Indentured Slaves of America
Wednesday, September 23, 2009, 12:21 PM - Politics - USA
You didn't know you were an indentured slave?
Let's understand what is an indentured slave. Back in the days of the Pilgrims those who wanted to come to the new land - America - had to have the money for fare and enough to get along when they arrived. Few had it. There were sponsors in America who paid their way in return for 5 years or longer of servitude.
The indentured slaves did the work and kept the sponsors in positions of high income and great power.
Indentured means the workers had to sign a contract agreeing to the terms of the sponsor.
Today slavery in the U.S. and most countries (not all) is not allowed. Today the American slaves don't even realize they have come under the yolk of greedy sociopathic people who seem to be taking care of them just as the original indentured folks were hundreds of years ago.
What do our new indentured slaves do? How did they get that way? Do they even know they are bound to a hidden master?
The hidden master is hiding in plain sight. He (she) lives in the neighborhood. The slaves love their master. Why? Because he continues to feed them and provide freebies of all kinds - free housing, food (stamps), money for TVs, cars, special education, social development, etc., etc. - See Political, International And Religious Issues - Indentured Slaves of America for the full article.
1 comment John Kerry Should Not Be the Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee
Wednesday, September 23, 2009, 12:15 PM - Politics - USA
Senator John Kerry is the Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee in the US Senate and yet, that is far too much power for a gentleman who often sides with France and Germany and the folks in Belgium who would like to rule the world over what is best for the American people and in the best interests of the United States of America. Both France and Germany were selling weapons to Saddam Hussein all the way up to the second Iraqi war.
Senator John Kerry knew this because he also received the intelligence briefings in the U.S. Senate from the CIA, and yet, regardless of this he took the side of France and Germany and those who opposed the Iraqi war as he ran against President George Bush for his second term. Now some would say that having a Senator with strong ties to European Governments and the EU itself is good for foreign relations, but if he is on their side, and not on our side then is what he is doing good for America?
Some say the US foreign-policy, and much of our diplomacy efforts is a giant tactic at the State Department of "good guy/bad guy" and whereas, that might appear to be true, in the case of John Kerry much of his actions and activities during the Iraq war undermined the United States military and our efforts in Iraq. - See Political, International And Religious Issues - John Kerry for the full article.
Our Vanishing Rights
Wednesday, September 23, 2009, 12:10 PM - Politics - USA
Our inalienable rights, guaranteed by the United States Constitution, have steadily become alienable. The actions of Congress and the States are restricting our freedom.
Years ago, with the advent of the automobile, when codifying this new means of transportation, states decreed that having a driver's license was a right. Today, having a driver's license is a privilege. It would be awkward, if not impossible, for the courts to penalize individuals by taking away their right to drive a vehicle.
In many states, you can be ticketed for not having a seat belt fastened when driving a vehicle or not wearing a helmet operating a motorcycle and riding a bicycle.
There are federal and state laws preventing smoking in certain prescribed areas. There are a multitude of rules and regulations dictating how businesses, professions, and manufacturing can be managed.
Politically correct speech, though not a formal law, is an incursion on our vocabulary. A subtle control on how we express ourselves. - See Politics In America - Political Viewpoints - Our Vanishing Rights for the full article.
Health Care Reform - Change Is Not Always the Best Thing For the Country
Wednesday, September 23, 2009, 12:06 PM - Politics - USA
These are in addition to the general problems I have with socialized medicine. Here are some tidbits from my reading of the bill:
Sec. 401. Tax on individuals without acceptable health care coverage.
That's right, if you choose not to take the government option and don't have other insurance you will be taxed at a rate of 2.5% above other Americans who have insurance. So much for your right to choice.
Sec. 412. Responsibilities of non-electing employers.
So, let's say your employer cannot afford insurance for you. It's a small business and insurance is expensive. No problem, they just get nailed with an 8% excise tax. Say goodbye to small businesses.
Sec. 441. Surcharge on high income individuals.
This section is yet another assault on capitalism. if you make more than $350K it will increase your taxes by 1%, 1.5% if more than $500K, and a whopping 5.4% if you make over $1M per year.
So if you are a small business owner who does not provide insurance to employees, does not carry his/her own policy, and makes over $1M per year you are looking at an increase of nearly 15% in taxes related to you and your business.
Section 102. Protecting The Choice to Keep Current Coverage - See Political, International And Religious Issues - Health Care Reform - Change Is Not Always the Best Thing For the Country for the full article.
Pre-Boomers Grew Up Learning What Lawmakers Need to Know Today
Wednesday, September 23, 2009, 12:01 PM - Politics - USA
The rules were simple, but effective, when we pre-boomers were growing up. "Yes," meant "yes." "No," meant "no." "I'll think about it" was a qualified "maybe" that leaned toward "no" but could be "yes," depending on your actions and attitude leading up to dad's final answer. And, pushing for an immediate decision resulted in a certain "no." Have politicians forgotten these basic childhood lessons?
The public, in general, has shown its lack of enthusiasm for continued spending and the consolidation of more parts of our economy to be under government control. This is because we realize, from experience, that this combination will result in higher taxes. The polls, Town Hall meetings and the growing number of signatures on an endless number of petitions clearly indicate the people are saying "no."
Party affiliation is being trumped by the concern citizens have for their own financial situation and personal wellbeing and what the rising national debt means to future generations. Yet the administration insists a health care bill be passed as quickly as possible. Congress used this panic approach on the stimulus package. But, while the House applied the same kind of pressure on the cap and trade bill, it's having troubling clearing the Senate. Do-it-fast legislation is tantamount to asking your father for the car keys next Saturday night, and when he says "I'll think about it" you push for an immediate decision even though the answer is invariably "no." - See Politics In America - Political Viewpoints - Pre-Boomers Grew Up Learning What Lawmakers Need to Know Today for the full article.
What Constitutes Legal Malpractice - 7 Guidelines
Friday, September 11, 2009, 11:22 AM - Law - USA
Legal malpractice is probably less well-known by most people than is another type of malpractice issue: medical malpractice. However, legal malpractice cases can be just as serious as are their medical counterparts. They have potentially far-reaching impact upon the lives of people who have been involved in a legal battle that ended unfavorably due to incompetency or intentional misrepresentation on behalf of the attorney(s) who represented them.
What constitutes legal malpractice and how do you determine whether you may have cause for a legitimate case?
Here are 7 guidelines for discerning whether you may have grounds for a case. Note, however, that it is essential that you consult with a licensed attorney to help you determine if there are grounds for a legitimate case in your particular situation:
Guideline 1: A legal malpractice cases is really a case within a case: Such cases must by definition come about after the close of another case whereby the would-be plaintiff has experienced an unfavorable decision - either a loss or an inadequate settlement. In this sense, a legal malpractice case is really a case within a case. If all of the qualifying conditions for are met, such a case may be brought against the attorney representing the client in the underlying (i.e., original) case. If the first attorney is found to have been negligent or misleading, he or she may be liable for damages to the original plaintiff.
Guideline 2: The concept rests upon the assumption that attorneys are obligated to act competently: Legal malpractice cases are built upon the premise that attorneys, when representing clients in legal cases, are expected to conduct themselves in a professional and competent manner. Like other professionals, attorneys are implicitly trusted by their clients to do everything reasonable within their power to act on behalf of their clients. The failure to do so, especially if a particular legal case ends in an unfavorable decision for the client, may represent grounds for a legitimate case. - See Legal Blog - Legal Information for the full article.
![Powered by Simple PHP Blog ' . $sb_info[ 'version' ] . '](interface/button_sphpblog.png "Powered by Simple PHP Blog ' . $sb_info[ 'version' ] . '")
