Prayer given in Kansas at the opening session of their Senate.
It seems prayer still upsets some people. When Minister Joe
Wright was asked to open the new session of the Kansas Senate,
everyone was expecting the usual generalities, but this is
what they heard:
Heavenly Father, we come before you today to ask
your forgiveness and to seek your direction and
guidance. We know Your Word says, 'Woe to those
who call evil good,' but that is exactly what we
have done.
We have lost our spiritual equilibrium and reversed
our values.
We have exploited the poor and called it
the lottery.
We have rewarded laziness and called it
welfare.
We have killed our unborn and called it
choice.
We have shot abortionists and called it
justifiable.
We have neglected to discipline our
children and called it building self esteem..
We have abused power and called it
politics.
We have coveted our neighbor's possessions
and called it ambition.
We have polluted the air with profanity and
pornography and called it freedom of expression.
We have ridiculed the time-honored values
of our forefathers and called it enlightenment.
Search us, Oh, God, and know our hearts
today; cleanse us from every sin and set us free.
Amen!
The response was immediate. A number of
legislators walked out during the prayer in
protest. In 6 short weeks, Central Christian
Church, where Rev. Wright is pastor, logged more than
5,000 phone calls with only 47 of those calls
responding negatively. The church is now receiving
international requests for copies of this prayer
from India , Africa and Korea .
Thursday, March 5, 2009
I.O.U.'s
Social Security Blues: Social Security has long been a political platform issue for campaign debate, which ends there. Nothing ever gets done to stop the pilferage of this system. Social Security is a National Retirement System, whether you like the term or not. Workers pay into this system all of their lives, but their SS money goes for other uses, unfairly so. Social Security worker contributions must be treated with more respect.
Sing it! "Yes, I got the Welfare Blues, I pay my dues, but I still lose. Yes, I got the Welfare Blues, 'Cause some don't pay no dues. Yes, I got the Welfare Blues, 'Cause I don't want those I.O.U.'s" There is welfare taken out of the Social Security fund, which by the way, has been heisted, misused and replaced with IOU's. Doesn't exist! Federal Government employees do not contribute to any of the welfare that comes out of the Social Security contributions made by workers who pay into and support the SS system over their lifetime. This is to say that the welfare paid out of the SS fund, which has nothing to do with retirement fund benefits, is balanced solely on the back of Social Security worker contributors. Federal Government employees are not paying any share toward the welfare assigned to this fund. It seems to me that welfare is welfare, and every tax payer, including Federal Government employees, should contribute. No worker should be exempt from paying a fair share of all welfare. The government should stop raping the SS contributors of their investment and start charging a Welfare Tax to Federal Government employees. Common workers who pay into SS bear more than a fair share of welfare. Seems like those who pay SS taxes get screwed at every turn. The Federal Government employees have a gravy train going for themselves! And, they double dipped up through the 1980's and can still retire and draw from the SS system after a few quarters. Fair? You be the judge! "Yes, I got the SS Blues, I pay my dues, but I still lose. Yes, I got the SS Blues, 'Cause some don't pay no welfare dues. Yes, I got the SS Blues, 'Cause I don't want those I.O.U.'s"
A major public policy success, welfare reform in the mid-1990s led to a dramatic reduction in welfare dependency and child poverty. This successful reform, however is now in jeopardy: Little-noted provisions in the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate stimulus bills actually abolish this historic reform. In addition, the stimulus bills will add nearly $800 billion in new means-tested welfare spending over the next decade. This new spending amounts to around $22,500 for every poor person in the U.S. The cost of the new welfare spending amounts, on average, to over $10,000 for each family paying income tax.
Ending Welfare Reform
The welfare reform of 1996 replaced the old Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) with a new program named Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF). The key to welfare reform's reduction in dependency was the change in the funding structure of AFDC.[1]
Under the old AFDC program, states were given more federal funds if their welfare caseloads were increased, and funds were cut whenever the state caseload fell. This structure created a strong incentive for states to swell the welfare rolls. Prior to reform, one child in seven was receiving AFDC benefits.
When welfare reform replaced the old AFDC system with TANF, this perverse financial incentive to increase dependence was eliminated. Each state was given a flat funding level that did not vary whether the state increased or decreased its caseload. In addition, states were given the goal of reducing welfare dependence (or at least of requiring welfare recipients to prepare for employment).
The House and Senate stimulus bills will overturn the fiscal foundation of welfare reform and restore an AFDC-style funding system. For the first time since 1996, the federal government would begin paying states bonuses to increase their welfare caseloads. Indeed, the new welfare system created by the stimulus bills is actually worse than the old AFDC program because it rewards the states more heavily to increase their caseloads. Under the stimulus bills, the federal government will pay 80 percent of cost for each new family that a state enrolls in welfare; this matching rate is far higher than it was under AFDC.
It is clear that--in both the House and Senate stimulus bills--the original goal of helping families move to employment and self-sufficiency and off long-term dependence on government assistance has instead been replaced with the perverse incentive of adding more families to the welfare rolls. The House bill provides $4 billion per year to reward states to increase their TANF caseloads; the Senate bill follows the same policy but allocates less money. Robert E. Rector and Katherine Bradley, Heritage Foundation.
Sing it! "Yes, I got the Welfare Blues, I pay my dues, but I still lose. Yes, I got the Welfare Blues, 'Cause some don't pay no dues. Yes, I got the Welfare Blues, 'Cause I don't want those I.O.U.'s" There is welfare taken out of the Social Security fund, which by the way, has been heisted, misused and replaced with IOU's. Doesn't exist! Federal Government employees do not contribute to any of the welfare that comes out of the Social Security contributions made by workers who pay into and support the SS system over their lifetime. This is to say that the welfare paid out of the SS fund, which has nothing to do with retirement fund benefits, is balanced solely on the back of Social Security worker contributors. Federal Government employees are not paying any share toward the welfare assigned to this fund. It seems to me that welfare is welfare, and every tax payer, including Federal Government employees, should contribute. No worker should be exempt from paying a fair share of all welfare. The government should stop raping the SS contributors of their investment and start charging a Welfare Tax to Federal Government employees. Common workers who pay into SS bear more than a fair share of welfare. Seems like those who pay SS taxes get screwed at every turn. The Federal Government employees have a gravy train going for themselves! And, they double dipped up through the 1980's and can still retire and draw from the SS system after a few quarters. Fair? You be the judge! "Yes, I got the SS Blues, I pay my dues, but I still lose. Yes, I got the SS Blues, 'Cause some don't pay no welfare dues. Yes, I got the SS Blues, 'Cause I don't want those I.O.U.'s"
A major public policy success, welfare reform in the mid-1990s led to a dramatic reduction in welfare dependency and child poverty. This successful reform, however is now in jeopardy: Little-noted provisions in the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate stimulus bills actually abolish this historic reform. In addition, the stimulus bills will add nearly $800 billion in new means-tested welfare spending over the next decade. This new spending amounts to around $22,500 for every poor person in the U.S. The cost of the new welfare spending amounts, on average, to over $10,000 for each family paying income tax.
Ending Welfare Reform
The welfare reform of 1996 replaced the old Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) with a new program named Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF). The key to welfare reform's reduction in dependency was the change in the funding structure of AFDC.[1]
Under the old AFDC program, states were given more federal funds if their welfare caseloads were increased, and funds were cut whenever the state caseload fell. This structure created a strong incentive for states to swell the welfare rolls. Prior to reform, one child in seven was receiving AFDC benefits.
When welfare reform replaced the old AFDC system with TANF, this perverse financial incentive to increase dependence was eliminated. Each state was given a flat funding level that did not vary whether the state increased or decreased its caseload. In addition, states were given the goal of reducing welfare dependence (or at least of requiring welfare recipients to prepare for employment).
The House and Senate stimulus bills will overturn the fiscal foundation of welfare reform and restore an AFDC-style funding system. For the first time since 1996, the federal government would begin paying states bonuses to increase their welfare caseloads. Indeed, the new welfare system created by the stimulus bills is actually worse than the old AFDC program because it rewards the states more heavily to increase their caseloads. Under the stimulus bills, the federal government will pay 80 percent of cost for each new family that a state enrolls in welfare; this matching rate is far higher than it was under AFDC.
It is clear that--in both the House and Senate stimulus bills--the original goal of helping families move to employment and self-sufficiency and off long-term dependence on government assistance has instead been replaced with the perverse incentive of adding more families to the welfare rolls. The House bill provides $4 billion per year to reward states to increase their TANF caseloads; the Senate bill follows the same policy but allocates less money. Robert E. Rector and Katherine Bradley, Heritage Foundation.
Stimulis Bill has secret funding of 310,000,000 for VAWA
you can find it here; http://readthestimulus.org/index.php?doc=amdth1&page=43
STATE AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES OFFICE ON VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN PREVENTION AND PROSECUTION PROGRAMS For an additional amount for ‘‘Violence Against Women Prevention and Prosecution Programs’’, $300,000,000 for grants to combat violence against women, as authorized by part T of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3et seq.): Provided, That, $50,000,000 shall be transitional housing assistance grants for victims of domestic violence, stalking or sexual assault as authorized by section 40of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (Public Law 103–322).
SALARIES AND EXPENSES For an additional amount, not elsewhere specified in this title, for management and administration and oversight of programs within the Office on Violence Against Women, the Office of Justice Programs, and the Community Oriented Policing Services Office, $10,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 2010.
STATE AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES OFFICE ON VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN PREVENTION AND PROSECUTION PROGRAMS For an additional amount for ‘‘Violence Against Women Prevention and Prosecution Programs’’, $300,000,000 for grants to combat violence against women, as authorized by part T of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3et seq.): Provided, That, $50,000,000 shall be transitional housing assistance grants for victims of domestic violence, stalking or sexual assault as authorized by section 40of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (Public Law 103–322).
SALARIES AND EXPENSES For an additional amount, not elsewhere specified in this title, for management and administration and oversight of programs within the Office on Violence Against Women, the Office of Justice Programs, and the Community Oriented Policing Services Office, $10,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 2010.
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Lies and Misinformation
Hitler was successful because he controlled the country and the people. Feminists didn’t have that kind of power so they needed to enlist the help of our government. They did that with terrorist statements followed by vile lies and misinformation with the ultimate goal of demonizing all men. Feminists convinced our government to give them billions of tax dollars, enact bias anti male laws that have created the “New double standard” and wide spread Misandry.
During elections everyone talks about smear campaigns and how tired they are of them. Why are they not tired of the forty year smear campaign against men? When men attempt to defend themselves they are called whiners. People have come to accept the cultural messages that something is seriously wrong with being a male.That is of course until this country needs them to defend it against attacks as in WWII and September 11. It then is “men’s duty” to get our guns and defend the very same people that have been attacking us.
Vote
The key to a politician’s success is votes. They work very hard learning how to win votes. They may or may not know how to do anything else but they will do and say whatever it takes to get votes.
During this recent presidential election I watched as Democrats and Republicans pandered to women voters and completely ignored men. Why did they ignore men? Women have outvoted men for the past twenty-eight years.
Obama won the votes of 56 per cent of women, who made up 53 per cent of the electorate. Obama needed 270 electoral votes to win; women alone gave him 285. Until men start voting in much larger numbers, they will continue to be ignored by politicians.
In the 2004 presidential race nine million more women than men voted and it is expected that even more women voted in the 2008 presidential election. In addition, a study by the Women's Campaign Forum showed that women tripled the amount of their donations compared to the 2000 Presidential election.
Innocence Project
In 2009, thousands of men will be falsely accused of murder, rape, and domestic violence. Many of those unfortunate men will have to spend their entire life savings to prove they are innocent, while the ones that do not have the money for a good lawyer will wind up in prison for a crime they did not commit. Will this happen to you, your son? Men and only men are “guilty until proven innocent ” in today’s society. I believe 4 decades of demonizing men is a factor in wrongful convictions.
We are fortunate to have an organization like the Innocence Project. Founded in 1992 by Barry C. Scheck and Peter J. Neufeld at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law at Yeshiva University to assist prisoners who could be proven innocent through DNA testing. To date, DNA testing, including 17 who served time on death row has exonerated 226 people in the United States. These people served an average of 12 years in prison before exoneration and release.
Men's Reality in todays society
To some of the most radical feminists, including the most influential ones, men’s personal guilt or innocence is of no importance at all. What is important is men’s collective guilt, men’s biological identity, and maleness. This makes men an innate threat to society, that is, to women. National Socialism relied on the same idea, of course, but it identified different targets. For the Nazis, Jews and Gypsies were the "sub humans." It is true that feminists are not Nazis; even the most radical feminists, with a few exceptions, do not want to exterminate men. Besides, they have discovered a much easier and cleaner way to achieve their goals within the framework of a democratic and generally liberal society, convincing the public that men have deliberately oppressed women since the dawn of history. In that case, they have a supposedly legitimate reason for urging legislators establish a "level playing field" even if doing so means punishing innocent individual men for the crimes of their ancestors. These men are not guilty of creating patriarchal oppression, say radical feminists, but they are guilty of continuing to benefit from the godlike power and privileges that patriarchy gives to men. Collective guilt, they argue, deserves collective punishment. The means, in short, justifies the end. This is men's reality in modern America.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
