Poverty, Crime, Welfare and Minimum wages, Is there a Correlation?

This man believes that there is.




And then there are the words of wisdom from the man who wrote these words. Are they the words of a man who would approve of a socialistic form of a way of life as so many are clamoring for?

"For my own part, I am not so well satisfied of the goodness of this thing. I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I travelled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.

There is no country in the world where so many provisions are established for them; so many hospitals to receive them when they are sick or lame, founded and maintained by voluntary charities; so many alms-houses for the aged of both sexes, together with a solemn general law made by the rich to subject their estates to a heavy tax for the support of the poor. Under all these obligations, are our poor modest, humble, and thankful; and do they use their best endeavors to maintain themselves, and lighten our shoulders of this burthen?

On the contrary, I affirm that there is no country in the world in which the poor are more idle, dissolute, drunken, and insolent. The day you passed that act, you took away from before their eyes the greatest of all inducements to industry, frugality, and sobriety, by giving them a dependence on somewhat else than a careful accumulation during youth and health, for support in age or sickness. In short, you offered a premium for the encouragement of idleness, and you should not now wonder that it has had its effect in the increase of poverty. Repeal that law, and you will soon see a change in their manners.

St. Monday, and St. Tuesday, will cease to be holidays. SIX days shalt thou labour, though one of the old commandments long treated as out of date, will again be looked upon as a respectable precept; industry will increase, and with it plenty among the lower people; their circumstances will mend, and more will be done for their happiness by inuring them to provide for themselves, than could be done by dividing all your estates among them.

Excuse me, Messrs. the Public, if upon this interesting subject, I put you to the trouble of reading a little of my nonsense. I am sure I have lately read a great deal of yours; and therefore from you (at least from those of you who are writers) I deserve a little indulgence."

I am, your’s,
Ben Franklin

And we must not forget the words of Raul Castro;
"Cuba must stop being the only country in the world where it is not necessary to work.”

Ok, Men, That Microwave Can Do More Than Just Reheat Coffee

:Man's Best Friend in Kitchen?

1. Decrystallizing Honey
Honey that has solidified can be brought back to liquid life by uncovering the jar and heating on medium power for 30 seconds to 1 minute.

2. Soften Brown Sugar

Place sugar in a microwave-safe bowl and sprinkle with 1 teaspoon water (regardless of the quantity of sugar). Cover and microwave on low (power level 3) in 1-minute intervals, tossing in between, until soft, 4 to 5 minutes

3. Cook Corn on the Cob

Place unshucked corn on a microwave-safe plate. Microwave on high (power level 10) for 6minutes. Let stand for 5 minutes. Carefully remove the husks and silk.

4. Bake a Potato
Rub a potato with olive oil and place on a microwave-safe plate. Microwave, uncovered, on high (power level 10) until tender and easily pierced with a paring knife, 12 to 14 minutes.

5. Make Applesauce
In a microwave-safe bowl, combine 1 pound peeled and diced apples (Macintosh, Fuji, or Gala are best) with ¼ cup water, 2 teaspoons sugar, and ⅛ teaspoon cinnamon. Cover and microwave on high (power level 10) until the apples are tender, 8 to 10 minutes. Mash with a fork or potato masher.

6. Cook Rice
In a microwave-safe baking dish or medium bowl, combine 1 cup long-grain white rice, 2 cups water, and ½ teaspoon salt. Microwave, uncovered, on high (power level 10) until the rice is tender and the liquid is absorbed, 15 to 18 minutes.

7. Cook Bacon
Sandwich 6 slices of bacon between 2 double layers of paper towels. Place on a microwave-safe plate. Microwave on high (power level 10)until cooked through, 4 to 5 minutes.

8. Warm Tortillas
Wrap tortillas in a damp paper towel. Microwave on high (power level 10) for 40 seconds to 1 minute.

9. Getting More Juice From Citrus Fruits
A lemon or lime taken straight from the refrigerator is harder to juice than one left at room temperature or warmed slightly. To get the most juice, microwave citrus fruits for 20 seconds before squeezing.

10. Proofing Yeast Doughs
Yeast doughs that normally take an hour or more to rise at room temperature can be proofed in the microwave in about 15 minutes. Place the dough in a very large bowl and cover with plastic. Place an 8-ounce cup of water in the back of the microwave with the bowl of dough in the center, and set the power as low as possible (10 percent power). Heat for 3 minutes, then let the dough rest in the microwave for 3 minutes. Heat for 3 minutes longer, then let rest for 6 minutes. The dough will double in bulk.

11. Disinfecting and Deodorizing Sponges
Don't throw out the kitchen sponge that smells like last night's salmon. Soak it in water spiked with white vinegar or lemon juice, then heat it on high for 1 minute. (Use an oven mitt to remove it.) This will also disinfect any sponges you used to wipe up the juices from a raw chicken.

12. Steam Clean the Microwave
Take three or four sheets of paper towels and get them wet. Add a drop of soap. Stick in microwave and turn on for one minute. Leave door closed for five minutes. Allow the steam to loosen the stuck food particles and then just wipe clean.

The End Results of a Constitution Seen as a "Living Document" not as a "Contract"

Ok, folks, this is the kind of Supreme court rulings you can expect to get handed down when you interpret the Constitution in the manner of it being a “living document” instead of it being interpreted in the manner of a “contract”. It is just this type of flexibility that needs to be prevented. It was just this type of government abuse of power that is the reason for constitutional law.

It is just this type of rulings that justifies the accusation that government is abusing the power given to them by the people. So, all of you who thinks that our way of life as given to us by the founding fathers has failed to live up to its promises take a good clear look at the future you are promising the people. Take a good look and see a future that has already failed before you have implemented it completely.

Take a good look at what your government expects of you, the people. It expects that you submit unto its power without the right to protect the privacy of your home now. This is your change you promised. This what we have to hope for in the future. Justify it if you can.

The future you promised is nothing but taking us back to the past prior to the founding fathers when the government had the right to invade your home and do whatever it wanted. This is what you get when you no longer adhere to the principles of individual rights but promote the idea of class rights. Do rulings like this declare that the government is a servant of the people or is it declaring that government is the Master?

And if you look into my past articles you will see many warnings about what can result from the way you interpret life, government, and the constitution. And know this, if we the people submit to rulings such as this I will predict that it will only go downhill from here in regards to individual rights if they are not already been denied to the people.

As for their excuse of the idea that to submit unto the government's power in order to avoid violence is just that, it is just an excuse to grab even greater power. Violence would have been avoided if the agents of the government had acted in accordance to the law. All this ruling did was to deny an individual the right of self-defense. If a man no longer has the right to protect the security of his home then what does he have the right to protect?

Now, what am I speaking of? Of what am I ranting about? It is this.  Read and weep, my friends.  I can't think of anything more shameful than what I have read here.  Liberty has just been lost as it never existed for the people.  I hope you can enjoy your victory my liberal friends.
Court: No right to resist an illegal act of a government agent

a h/t to the Libertarian Patriot

Republicans, Democrats, Independents; A Power Struggle?

Grandpa was sitting out on the back porch with a couple of his old cronies one Sunday afternoon taking in the first real warm days of the Spring season and talking politics, their favorite pastime. One of them was talking about how the two biggest political parties of this nation were not as big as one would believe from what was said about them. He stated that neither party was large enough to carry an election alone thus was dependent upon persuading the Independents of the nation to vote for them.

Upon getting an agreement from the others grandpa piped up with these remarks;

“You always hear about the Democrats, Republicans as well as the Independent voters in the polls. And when these polls add up their numbers they run pretty evenly so as to total all of the voters. Based on this source, Democrats are about 30%, Republicans number about 27% and Independents make up about 38%. this add up to around 95% of the registered voters.

Another source gives the numbers at 32.8% for Independents, 35.4% for Democrats and 31.8% for Republicans. This totals up to 100% of registered voters. Whether or not you consider either one of these source numbers as valid is up to you, the reader. You can probably go do your own research and come up with numbers that are biased in any direction you seek to use if you wanted to.

The primary point I want to make is the fact that regardless of your source the total will be very near or exactly 100% of the registered voters when you add up the numbers of the three political factions. And all of MSM will report any political news using these type of numbers including those news sources that you do not agree with regardless of your own political affiliation or self-designation.

While there may be a general agreement of what constitutes a Democrat or Republican we do need to understand the meaning of what constitutes an Independent. Based on this source an Independent is defined as;

“ An independent voter, often called an unaffiliated voter in the United States, is a voter that is not clearly aligned with a political party. An independent may be variously defined as a voter who votes for candidates and issues rather than on the basis of a political ideology or partisanship a voter who does not have long-standing loyalty to, or identification with, a political party; a voter who does not usually vote for the same political party from election to election; or a voter who self-describes as an independent. “

This is a fine definition as far as I'm concerned and I'm guessing that you are probably thinking along the same lines when you hear stories about this voter. Some sources will even go as far as seek to determine towards which party the Independents lean as if to create a strong perception that we are a two party political system.

The problem being is the fact that in accordance to this source there are fifty-three national political parties. There are also many political parties that have been designated as regional parties also. Of these fifty-three national parties only four were founded before the twentieth century.

They be the Democratic party which was founded in 1828 and the Republican party which was founded in 1854. the other two parties are the Prohibition party founded in 1869 and the Socialist Labor party founded one hundred years after this nation was founded in 1876. they all have their own web sites and can be seen as evenly divided up into the two factions of the right and of the left.

There are thirty political parties that were founded in the twentieth century. The oldest of these is the Communist Party of the United States which was found in 1919. the youngest being the Working family Party and the Independent American party, both founded in 1998. Of these thirty parties twelve of them openly declare themselves as being socialistic or communistic in ideology.

In the twenty-first century there were nineteen political parties founded. The last being founded just last year.

The question that has to be posed is that if the Democratic and Republican parties along with the Independents make up 100% of the voters in this nation then who makes up the membership of all of these other political parties of the nation and regions? Are the numbers so insignificant as to discount them from consideration?

I personally don't have the answer but, Boy, it sure sounds as if it would be a nice research project that you might take on for extra credit for your American History class.

It would be my prediction that with research we would be able to trim this list down and really see just how many political parties of influence there might be. Of course we know that pollsters have already taken this into consideration, don't we? And we know that the two big ones would never allow these smaller ones influence their ideas, don't we?"

I just nodded with a grin but as I thought on it I cringed at the thought of all of the research that a project like this would entail.

Education and Its End Results, A Tale of Failure?



The ball and chain of Ignorance

 You hear the argument a lot by liberals that conservatives seek replace science and to impose theology upon this nation. What are your viewpoints in regards to these statistics about a nation?


A third of the people of this nation believe that the solar system revolves around the earth.

55% of the people of this nation believe that all radioactivity is man-made.

29% of the people of this nation believe that man roamed the earth at the same time as the dinosaurs.

Sounds as if this is a nation that has imposed theology upon its people and ignored science in its educational system, doesn't it? Even I was surprised at these figures when reading about them. Gave me a moment of pause when evaluating the educational system of this nation. Have you any guesses as to which nation these statistics refer to? The answer may surprise you. The answer is here
-------------
WANT TO GET RID OF THE FLEAS IN THE CARPET?
Forget all of the chemical poisons. Get out the vacuum cleaner. Flea Cleanup

The President's House, a Dedication to Slaves, A Reminder of a Time of Constitutional Government

The Memorial of the President's House

Grandpa took grandma and me on a little trip to Philadelphia and while there we took in the historic spots that can be found in this city of love. One of those sites we visited is a newly dedicated memorial. It is called the President's House. It stands where our first President resided during his terms in office. Its focus is on the nine slaves that also resided there, the slaves of President Washington. As we stood there grandpa made this observation. And as he talked a quiet became apparent as the other tourists began to listen to the words of grandpa .

“To me it is more than just a memorial to the people who resided in that house, it is a memorial to a time when it can be said that we were a Constitutional government. It reminds us and exemplifies the division of powers between the federal and State governments. For it is there that clearly shows that even the President of the United States knew he was subject to State law when it came to the issue of slavery not to federal laws.

It also reveals that when it came to domestic affairs State laws were the dominant laws of the land, not federal law. This is the core meaning of State rights. This is revealed by the fact that even the President of the United States was subject to State laws when the issue of slavery was being addressed and not the federal Constitution.

Pennsylvania law at the time declared every slave was a free man after a six months residency in the State. President Washington used a loophole in that law in order to keep his slaves by taking them out of the State prior to the completion of their six months residency. Even the most die hard of ideologist will have to admit that if the federal Constitution is and was the dominant law of the land as they claim then there would have been no need for the President to do what President Washington did in regards to his slaves.

This viewpoint would also be consistent with the idea behind the proposed Corwin amendment passed by Congress at the time of Lincoln. It would also be consistent with the claim of the President of the Confederacy when he declared that the war was a war in defense of State rights rather than a fight over the issue of slavery as some like to claim.

So, what is the bottom line? We know by President Lincoln's own words he did not lead the union to war to free the slave but in order to maintain the Union of States.  If it had been a war over slavery as claimed then the President would have been duty bound by oath to defend the Constitutional rights of the slave owner. 

We know by the words of the President of the Confederacy they did not fight the war over the issue of slavery but over the issue of defending State rights established by the Constitution. Slavery was just the particular issue of debate which is within the broader issue of State rights which the federal Constitution implied. Even if it had been a war over slavery as claimed then the Southern States were fighting a war in defense of the Constitutional rights of the individual slave owner.

This does not mean that the federal government had no say in regards to the issue of slavery. The federal government had and still does have the power and authority over the issue of immigration. It is a known fact the the federal government had outlawed the importation of slaves but its power and authority ended there.  Once a person crosses the border into a State that person become subject to State laws. that was the Constitutional intent of the founding of this great nation of ours.

The end result of that war is that we are a nation ruled by men now and not by the rule of law as so founded. If we were ruled by the rule of law as established there would be no diagreement of the interpretation of the Constitution. And we are an unfortunate generation to be a witness to the corruption of that rule of law and now must pay the consequences of the corruption. And I can only see the principle of compromise as being the cause of this corruption. It is ideological differences that requires that one compromise their principles and this corruption of principles did not occur over night but over a long period of time.”

As I looked around at the small gathering of people when grandpa finished his history lesson I could see from the look on their faces that they were thinking about what grandpa said and were disturbed by his words.

A Rebuttal to E.J. Dionne About the Civil War Causes

“Grandpa, there is an article in the Washington Post about the cause of the Civil war written by E.J. Dionne and claims that slavery was the reason for the Civil war. How does that affect our conclusions that we have come to from our own research? Is he right or wrong?”

Grandpa sat down in front of the computer and began reading the article that I had brought up entitled, Don't Spin The Civil War. When he had finished reading he turned and looked at me with a smile upon his face. Then he asked me a couple of questions.

“Boy, the man is guilty of doing exactly what he accuses others of doing in regards to this issue of cause. First of all who were the men he quoted as to justify his claim?

I reread the article and said, “one of the men he quoted was Alexander Stephans who was the Vice President of the newly formed Confederacy, grandpa and the other one was Jefferson Davis, the President of the Confederacy.”

Grandpa then asked, “Boy, there is always two sides to every war do you see any quotes from anyone that would be representative of the Northern side?”

I only shook my head so as to indicate that there was no quotes as asked about.

“ That in itself would indicate a biased opinion, boy and that is the first thing you should notice in any opinion piece that is written.  Be very wary of these type of arguments.  They only reveal half of the story.

Alright, boy, let's examine those quotes and see if they are pertinent to the actual cause of the war. First of all the vice President's quote was referring to a past event not a future event. Thus the “late” rupture that he refers to is the secession of the southern States from the Union not the war itself and these are two different issues even though one led to the other. That speech was given in March of 1861 and the war did not start until April of that year.

In the quote of Jefferson Davis one can see very clearly that he was referring to the issue of secession and not the war. Given these facts we can only conclude that Douglas Egerton doesn't understand his own facts when he declared that the position of the cause of the war kept changing. Both, Davis and Stephans were being consistent in their words because they were addressing one issue, secession and their reasons for secession, prior to the war and another issue after the war, the reason of the war itself.

From our own research, boy, we know that slavery was not the primary concern for President Lincoln, maintaining the Union as it existed was his concern as we discussed in a previous post. We also learned that the federal government at that time recognized that slavery was a State's right when the Corwin amendment was proposed. And we can declare this as a truth from the fact that 16 States by their own power and authority outlawed slavery. We must concede that without the power and authority to do so then slavery would have been legal in every State not just in those southern States.

So, boy, given this, who is spinning the cause of the Civil War, Dionne or those he accuses of spinning the war? Remember, boy, you should not believe everything you read. Learn to ascertain the difference between opinion and facts and just believe the facts.  And don't  forget to get both sides of the story before making a decision on issues.  Lastly, don't allow your feelings about a certain issue corrupt your thinking in regards to the events of history. A biased viewpoint will never reveal the whole truth, and this is especially true in politics"

I just grinned and smiled as my faith in the wisdom of grandpa was renewed.

Grandpa's Rules for a Good Arguement

I was on the computer reading some political blogs when grandpa came and sat down beside me. After he had finished reading a post that I had up he had this to say to me.


“Boy, politics is a mighty funny thing. By the very nature of it people will argue over the role that government should play in the solution of the problems of a society. What people generally do not understand is that most of the problems of society are in actuality personal problems and best left up to individuals to solve. For government to solve these problems would require the people of government to have knowledge of each and every person’s problem and that is impossible.

So, boy, when you are listening to people argue over politics take notice of the following tell tale signs of a poor argument and don’t emulate them.  I see them far too often when people argue over political solutions.  They reveal more about the person speaking then they do about the person that they are talking about.

Don’t stereotype a people. It convinces no one except those who need no convincing and usually they consist of persons with a herd mentality. When you hear persons argue using isolated incidences as evidence of their truths, be skeptical of their argument. Be skeptical of their intent and purpose. Stereotyping very seldom gives a accurate view of a people.

Don’t take a person’s words out of context of their intent regardless of how those words may affect your feelings. Your feelings do not justify assuming intent. The person that gets hurt most is yourself because you have lost an opportunity to learn something. This is the biggest problem with the concept of politically correct speech. It focuses on the words used rather than the thought conveyed.

Don’t presume someone else is wrong just because you believe yourself as being right. Remember that the other person thinks they are right also. In disagreements, seek a common ground and work towards an agreement from there. By this I mean, find something the both of you agree on then use that as the foundation to work towards an agreement.

Don’t label people in a demeaning manner. That, in itself, is evidence that you have no argument or rebuttal to counter the other person’s argument. It serves only one purpose and that purpose is to affect a person’s feelings rather than to convince. Demeaning a person or persons only reveals your own superior attitude towards others.

Don’t be afraid of showing your ignorance by asking questions about the other person’s stance. Regardless of how much you know and understand an issue always be open- minded enough to believe that there is more to learn. . The recognition of our own ignorance is the first step towards wisdom and knowledge.

Recognize that everyone has their own faults and that everyone has made mistakes in their life. This is human nature. Be sure of the benefits and consequences before making accusations based upon these faults or mistakes. Your own faulty mistake of judgment may have short-term benefits but long term consequences and you may have to pay the price of the consequences for that judgment.

Be informed but be sure that you are informed on the facts. Don’t rely on others to give you the facts and that includes persons that you agree with politically. When you find a discrepancy in the facts as others see them, keep it to yourself until you can resolve the discrepancy on your own. There are too many assumptions floating around masquerading themselves as facts as it is.

Remember, most of all, do not compromise your principles in coming to an agreement with others. It is better that the both of you remain in disagreement and allow time to determine who has the better solution to a problem if there actually is a problem. A lot of our problems will solve themselves if we allow them to.

.  Follow these rules, boy, and do so not because you will convince others to your way of thinking but out of self-respect and respect for your own viewpoint.”

Grandpa feels so Shamed

Standing behind grandpa as he was debating an issue with another person in a blog he suddenly chuckled at what his opponent was saying and I asked; "What’s so funny, grandpa."

Grandpa just pushed his chair back and said; "You can learn a lot in a debate if you know what to look for, boy. And today I just got a college education from all I learned from this debate. Ahhhhh, the arrogance of my ignorance was so openly revealed" Then he went quiet and chuckled once more.

I learned today that we overthrew a government that was saving lives by preventing religious factions from killing each other. Here I thought we overthrew a government that was found guilty of committing crimes against the people of Iraq.

" I learned today that decisions made and recorded are not facts. What they are, I have no idea but they are not to be considered as a fact.

I learned today that even if we are victorious in the war against the insurgents in Iraq Geo. Bush would still be defeated by world opinion.

I learned today that if you cite a source for your argument it is your credibility that must be questioned before your source is acceptable. Here I thought you questioned the credibility of the source before an arguement was acceptable.

I learned today that if you praise a soldier for accomplishing his mission, that is stroking his ego. Here I thought it was giving him a compliment.

I learned today that the definition of an insurgency does not tell me the intent of the insurgent and that I have no idea of his intent. Here I thought he was defined as an insurgent because it declared his intent.

I learned today that the word lost depicts the end result of a future conclusion of a war not the end result of the conclusion of a past war as I was taught.

I learned today that refusing to continue a debate instead of answering an unsubstantiated allegation about myself is being cowardly."

Then grandpa just looked at me with twinkling eyes and then leaned forward, placed his head in his hands and mockingly whispered "Ohhh the shame I feel. How will I ever live this down"

I just chuckled.