Consider This 2
United we stand !
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.
Then they came for the socialists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Catholic.
Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me.
A recent "Investor's Business Daily" article provided very
Percentage of men and women who survived a cancer five years
Percentage of patients diagnosed with diabetes who received
Percentage of seniors needing hip replacement who received it
Percentage referred to a medical specialist who see one within
Number of MRI scanners (a prime diagnostic tool) per million
Percentage of seniors (65+), with low income, who say they are
And now for the last statistic:
National Health Insurance?
Check this last set of statistics!!
The percentage of each past president's cabinet who had worked
T. Roosevelt................... 38%
Wilson ......................... 52%
F. Roosevelt... ................ 50%
Eisenhower...... .......... .... 57%
GH Bush.......................... 51%
Clinton ........................... 39%
GW Bush.......................... 55%
Obama........... ................. 08%
This helps to explain the incompetence of this administration:
That's right! Only eight percent---the least, by far, of the
How can the president of a major nation and society, the one
Pass this on because we'll NEVER see these facts in the main
The Land of Lincoln, where governors make our license plates!!!!
Matrix Programming 101: Destroy Logic
By Jon Rappoport January 10, 2013
Once upon a time, in medieval universities, new students enrolled in the Trivium. It was the foundation curriculum. It was required. Its parts were: grammar, logic, and rhetoric.
Grammar: the interior construction of language; the parts of speech; the proper agreement of parts of speech.
Logic: the valid and invalid connections in the course of an argument; the method of proper reasoning; the deductive links in a chain, at the end of which is a conclusion.
Rhetoric: oral presentation; the use of language to make a case; the capacity to persuade, even in the face of counter-argument.
Today, the subject matter of the Trivium is not only downplayed. It has been shattered.
This article focuses on the death of logic.
When the intensive handling of ideas is seen as a laughable goal for education, indoctrination is plugged in as the only alternative.
The mind of the student shifts from being an active force to being a container.
The destruction of logic is a conscious strategy, a game plan. Its goal is to pervert rational thought at its core and insert ideology masked as insight.
The game plan was cooked up a long time ago at the Carnegie Foundation, where the undermining of American history was the number-one pastime.
Instead of merely erasing knowledge of American history, it was decided that the basic way ideas are studied should be torpedoed.
The actual meaning of an idea was firmly placed on the back burner. Front and center would be: relentlessly assess and attack the people who forwarded those ideas.
And sure enough, this strategy has gained great prominence.
"The revered Founders of the Republic? Shysters, con men, slaveholders, monopolists who saw rebellion from England as the way to win greater power for themselves, at the expense of everyone else living on American soil."
Therefore, the argument continues, and this is crucial, the Founders' ideas, as expressed in the Declaration and the Constitution, were rotten to the core. The ideas can be dismissed out of hand as coming from "a bad source."
If you want to see that sleight-of-hand trick in action, just visit a few American studies classes in universities and catch the wave.
Ideas no longer need to be judged on their sense, merit, and alignment with basic principles. Nor are they judged by their position in a well-formed argument. All that is out. Now, you have to "look to the source" and make all your decisions based on "who these people really were who expressed the ideas."
And since that's the case, learning to think or reason is unnecessary.
New education, then, once you strip away the old essentials, is really nothing more than learning who the bad guys were and the good guys were. This can be taught by ideologically motivated professors in a few hours.
In logic, this used to be called the fallacious ad hominem argument. Now it's not called anything. It's praised as the insightful way to do intellectual business.
In the case of the Founders' ideas, we have, among others: the free market; individual freedom; private property; severely limited central government.
No need to examine these concepts. No need to assess, for instance the success of the free market, despite its corruption by criminals and monopolists, in providing a better standard of living for millions of people. Forget it. All you have to know is that the free market was proposed by phony American aristocrats who wanted more power for themselves. On that basis alone, you can reject the free market.
How about private property? Same thing. The same phony Founders put that idea forward; therefore, it must be wrong.
Thomas Jefferson? He owned slaves. Therefore, as the night follows day, everything he said or thought or did was wrong.
See how easy education has become?
Individual freedom? Another absurdity proposed by the crooked Founders. Reject it. Don't bother thinking about what that freedom has allowed you to express. Who cares?
So, one by one, these core ideas fall to the ax, and criticizing America becomes destroying America.
To argue that very bad people have taken over an idea, and therefore the idea itself was never good, is like arguing that, since hijackers took over a plane, the plane was a despicable object altogether and probably deserved to be stolen or blown up.
Once the core ideas and ideals of the American Republic are destroyed, new ideas inevitably take their place. The possibilities are endless. But here is, in fact, what has happened:
Instead of the sanctity of private property and right of its owner to protect it, we now have, coming into vogue, "assigned use." This means someone somewhere, at the top of the food chain, will decide how property should be deployed, for the greatest good of the greatest number.
He determines the definition of greatest good.
Instead of individual freedom, we have the collective need. Behavior should be adapted to the group. How this is defined falls to our leaders.
The free market becomes central planning and distribution of goods and services.
It can be quite interesting to discuss these matters with people who have been educated "in the new way."
On the issue of the free market, I had a PhD candidate tell me this: The idea of the free market was a smokescreen. It was proposed as a way for the very rich to dominate commerce. The "free market" was a non-concept. It never existed. It was an illusion, like people sprouting wings and flying.
You might be surprised by the number of people who believe this. They are essentially saying that the very EXISTENCE of an idea depends on WHO expressed the idea. If the wrong person first expressed it, it was never real.
Students with a vast sense of self-entitlement and meaningless self-esteem love this stuff. It allows them to parade around and call the shots and decide which ideas are worthy and which aren't, without reflection. They have a scorecard of good guys and bad guys and that's all they need.
In the world of social engineering, here is the larger program:
first make every idea dependent for its value on who proposed it;
attack the men who created the Constitution and thereby trash all the founding ideas of the Republic;
instead substitute the notion of oppressors and the oppressed---all the bad people who founded the Republic were the oppressors;
cultivate, encourage, and create many groups within society as "the oppressed";
come in behind that with big government as the answer to the problems of the oppressed;
ratchet up dependence and government control to new heights.
Of course, big government, under its humanitarian banners, is a dictator. To maintain the illusion that it is not, there must be new oppressed people, new victims, new helpless people coming out of the woodwork all the time whom the government can help.
From this angle, it doesn't matter whether the ever-growing dependent population is genuine or not. Sorting out the real from the imaginary obviously isn't part of the program. Nor does it matter how government is disenfranchising people to make them into victims.
Some people see labeling themselves victims as a winning strategy for their lives. Others actually are getting their noses shoved down into the mud.
In our teaching institutions, you could look in vain to find courses on the individual, his freedom, his power. That's gone.
It's all about: what group do you belong to? What are the needs of that group? Who is oppressing your group? How can you get government to solve the problem?
Once the oppressor-oppression model is set in stone, everything that follows is a disaster.
Oppressor-oppression equals victim-rescuer. The rescuer turns out to be a tyrant. He gives and he takes. He makes the rules. He builds his power.
If you can educate the young to make snap judgments about core ideas, you eliminate their capacity to reason. You own them.
You turn them out as programmed androids. They follow your game plan.
From that point on, they hold a hostile attitude toward anyone who can discuss and analyze ideas. They look at such people as an entitled and privileged class who is speaking a foreign language. If overnight, you discovered that the most elevated members of society were all speaking Hungarian and nothing else, do you think you could maintain a friendly attitude toward them?
Here is another tool of the new education. Blur over the distinction between a widespread condition and a universal defining condition. For example, yes, there are oppressors and there are people they are oppressing. True. But to move from that and say the very ideas at the core of society were designed, everywhere and at all times, to create only oppressors and the oppressed...that's a vast generality which leads to all-inclusive programmatic general solutions.
And those solutions, voila, turn out to be the means of making slaves.
Criticizing America is productive only when it has a reference point for comparison. A rational discussion to establish the reference point is essential. Are we going to hold up a mirror to the founding ideas of the Republic, or are we going to say, for example, that the true and proper purpose of government should be to alleviate suffering? And if the latter, what exactly does that alleviation entail? How far does it go? Who does it punish in the process?
This isn't a brush-off conversation. In order to participate in it, people have to be able to follow a train of thought. If they can't, because they were educated not to, where are we? We're in the dark. We're living by slogans.
Freedom? Liberty? Collective need? Responsibility? It doesn't matter what ideas are on the table, because the overwhelming number of people don't know what an idea is. They don't know how to walk up to one and look at it from several sides. They don't know how to trace its implications. They don't know how to fit that idea alongside its cousins. They don't see a Whole. They see the ceaseless spinning machinery of an alien process, from which they've been excluded.
Then, no matter what shape society takes, it's a dumbshow, as far the majority of its citizens are concerned.
Who solves that?
The invasive State takes charge. It picks up the pieces of the wreckage it was a key actor in delivering.
Ever since the ratification of the Constitution, the actions of the federal government have confirmed the need for the limitations written into that document. New needs and crises have "demanded" illegitimate expansion of federal power.
In order to convince the people that this expansion was, at every turn, vital, the goal of educating citizens about what it means to take part in a Republic had to be blunted. This was done, a step at a time, through education.
Dismantling the ability to reason, employ logic, and handle ideas was the prow of that destructive campaign.
And yet...logic isn't only a subject that's taught to students whose minds are a blank slate. There is an inherent tendency toward rational thought that persists, despite programming to the contrary.
For example, if a television station or web site offered a prolonged debate between two intelligent people on the meaning of the 2nd Amendment---a real debate, not just a brush-off---many viewers would be intensely interested.
I'm talking about an old-style debate, one that lasted at least several hours, with each proponent allowed sufficient time to make his case fully. No name calling or shouting of slogans. No interruptions from either side. No stupid moderators.
This traditional long-form format would serve to wake people up to the fact they have minds, they can think, they can spot contradictions and non-sequiturs.
Or, as I've suggested before, why not a Debate Channel, devoted exclusively to key issues of our time, taken up in the long-form?
True, many viewers would tune out. But others would feel a jolt of inspiration. A sense of deja vu. "I've been here before. I can't remember when."
Yes, they've been here before, when they could think and reason, before the curtain was lowered.
Actual reasoned debate could become a growing trend. And by contrast, the insane nonsense that presently passes for argument on television would be highlighted as a counterfeit substitute, a fool's errand.
You can make your own list of vital issues you'd like to see debated, in the long-form, by people who know their material (not merely the usual dome heads and pundits). I have my list.
It's never too late to wake up. It really isn't.
For instance, suppose we had a ten-hour reasoned debate, over the course of two days, on television, or on the Web, on this simple question:
What really happened at Sandy Hook?
Do you think that might draw a few viewers?
Are you kidding?
It would outrank many major network programs. It would put the networks' coverage to shame.
Never a bad thing.
Coda: Here is an illustration of no-logic in action. It occurs in a recent article in the Washington Post, "Uncle of young Newtown shooting victim turning tragedy into action."
From the headline alone, we pick up the slant of the article. It's going to praise the uncle for being able to turn grief into action.
The uncle is attorney Alexis Haller. His nephew, Noah Pozner, was killed in the Sandy Hook shooting.
The Post article tells us that Haller has worked as a lawyer for the Vatican. We don't learn exactly what he did for the Vatican, but it's more or less suggested that, because Haller has a keen interest in "reporting requirements," where child abuse is occurring, he may have had something to do with the Vatican now "expecting" (requiring?) bishops to report pedophile priests to law-enforcement authorities.
This is quite fuzzy. The Post doesn't clarify what role, if any, Haller played in the new Vatican expectations/requirements.
Nevertheless, the article presses on to indicate that Haller saw a way to codify reporting requirements in situations of imminent violence, like Sandy Hook. In fact, Haller has written (or made notes on?) a bill:
When a person "has knowledge of a grave or imminent threat of serious harm or death made by someone with access to a gun," that person must notify the police within 24 hours.
Haller has met with Joe Biden's committee and discussed his proposal.
The article doesn't bother to take up how this bill, if made into law, would be enforced, or what implications might flow from it---such as the birthing of an expanded snitch mentality; and excessive, wrong-headed, or even malicious reporting in cases where the threat of imminent violence wasn't real.
No, this article, we learn, is more a human interest story about Alexis Haller and what's he's motivated to do in the wake of the death of his nephew.
The Post article doesn't bother to cover Haller's actual history as a defense lawyer for the Vatican. For example, in a case involving the sexual abuse of a Portland, Oregon, boy, in the 1960s, where a 2011 suit was filed against the Holy See, Haller was defending the Vatican, claiming that the pedophile priest, Andrew Ronan, was committing crimes against children without the knowledge of the Holy See, and was not an employee of the Vatican.
Why is this significant? Because the Post article states: "Haller had crafted and forwarded several proposals to prevent future gun violence that were shaped by his experience as a lawyer for the Holy See."
Which part of that experience? Ahem, cough-cough.
By the end of the article, we know nothing about the precise wording of Haller's new bill to limit gun violence.
We do know that he was tragically connected to the Sandy Hook shootings. We know his initial efforts to have input in new gun legislation were ignored. We know he overcame that problem. We see his posed picture above the article, in which he's walking in the rain under an umbrella.
We understand the Post is "on his side."
This is the old ad hominen argument, in which the person forwarding an idea is more important than the actual content of the idea...except in this case, the person isn't being attacked, he's being praised.
As if that gives more credibility to his idea, the precise legal content of which we don't know.
Use this link to order Jon's Seminar Series
We're the Battling Bastards of Benghazi,
"The fact that we are here today to debate raising America 's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the US Government cannot pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies. Increasing America 's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that, "the buck stops here.' Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better."
~ Senator Barack H. Obama, March 2006
My husband and I started our business in Oct of 2007. We took money out of our own accounts, never applied for any grants, worked 12 hrs per day to get it going, forked out a fortune for our own private insurance, & spent thousands advertising to let potential customers know we're there.
Our connection to the government includes paying sales tax, paying income tax, buying a business license, paying fees for services such as water, sewer and garbage collection, paying for government required education to run our own credit card terminal, paying fees government required to learn how to drive our delivery truck that we can't afford to repaint, fees for tags and inspection for same truck, spent hundreds on upgrades after fire inspector stopped by to inspect our 100year old building we rent and don't own. Need I go on?
If customers want to know why products are so high, add up the fees. If Obama is reelected, we will not carry as much inventory because we're breaking even now. Four more years of his policies and full Obamacare could be the death blow for thousands of small businesses. We employ 3 full time and 2 part time along with purchasing wholesale from local crafters. That will affect a lot of jobs.
You know you live in an Upside-down Land if...
· A Muslim officer crying "Allah Akbar" while shooting up an army base is considered to have committed"Workplace Violence" while an American citizen boasting a Ron Paul bumper sticker is classified as a "Domestic Terrorist".
· You can get arrested for expired tags on your car but not for being in the country illegally.
· Your government believes that the best way to eradicate trillions of dollars of debt is to spend trillions more of our money.
· A seven year old boy can be thrown out of school for calling his teacher "cute" but hosting a sexual exploration or diversity class in grade school is perfectly acceptable.
· The Supreme Court of the United States can rule that lower courts cannot display the 10 Commandments in their courtroom, while sitting in front of a display of the 10 Commandments.
· Working class Americans pay for their own health care (and the health care of everyone else) while unmarried women are free to have child after child on the "State's" dime while never being held responsible for their own choices.
· Hard work and success are rewarded with higher taxes and government intrusion, while slothful, lazy behavior is rewarded with EBT cards, WIC checks, Medicaid and subsidized housing.
· The government's plan for getting people back to work is to provide 99 weeks of unemployment checks (to not work).
· Being self-sufficient is considered a threat to the government.
· Politicians think that stripping away the amendments to the constitution is really protecting the rights of the people.
· The rights of the Government come before the rights of the individual.
· Parents believe the State is responsible for providing for their children.
· You pay your mortgage faithfully, denying yourself the newest big screen TV while your neighbor defaults on his mortgage (while buying iphones, TV's and new cars) and the government forgives his debt and reduces his mortgage (with your tax dollars).
· Your government can add anything they want to your kid's water (fluoride, chlorine, etc.) but you are not allowed to give them raw milk.
· Being stripped of the ability to defend yourself makes you "safe".
· You have to have your parents signature to go on a school field trip but not to get an abortion.
· An 80 year old woman can be stripped searched by the TSA but a Muslim woman in a burqa is only subject to having her neck and head searched.
Our world has been turned upside-down. We are in distress. Where do we go from here?
"COWARDICE asks the question - is it Safe?"
"EXPEDIENCY asks the question - is it Politically Correct?"
"VANITY asks the question - is it Popular?"
"But the CONSCIENCE asks the question - is it Right?"
"And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither, Safe, nor Politically Correct, nor Popular, but one must take it, because its RIGHT!!"
The liberals are asking us to give Obama time.
Q: Have you heard about McDonalds new Obama value meal?
Q: What does Barack Obama call lunch with a convicted felon?
Q: What's the difference between Obama's cabinet and a penitentiary?
Q: If Nancy Pelosi and Obama were on a boat in the middle of the ocean and it started to sink, who would be saved?
Q: What's the difference between Obama and his dog, Bo?
Q: What was the most positive result of the "Cash for Clunkers" program?
History Lesson on Your Social Security Card
Just in case some of you young whippersnappers (& some older ones) didn't know this. It's easy to check out, if you don't believe it. Be sure and show it to your family and friends. They need a little history lesson on what's what and it doesn't matter whether you are Democrat or Republican. Facts are Facts.
Social Security Cards up until the 1980s expressly stated the number and card were not to be used for identification purposes. Since nearly everyone in the United States now has a number, it became convenient to use it anyway and the message, NOT FOR IDENTIFICATION, was removed.
An old Social Security card with the "NOT FOR IDENTIFICATION"message.
Our Social Security
1.) Participation in the Program would be completely voluntary,
No longer Voluntary
2.) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual Incomes into the Program,
Now 7.65%on the first $90,000
3.) That the money the participants elected to put into the Program would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year,
No longer tax deductible
4.) That the money the participants put into the independent 'Trust Fund' rather than into the general operating fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other Government program, and,
Under President Johnson the money was moved to The General Fund and Spent
5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income.
Under Clinton & Gore, up to 85% of your Social Security can be Taxed
Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are now receiving a Social Security check every month -- and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of the money we paid to the Federal government to 'put away' -- you may be interested in the following:
------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ----
Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the independent 'Trust Fund' and put it into the general fund so that Congress could spend it?
A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the Democratically controlled House and Senate.
------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --
Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?
A: The Democratic Party.
------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -----
Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social Security annuities?
A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the 'tie-breaking' deciding vote as President of the Senate, while he was Vice President of the US
------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -
Q: Which Political Party decided to start giving annuity payments to immigrants?
AND MY FAVORITE:
------------ -- ------------ --------- ----- ------------ --------- ---------
Then, after violating the original contract (FICA), the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social Security away!
And the worst part about it is uninformed citizens believe it!
First President to apply for college aid as a foreign student, then deny he ever was a foreigner.
Eye-opening when you work the numbers.
JOE vs. JOSE
Joe Legal works in construction, has a Social
Jose Illegal also works in construction, has NO
Ready? Now pay attention...
Joe Legal: $25.00 per hour x 40 hours = $1000.00 per
Jose Illegal: $15.00 per hour x 40 hours = $600.00
Joe Legal pays medical and dental insurance with
Jose Illegal has full medical and dental coverage
Joe Legal makes too much money and is not eligible
Jose Illegal has no documented income and is
Joe Legal pays rent of $1,200.00 per month, or
Jose Illegal receives a $500.00 per month federal
Joe Legal pays $200.00 per month, or $2,400.00 for
Jose Illegal says, "We don't need no stinkin'
Joe Legal has to make his $7,231.00 stretch to pay
Jose Illegal has to make his $31,200.00 stretch to
Joe Legal now works overtime on Saturdays or gets a
Jose Illegal has nights and weekends off to enjoy
Joe Legal's and Jose Illegal's children both attend
Joe Legal and Jose Illegal both enjoy the same
Do you get it, now?
If you vote for or support any politician that
You are part of the problem!
It's way PAST time to take a stand for America and
Remember, not only did you contribute to Social Security but your employer did too. It totaled around 15% of your income before taxes. If you averaged only 30K over your working life, that's close to $220,500.
The folks in Washington have pulled off a bigger Ponzi scheme than Bernie Madhoff ever thought of; and they put HIM in jail..
Entitlement my ass , I paid cash for my social security insurance!!!!
Just because they borrowed the money , doesn't make my benefits some kind of charity or handout !!
Congressional benefits , aka. free healthcare , outrageous retirement packages, 67 paid holidays , three weeks paid vacation, unlimited paid sick days , now that's welfare , and they have the nerve to call my retirement entitlements !!!
What the HELL's wrong???
WAKE UP AMERICA !!!!
The next time you hear a politician use the Word 'billion' in a casual manner, think about Whether you want the 'politicians' spending YOUR tax money.
A billion is a difficult number to comprehend, But one advertising agency did a good job of putting that figure into some perspective in one of its releases.
A. A billion seconds ago it was 1959.
While this thought is still fresh in our brain... let's take a look at New Orleans ...(it's amazing what you can learn with some simple division)
Last year,Louisiana Senator, Mary Landrieu (D) was asking Congress for 250 BILLION DOLLARS To rebuild New Orleans.
What does this number mean?
Papa Chips ............. 815-633-8300
Zoellic Consulting ... 815-540-5144
Larsen's Eye Care +...815-520-1303
The Wool Gathering..815-637-9666
Five Star Plumbing - 815-639-1016
BulletStop GunShop 815-654-7550