What's Really Behind the MyRA Plan?

     You didn't really think you were going to be able to keep your retirement plan all to yourself, did you?  What makes you think that you are responsible enough to plan for your golden years?  Of course, the developments in our national economy, the bailouts, and the gargantuan spending habits of Congress have done everything they could to strip you of your hard-earned savings.
     Now, we hear of a new plan, as presented by the President in his recent State of the Union address.  It's called MyRA.  For several years now, the financial experts at ZeroHedge have been warning us that when the government runs out of money, or they face a drying up in interest for its debt, they will come for the $19.4 trillion in American’s retirement accounts.  Of course, it will come under the guise of "helping you manage your retirement."
     If you need further convincing, consider this statement that came from Bloomberg:  The U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is weighing whether it should take on a role in helping Americans manage the $19.4 trillion they have put into retirement savings, a move that would be the agency’s first foray into consumer investments.  "That's one of the things we’ve been exploring and are interested in, in terms of whether, and what, authority we have,” Bureau Director Richard Cordray said in an interview.
     Naturally, he didn't provide any further details.  Just testing the waters perhaps?  Supposedly, the Bureau is worried that aging Baby Boomers, who are now entering retirement might fall prey to financial scammers.  Compassionate, aren't they?

     But that brings us back to the President's plan, MyRA.  With foreigners not buying as many Treasuries and the Fed tapering, the US government has been searching for new buyers of its unwanted debt. And this is where the new MyRA program comes in.  Touted as a "new way" to save for retirement, you can actually only invest in government-approved investments—like Treasuries—which probably won’t even come close to keeping up with the real rate of inflation.  All indications are that the MyRA will essentially be a Roth IRA, with one huge difference: it can only invest in the aforementioned government savings bonds.  What it really amounts to is the funneling of our retirement savings to Treasury securities and bailing out the US government.
     This "new way of saving" by buying Treasury bonds is not a good deal for the American investor.  As The Casey Report tells us, first of all, bonds neither guarantee a decent return nor protect people from losing their principal. In fact, with interest rates still near historic lows, buying bonds today and holding them for the long term virtually guarantees seniors will lose money.
     Second, a bond is not a one-sided transaction. Whoever issues the bond is borrowing money from the buyer.  Do you really think the Government is going to pay back that loan?
     And if you think that nationalization of retirement accounts is far-fetched, in just the past six years, it’s happened in some form in Argentina, Poland, Portugal, Hungary, and numerous other countries.  And here are some creative ways it could happen:

New Contribution Mandate: The government could mandate, for example, that 50% of new contributions to private retirement accounts must consist of “safe,” government-approved investments, like Treasury securities.
Forced Conversions: This is where a government will forcibly convert existing assets held in retirement accounts into so-called “safer” assets, such as government bonds. For example, if the US government forcibly converted 20% of the estimated $20 trillion in retirement assets (401k plans, IRAs, defined benefit and contribution plans, etc.), it would net them $4 trillion. Not a bad score, considering the national debt is north of $17 trillion.
Special Taxes: The government could look into levying special taxes on distributions from retirement, especially those deemed to be “excessively large.”

     Pretty scary, huh?  So while none of these mandates were mentioned in the SOTU address, I would venture that the recommendation of MyRA is the first salvo.  Unfortunately, our golden years look like they could become tarnished.

2 Peter 2:15    "Forsaking the right way, they have gone astray. They have followed the way of Balaam, the son of Beor, who loved gain from wrongdoing..."

What Are We To Make Of Justice Scalia's Remarks?

     Earlier this week, remarks made by Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia sent a shockwave through the blogosphere.  While speaking to law students at the University of Hawaii, Justice Scalia stated that the nation’s highest court was wrong to uphold the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II.  But it was his follow-up statement that should alarm us all: he wouldn’t be surprised if the court issued a similar ruling during a future conflict.
     Obviously, this is a subject that would be on the hearts and minds of these particular students.  I'm sure that many of them had family who were subjected to Executive Order 9066, which ordered Americans of Japanese descent into the camps, regardless of citizenship.

     The Washington Times reports that Scalia was responding to a question about the court’s 1944 decision in Korematsu v. United States, which upheld the convictions of Gordon Hirabayashi and Fred Korematsu for violating an order to report to an internment camp.  “Well of course [the Korematsu case] was wrong. And I think we have repudiated it in a later case. But you are kidding yourself if you think the same thing will not happen again."  He then cited a Latin expression meaning, “In times of war, the laws fall silent.”
     The law school's dean, Avi Soifer, said he believed Scalia was suggesting people always have to be vigilant and that the law alone can't be trusted to provide protection.  But I think what Justice Scolia was suggesting goes far beyond that.  We can be as vigilant as possible, but when your government labels you an "enemy alien", as they did in World War II to the Japanese-Americans, the Italian-Americans, and the German-Americans, laws become instruments of suppression and control.  (PLW's great-grandfather was ordered to a German-American detainment camp in Crystal City, Texas).
     There is a lot of history tied up in this topic, and it would serve us well to know where we've come from in this matter.  Executive Order 9066 was signed by President Franklin Roosevelt, authorizing the Secretary of War to prescribe certain areas as military zones.  There was hysteria during the war.  An incident in which an Imperial Japanese Navy pilot crash-landed on a Hawaiian island and was initially assisted by a few island natives, before being over-powered and killed by others, incited the suspicion of all Japanese-Americans.  By law, an "enemy alien" is a citizen of a country which is in a state of conflict with the land in which he or she is located. Usually, but not always, the countries are in a state of declared war.  See how that definition could easily be applied to any citizen who takes issue with the powers that be?
     Fear of "invasions-from-within" have permeated our history.  In 1798, alarm that the French Revolution might spill over into America and find willing sympathizers, led to a prediction by advisors to President John Adams that 100,000 U.S. inhabitants would join a French invading army.  This led to the passage of the Alien and Sedition Acts.  These Acts allowed the president to imprison or deport aliens who were considered "dangerous to the peace and safety of the United States". They also restricted speech which was critical of the federal government.  They were designed under the guise of national security, but many historians say they were designed to decrease opposition to the government.
     You might also find it interesting that three of the bills were either repealed or allowed to expire; the only one that is still in effect is the Alien Enemies Act.  This Act authorized the president to arrest, imprison, or banish any resident alien hailing from a country against which the United States had declared war (1 Stat. 577).  Is it hard to envision that this law could be once again used to "predict" that legal American citizens were, if not enemy aliens, at least enemies of the State?
     No, I believe that Supreme Court Justice Scalia was speaking from a sense of the legal environment and perceived powers of our current political system.  In the past, it has been proven that whenever our Federal powers have felt threatened by the possibility of conflict, citizenship and individual rights do not outweigh the government's suspicions.  Should we expect to feel more secure today?

Psalm 43:1     "Vindicate me, O God, and defend my cause against an ungodly people, from the deceitful and unjust man deliver me!"

Beware The Common Core Subterfuge

     Once again the issue of Common Core has raised its ugly head.  I have written extensively on this topic, but in case you are unfamiliar with exactly what it is, Common Core is an educational initiative that seeks to remove local control in education in favor of national curriculum and standards.  In other words, the Federal Government seems to think that it is better qualified to dictate a uniform standard for Pre-K through college curricula; which by the way includes the collection of personal data on students that would identify them and then track them.

     First and foremost, I do not think (other than national security) that the Federal Government can administer anything better than state and local authorities; especially when it comes to how we educate our children.  When bureaucrats take the control away from parents, standards for what (and how) our children are taught become the exclusive prerogative of the State/Regime.  Then "education" is in danger of becoming biased or misleading at the least; and a powerful tool for propaganda, at the worst.

     After being unmasked for the deception it was, the Common Core initiative was beat back by vigilant parents, teachers and state education panels.  Then, as reported by the website RedState, none other than former Arkansas Governor, and Fox News host, Mike Huckabee tried to re-invent Common Core as an educational goal to be supported:  “Parents and people involved in their local schools should let it be known that core standards are valuable, and they’re not something to be afraid of—they are something to embrace.”

     But here is why RedState raised the warning flag on Huckabee:  From 2004 to 2006, Governor Huckabee chaired the Education Commission for the States (ECS), which had established the national standards for Kindergarten - High School curriculum back in 2001.  During his tenure, he made no attempt to roll back any of the reforms that removed local control.  In 2004, he participated in the task force for “Redesigning the American High School” chaired by Democrat Governor Mark Warner of Virginia. This task force was funded in large part by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation which seeks to align education standards both nationally and internationally.  (I'm sorry, but anything that the Elitist Gates is involved with, naturally raises my hackles).  These very reforms that came out of this task force are the foundation of Common Core.

     As the American public became educated on the dangers of Common Core, Huckabee was forced to tell his TV audience, back in December, that he no longer supported the standards.  HOWEVER, he sang a different tune when, as reported by Breitbart, he attended a recent meeting of the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO), one of the organizations that created the Common Core State Standards (CCSS).  At the meeting, Huckabee urged state education officials to get rid of the “Common Core” name because it has become “toxic.”  Furthermore, “Rebrand it, refocus it, but don’t retreat,” Huckabee reportedly told CCSSO members.  Doesn't exactly sound like he's renounced the standards, does it?

     But it looks as if he's not the only one who is advocating a simple name change, or "rebranding", to continue the propagation of the unpopular State Standards.  Arizona Governor Jan Brewer (R) has used an executive order to purge the name “Common Core” from the standards and refer to them, instead, as "Arizona’s College and Career Ready Standards".  And, in Iowa, the Common Core standards are now called "The Iowa Core", and in Florida, the push is on to delete the words “Common Core” from official education documents and replace them with "Next Generation Sunshine State Standards."  Apparently, the Elitists in the New World Order think we can be easily fooled.  I'm sorry, you can give it a fancy new name if you want, but you can't hide this fact  .... "the deliberate diminishment of the intellectual level of the content of schooling and education" is nothing less than "dumbing down" our kids.  If they can make everyone think alike, and go along with the "State program", then free and critical thinking will be a thing of the past, and render a compliant and docile citizenry.  

      So I implore you to investigate your state and local education systems; attend school board meetings and get involved!  We must be allowed to develop free and independent thinkers; those who will challenge us to be better than average.  Perpetuating "commonness" lowers results; it does not raise the bar.  In my opinion, the Common Core standards run the risk of reducing Education to Indoctrination.  Education should promote Learning ... the excitement of discovery and reaching for new heights in knowledge, skills and practices.   Finally, we should heed the warning in 2 Timothy, Chapter 3 ... "always learning and never able to arrive at a knowledge of the truth."

2 Colossians 2:8   "See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ."

     

     

The State of our Disunion

Thank you to the Cato Institute for providing me with some issues to consider when reflecting on the State of the Union Address.  In full disclosure, the Cato Institute is a libertarian think tank, whose mission it is "to originate, disseminate, and increase understanding of public policies based on the principles of individual liberty, limited government, free markets, and peace."    

     I didn't really want to comment on the President's State of the Union address Tuesday night, but if I just ignore it, then does that somehow give more credence to the distorted discussion of our national condition?

     For official purposes, the State of the Union Address allows the President of the United States to report on the condition of the nation, and it also allows him to outline his legislative agenda (for which he supposedly needs the cooperation of Congress).  I'm sure if you listened to a chorus of commentators, you heard each of them telling you exactly what the President meant and whether his speech was a success or failure.  But who can you believe?  I, for one, don't give much  credibility to either national party; they are so politicized and obsessed with hanging on to their power or their money or their insider status.  In the end, I'm pretty sure that 99.9% of those present in the Chambers that night weren't there on behalf of their constituents, nor have any idea of how their actions impact the American people.
     In fact, if I wanted to dissect the SOTU address, I am sad to say it would provide little inspiration or pride in the state of my country.  For instance, we were told that America's graduation rate among students was the highest it had been in three decades.  But actual achievement among our students has remained stagnant, in spite of massive increases in the Education budget.  Plus, the implementation of this Administration's Common Core Standards will only continue to decimate the academic performance of American students.  After all, Head Start gave us so much success, didn't it?
     We were told that our deficits have been cut in half.  Yes, they have declined, but due to policies like "The Sequester", which the President opposed.  So, while this contentious policy has met with some success at lowering our deficit, it is only temporary.  By 2016, the numbers will rise again and by 2023, it is estimated that the deficit will be $1 trillion.  And how convenient that the $17 trillion debt wasn't even mentioned.  What they don't tell us, won't hurt us, right?

     We were told that Washington D.C. recognizes that we, the American people, want them "to focus on our lives, our hopes, and our aspirations."  That doesn't mean we want them to create more laws, more regulations, or more taxes that infiltrate our lives.
     What we really want is a smaller government that will stay out of our lives, our hopes and our aspirations.  What we want is growth in our economy... real growth ... and we don't want our entrepreneurs, investors, and small business owners penalized.  And we certainly don't want Washington to promote class warfare or redistribution of wealth.
     I was a little unnerved by the statement that POTUS would get the job done for the American people, "with or without Congress."  We want the separation of powers that the Constitution instituted, not a policy of issuing Executive Orders without the consideration of Congress.  Exactly how does that translate to government of the people; let alone by us or for us? 
     You can talk about Trade Agreements that will benefit American businesses, but we'd like a little more information, please, about how they will impact us.  And until those treaties are signed ... well, talk is cheap.  Then there was the suggestion that Congress (which means the government) could help the economy by building more fueling stations centered around natural gas.  That's already being done by the big transportation companies who are building their own natural gas fueling plants --- the market created that demand; not the government!  And the market does a much better job at creating success!
     One seemingly bright spot in the speech was the fact that the U.S. has reduced its carbon emission rate more than any other nation in the world.  True, we have reduced our pollution, but before we hold this up as a praise-worthy achievement, maybe we should take a look at the reasons why:  1) the economic slowdown that began in 2008, (and is still impacting us), and 2) fracking (that hated word) that has created tremendous amounts of clean energy in natural gas.  The power pundits in D.C. won't admit to Reason #1, and the EPA nuts abhor Reason #2.
     Then we knew we were going to hear it ... the supposed success of the Affordable Care Act, and the laudable numbers of signees.  And the number sounded great --- 9 million.  But only 3 million of those were able to sign up for private insurance; and two-thirds of them were dropped from insurance plans they were happy with, only to be forced into the exchanges where oftentimes they are getting an inferior product, but paying more.  The other 6 million have been shoved into Medicaid.  And guess who ultimately pays for that?  It's not hard to see the cracks in that logic.
     Then there was the inevitable topic of gun violence and how Americans were standing up each day to stop it.  Yes, we are ... with guns!  Our Second Amendment right has given us the means to provide a defense against violence.  Why not concentrate on stopping the violence instead of the means of defense?  A good place to start would be the drug wars south of our border.
     And we can't have a SOTU address without commenting on the wars in which our troops are engaged.  Wait a minute, I heard Afghanistan mentioned, but not Iraq.  Could it be that our policy there is coming unraveled and the enemy is once again on the offensive?  And if you are going to end the war in Afghanistan, why not bring all the troops home?  What does leaving 10,000 soldiers there accomplish, other than put every one of their lives in danger?
     That brings us to the topic of drones and surveillance, both held forth as important tactics in our war strategy.  But why do they both now seem limitless on the domestic front?  It leaves me wondering where is that 2007 Presidential candidate who promised "no more secret meetings", and "more openness" from government?  In fact, where is the promised "transparency"?  Certainly not in the plans for his Office of Management and Budget to gut legislation that would provide transparency so that the American people can oversee the spending of the government.
     So while the President fulfilled his Constitutional duty, as specified in Article II, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution, it was interesting to note that he used the word "We" over 120 times in his speech.  One has to question who he means by the use of that word.... "We" the American people, or "We" the government?  That, in itself, would go a long way in my determination of whether the speech was a success or not.

 Psalm 146:3    "Put not your trust in princes, in a son of man, in whom there is no salvation."
   
   
     

"We Need To Trust the CDC". REALLY?!?!

      I must admit that I am deeply disturbed, on several fronts, by events surrounding the chemical spill in West Virginia that left 300,000 people around the city of Charleston without water.  According to an article in the LA Times, at least 7500 gallons of a "mysterious" coal-washing foaming agent, known as 4-methylcyclohexane methanol, or MCHM, cascaded past a containment area and poured into the Elk River, just upstream from a major water treatment plant.
     Freedom Industries, the chemical company blamed for the spill, says a water line burst during last week's frigid temperatures, the ground beneath a storage tank froze, and some kind of object punctured a hole in its side, causing it to leak.
     After residents noticed a licorice-like odor coming from the chemical company, inspectors soon arrived and discovered that not only had this company taken no action to stop the leak or report it to authorities, there are virtually no regulations governing inspection and maintenance of the storage tanks.  The governor of West Virginia issued an emergency do-not-use order, and residents couldn't use tap water to drink, bathe, brush teeth or wash dishes or clothes. Boiling it would do no good.
     As you can imagine, bottled water supplies sold out in many areas within hours of the governor's edict.  The West Virginia National Guard brought in water tankers, and people lined up to fill containers with the precious liquid.  Day after day, residents went without showers as authorities scrambled to test the water to ensure it met the federal safety standard of less than one part per million of the contaminant.
     Little is known about the possible health effects of MCHM, a solvent used to wash impurities from coal. For days after the spill, state officials were at a loss to explain to residents just what was in the stuff and just how dangerous it might be. Authorities said it was not lethal, but could cause vomiting, nausea and skin, eye and throat irritation.
     Yet within 4 days of the spill, the Center for Disease Control advised residents that it was safe to resume consumption of the city's water.  And how did they make that determination?  Well, according to Richard Denison, a senior scientist at the Environmental Defense Fund, the CDC violated its own procedures by relying chiefly on a lab rat study by the chemical manufacturer to set the standard. He called the study, in which he said MCHM was fed to rats until they died, "crude," "very problematic" and based on "shaky science."  Not only should the chemical manufacturer's standards come into question, but the fact that the CDC would rely on the findings of the very manufacturer (who is being sued) to issue their "All OK" status on drinking the water.
     Although Dr. Vikas Kapil, a senior CDC official, defended the standard as valid, he also added, "There are uncertainties, and there is very little information on this chemical." So do you think the CDC jumped the gun just a little bit?  And to add insult to injury, a mere 2 days after issuing the OK to resume drinking tap water, the West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources issued an advisory for pregnant women based on the CDC's own guidelines that recommended "out of an abundance of caution" that "pregnant women drink bottled water until there are no longer detectable levels of 4-methylcyclohexane methanol, or MCHM, in the water distribution system."
     To say that the CDC was negligent in this matter, is a gross understatement.  And yet, Fox News, in covering this incident, trots out their so-called "medical expert", who has the audacity to say, "We need to trust the CDC.  They have our best interests in mind."  Who are they kidding???
     All you have to do is ask Brandy Russell, community director for the West Virginia March of Dimes, which fights against birth defects.  In an online ABC News article, she said, "Everyone is freaking out."  Since not much is known about the chemical, no one can guarantee that it won't harm a developing fetus.  And since MCHM was grandfathered in to the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act, there are no laws requiring the industry to prove it is safe.  Yet, the CDC has said it believes water with levels of one part per million was safe to drink.  Would you trust them?
     While there is a whirlwind of controversy surrounding this scary event -- and rightfully so -- one has to wonder what will be the end result.  Will anyone look into the industry and their safety standards?  Will anyone do more research on the chemical itself?  Will the CDC take a good hard look at their own practices and procedures regarding their mandate to protect public health and safety?
     We are told to "trust the CDC" in all manner of our health ... vaccines, infectious diseases, environmental health; yet in this instance, all they seemed to disseminate was fear, confusion and mistrust.  So if this is their standard of operation, then I think I will simply rely on my own God-given common sense, thank you.

Psalm 118:8    "It is better to take refuge in the Lord than to trust in man." 


     

Threat to Texas Independent Energy Grid Is A Threat to Us All

     I am treading on thin ice here.  I will admit that I do not have great knowledge about the electric energy market.  But, after receiving an email from our state representative of the 912 Association, a non-partisan national organization interested in returning to the Principles and Values at the founding of this nation, I figured I better educate myself on the subject.  This post is the result of my rudimentary research.

     The first thing that is important to know is that there are three grids in the Lower 48 states: the Eastern Interconnection, the Western Interconnection — and Texas.  The Texas grid is called ERCOT, and it is run by an agency called the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, from whence it derives its name.  ERCOT was formed in 1970, in the wake of a major blackout in the Northeast in November 1965, and it was tasked with managing grid reliability in accordance with national standards. The agency assumed additional responsibilities following electric deregulation in Texas a decade ago. The ERCOT grid remains beyond the jurisdiction of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which succeeded the Federal Power Commission and regulates interstate electric transmission.
     So it should come as no surprise that, in today's climate, there are entities within the federal government who would love to see Texas's independence curbed, and more regulation put in place.  While Texas has had occasion to import power outside the state -- from Mexico in 2011 during rolling blackouts -- the Lone Star state's main objective has been to keep the federal regulators at bay.  Now, there is a new effort to rein in that independence.
     At the basis of this controversy is the question of whether Texas will have enough energy to meet its future needs.  Last year, grid operators released a report by the Brattle Group that said low natural gas prices, a more efficient generating fleet, and a boom in wind power have combined to shrink the returns that power plants can expect for the energy they produce. As a result, the report said, power companies have built fewer plants that would help meet future electricity demand, which has increased at a rate of 2.3 percent since 2002.  Combine these market findings with hotter summers, colder winters, a booming population, and lack of investment in new power plants, and it all adds up to generate talk that Texas might transform its energy market, shifting from “energy only” to a “capacity” market. What does that mean, and why does it matter?
     It all comes down to a question of insurance ... how much backup energy capacity should Texas have on hand for its hottest days, and how can it best maintain that cushion?   Under the current wholesale energy model, utilities are paid only for the energy they generate. In a capacity model, companies are paid for maintaining a reserve capacity — costs that consumers bear.  Shifting to a capacity market is one change that would open the door to regulation and allow regulators to mandate a reserve margin.
     ERCOT currently aims for a 13.75 percent reserve margin, but that is a goal, not a requirement. The Council projects the real cushion will shrink to 9.4 percent by 2018 and 4.5 percent by 2023.  Now it seems, in a nonbinding vote, the Public Utilities Commission of Texas has decided to require a reserve margin.  The primary function of the PUC has been to provide statewide regulation of the rates and services of electric and telecommunications utilities.  Although the PUC’s mission is supposedly to “protect customers, foster competition, and promote high quality infrastructure”, one has to ask oneself, how do higher consumer costs to fix a problem that ain't broken, "protect customers"?  So the obvious question, for this consumer is, who is going to benefit from this change?
     If you listen to the Feds, who are insisting that the free market won’t supply enough electricity to keep the lights on here in Texas, we will soon be subject to rolling blackouts. So, what's their solution?  Why more government, of course!  They want to take apart the competitive electricity market and re-regulate it, turning it into a capacity market that would impose an electricity tax on Texas consumers of about $4 billion a year!  In essence, this is a tax that would fund subsidies for electricity generators and their bankers.  And when you consider the reality of the electricity market in Texas, it amounts to nothing more than a bailout.  Let me explain further:

     Companies that generated electricity loved the profits when competition was first introduced over a decade ago.  But now the electricity market is more efficient, and those huge profits have come down in size.  That makes those government subsidies look awful inviting!  Add to that, the fact that a lot of bankers and Wall Street investment firms want to profit by loaning money to electricity generating companies. With Texas being about the only state in the country where new generation is being built, they like the idea of a capacity market (regulated reserves) to decrease the risks of their investments.  There is also the reality that, back in 2007, many firms invested money in the Texas electricity market betting that high natural gas prices would keep electricity prices and profits high.  That didn't happen.  Natural gas prices went south, taking prices and profits with them.  Considering those investment losses, investors would love a new revenue stream (tax) from a capacity market to help bail out them out of their poor investments.
     Those who favor a switch from "energy only" to a "capacity market" in the electricity industry, seem to misunderstand that this would create a huge burden on Texas families.  And perhaps they don't understand that switching to a capacity market will do to the competitive Texas electricity market what the federal government is currently doing to the healthcare market.  Or do they misunderstand? Texans should question the PUC's motives in requiring a reserve margin of electricity.  Are they overstepping their bounds of authority?  In 1999, the Texas Legislature told the Public Utility Commission that it should “authorize or order competitive rather than regulatory methods to achieve the goals …of the Legislature’s shift to competitive markets."
     If a shift to capacity markets takes us down the paths of government subsidies, more federal involvement and regulations, and more taxes on the Texas consumer, then it seems to me that the PUC is failing in its mission.  And this should be a warning for the rest of the country, too.  Texas is on the front lines of this issue, but you can rest assured that it is coming to your state, too! The abomination that is the Affordable Care Act, should tell all of us that the less the government is in our business, the better off we will be.  I don't want the Feds in charge of my healthcare, and I certainly don't want them controlling my energy needs! 

Thanks to editorials in the Texas Tribune, the New York Times, Forbes Magazine, and the Texas Public Policy Foundation for their efforts in helping us laypersons understand this complicated subject.  And special thanks to Thelma Taormina, President of the Texas 912 Association, for her tireless work on behalf of freedom-loving Texans, and for bringing this issue to my attention. 

Proverbs 29:12    "If a ruler listens to falsehood, all his officials will be wicked. "

   

Making Poverty More Acceptable

     You know, it would be easy to skip over this blip on the news radar, and just chalk it up to one more politician doing what they do best ... bloviating about some topic to ingratiate themselves to their constituents.  But the comment by House Representative Sheila Jackson Lee has much more profound ramifications than some random political speech.

     Earlier in the week, on the House Floor, Representative Lee made this statement in regards to what is commonly known as "welfare income":  Maybe the word "welfare" should be changed to something of a "transitional living fund". For that is what it is, for people to be able to live.

     During her comments, she extolled all the wonderful benefits that are extended to the nation's poor; namely the earned income tax credit, supplemental nutrition program, the huge job training and educational investment that President Johnson made on the War on Poverty, and Medicare and Medicaid.  She says these programs combine to afford the poor a huge safety net -- not a handout, mind you -- but a safety net; and one she admittedly calls "huge".

     So she seems to imply that calling it welfare is demeaning; we should call it by another name -- one that elevates the worthy receiver of this reputable "safety net".  But I have a couple of problems with this line of reasoning.  First of all, what she means by "safety net" is laws designed to safeguard or prevent the undesirable state of living in poverty.  These laws usually exist in the form of additional taxes levied against producing individuals, in order to support the non-producers.  

     And since when can you legislate away poverty?  Doesn't it stand to reason, that the easier you make it for the poor to stay in this state of poverty, the harder it is going to be to motivate them to take part in their own revitalization?  And what is the purpose in making welfare and poverty seem less unpleasant?  It is not in man's nature to desire poverty; yet during the last half century our government has lionized the poor and approved the continued state of indigence.  Indeed, those who have managed to avoid becoming poverty-stricken are made to feel guilty for not sharing the rewards of their labor.

     So one has to ask why those who are elected to champion our well-being, would seek to maintain and grow the levels of poverty.  The obvious answer is to maintain their power.  The more they can keep their constituents addicted to the so-called "safety net" (remember, it's not a handout!), the less these people desire to kick the habit.  They need that "fix", and the government is all too happy to be their "supplier".  

     And when you make the "junkie" feel like his condition is adequate, respectable, and normal then where is the incentive to improve upon that state?  True, the Bible says we will always have the poor with us, and when we can meet the needs of someone, we should do it, if it is within our ability to do so.  But Scripture also says, "For even when we were with you, we would give you this command: If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat. For we hear that some among you walk in idleness, not busy at work, but busybodies. Now such persons we command and encourage in the Lord Jesus Christ to do their work quietly and to earn their own living."  (2 Thessalonians 3:10-12)

      So back to Sheila Jackson Lee's comment.  She states that this "transitional living fund" is necessary for people "to be able to live".  Is that really what they need?  More "assistance" from the government? Or do they need the pride and sense of accomplishment that comes from making their own way?  Can they even imagine what it feels like to possess the dignity and self-respect of knowing you are dependent on no one?  

     But that's a message of hope that Ms. Lee and her Congressional cohorts will never extend to the poor.  And whether you call it "welfare" or the "transitional living fund", it makes no difference.  The addiction remains the same, and the poor remain poor.

1 Thessalonians 4:11-12     "And to aspire to live quietly, and to mind your own affairs, and to work with your hands, as we instructed you, so that you may walk properly before outsiders and be dependent on no one."

National ID Card: Just Around The Corner

     I guess it should come as no surprise that under the cover of the Christmas holiday season, the Department of Homeland Security announced their final schedule for the full implementation of the REAL ID Act of 2005.
     Enacted by Congress, this law modified U.S. federal law pertaining to state driver's licenses and ID card requirements.  In essence, the law sets forth certain requirements in order to be accepted by the federal government for "official purposes", as defined by the Secretary of Homeland Security. The Secretary has currently defined "official purposes" as presenting state driver's licenses and identification cards for boarding commercially operated airline flights and entering federal buildings and nuclear power plants.  That's the so-called "legal" explanation.

     But as reported by World Net Daily, we're being told we’ll soon have a National Identity Card and a Western Hemisphere-compliant travel document whether we want it or not, if we plan to drive in the United States.  Here's how it is going down:  the law was set for a phased implementation beginning in January 2014 and full-scale enforcement planned no later than May 2017, at which time the federal government will no longer accept state-issued driver’s licenses and ID cards that do not meet the minimum security standards set by DHS.
     So just what are these "minimum security standards"?  In order for a state-issued driver’s license to be DHS-compliant, an applicant must present a valid birth certificate, verification of the applicant’s Social Security Number or documentation the person is not eligible for Social Security, and proof the applicant is either a U.S. citizen or lawfully admitted to the U.S. as a permanent or temporary resident.  But that's not all!  The driver’s license and IDs issued by the states will have to meet stringent requirements as set by the federal government.
     Now if this reminds you of all the horror stories you heard from the last World War, in which innocent citizens were stopped by tyrannical authorities and asked for "your papers, please", then you're not alone.  Of course, proponents of the law will tell you that the ease with which the 9/11 hijackers were able to acquire valid state driver's licenses and/or ID cards is the impetus behind the implementation.
     In order to combat any tampering, counterfeiting or duplicating of documents, the state-issued driver's licenses and ID cards must have built-in security features, including but not limited to, full facial digital photographs, plus machine-readable coded information in the form of a bar code that captures the key printed information on the card; such as name of the applicant, address, gender, unique driver’s license or card-identification number, state of issuance, date of application, and date of expiration.
     As if all these "improvements" are not enough, these state-issued EDLs (enhanced driver's licenses) must be issued in state facilities in which all employees undergo background checks, including federal and state criminal record searches, as well as with technology that permit the state-issued cards to comply fully with travel rules issued under the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative.  This means that the EDLs must meet valid passport minimums for travel within the United States, Canada, and Mexico, as well as with Central and South America, the Caribbean, and Bermuda.
     This may all sound like a lot of hyper-government gibberish, but it has very real consequences.  With this announcement, DHS is putting state governments on notice that by May 2017, states not complying with REAL ID requirements will find that their state-issued driver’s licenses and ID cards will not be considered valid by the federal government.  That means that individuals with non-compliant identification may be prohibited from passing through TSA security to travel on airlines or trains within the United States or internationally.  DHS said TSA will continue to accept driver’s licenses and state-issued identification cards from all jurisdictions until at least 2016, meaning that enforcement for boarding aircraft will not begin until then.
     So, how do you feel about this National ID Card?  For many Americans, it raises a host of questions.  Is it an infringement upon your privacy?  If you, like many Americans, have curtailed their flying habits, why should you be subjected to such stringent requirements in order to obtain a driver's license?  Is there the possibility that tracking devices could be added to the profusion of "security" features being added to the EDLs?  How does this help/hurt illegal immigration?  Is this taking us one step closer to the Mark of the Beast?  Is this really designed to stop identity theft and fraud; and is it really necessary to fight domestic terrorism?  Or is it simply another method by which Big Brother expands his control?  You decide.  But in the meantime, looks like you better locate your birth certificate; your ability to legally drive depends on it.

Matthew 26:42     Again, for the second time, he went away and prayed, "My Father, if this cannot pass unless I drink it, your will be done."

The State Vs. Family & Faith

   

     The tragic story of Jahi McMath has haunted me for days.  Today at 5:00 a judge determines whether the State or her family has the right to make decisions about her future.  During the hustle and bustle of the holiday season, her story has often been relegated to 20 second sound bites during the day's news wrap-up.  But her story is one that could foretell what awaits any one of us in this new age of healthcare.
     As all the major news networks have reported, 13-year-old Jahi underwent a tonsillectomy at Children's Hospital in Oakland, California on December 9th to treat sleep apnea. After she awoke from the operation, her family said, she started bleeding heavily from her mouth and went into cardiac arrest. Doctors at Children's Hospital concluded the girl was brain dead on December 12th and wanted to remove her from life support. The family has expressed concerns about the possibility of negligence in her treatment and asked that she remain on life support.
     What ensued has been disturbing to me from both a moral/ethical standpoint, as well as legal. I will admit that I do not have any medical or legal training to offer an educated opinion in the matter, but my faith as a Christian gives me a perspective that sometimes falls outside the parameters of both medicine and law.
     So here's how I see what has happened to this beautiful child:  Children's Hospital has allegedly declined to help the family with its wishes to continue to care for Jahi.    In recognizing the hospitals reluctance, Jahi's family would like to have her transferred to a nursing facility which would continue to keep her on life support until further options for a recovery could be explored.  But before Jahi can be transferred, she must undergo two more medical procedures — the insertion of a breathing tube and a feeding tube.  However, Dr. David Durand, the hospital's Chief of Pediatrics, released a statement last Thursday, saying "Children's Hospital Oakland does not believe that performing surgical procedures on the body of a deceased person is an appropriate medical practice."
     And according to MercuryNews.com, "The family faces a court-ordered 5 p.m. Monday deadline [today] to pull Jahi off her ventilator at Children's Hospital.  Jahi's family [still] does not accept that she is dead and has been scrambling to find a long-term care facility. But hospital officials said Friday while it would send the girl to such a facility it wouldn't install a trachea or gastric feeding tube necessary for most facilities to accept her."
     To add insult to injury, an article written by Arthur Caplan, PhD, on Columbia University's bioethics.net website gave this observation:  "Brain death is death.  It has nothing to do with being in a coma.  It does not refer to a permanent vegetative state.  When it is pronounced using the standard tests and diagnostic procedures, a person is dead.  When a person is dead there is no longer any possibility of ‘life support’ by any technology or machine.  When a person is dead, life support has to end, since regardless of what parents, judges or legislators might want to believe, no physician can do anything to treat death."
     Yet, I would like to refer Mr. Caplan to an article at The Telegraph in the UK about Steven Thorpe, who at the age of 17, suffered horrific injuries in a multiple car crash, leaving him in a medically-induced coma and another man dead.  Steven was rushed to the hospital and surgeons performed a craniotomy to help alleviate any swelling on his brain.  But despite the operation being successful, brain scans failed to detect any electrical pulses and he was declared brain dead.  As expected, hospital officials recommended removing Steven from life support and suggested that his parents begin thinking about organ donations.
     But this was a case where the hospital listened to the parents, and considered their wishes.  They refused to give up and, while Steven's case has been called "a miracle" and "extremely rare", Critical Care and other specialist teams at the hospital continued to support his systems through his critical period and gave Steven a chance to recover and make progress against all the odds.

     And that's all Jahi's family is asking.  In a letter released to the public on Saturday, her family said, "We have our strong religious convictions and set of beliefs and we believe that, in this country, a parent has the right to make decisions concerning the existence of their child: not a doctor who looks only at lines on a paper, or reads the cold black and white words on a law that says "brain dead", and definitely not a doctor who runs the facility that caused the brain death in the first place... People think we are naive about what the future holds for Jahi and our family. We are not ignorant. We understand that Jahi has suffered a tragic and perhaps irreversible catastrophic injury to her brain.... We acknowledge that the odds are stacked against us. We know that the doctors have pronounced her dead. We heard it shouted at us four times by Dr. (David) Durand. We know the darkness that likely lays ahead for us, for Jahi. We have heard the criticisms that we are harming Jahi and we need to just let go....  So, we are working every minute to preserve our rights and Jahi's existence. It is our fundamental constitutional right, as it would be yours should this horror ever befall you; something I do not wish on anyone, ever..."
     Perhaps the most disgusting aspect of this case is that the family is locked in a publicity battle with a hospital who won't release their child's body and has even gone so far as to take to Twitter through the auspices of a legal/public relations firm which has bashed Jahi's weight, lifestyle and health.  As the family describes it, corporate misinformation has intentionally been blogged by paid "guns for hire."
     But today at 5:00 pm, Jahi's fate will be determined by the legal system; not by a collaboration between a loving family and caring physicians, as it should have been.  Is this the future of healthcare in our nation?  When three days after an unfavorable surgical outcome, hospital officials are ready and willing to declare that a family is out of options?  When religious concerns and family medical directives are overruled by corporations and lawyers?  Sad to say, I think we all know the answer.  Whatever the outcome today, Jahi McMath and her family are a picture of our future.

3 John 1:2    "Beloved, I pray that all may go well with you and that you may be in good health, as it goes well with your soul."


   

Asian Trade Treaty: Thank God For the Alternative Media!

     If it wasn't for the Alternative Media, we'd still be in the dark about more government secrets.  Leave it to the Canadian Free Press to shed some much-needed light on the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).  Never heard of it?  Me neither.  You can actually scour the internet for plenty of opinions on this Trade Treaty, but nowhere have I found the Mainstream Media informing the public about it.

     As further reported by the New American, it is a secret so-called trade agreement that is on track to be completed by the end of 2013.  Or at least, it is expected that President Obama will call on Congress to approve the TPP in early 2014.

      Just like the massive 2,000 page Affordable Care Act (that Congress had to pass in order for us to find out what was in it), this treaty has 29 chapters, but only 5 of them have to do with trade.  Michael Snyder of The Economic Collapse Blog, says, "Most Americans don’t realize this, but this treaty will fundamentally change our laws regarding internet freedom, health care, the trading of derivatives, copyright issues, food safety, environmental standards, civil liberties, and so much more."  He goes on to say that if Wikileaks had not secured access to the TPP draft, there would be next to nothing known about it. It posted a 95 page, 30,000 word document that was "horrifying." Writing about it on his blog, Kurt Nimmo, who edits and writes for InfoWars.com, noted that there are provisions within the treaty for implementing “a transnational ‘enforcement regime designed to supplant national laws and sovereignty with a globalist construct. The TPP is by far the largest and most oppressive economic treaty devised so far."

     The Canadian Free Press quotes William F. Jasper, an author and a senior editor of The New American, who calls the TPP “bigger and more dangerous than ObamaCare”; noting that “In November 2009, President Obama announced his intention to have the United States participate in a so-called trade agreement known as the Trans-Pacific Partnership. I say "so-called" trade agreement because 80 percent of the proposed agreement deals with a great many issues beside trade," deeming it “an all-out assault on our national sovereignty.”  

     “It would unconstitutionally transfer legislative powers from the U.S. Congress, our state legislatures, and our city and county governments to multi-national corporations and unaccountable international bureaucracies at the World Trade Center.”  And if that doesn't shock you, this revelation from Jasper will surely scare the bejeezus out of you!  "Incredibly, it would also transfer judicial powers from our federal and state courts—which are bad enough—to globalist TPP judges, regional tribunals, and the World Trade Organization.” The treaty would “confer huge advantages on foreign businesses and large multinationals, while at the same time putting companies that operate here in America—especially small and medium enterprises—at a competitive disadvantage. American businesses would remain shackled by the regulations of EPA, FDA, OSHA, etc. while their foreign competitors could operate here unimpeded by those same strictures.”

     Even The Huffington Post is warning of the ramifications of this secret legislation, reporting that the result of its passage could be the criminalization of small-scale copyright infringement, and households being disconnected from the internet under laws that punish unauthorized downloading.  Internet providers would be forced to do more monitoring of their subscribers, and it would be easier for governments to remove websites, critics say.  And RawStory.com provided this scary little tidbit:  Ongoing talks between Vice President Joe Biden, who was in Asia earlier this month, Treasury Secretary Jack Lew and Commerce Secretary Penny Pritzker focused on the President's push to convince Congress to offer him Trade Promotion Authority — which would allow him to fast-track trade deals through Congress --- and I'm assuming that authority would include keeping Congress and the American people out of the process.

     So where is the MSM on this important piece of legislation?  Why all the secrecy, and why the pressure to fast-track it?  Is this just another vehicle to sublimate the power of the American constituency to a global entity?  Has Congress become that irrelevant?  All these questions deserve answers.  The sad fact is that we are likely to receive none.  The Trans-Pacific Partnership appears to be just one more hindrance to American sovereignty and liberty.

2 Corinthians 4:2    "But we have renounced disgraceful, underhanded ways. We refuse to practice cunning or to tamper with God's Word, but by the open statement of the truth we would commend ourselves to everyone's conscience in the sight of God."

Our Veterans Have Sacrificed Enough

     I was deeply troubled when I heard that the new Budget Bill brokered by Representatives Paul Ryan and Patty Murray delivers another blow to our wounded veterans.  On Wednesday, the Senate voted 64-36 to pass this controversial budget deal.  The bill would cut retirement benefits for military retirees by $6 billion over 10 years.  As if that is not unforgivable enough, a sentence reading “This would not affect servicemembers who retired because of disability or injury” has been removed from a summary now posted on the House Budget Committee website.
     I find it absolutely unconscionable that, first of all, our military veterans would be asked to sacrifice their retirement pensions after all they've sacrificed for this country.  Secondly, it is indefensible that Congress would not exempt those who have been disabled or wounded during their service.
     The Washington Free Beacon reports that the Ryan-Murray deal affects Chapter 71, Section 1401 of the United States Code, which deals with the pay of military retirees.  As the code is currently written, servicemembers can be eligible for early Chapter 61 retirement if it is determined that, due to a physical disability, that individual is no longer able to perform the duties of their office, grade, or rank. The individual must hold a disability rating of 30 percent or more according to Department of Defense standards, and the disability must be the proximate result of performing their duties during a time of war or national emergency.

     A summary of the original budget agreement, obtained by the Free Beacon, explicitly stated that disabled veterans would be exempt.  However, Section 403 of the budget agreement amends section 1401a(b) of Title 10, U.S. Code, adding adjustments equal to inflation minus 1 percent, thereby lowering the Cost of Living Allowance (COLA) of disabled retirees.  The Free Beacon goes on to report that wounded servicemembers are entitled to Veterans Administration Disability Benefits, which remain unchanged by the budget deal. However, the change to Chapter 61 retirement could account for about 55 percent of a wounded service member’s disability pay, according to a Senate aide.  For example, a 28-year-old staff sergeant (an E-5 rank) who is forced to retire after 10 years would see approximately $50,000 in lost compensation over the next 40 years.
     And you want to know how Representative Ryan justifies the changes?  He says they are appropriate because servicemen and women who retire in their 40s after serving for two decades are still young enough to maintain a job.  But that doesn't address the wounded veteran who may not be able to obtain further employment.
     But there's another unethical element to this whole affair.  This bill would cut the benefits of military retirees, while not imposing equal cuts to federal civilian workers.  As Senator Jeff Sessions stated, “It is unthinkable that this provision would be included in a deal that spares current civilian workers from the same treatment.”  This is just an example of the Military-Industrial complex at its worst!  Those who have sacrificed the most will be the ones who pay the most to allow for increased government spending.  And this amendment to the bill did not have to be!
     Senator Sessions proposed an amendment that would eliminate an estimated $4.2 billion in annual spending by reining in an IRS credit that illegal immigrants have claimed.  In essence, Sessions’ office claimed that a vote to block his amendment was a vote to "cut military pensions instead of cutting welfare for illegal immigrants."
     To summarize this whole mess, Will Allison, spokesman for the House Budget Committee, made this statement:  "The COLA provision does not include additional exemptions [for wounded or disabled  veterans], but to clarify: The Bipartisan Budget Act does not affect any benefits provided to veterans in compensation for disabilities suffered as a result of their service.  There are no changes made to disability-compensation benefits and no changes that would impact their VA-provided medical care.”
     "The federal government has no greater obligation than to keep the American people safe,” Allison told the Free Beacon. “And it must take care of the men and women in uniform who put their lives on the line. To meet our obligations to our service men and women, we must make sure their long-term benefits are on a sound, financial footing."  All their benefits, except for retirement, of course.
     Disabled retirees, who were previously thought to be exempt from the changes to military retiree pay, could now lose up to $124,000 over a 20-year period.  Does that sound like the government is meeting their obligations?  Shame on Congress!

Romans 12:10   "Love one another with brotherly affection. Outdo one another in showing honor."

Drone-to-Door Delivery

     By now you've probably heard all the buzz over Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos's appearance on 60 Minutes.  Apparently the Research & Development Labs over at Amazon have been working overtime to come up with the latest techno device to impress their customers.  It's called Amazon Prime Air and could make delivery time of Amazon products as low as 30 minutes.  You read that correctly ... 30 minutes!
     Before you get all excited about signing up for this "autonomous vehicle delivery system", there are still a couple of issues that need to be resolved.  At the low end of consideration is the fact that packages over 5 pounds won't be feasible.  But since a reported 86% of Amazon's business falls within that parameter, there's no real need for concern.  But there's still the tiny problem with the FAA -- they haven't approved domestic drone flights yet.
     True, there is a mandate for them to come up with a plan to integrate drones into domestic airspace, but with that directive comes the responsibility to safeguard privacy, civil liberties and security.  Quite an important set of imperatives, wouldn't you say?  And from everything I've read, they are nowhere near guaranteeing any of these crucial measures.  It seems to me that the Federal Government, with their combined love of regulations and surveillance, could easily overstep their bounds and infringe even more upon our right to privacy.
     Then, of course, there is the matter of security.  How much do you trust the FAA to oversee security on a drone that lands at your doorstep?  How will they guarantee that these unmanned aerial transport systems won't be skyjacked and deliver a little more bang for your buck, so to speak?
     Of course, Amazon isn't selling any of those concerns.  They are touting the convenience and the immediacy of delivery.  In fact, they are so proud of their invention, proclaiming "One day, Prime Air vehicles will be as normal as seeing mail trucks on the road today."  But as I perused the comments section after one particular article on Tech Crunch, I realized that the techies had considered things that my pre-computer brain had not pondered.
     What if you live in a neighborhood or rural area with lots of trees?  What is to keep your package (or the drone, for that matter) from being stolen?  (I can think of lots of reasons that drones might become a hot black market item -- none of them are good).  What if you live in an apartment or condo?  Where does the drone drop the package?  Does this lead to an inevitable layoff of even more workers from the already fragile US economy?  Then of course, there are the inevitable law suits that come from property damage, injuries due to malfunctioning drones, etc., etc.
     So, while I find all the titillation and excitement behind Bezos's announcement to be amusing, I want to go on record that I am not interested in living out any episode from the old Jetson's TV show.  My Roomba vacuum is as close as I want to get to Jane Jetson's maid, Rosie.  I'd rather see the smiling face of Eli, my UPS driver, than hear the whirring arrival of a drone at my doorstep.  Just my opinion!

1 John 2:16    "For all that is in the world—the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride in possessions—is not from the Father but is from the world."


   
   

No More Brown Baggin' For The Kiddos!

     I guess I shouldn't be surprised at the article I read on the Healthy Debates website; it's just another nail in the coffin of freedom, and this time, it is our children who will pay the price.  The site reported that a Richmond, Virginia mother received a note from her child's preschool, telling her not to pack a lunch for her child.  The note read:  Dear Parents, I have received word from Federal Programs Preschool pertaining to lunches from home. Parents are to be informed that students can only bring lunches from home if there is a medical condition requiring a specific diet, along with a physicians note to that regard.  I am sorry for any inconvenience. If you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact blah, blah, blah....  So it looks like the days of swapping little Johnny's PB & J for Becky's Bologna & Cheese; or sharing some of Grandma's home-made brownies with your friends has gone the way of the hoola hoop and dodge ball.
    But it is not merely schools in Virginia that are affected.  Apparently any subsidized preschools (think Head Start programs) are subject to this inane ruling.  The purported reasons for this policy include:
•  They are a publicly subsidized program with mainly low-income families and they want to ensure that the children are receiving healthy meals that meet recognized federal nutritional guidelines. Parent supplied meals are often lacking in nutritional balance. (For example, in one field trip where parents did supply meals, one child's "meal" was 3 different bags of chips.)
•  Another reason is due to allergies. They have a protocol that they have to follow to prevent children from coming into contact with foods that they have an allergy to, and it's much harder to do this with meals brought from home as they have no way to verify ingredient lists or keep track of every child's meals.
•  Another is storage and preparation. They have little staff time or space to devote to meal storage and preparation, and keeping track of dozens of home-brought meals would cut into the time available for meal prep.
•  Finally, there are liability concerns. They have no way to assure the food safety for a home-brought meal, as they don't know how it was prepared or stored prior to arrival. Yet a parent may put blame on the school for improper storage if a meal is spoiled and sickens their child.
     Awww, it's all about the welfare of the children, right?  Think again!  When you look deeper, you find that, as usual, it's all about the money --- oh, yeah --- and let's not forget the control factor, too.  This is how it works: Agricultural surplus is used to provide a base of food which is provided to the schools free of charge. It is then turned into processed junk for the public school system while the food manufacturers profit. The National School Lunch Program, enacted in 1946, has a mission besides just feeding hungry children: to subsidize the agricultural business by using up beef, cheese, and pork. The school lunches are loaded with these artery-clogging ingredients, in the most processed forms possible.
     In fact, an article in the NY Times exposed the charade:  The Agriculture Department pays about $1 billion a year for commodities like fresh apples and sweet potatoes, chickens and turkeys. Schools get the food free; some cook it on site, but more and more pay processors to turn these healthy ingredients into fried chicken nuggets, fruit pastries, pizza and the like. Some $445 million worth of commodities are sent for processing each year, a nearly 50 percent increase since 2006.
     And here's how the food processors profit .... The Agriculture Department doesn’t track spending to process the food, but school authorities do. The Michigan Department of Education, for example, gets free raw chicken worth $11.40 a case and sends it for processing into nuggets at $33.45 a case. The schools in San Bernardino, Calif., spend $14.75 to make French fries out of $5.95 worth of potatoes.

     So, is it really about benefitting the kids?  I'll let you decide.  The Center for Science in the Public Interest has warned that sending food to be processed often means lower nutritional value and noted that “many schools continue to exceed the standards for fat, saturated fat and sodium.” A 2008 study by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation found that by the time many healthier commodities reach students, “they have about the same nutritional value as junk foods.”
     School management companies are saving money by not paying skilled kitchen workers, while the food processors pay these same management companies rebates in return for contracts (usually around 14%).  So don't tell me that these programs are instituted out of the desire to help our most vulnerable citizens, poor children.  These kinds of bleeding heart policies are really designed to line the pockets of corporations while sacrificing the health of our nation's children.
     As the article states, "Now, at least one school wants children to have a doctor’s note to say "no" to the school lunch offerings of hormones, GMOs, preservatives, and grease. They must have the permission of a professional to avoid junk food. A parent’s good judgement is not sufficient, it seems, to make the healthy decision to provide a toxin-free lunch.  By controlling the food that our kids eat, the federal government is controlling their entire lives, right down to their ability to think critically, their future fertility, and their overall lifespans."
     Think about it.  This is a typical week's menu at these federally-subsidized preschools:  Corn dog or chicken nuggets; tater tots; Beef tostada boat or PB and J on white bread; Pepperoni pizza or fish sticks with roll; Pretzel sticks with cheese sauce or chicken teriyaki; Cheeseburger or breaded chicken patty with seasoned fries.  There is not one thing on this list that falls into our normal diet. Add a side of rBGH-filled milk and a corn-syrup laden “fruit cup” and you have a complete nutritional disaster.  Why not just serve up a side dish of diabetes, obesity, arthritis and cancer?
     In the end, Healthy Debates sums it up nicely:  the federal government must have all the little children on board in order to subsidize the farmers, make the rich richer, and make the poor sicker. Throw in some Obamacare to treat the resulting nutritionally-driven illnesses and it is a win-win situation – at least it is if you own a food processing plant, a medical facility, or a factory farm and you’re not the ones eating that so-called food.  Lunch anyone?

James 2:15-16      "If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, and one of you says to them, “Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,” but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit?"

One Smart Kid

     I'm sorry if you are tired of hearing me lambast the Common Core education initiative.  But until every American parent is aware of the full implication of this propaganda machine, i will keep on sounding the alarm.  But now, thanks to an article on The Blaze website, I have the words of one high school student that can articulate the dangers of this program much better than I.

     But first, you need to know that officially, the Common Core State Standards Initiative is an approach to education in the United States that details what K-12 students should know in English and math at the end of each grade. The initiative is sponsored by the National Governors Association (NGA) and the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) and seeks to establish conformity in education standards across the states.  Remember, that both of these organizations have been involved in either the development or the implementation of Common Core.  Plus, we can't forget that this is the, ahem, official version.
     In reality, Common Core is designed to push an education agenda that conforms to a Progressive ideology, and limits not only the individuality of our children's learning processes, but seeks to determine exactly what they are taught.  But, here, let me give the floor to Ethan Young, a student at Farragut High School in Knox County, Tennessee, who makes his case as to why he believes his school district should drop the new national education standards, a set of guidelines that were never voted on by Congress, the Department of Education nor by local or state governments.
     Speaking at a local school board meeting, Ethan said, “The president essentially bribed states into implementation via ‘Race to the Top,’ offering $4.35 billion taxpayer dollars to participating states, $500 million of which went to Tennessee.  And much like No Child Left Behind, the program promises national testing and a one-size-fits-all education, because hey, it worked so well the first time.”
     “If nothing else, these standards are a glowing conflict of interest and they lack the research they allegedly received,” he added.  Young also argued that Common Core standards display a “mistrust of teachers,” a line that prompted applause from the audience.
     “I stand before you because I care about education, but also because I want to support my teachers,” he said. “And just as they fought for my academic achievement, so I want to fight for their ability to teach. This relationship is at the heart of instruction, yet there will never be a system by which it is accurately measured.”
     Ethan went on to argue that “standards-based education is ruining the way we teach and learn.” He also revealed that legislators and administrators have told him “that’s just the way things work.”  Now, he’s daring to ask: “Why?”
     “I’m gonna answer that question: Bureaucratic convenience,” he added. “It works with nuclear reactors, it works with business models, why can’t it work with students? I mean how convenient, calculating exactly who knows what and who needs what. I mean, why don’t we just manufacture robots instead of students? They last longer and they always do what they’re told.”
     "The problem is," Ethan continued, “education is unlike every other bureaucratic institute in our government” because the “task of teaching is never quantifiable.  If everything I learn in high school is a measurable objective, I have not learned anything,” Young proclaimed. “I’d like to repeat that. If everything I learn in high school is a measurable objective, I have not learned anything.”
     Government bureaucrats will never be able to measure “creativity, appreciation, inquisitiveness” but they are the “purpose of education,” he lectured.  (Smart kid!)  “Somewhere our Founding Fathers are turning in their graves — pleading, screaming and trying to say to us that we teach to free minds. We teach to inspire. We teach to equip; the careers will come naturally.”
     Ethan Young is obviously astute at figuring out the deficiencies in the Common Core standards.  But he's not alone.  In Oregon, parents fed up with their kids’ declining math grades under newly adopted Common Core standards took an unorthodox step to remedy the problem: They pulled their children out of school for an hour a day to teach them at home.  One seventh-grader had always been an “A” student in math until this year when she brought home a “D, according to her mother.  Another mom said her daughter, previously a sold “B” math student, is now failing the subject.
     Of course, the elementary school principal where these girls attended said he’s "not surprised some students are struggling, as Common Core math standards call for fewer numbers and formulas and more word problems and real-world scenarios, along with more group work."

Let me decipher that for you: one Common Core educator took an ordinary lesson about calculating the area of a circle, and turned it into an analysis of the South Central Los Angeles community that rioted after the 1992 “Rodney King” verdict.  Students learned that in 1992, South Central L.A. had no movie theaters or community centers, but it had 640 liquor stores. That led one student to conclude, “All they want them to do is drink.” (the student never thought to ask who “they” were.)  With encouragement from their teacher, the purpose of the Common Core curriculum was to get most students to decide, “We should have more jobs and more community centers, then you wouldn’t have to worry about riots,” and “The government should put more money in (South Central).”  Get it?  Multiplication tables and math problems have been replaced with social justice agendas and propaganda.  (Click on the link to this post to see more examples of this outrageous initiative).
     So it is not as U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan reportedly said -- that some of the opposition to the controversial Common Core State Standards is derived from wealthy white mothers upset to learn their children are not as bright as they thought.  According to the Washington Post, Duncan told a group of state schools superintendents he found it “fascinating” opposition comes from “white suburban moms who — all of a sudden — realize their child isn’t as brilliant as they thought they were and their school isn’t as good as they thought it was.”  (And this is the Secretary of Education????)
     The bottom line is this:  our kids need to know the basics in math and english; they need to know how to use their minds to balance a checkbook, and to argue their position on any given subject.  They DO NOT need to be fed a steady diet of biased or misleading political points of view.  What you don't realize is that this dangerous curriculum could be in your schools and you are not even aware of it!  I urge you to investigate for yourselves and root it out before your children pay the price of our apathy and unresponsiveness.

Isaiah 28:9    "Whom will He teach knowledge? And whom will He make to understand the message?"

   

Your Wood-Burning Stove Is Coming Under Fire

    Sorry, readers!  I went out of town for a couple of days and thought I scheduled this to run at 7 am, but was mistaken.  I will let this post run until 10:00 am tomorrow and then schedule the next one.  

     PLW actually ran across this disturbing bit of news on the Off The Grid News website.  Did you know that wood-burning stoves, which have been used for centuries in this country, are now under attack by the Environmental Protection Agency?
     Yes, the use of these trustworthy and dependable heating devices is being seriously scrutinized.  According to the article, the EPA has banned the production and sale of the types of stoves used by about 80 percent of those with such stoves. The regulations limit the amount of “airborne fine-particle matter” to 12 micrograms per cubic meter of air. The current EPA regulations allow for 15 micrograms in the same amount of air space.

     It probably won't surprise you to find out that most of these stoves, which are in use in cabins and homes across the land, don't meet the new requirement.  And the EPA is so determined to convince you to give up your stove, that they have launched a “Burn Wise” website to help convince the public that the new regulations were needed.  Burn Wise is a partnership program associated with the EPA that is tasked with emphasizing the “importance of burning the right wood, the right way, in the right stove.” Information shared on the website, operated by the federal government, also states that both state and local agencies are pursuing ways to improve air quality that relate to wood-burning stoves.
     According to a Washington Times review of the wood stove ban, the most dangerous aspect of the EPA proposed guidelines is the one-size-fits-all approach to the perceived problem. The same wood burning stove rules would apply to both heavily air-pollution-laden major cities and far cleaner rural regions with extremely cooler temperatures. Families living in Alaska, or off the grid in a wilderness area in the West, will most likely have extreme difficulty remaining in their cold, secluded homes if the EPA wood stove rules are approved.
     In fact, the Editorial Board of the Times had this to say .... “Alaska’s 663,000 square miles is mostly forested, offering residents an abundant source of affordable firewood. When county officials floated a plan to regulate the burning of wood, residents were understandably inflamed. ‘Everybody wants clean air. We just have to make sure that we can also heat our homes,’ state Rep. Tammie Wilson told the Associated Press. Rather than fret over EPA’s computer-model-based warning about the dangers of inhaling soot from wood smoke, residents have more pressing concerns on their minds such as the immediate risk of freezing when the mercury plunges.”
     While this may have been written somewhat tongue-in-cheek, it points out the ludicrous philosophy of this insane idea.  It's part and parcel of the whole global warming charade.  More than likely, it is another way to regulate preppers, and by the comments this article received, there are plenty of people who are capable of being fooled by this nonsense.  What will be next?  The banning of campfires?

Hebrews 12:29       "For our God is a consuming fire."