What if Everyone Was on Welfare?

When my son was a Missionary in Boston, Massachusetts, he spent 2 years contacting and teaching people about the Mormon Church. He had the opportunity to work with many people in the Boston Housing Projects. 

While there, he noticed a peculiar thing; each of the project buildings housed hundreds of families and yet, building after building had no one that held a job. Everyone lived of welfare, food stamps, disability, or some other form of assistance. 

The most ironic discovery was that neighbors would meet together to teach other residents how to best utilize the welfare system to receive as much as possible.

So, the questions arises, What if everyone was on welfare?

Except for a few altruistic individuals who have to be productive to remain sane:

• There would be no one would grow any food.
• There would be no one to make food.
• There would be no one to build homes.
• There would be no one to sell food.
• There would be no one to rent an apartment from.
• There would be no one to sell you a home.
• There would be no one to teach our children.
• There would be no taxes for the Government to re-distribute.
• There would be no convenience stores to rob.

The only remaining option would be for the Government to step in and assign everyone a task so that;

• Food would be produced.
• Food would be processed.
• Food would be sold.
• Homes and apartments would be sold and rented.
• There would be taxes to re-distribute.
• There would be convenience stores to rob.

Question: Which country today does this sound like?

1. Russia
2. China
3. Cuba
4. All of the above

Reminds me of a story in the Reader's Digest years ago.

“In our friendly neighbor city of St. Augustine, (Florida), great flocks of sea gulls are starving amid plenty. Fishing is still good, but the gulls don’t know how to fish. For generations they have depended on the shrimp fleet to toss them scraps from the nets. Now the fleet has moved. …

“The shrimpers had created a Welfare State for the … sea gulls. The big birds never bothered to learn how to fish for themselves and they never taught their children to fish. Instead they led their little ones to the shrimp nets.

“Now the sea gulls, the fine free birds that almost symbolize liberty itself, are starving to death because they gave in to the ‘something for nothing’ lure! They sacrificed their independence for a hand-out.

“A lot of people are like that, too. They see nothing wrong in picking delectable scraps from the tax nets of the U.S. Government’s ‘shrimp fleet.’ But what will happen when the Government runs out of goods? What about our children of generations to come?

“Let’s not be gullible gulls. We … must preserve our talents of self-sufficiency, our genius for creating things for ourselves, our sense of thrift and our true love of independence.” (“Fable of the Gullible Gull,”Reader’s Digest, Oct. 1950, p. 32.)

Courtesy of RI Future

Lest you think the St Augustine story is an anomaly, another article a few years ago from Houma, Louisiana, explains how another group of these Welfare Gulls move from one gravy train to another:

Gulls head inland as spill curbs easy meals

HOUMA — In his four decades of business on the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, Mike Voisin says he’s never seen a seagull at Motivatit Seafood’s Palm Avenue oyster-processing plant. But today they’re taking over.

The scavenging gulls are on the plant’s roof and in the plant’s trucks, which carry discarded oyster shells from the high-pressure shucking operation. They ride a conveyor belt carrying shucking remains out of the plant while pecking hungrily at the barnacled shells.

They’ve been scavenging at his oyster shells for the last month.

“It’s the darnedest thing because we’ve never seen a seagull here since, well, I don’t even remember,” Voisin said. “Not in the 40 years I’ve been here. They must be really hungry.”

Voisin said he believes closures of bayou seafood-processing plants and the docking of commercial-fishing vessels that would normally attract flocks of hungry gulls have sent them elsewhere for their meals.

Melanie Driscoll, director of bird conservation for the Audubon Society’s Louisiana Coastal Initiative, said she has received reports of more and more gulls heading inland, prowling around restaurants where they haven’t been seen before.

“I’ve heard a lot from locals,” Driscoll said. “There’s a sense that the gulls may be hungry because they basically had a buffet, and now it’s no longer there.”

Photo courtesy of  Daily Mail.com

Welfare parasites begin to think that anything the want is theirs, as this lady in South Shields, England found out recently. 

So, What if everyone was on welfare?

Now you know.

How to Tell a Conservative from a Progressive

I had an interesting discussion with my college-age grandson last night. It centered mainly on the 2 different ideologies in our country, how they differ, and is there any reconciliation. I asked him to explain to me his understanding of the difference between Conservatism and Progressivism.

His answer ran along the lines that Conservatives don't want change, preferring the status-quo or what worked in the past; while Progressives are for change, the change needed to fix what is wrong.

He was correct in explaining the definition of the terms according to Webster, but he did not understand the differences in their ideologies. Here is how I see the differences.

Conservatives believe:

1. The Individual is the backbone of society,
2. In the power and goodness of the Individual; that left to themselves, the Individual will try to better themselves and society,
3. That Individuals are best able to choose their destiny, what is best, and can collectively govern themselves successfully,
4. That Individuals should be rewarded for their productivity and value to the society.
5. That there are eternal truths and laws that never change, that obedience to these truths will always bring the same results.

Progressives believe:

1. The  Individual only exists to strengthen and promote the good of the Society,
2. That Individuals can not be trusted to choose what is right; that left to themselves, the Individual will lie, cheat, and steal from others and the Society,
3. That Society must monitor and regulate the Individual to prevent abuses, (corporations are now Individuals, as well,)
4. That Society should reward all individuals equally, regardless of their productivity or value to society.
5. That all truth is relative and changeable; that situations, circumstances, and desires dictate what is truth.

Using these definitions, we can see that Conservatives are generally found in:

1. The Republican, Tea Party, Libertarian and Independent political parties,
2. Countries where democracy exists, such as; The United States, Switzerland, Germany and maybe England, France, Spain and Italy.

While Progressives are generally found in:

1. The Democrat, Socialist and Communist political parties,
2. Socialist, Communist and other totalitarian governments, such as; Russia, China, Cuba, Iran, Syria, Hamas, Hezbollah, The Taliban, etc.

So, taking these things into consideration, we can see that it is fairly difficult to form any compromises with such extreme positions. 

1. Either the Individual is the backbone of society or they are the fodder that feeds society.
2. Individuals have innate goodness and can be trusted or they can never be trusted. If they can only be trusted some of the time, who decides when they can be trusted and when they can't?
3. If we have bee-watchers watching the bee-watcher, who is watching the bee-watcher, who is watching the . . . who will be left for the bee-watchers to watch?
4. If you reward everyone equally, regardless of their value or performance, won't the productive individuals loose their ambition to succeed and how can we ever motivate the under-productive to pull their own weight?
5. Without definable, unchanging truths, how can faith be established in laws or governments?

We also find Progressives slandering the Conservatives, labeling them as; greedy, selfish, stingy, and hoarders, while they applaud their idealistic goals of equal distribution of wealth, health and happiness. The Progressive motto, "the greatest good for the greatest number" sounds very great and good, but what about "the smallest group that is sacrificed for the good of the largest group"? Do they have a voice in the matter?

All people have an obligation to help those less fortunate than themselves, but Conservatives believe that is a choice for the Individual to make, not a mandate from the Government who will take what they think is needed to invest in a cause whether the Individual supports the cause or not.

Wait, who are "they"? In a Progressive Society, who governs, who decides, who controls the money and the people? 

Those who instigated the system. Individuals. 

But Progressives don't believe that Individuals can be trusted to make the right choices and it looks like they may be right. There has never been a Progressive/Socialistic/Communistic/Totalitarian government where the leaders have not stolen, conscripted, taxed, or taken everything they possibly can from the Society. Russia, China, Nazi Germany, Vietnam, Columbia, England, France or the United States of America, the story is all the same. Take as much as you can as fast as you can.

Every deposed dictator left office with hundreds of millions of dollars in their personal bank accounts. Who was the King of Graft?

The Palestinian Liberation Organization had been given billions of dollars to help them establish a homeland in the Middle East. When Yassar Arafat, the leader of the PLO, died, it was discovered that he had over $2 BILLION US DOLLARS socked away in Swiss bank accounts. His posterity is still fighting with the PLO over who has the rights to the money.

Leaders in our own country enter the Congress or other government service with modest incomes and retire as multi-millionaires, with millions more accumulated as they dance around the speaking circuits. Hillary Clinton stated that when she and her husband left the White House, they were so deep in debt they were paupers, but 14 years later, they have a net worth of over $80 MILLION dollars. Bill Clinton even received $500,000 for a speech he never gave.

Well, these are all just facts. You, the reader will need to determine whether our country will be better off with the Progressive path or the Conservative course. 

Choose wisely or someone else will choose it for you.

Photos courtesy: http://lonelyconservative.com/2013/12/saturday-funnies-137/

James Carney, Propaganda in the Living Room

Washington Mom Magazine did a piece this month on  Claire Shipman, the wife of James Carney, Presidents Obama's Press Secretary. Claire is an amazing woman; a wife, mother of 2 children, a home maker, and a contributor to ABC News. I applaud her for being able to keep all the balls in the air and still be happy and beautiful.

There was one rather odd thing that emerged from the photo of Claire and her two children in their home. On the wall behind them are two posters. You don't have to look too hard to see that they are Soviet-Era propaganda posters.

The posters are rather innocuous. The one on the right shows a Soviet Soldier asking the question, "Have you enlisted in the Army?"

The one on the left  states, "Women! Learn production, replace workers who went to the front! The stronger the hinterland - the stronger the front!" 

The translation and photos are courtesy of Hunter Walker in his article in Business Insider

The thing that baffles me is "Why would the Face of the White House and President of the United States have these posters in their home?" Granted, both James Carney and Claire Shipman worked in Moscow in the early nineties representing different new services. I know lots of people with souvenirs from places they have worked and lived, but jee-whiz?

I just can't see Vladimir Putin 

with this poster in his den.

 Nor would I expect this photo neatly framed in all the Planned Parenthood Offices across the country.

It just doesn't make a lot of sense to me.


Photos from:
http://www.markmallett.com/blog/is-a-fetus-a-person/
http://www.washingtonian.com/mom/features/balancing-act/
http://doingitdt.areavoices.com/2011/04/08/fargo-more-heart-than-water/uncle-sam-wants-you/

Our Bi-Polar Foreign Policy

In discussing the current state affairs in the world, my oldest son, Aaron, mentioned that the major cause of the distress we encounter world wide is a result of our “bi-polar foreign policy. Every eight years we completely flip-flop our policies, cancel long-term commitments and created a whole new batch of enemies.” As I pondered his remark, I was struck with the succinct nature of his comment.

In the 1950’s, we secretly sponsored, funded and encouraged Ho Chi Mien to rise up against the French in Indo-China. We thought that the French would just roll over and let go of this colony and we would have a solid friend in Southeast Asia. Much to our surprise, the French not only refused to allow Vietnam independence, but they asked for our help to quell the rebellion. So, we dropped Ho Chi Mien like a hot potato and supported the French. In his anger over our betrayal, he went to Communist China and asked for their help. They were more that happy to supply support and assistance. Thus began a decade and a half of the most decisive conflict the U.S. had experienced since the Civil War.

In the 1980’s when Russia invaded Afghanistan, Osama Bin Laden formed an underground resistance to counter this move. Because the Cold War was still in full swing, we took the opportunity to support and encourage him to drive out the Russians. We covertly supplied and trained him and his forces, but when the reality of victory faded, we left him high and dry, and he hasn’t forgotten. His hatred at our betrayal has continued for another decade and a half with no light at the end of this tunnel

As a ruthless dictator, Saddam Hussein was no friend of ours when he rose to power in the early 1980’s, but as soon as he declared war on Iran, he became our ally. Iran infuriated us in the 1970's when the religious Ayatollah rose up against the Shaw of Iran and took control of the country. We were branded as decadent and evil in the eyes of Islam. American hostages were taken and held for years. Not only were we powerless to resolve the situation diplomatically, but our covert military operation sent in to rescue the hostages, crashed in the desert and a second team had to be sent in to rescue the first. Because of our history with Iran, we supplied Saddam with arms and expertise in an effort to defeat Iran. Then, when we lead Saddam to believe that we might turn a blind eye if he attacked Kuwait, we turned around and trounced him when he did.

This perpetual policy of bait and switch has been the bane of most of our international ills. Had we been better at choosing our friends, and supported them through their trials, we would be much better off today. We have felt that the enemy of my enemy is my friend, but when conditions change, the definition of enemy changed along with our support and allegiance.

Our standard should read: The United States of America will support and uphold any government and/or people that foster the principles of human dignity, individual security, personal property ownership, freedom of expression and economic stability.

Why should we spend billions of dollars to sustain the economies of those who support regimes and principles that run counter to the values that made us great? Or to replace enemy leaders with others that are just as bad for their counties, but give lip service to America? If our aid was reserved for only those countries that adhered to such principles, because we are actually the only bank in town, dictators and totalitarians around the world would modify their practices to qualify for the aid they need to survive. China and Russia have enough economic problems of their own that they could not continue to feed the rest of the world.

It may not be right to prohibit private economic ventures and trade to continue with such countries, but we have no obligation to give tax dollars in aid or grants to support governments that thwart our goals. We would still have the choice to intervene if lives were at state, but it would be a choice, not an obligation and our funding could be channeled through third party entities such as the United Nations, UNICEF or The Red Cross.

When we set standards that coincide with our values and adhere to them as we expect others to do, we will have others throughout the world support us and rally around us. If we don’t, then the next election will be the time to solidify another enemy.