as well as other documents which may prove or disprove his eligibility," Easterling wrote. "In fact, he has fought every attempt made by concerned citizens in their effort to force him to do so."

Taitz told WND she had advised Easterling to obtain legal counsel before making any statements regarding the commander-in-chief, but he insisted on moving forward. His contention is that as an active member of the U.S. military, he is required to follow orders from a sitting president, and he needs – on pain of court-martial – to know that Obama is eligible.

Taitz said other legal cases questioning Obama's eligibility filed by members of the military mostly have included retired officers, and courts several times have ruled they don't have standing to issue their challenge.

Easterling, however, is subject to enemy fire and certainly would have a reason to need to know the legitimacy of his orders, she argued.

"Until Mr. Obama releases a 'vault copy' of his original birth certificate for public review, I will consider him neither my Commander in Chief nor my President, but rather, a usurper to the Office – an impostor," his statement said.

February 24, 2009

Can We Get REAL Here!?!?! The World Does NOT Owe You Anything! You Owe it to YOURSELF to Quit Asking for Handouts!

I would like to share with all of my readers the kind of NON-sense the Obama supporters are marketing throughout the Blogosphere!!! Plus, the Obama supporters are pushing a petition asking President Obama to FORGIVE their student loans. Click here to read the article written by Huffington Post supporting Obama forgiving student loans. Un-fricken-believable!!! The following is from a question posed on SodaHead.

***************************************************************
Tu Madre wrote: Socialism is different where it is not a hierarchy. Communism and socialism are the same in which everybody shares goods and does jobs for the benefit of their society but communism puts the power in the hands of the few where socialism is supposed to be democracy-like.

***************************************************************

Princess Mononoke wrote: I am not a republican. I am however an independent objective critical thinker! The Obama supporters notion that socialism is the way to go and President Obama's wasteful spending bill is to be praised is OUTRIGHT ABSURD! If anyone needs to stop and seriously look at the facts it is the Obama supporters!

Both the white collar and blue collar WORKING class have been responsible for paying the taxes that the WHOLE of society has benefited from. Services such as free education, fire dept, police dept., miltary defense, library services, public roads, the so-called justice dept., the prison system, etc. We, the Working Class HAVE already been sustaining the ENTIRE economy that the GREEDY individuals of every race have SELFISHLY helped to destroy!

Who do you think ABUSES these benefits the MOST and takes these benefits for GRANTED? The NON-working class! ie; the gangsters, the drug dealers, the pimps, and most welfare recipients. These are the LOW STANDARDS President Obama is SUPPORTING and WANTS everybody to SHARE?

The NON-working class are the ones who drop out of school early on! The NON-working class are the ones who have early teen pregnancies! The NON-working class are the ones who graffiti our highways and biways and neighborhoods! The NON-working class help sustain drug ADDICTION and keep the drug lords in business. The NON-working class are the ones who TERRORIZE neighborhoods with VIOLENCE and THEFT! The NON-working class are the ones who PIMP young women as their sex slaves! NONE of these low class people PAY TAXES! And how many of their children end up in our Foster Care system???

You know I have NEVER understood why fleas exist? But they do. Fleas are a parasite that sole purpose is to SUCK the lifeblood out of every LIVING creature on this planet. Now with that being said, would you like fleas multiplying in your home environment? I am pretty sure your answer is absolutely NOT! As soon as you feel a flea in your home, the very first thing you will do is fumigate. Why? Because you know damn well that if you don't tackle your flea problem immediately, they will multiply faster than you can say OUCH and make your life a living hell. RIGHT? So I ask you why does society tolerate those human parasites I mentioned above?

Everybody in America has the RIGHT to Life, Liberty and the PURSUIT of happiness. However, you do NOT have a guarantee of these priviledges. Everybody must carry their own weight, have a DESIRE to GROW as a person, work hard and make a REAL contribution to society by paying their taxes.

Do you have any idea how many immigrants since the 18th century have arrived in America with only $5 dollars in their pocket and a DREAM for a better life!!! This is the face of America! This country has always offered anybody willing to work hard an opportunity for a better life. Nothing is FREE! The price you must pay for achieving your dreams is hard work, determination and a do not quit attitude. Therefore making the cost of personal success PRICELESS!

The laws of supply and demand have always prevailed. Nothing is FREE! Since the beginning of time there has always been some kind of medium of exchange for goods and services. Even the cavemen had to hunt (work hard) for their food! If there is NO WORK available in your community then you have every RIGHT to move to another area where you can find work! That is precisely what they did during the Great Depression when the farmers got hit hard by the 'dust bowl'. Everybody made the hard CHOICE to leave their homes to move out west where they heard there were opportunities for WORK and thus EARN A LIVING! These people were NOT seeking handouts. Click here to watch a 2 minute summary of John Steinbeck's novel 'The Grapes of Wrath'.

Socialism vs. Capitalism

Over the past few decades Western European countries have passed laws and taken other steps towards socialism (or Marxism). This, combined with globalization, has lead to increased pressure on the United States to become more socialistic. Although the ideas of socialism seem appealing, it's a fundamentally flawed system and it begins a slippery slope that falls into communism.

The idea of a Marxist society is very alluring. In today's world of freedom and fairness, the notion of everyone being completely equal, even if this means taking from the rich and giving to the poor, seems just; however, the defect in Marxism is obvious. It is dependent on a type of human nature that is hard to come by. For Marxism to work, very little greed and jealosy can exist and people must have a general feeling of charity and a willingness to work their hardest for the good of everyone. These are obviously not common traits. Marxism could also work if those who have the greatest abilities and those who work the hardest are satisfied with rewards equivalent to those with lesser abilities and those who don't work hard at all. This is also very unlikely. Marxism undoubtedly leads to free riding and slacking.

On the other hand, capitalism utilizes the willpower of individuals, especially entrepreneurs, to foment economic activity. Capitalism is based on the assumption that individuals operate based on self interest; however, by doing so they not only help themselves, but also propel others towards economic success. As Adam Smith put it, "by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for society that it was no part of his intention. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it."

The communist societies that have been or are being attempted are really not communist societies at all, although they try to be. The USSR, for example, attempted communism but ended up being way to totalarianistic--instead of everyone working for the benefit of the society, there was a group of individuals with TOTAL POWER (Joseph Stalin took this role for a quarter century). Today's China is the same way -- there is a centralized bureaucracy that calls all the shots. In both of these cases many people are forced to take part in the society against their own will. The Soviet Union obviously didn't work and China is becoming more prosperous only as they allow their economy to be more capitalistic. Taiwan, China's capitalistic counterpart, is years ahead of China on almost any measure of prosperity.

The fact is that people can't be forced to take part in communism. It simply won't work unless everyone is willing, and even then greed can easily lead to its demise. On the other hand, capitalism can work even if there are some who don't want to pull their weight -- the difference is that those that don't pull their weight will suffer the consequences. Just like in communism, capitalism will work better if everyone works hard to produce valuable products. Also just like in communism, a capitalist society where there exists charity and goodwill will eliminate preventable suffering of all individuals.

So why has France passed a socialistic labor law which makes it very hard to lay off workers? Why does Canada have government sponsered, free health care? Why do some American workers pay over a third of their income in taxes? Why do so many nations tax and then dole out excessive welfare checks?

It seems as though we are doing the very thing that history has proven doesn't work: forcing socialism. How can France expect its workers to work hard if it's nearly impossible to fire them? How can we expect welfare recipients to find jobs if it's easy for them to sit at home and get welfare? I know that there is a real need for welfare among some people, but there are others who smoke and drink and do nothing to better themselves. Socialism is forced on the rest of Americans when they are taxed and their money goes to such people. If this continues, Americans will become more and more lazy and our nation will degenerate to a quasi-socialist, nonproductive society.

The US is taking baby steps towards socialism. We may not be as far as France, and we're definitely not as far as China, but unless we reverse the current trend we will suffer the consequences.

February 23, 2009

U.S. Concedes Afghan Attack Mainly Killed Civilians! Oh REALLY President Obama!!! This is What YOU Call CHANGE We Can Believe In!

The New York Times
U.S. Concedes Afghan Attack Mainly Killed Civilians
By RICHARD A. OPPEL Jr.
Published: February 21, 2009

KABUL, Afghanistan — An airstrike by the United States-led military coalition killed 13 civilians and 3 militants last Tuesday in western Afghanistan, not “up to 15 militants” as was initially claimed by American forces, military officials here said Saturday.

The civilians killed included three children, six women and four men in the Gozara district of Herat Province, in addition to three people suspected of being Taliban fighters, according to an aide to the provincial governor.

American and NATO forces have come under increasing criticism from Afghans and political leaders in Kabul for the soaring number of civilians killed by airstrikes and fighting between Taliban and American-led forces.

The United Nations says civilian deaths rose nearly 40 percent last year to 2,118, the most in any year since the 2001 invasion that drove the Taliban from power. Most of the casualties last year were caused by the Taliban and other insurgents, the United Nations found, but 828 deaths were attributed to American, NATO and Afghan forces, mostly from airstrikes and village raids. Afghan officials fear the numbers will rise as more American troops deploy to the country.

So far, 26 American service members and 13 from other countries in the coalition have been killed in Afghanistan this year, almost twice as many as the first two months of 2008, according to iCasualties.org, which tracks such fatalities.

How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time...

Seeking Alpha
15 Notes on the Global Economy
Written by David Merkel
February 20, 2009

4) Financial accounting rules can work one of two ways: best estimate (fair value), or book value with adjustments for impairment. Either system can work but they have to be applied fairly, estimating the value/amount of future cash flows. Management discretion should play a small role.

5) Regarding Barry’s post on Bank Nationalization: I don’t like the term “nationalization.” It’s too broad, as others have pointed out. I am in favor of triage, which is what insurance departments (and banking regulators are supposed to) do every year. Separate the living from the wounded from the dead.

The dead are seized and sold off, with the guaranty fund taking a hit, as well as any investors in the operating company getting wiped out. The wounded file plans for recovery, and the domiciliary states monitor them. The living buy up the pieces of the dead that are attractive, and kick money into the guaranty fund. NO MONEY from the public is used.

We have made so many errors in our “nationalization” (bailout) that it isn’t funny. We give money to them, rather than taking them through insolvency. Worse, we give money to the holding companies, which does nothing for the solvency of operating banks. We don’t require plans for recovery to be filed. Further, we let non-experts interfere in the process (the politicians). Better that the regulators get fired for not having done their jobs, and a new set put in by the politicians, than that the politicians add to the confusion through their pushing of unrelated goals like increasing lending, and management compensation.

The concept of the “stress test” is crucial here. It could be set really low (almost all banks pass) or really high (almost all banks fail — akin to forcible nationalization). Clearly, something in-between is warranted, but the rumors are that the test will be set low, ensuring that few banks get reconciled, and the crisis continues for a while more.

I’m in favor of the bank regulators doing their jobs, and the FDIC guiding the rationalization of bad banks, with an RTC 2 to aid them. Beyond that, there isn’t that much to do, and there shouldn’t be that much money thrown at the situation. We have wasted enough money already with too little in results.

One final comment — for years, many claimed that the banks were better regulated than the insurers. Who will claim that now?

6) Equity Private rides again at Finem Respice (”look to the end”). A good first post on how this all will not end well.

7) Whatever one thinks about mortgage cramdowns (I can see both sides), they will have a negative effect on bank solvency, and the solvency of those who hold non-Fannie and Freddie mortgage backed-securities.

8 ) What has happened to Saab is what should happen to insolvent automakers here in the US. The companies will survive in a smaller form, with the old owners wiped out, and new owners recapitalizing them.

10) How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time. How well did Japan do in working through its leverage problem in the 90s and 2000s? Reasonably well, though it took a while. Deleveraging takes time when many balance sheets are constrained, and asset values are falling back to psuedo-equilibrium levels. One person’s liability is another person’s asset; when a large fraction of parties are significantly levered, the reconciliation of bad debts can cascade, like a child playing with dominoes.

Finem Respice ~ Translation "Look to the End"

Finem Respice
Written by EP
February 19, 2009

The birth of finem respice comes at an unfortunate time. This site's motto, finem respice, seems particularly apt when the long-term consequences of ill-considered ventures threaten to be so severe. Incredible as it seems, the possibility of a default by the United States is no longer considered alarmist. In fact, after a little bit of reflection, this doesn't even seem all that incredible anymore. Whatever your view of the likelihood of an actual default- and flaccid arguments about the semantics of the term “default” notwithstanding- it is difficult to overstate the gravity of this kind of sentiment. If anyone needs a more definitive statement of the danger of a crisis of confidence for a highly leveraged institution, then they weren’t paying attention when Lehman Brothers slipped smoothly beneath the dark and frigid waters of financial ruin.


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.

February 22, 2009

Inspirational Quotes to Brighten Your Day!!!

I stumbled upon this website today that I found most inspiring. It is called 'The Foundation For A Better Life' and this is how they describe quotes: "Quotes, whether they were heroes, poets, scholars, or leaders, the brightest minds in human history have thought and written about values and their meanings." I pulled the following inspirational quotes from this website to help brighten your day!!!

  1. “Keep away from people who try to belittle your ambitions. Small people always do that, but the really great make you feel that you, too, can become great.” —Mark Twain

  2. “Whatever you can do or dream you can, begin it. Boldness has genius, power, and magic in it.” —Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

  3. “Anyone who has never made a mistake has never tried anything new.” —Albert Einstein (1875-1955), theoretical physicist, philosopher

  4. “I believe life is a series of near misses. A lot of what we ascribe to luck is not luck at all. It's seizing the day and accepting responsibility for your future. It's seeing what other people don't see. And pursuing that vision.” —Howard Schultz

  5. “Always do what you are afraid to do.” —Ralph Waldo Emerson

  6. “It is not because things are difficult that we do not dare; it is because we do not dare that they are difficult.” —Segoyewatha, [Red Jacket]

  7. “It is a grand thing to rise in the world. The ambition to do so is the very salt of the earth. It is the parent of all enterprise, and the cause of all improvement.” —Anthony Trollope (1815-1882), novelist

  8. “Any man's life will be filled with constant and unexpected encouragement if he makes up his mind to do his level best each day.” —Booker T. Washington (1856-1915), political leader, educator

  9. “A word of encouragement during a failure is worth more than an hour of praise after success.” —Anonymous

  10. “You have it easily in your power to increase the sum total of this world's happiness now. How? By giving a few words of sincere appreciation to someone who is lonely or discouraged. Perhaps you will forget tomorrow the kind words you say today, but the recipient may cherish them over a lifetime.” —Dale Carnegie (1888-1955), motivational author

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

February 21, 2009

For Those of You Who Don't Know: The United States of America has always been a Republic

A Republic, If You Can Keep It
Statement of HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS (part 4 of 4)
January 31 & February 2, 2000


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.

For Those of You Who Don't Know: The United States of America has always been a Republic

Statement of HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS (part 3 of 4)
January 31 & February 2, 2000

3. The Past Century

Unbelievable changes have occurred in the 20th Century. We went from the horse and buggy age to the space age. Computer technology and the Internet have dramatically changed the way we live. All kinds of information and opinions on any subject are now available by clicking a few buttons. Technology offers an opportunity for everyone who seeks the truth to find it, yet at the same time, it enhances the ability of government to monitor our every physical, communicative, and financial move. And let there be no doubt, for the true believers in big government, they see this technology as a great advantage for their cause.

We are currently witnessing an ongoing effort by our government to develop a national ID card, a medical data bank, a work data bank, "Know Your Customer" regulations on banking activities, a National Security Agency all-pervasive telephone snooping system called Echelon, and many other programs. There are good reasons to understand the ramifications of the many technological advancements we have seen over the century to make sure that the good technology is not used by the government to do bad things.

Government officials oversee everything we do from regulating the amount of water in our commodes to placing airbags in our cars, safety locks on our guns, and using our own land. Almost every daily activity we engage in is monitored or regulated by some government agency. If one attempts to just avoid government harassment, one finds himself in deep trouble with the law.

Yes, we can be grateful that the technological developments in the marketplace over the last 100 years have made our lives more prosperous and enjoyable, but any observant person must be annoyed by the ever-present "Big Brother" that watches and records our every move. The idea that we're responsible for our own actions has been seriously undermined. And it would be grossly misleading to argue that the huge growth in the size of government has been helpful and necessary in raising the standard of living of so many Americans. Since government cannot create anything, it can only resort to using force to redistribute the goods that energetic citizens produce. The old-fashioned term for this is "theft." It's clear that our great prosperity has come in spite of the obstacles that big government places in our way and not because of it. And besides, our current prosperity may well not be as permanent as many believe.

Quite a few major changes in public policy have occurred in this century. These changes in policy reflect our current attitude toward the American Republic and the Constitution and help us to understand what to expect in the future. Economic prosperity seems to have prevailed, but the appropriate question asked by too few Americans is, "Have our personal liberties been undermined?"

Taxes are certainly higher. A federal income tax of 35 to 40% is something many middle-class Americans must pay, while on average they work for the government for more than half the year. In passing on our estates from one generation to the next, our "partner," the US government, decides on its share before the next generation can take over. The estate tax certainly verifies the saying about the inevitability of death and taxes. At the turn of the century we had neither, and in spite of a continuous outcry against both, there's no sign that either will soon be eliminated.

Accepting the principle behind both the income and the estate tax concedes the statist notion that the government owns the fruits of our labor, as well as our savings, and we are permitted by the politicians' "generosity" to keep a certain percentage. Every tax-cut proposal in Washington now is considered a "cost" to government, not the return of something rightfully belonging to a productive citizen. This principle is true whether it's a 1% or a 70% income tax. Concern for this principle has been rarely expressed in a serious manner over the past 50 years. The withholding process has permitted many to believe that a tax rebate at the end of the year comes as a gift from government. Because of this, the real cost of government to the taxpayer is obscured. The income tax has grown to such an extent and the government is so dependent on it that any talk of eliminating the income tax is just that, talk.

A casual acceptance of the principle behind high taxation, with an income tax and an inheritance tax, is incompatible with a principled belief in a true Republic. It is impossible to maintain a high tax system without the sacrifice of liberty and an undermining of property ownership. If kept in place, such a system will undermine prosperity, regardless of how well off we may presently be.

For Those of You Who Don't Know: The United States of America has always been a Republic

Statement of HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS (part 2 of 4)
January 31 & February 2, 2000

2. Success of the Republic

One would have to conclude from history as well as current conditions that the American Republic has been extremely successful. It certainly has allowed the creation of great wealth with a large middle class and many very wealthy corporations and individuals. Although the poor are still among us, compared to other parts of the world, even the poor in this country have done quite well.

We still can freely move about, from town to town, state to state, and job to job. Free education is available to everyone, even for those who don't want it nor care about it. Both the capable and the incapable are offered a government education. We can attend the church of our choice, start a newspaper, use the Internet, and meet in private when we choose. Food is plentiful throughout the country and oftentimes even wasted. Medical technology has dramatically advanced and increased life expectancy for both men and women.

Government statistics are continuously reaffirming our great prosperity with evidence of high and rising wages, no inflation, and high consumer confidence and spending. The US government still enjoys good credit and a strong currency in relationship to most other currencies of the world. We have had no trouble financing our public or private debt. Housing markets are booming, and interest rates remain reasonable by modern-day standards. Unemployment is low. Recreational spending and time spent at leisure are at historic highs. Stock market profits are benefiting more families than ever in our history while income, payroll, and capital gains taxes have been a windfall to the politicians who lack no creative skills in figuring out how to keep the tax-and-spend policies in full gear. The American people accept the status quo and hold few grudges against our President.

The nature of a republic and the current status of our own are of little concern to the American people in general. Yet there is a small minority, ignored by political, academic, and media personnel, who do spend time thinking about the importance of what the proper role for government should be. The comparison of today's government to the one established by our Constitution is a subject of deep discussion for those who concern themselves with the future and look beyond the fall election. The benefits we enjoy are a result of the Constitution our Founding Fathers had the wisdom to write. However, understanding the principles that were used to establish our nation is crucial to its preservation and something we cannot neglect.

For Those of You Who Don't Know: The United States of America has always been a Republic

Statement of HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS (part 1 of 4)
January 31 & February 2, 2000
1. Introduction

The dawn of a new century and millennium is upon us and prompts many to reflect on our past and prepare for the future. Our nation, divinely blessed, has much to be thankful for. The blessings of liberty resulting from the republic our forefathers designed have far surpassed the wildest dreams of all previous generations.

The form of government secured by the Declaration of Independence, the American Revolution, and the Constitution is unique in history and reflects the strongly held beliefs of the American Revolutionaries.

At the close of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on September 18, 1787, a Mrs. Powel anxiously awaited the results, and as Benjamin Franklin emerged from the long task now finished, asked him directly: "Well Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?" "A republic if you can keep it" responded Franklin.

The term republic had a significant meaning for both of them and all early Americans. It meant a lot more than just representative government and was a form of government in stark contrast to pure democracy where the majority dictated laws and rights. And getting rid of the English monarchy was what the Revolution was all about, so a monarchy was out of the question.

The American Republic required strict limitation of government power. Those powers permitted would be precisely defined and delegated by the people, with all public officials being bound by their oath of office to uphold the Constitution. The democratic process would be limited to the election of our leaders and not used for granting special privileges to any group or individual nor for defining rights.

Federalism, the binding together loosely of the several states, would serve to prevent the concentration of power in a central government and was a crucial element in the new Republic. The authors of the Constitution wrote strict limits on the national government and strove to protect the rights and powers of the states and the people.

Dividing and keeping separate the legislative, executive, and the judiciary branches, provided the checks and balances thought needed to preserve the Republic the Constitution created and the best way to preserve individual liberty.

The American Revolutionaries clearly chose liberty over security, for their economic security and their very lives were threatened by undertaking the job of forming a new and limited government. Most would have been a lot richer and safer by sticking with the King. Economic needs or desires were not the driving force behind the early American patriotic effort.

The Revolution and subsequent Constitution settled the question as to which authority should rule man's action: the individual or the state. The authors of the Constitution clearly understood that man has free will to make personal choices and be responsible for the consequences of his own actions. Man, they knew, was not to be simply a cog in a wheel, or a single cell of an organism, or a branch of a tree, but an individual with a free will and responsibility for his eternal soul as well as his life on earth. If God could permit spiritual freedom, government certainly ought to permit the political freedom that allows one to pursue life's dreams and assume one's responsibilities. If man can achieve spiritual redemption through grace, which allows him to use the released spiritual energy to pursue man's highest and noblest goals, so should man's mind, body, and property be freed from the burdens of unchecked government authority. The Founders were confident that this would release the creative human energy required to produce the goods and services that would improve the living standards of all mankind.

Minimizing government authority over the people was critical to this endeavor. Just as the individual was key to salvation, individual effort was the key to worldly endeavors. Little doubt existed that material abundance and sustenance came from work and effort, family, friends, church, and voluntary community action, as long as government did not obstruct.

No doubts were cast as to where rights came from. They came from the Creator, and if government could not grant rights to individuals, it surely should not be able to take them away. If government could provide rights or privileges, it was reasoned, it could only occur at the expense of someone else or with the loss of personal liberty in general. Our constitutional Republic, according to our Founders, should above all else protect the rights of the minority against the abuses of an authoritarian majority. They feared democracy as much as monarchy and demanded a weak executive, a restrained court, and a handicapped legislature.

It was clearly recognized that equal justice and protection of the minority was not egalitarianism. Socialism and welfarism were never considered.

The colonists wanted to be free of the King's oppressive high taxes and burdensome regulations. It annoyed them to no end that even the trees on their own property could not be cut without the King's permission. The King kept the best trees for himself and his shipbuilding industry. This violation of property ownership prompted the colonists to use the pine tree on an early revolutionary flag to symbolize the freedom they sought.

The Constitution made it clear that the government was not to interfere with productive non-violent human energy. This is the key element that has permitted America's great achievements. It was a great plan; we should all be thankful for the bravery and wisdom of those who established this nation and secured the Constitution for us. We have been the political and economic envy of the world. We have truly been blessed. The Founders often spoke of "divine providence" and that God willed us this great nation. It has been a grand experiment, but it is important that the fundamental moral premises that underpin this nation are understood and maintained. We as Members of Congress have that responsibility.

This is a good year to address this subject. The beginning of the new century and millennium provides a wonderful opportunity for all of us to dedicate ourselves to studying and preserving these important principles of liberty.

February 16, 2009

The Question of Fear? Part 5 of 5: Read with the Intention of Understanding for Your Own Well-Being ~ Talks by Jiddu Krishnamurti in India 1964

Talks by Krishnamurti in India; November 1, 1964
(Verbatim Report) Madras, Bombay, New Delhi, Varanasi
The Question of Fear? part 5 of 5

Now, most of us do not come into contact with fear. The moment fear shows itself in any form, we run away from it. There is the fear of death. I am not going to talk about death today, but we will do it another day if there is time. When you are afraid of death, your whole defensive psychological machinery is set going immediately; you invent beliefs, you run away from it, you have visions, you have dreams; but you avoid that thing. So the first thing to realize is that any form of escape not only perpetuates and strengthens fear but creates conflict, and therefore the mind is incapable of coming directly into contact with fear. Suppose the speaker is afraid; he has an idea, he has some hope; and that hope, that idea, that escape, becomes much more important than the fear itself because he is running away from the fact, and the running away - not the fear - creates conflict. When a man is directly in contact with something, nonverbally, nonabstractly, without escape, there is no conflict; he is there. It is only the man who has ideas, hopes, opinions, all kinds of defenses - for him there is conflict; and that conflict prevents him from coming directly into contact with fear.

Most people have fear and they have invented a network of escapes - going to the temple, the incessant activity of a restless, stupid mind - they have invented so many fears, so many escapes, and therefore their conflicts increase. So one has to be aware of it - not ``How am I to escape?'' or ``How am I to stop from escaping?'' Because the moment you understand that every form of escape from fear only creates more conflict and therefore there is no direct contact with fear, and that it is only with a direct contact with fear that you are free - when you understand that, not intellectually, not verbally, not as something you hear from somebody, but actually, for yourself when you see that - then you do not escape at all. Then the temple, the book, the leader, the round-the-corner guru - all those disappear. Then you are not ambitious.

The escape from fear can be actual - that is through radio, temple, activities. Or it can be through abstractions - that is, the word helps us to escape from fear. Please listen to this, and you will see. Fear is not an abstraction, it is not a word; but, for most of us, the word has taken the place of the fact. You see that? The word fear, which is an abstraction, has taken the place of the fact, which is the actual fear, and therefore you are dealing with the abstract word and not with the fact. I hope I am making myself clear. So, you have to understand fear - I mean by ``understand'' not verbally, not intellectually, but face it - and be completely free of it, totally, right through your being. And you can only do it when there is no escape of any kind - escape through activity, through some form of running away, or escape through the word which, for most people, takes the place of the actual fact. When you understand this, then you are directly in contact with fear. In that contact there is no time interval, there is no saying, ``I will get over it'' or ``I will develop courage'' - which is equally stupid - when you are frightened. It is like those people who are violent and everlastingly talking about nonviolence. It is too stupid because it has no validity at all. What has validity is violence, and you can deal with it; but to talk, to go round the world preaching about nonviolence is just a hypnotic, unrealistic mind. So we are dealing with facts, and we cannot deal with what is if there is any form of escape, conscious or unconscious.

There is physical fear. You know, when you see a snake, a wild animal, instinctively there is fear; that is a normal, healthy, natural fear. It is not fear, it is a desire to protect oneself - that is normal. But the psychological protection of oneself - that is, the desire to be always certain - breeds fear. A mind that is seeking always to be certain is a dead mind, because there is no certainty in life, there is no permanency. And because you try to establish permanency in your relationship with your wife, with your family, and all the rest of it, you have jealousy and the dreadful thing called family. When you come directly into contact with fear, there is a response of the nerves and all the rest of it. Then, when the mind is no longer escaping through words or through activity of any kind, there is no division between the observer and the thing observed as fear. It is only the mind that is escaping that separates itself from fear. But when there is a direct contact with fear, there is no observer, there is no entity that says, ``I am afraid.'' So, the moment you are directly in contact with life, with anything, there is no division - it is this division that breeds competition, ambition, fear.

So what is important is not ``how to be free of fear?'' If you seek a way, a method, a system to be rid of fear, you will be everlastingly caught in fear. But if you understand fear - which can only take place when you come directly in contact with it, as you are in contact with hunger, as you are directly in contact when you are threatened with losing your job) - then you do something; only then will you find that all fear ceases - we mean all fear, not fear of this kind or of that kind. Because out of the freedom and the understanding and the learning about fear comes intelligence, and intelligence is the essence of freedom. And there is no intelligence if there is any form of conflict, and conflict must exist as long as there is fear.

The Question of Fear? Part 4 of 5: Read with the Intention of Understanding for Your Own Well-Being ~ Talks by Jiddu Krishnamurti in India 1964

Talks by Krishnamurti in India; November 1, 1964
(Verbatim Report) Madras, Bombay, New Delhi, Varanasi
The Question of Fear? part 4 of 5

Fear exists only in relationship to something else. I am afraid of public opinion, I am afraid of my wife, I am afraid of my boss, I am afraid of losing my job, I am afraid of death, I am afraid of pain; I am not healthy, I would like to be healthy, and I am frightened of going back, of falling ill again; I am frightened because I am lonely; I am frightened because nobody loves me, nobody has a warm feeling for me; I am frightened because I have to be nobody. There are various forms of fear, conscious and unconscious. If you are at all aware - aware, not in the narrow sense, but extensively - you can see the obvious fears: of losing a job and therefore playing up to the man above you, bearing all the boredom of it, his insults, his inhumanities; being frightened of not fulfilling; being frightened of not being somebody, being frightened of going wrong. So we have innumerable fears, and consciously we can know them quite easily. If you spend half an hour consciously, deliberately, to find out your fears, outwardly at least, you can easily stop them. But it is much more difficult to find out the unconscious fears, deep down within you, which have a greater importance and which during your sleep become dreams and all the rest of it. I am not going into all that now.

So one has to understand fear. Now, fear may take different forms: I am afraid of public opinion, I am afraid of falling ill, I am afraid of losing my wife, I am afraid of being nobody, I am afraid of being lonely - do you know what that word means? Have you ever been lonely, have you ever felt what it is to be lonely? Probably not, because you are surrounded by your family, you are always thinking about your job, reading a book, listening to a radio, listening to the infinite gossip of the newspapers. So probably you never know that strange feeling of being completely isolated. You may have occasional intimations of it, but probably you have never come into contact with it directly, as you have with pain, with hunger, with sex. But if you do not understand that loneliness which is the cause of fear, then you will not understand fear and be free of it.

Fear may express itself in many forms - as it does - but there is only one fear. Fear is fear, not how it shows, not what are the mediums through which you are aware of the existence of fear. I may be afraid of public opinion, of death, of losing my job, of a thousand other things; but the fear is the same. Now, whether that fear is conscious or unconscious, one has to find out, one has to go into it. Unfortunately, we have divided life - as has been done by the latest psychologists and so on - as the conscious and the unconscious. Please listen to this: you may not be interested, and probably you have not even thought about it. You might have read about it, if you are interested in psychology, or heard somebody talk about the conscious and the unconscious and so on. But it does not play a great part in your life, as hunger does, as losing a job does, as belonging to a certain class does. So we are going into it briefly for the moment. We are not going into any detail or to explore it at great depth; one can, but we are going into it briefly.

One has divided the mind as the conscious and the unconscious. The conscious mind is the educated mind, the modern technological mind that goes to the office every day, which is bored, which is fed up with all the routine of it, the lack of love of doing something for itself. So the conscious mind becomes the mechanical mind - watch it, sirs - it can think mechanically, it can go to the office and function. It does all the things mechanically - sex, affection, being mechanically conscious of everything, being kind when it pays, kicking when it does not pay; the whole thing, the strange phenomena of modern civilization. Then there is the unconscious which is very deep, which requires great penetration, understanding. Either one can understand the whole thing - both the conscious as well as the unconscious - immediately, with one look, or you take time through analysis, through analyzing all the intimations and hints of the unconscious which arise through dreams and so on. Please follow this.

As I said, you can understand this whole structure of consciousness which is `you', as a man or a woman, as a human being, the whole consciousness of two million years - not reincarnation - of man, who has evolved from the lowest to the present state. All that development, all that psychological structure of society can be understood immediately, and also the whole psychological structure of society with its greed, envy, ambition, despair, can be completely eliminated. Or you can analyze the whole process of consciousness, analyze it step by step. We feel - not feel, but it is so - that analysis will not free the mind. Then, what will free the mind from ambition, greed, envy, anger, jealousy, and the demand for power? - which are all animalistic. I do not know if you have watched animals. Go to a poultry yard where there are lots of chickens and observe the chickens. You will notice how one pecks the other and how they have established a social order. We also have all the animalistic instincts, consciously as well an unconsciously. And we can understand this whole psychological structure and be totally free of this animalistic, instinctual relationship of man with man, immediately - and this is the only way to do it, not through analysis.

But to understand this thing, to understand this consciousness, one has to be really free, totally, of fear. Fear is the essence of the animal. Now, to understand fear one must come directly into contact with it - that is, nonverbally. Please do take your fear. You are afraid of something: maybe of your wife, husband, children. Take it, look at it, bring it out - not suppress it, not accept it, not deny it, but take hold of it, look at it. To look at it demands a mind fully aware, not a vague, dull mind. Because when you look at fear, either you come directly into contact with it or you go off to an asylum as people do, or you know what to do with it. And we are going into it directly, nonabstractly, nonverbally so that you come directly into contact. We said there are many causes of fear, but fear is always fear. The objects of fear and their relationship with you may vary, but fear is always the same, though it expresses itself in different ways.

The Question of Fear? Part 3 of 5: Read with the Intention of Understanding for Your Own Well-Being ~ Talks by Jiddu Krishnamurti in India 1964

Talks by Krishnamurti in India; November 1, 1964
(Verbatim Report) Madras, Bombay, New Delhi, Varanasi
The Question of Fear? part 3 of 5

Sirs, you are not listening to a lecture. This is not a harangue, a moralizing talk. We are communicating with each other. We are trying to understand this complex problem of living together, and it is a very complex problem. It needs a fresh mind every day to understand your family, your wife or husband, or your children; it needs a fresh mind to learn your job efficiently. So we are trying to understand the problems. They are your problems, and therefore you are not merely listening to words, rejecting, or accepting, or saying it is this, or having opinions. We are together looking, together understanding, together trying to explore this complex problem. So you are as active as the speaker, if not much more active.

So one has to differentiate, when one understands authority, as to why one obeys the law, why one obeys psychologically. One has also to understand function and status because through function one wants status. What we are more concerned with is not function but status. Because status gives us certain privileges, status becomes much more important than function. But if you are only regarding function - not status at all - then the cook is as important as the prime minister. They are merely doing functions, and therefore you approach the two with quite a different mind - you do not kick the cook, nor do you lick the shoes of the prime minister. You treat them as functionaries - and therefore not as machines - as human beings liable to make mistakes. But the moment you think of status, then disrespect comes in; and the moment disrespect comes in, then you are lost; then you show respect to one and disrespect to another. A mind that understands this whole complex, psychological problem of authority must go into all this because that is one of the roots of fear.

We all demand self-fulfillment, we all want to be somebody. Probably you want to be sitting here instead of me; it is there in the mind. Because we all want to be somebody, to be known, to be famous, to have our names appear in the papers, we want to express ourselves - by writing a book, by painting a picture, or through the family, through the wife, through the children, through the work. Through everything, we want to express ourselves. We never question if there is such a thing as self-expression, but we want to express. The moment you begin to question this whole problem of expression, especially of oneself, then you will see that a mind that is seeking self-expression is always in conflict, is always inviting despair and therefore always frightened and therefore resisting, aggressive. So, you have to know, you have to learn, you have to be aware of this urge to self-express. What do you want to express? What do you mean by self-expression? It essentially comes down to this: to be known by the world - which means what? - to be recognized as a big man, as somebody important, somebody who is very clever, who has attained enlightenment, and all that stuff. And we are craving everlastingly to express ourselves in little things, in big things; and therefore there is competition. Out of this competition there is ruthlessness. And we think that this ruthless capacity, efficiency, is progress. Do watch yourselves, please! You are not listening. Please watch your own life. Then you see how the more capacity, the more intelligence, the more drive you have, the more deeply, the more longingly you want to fulfill, you want to be somebody. When you want to be somebody, this desire is to self-fulfill, either in God or in an idea - for God is an idea - or in a state or in the family. What is implied in this self-expression? You want to be, and the ``you'' is merely an idea, an abstraction, a memory; and that is one of the great sources of fear. So there is ambition, authority, self-expression, and there is the fear of the tomorrow.

Now, what is fear? Fear cannot exist by itself. It is not an abstraction. An abstraction comes into being only when one runs away from fear into an idea, into a concept, into certain activities. Suppose one is afraid, and one's mind is incapable of facing it and seeks an escape from it; then any thought, any activity arising from that escape, from that flight from the fact of fear, breeds an abstraction, a life of contradiction; and a life of contradiction brings more fear, more conflict - all the complexities of existence. So you have to understand fear because fear breeds illusions, fear makes the mind dull. I do not know if you have not noticed, when you are frightened for various reasons, how your mind absolutely withdraws, isolates itself and looks immediately to somebody to help it out; how it builds a wall round itself through various activities, through lies, through every form of activity except facing that fact.

So, we are going to face the fact, this evening - not the speaker's fear, but your fear. How is one to understand that fear? The understanding of that fear is freedom from that fear, and we are going into that. We are going to take a journey, we are going together to commune with that thing which we call fear, because one has to see the importance of understanding fear. It is a necessity to understand it. A mind that lives in fear is a dead mind, is a dull mind; it is a mind that cannot look, see, hear clearly, directly. So, it is very important to understand one's relationships with others, with society, with everything, and to be free of fear, totally - not partially, not fragmentarily, not on various occasions, but completely. I say it is possible, and we will go into that. So, fear is not an abstraction, it is not a thing from which you can run away; it is there. Whether you run away for a day, for a year, for some time, it catches you up wherever you are, and goes with you. You may turn your eyes away from it, but it is there.