Coalition

Latoya Plummer and Laurene Simms answering some of the Frequently Asked Questions regarding the FSSA.

Duration : 0:4:2

Read the rest of this entry »

Let us set aside differences and consider that Jews, Christians, and finally Muslims have been living in peace for centuries before 1940. Taking that into consideration after the formation of the UN, whom consisted of western power house nations namelessly the USA. The UN decided the holocaust was reason enough to forcefully displace people from their own lands in historic Palestine to a small area known as Gaza. Now this is just a simple understanding of the whole truth.

The Matter at hand is territory! Israel gives and takes constantly since the creation of the state of Israel after wwII. As you can imagine Palestinians are constantly forced out militarily. When the UN decided the world will not look at the occurrence with a light heart they force Israel to give it back. Hopefully you can recognize the issue! It’s not a religious problem! Of course, the extremist would love for you to think that….it was and still is the issue. It’s a power struggle between the western alliances and the Middle Eastern coalition.

The Jewish people feel that they deserve this land because they are the oldest religion around and the land belongs to them for ancient religious reasons. (Zionism) Unfortunately, this absolute ideology is the main reason for the conflict. If you would refer to the first point that was made,” Jews, Christians, and finally Muslims have been living in peace for centuries before 1940.” It’s not about religion. It’s about the haves and the have no lands. Take a good look at the historic map of Palestine. Then take good look at the Israeli map as it stands now.

Do not overlook the Palestinian death toll compared to the Israeli. There is a gross difference in deaths. I would go as far and say that genocide has been committed by the Israelis at the demise of Arabs. "Israel has been almost continuously at war throughout its existence with most of the major countries in the Middle East."

Back to the problem at hand! I would ask you! What would you do if this foreign power (UN and Israel) took your land and killed your family constantly for 60 years?

how about, give the "holy land" over to an atheist. We don’t’ care who comes to pray anywhere on the land. we wont stop you!

just don’t preach to us in the mean time.

This is what I have. I need someone to tell me if I am on the right track or not please.

The New Deal was meant to give work to the unemployed, reform business and financial practices, and to help recover the economy during the Great Depression. Franklin Roosevelt’s First New Deal, in 1933, was more of a short-term recovery process. It was to help the economy and the workers get back on their feet during the Great Depression. Roosevelt’s administration promoted banking reform laws, emergency relief programs, work relief programs, industrial reform, and a federal welfare state. Little was done for small farmers and it eventually led to them losing their homes. In 1935, Roosevelt added a Second New Deal which was pointed towards restoring the economy back to its original state. This Second New Deal included labor union support, the Social Security Act, and programs to aid farmers. Unfortunately for Roosevelt, most of these ideas of relief were shut down during World War II by the Conservative Coalition while only few became permanent. In 1935, the Wagner Act, or the National Labor Relations Act, attempted to prevent employers’ use of bribing and intimidation of breaking up unions. Eventually, World War II was the cure for the Great Depression, but was the downfall for the New Deal. The New Deal had run its course and in the short run, the New Deal helped improve the lives of people who were suffering from the Great Depression. In the long run, the New Deal set an example for the government to follow by in the economy.
In my opinion, the New Deal gave hope to people who were suffering during the Depression. People needed something to look forward to and Roosevelt gave them this hope through his New Deal. It is said that the key factor to recovery during the 1930’s was expansionary monetary policy. Roosevelt’s plan was to increase money supply, get the banking system back on its feet, and restore trust in financial institutions. Since there was a massive unemployment rate, the more people that became unemployed, the less money they had to buy other goods, the more people became unemployed. Overall, I think his New Deal made things worse for the economy. Even though some of these ideas of his are still in effect today, that doesn’t mean that it made things better. The war was really the only thing that saved the economy. The government involvement with this crisis only prolonged the Depression rather than helped it. The only thing that would have saved the economy other than the war was the expansionary monetary policy. It was a good effort to get peoples’ hopes up, but looking back, I can honestly say it did not do too much to help the economy.

I really need someone to read this and tell me if it’s good or not. This is due tomorrow and I would really appreciate your help.

What class is this for?

Roosevelt cannot make monetary policy.. only the federal reserve can do that.

Roosevelt only had control of fiscal policy.

Your second paragraph is a little back and forth. The first sentence should read that it gave hope for some, but had bad consequences overall.

• Republican anti-abortion activist Howard Scott Heldreth is a convicted child rapist in Florida.

• Republican County Commissioner David Swartz pleaded guilty to molesting two girls under the age of 11 and was sentenced to 8 years in prison.

• Republican judge Mark Pazuhanich pleaded no contest to fondling a 10-year old girl and was sentenced to 10 years probation.

• Republican anti-abortion activist Nicholas Morency pleaded guilty to possessing child pornography on his computer and offering a bounty to anybody who murders an abortion doctor.

• Republican legislator Edison Misla Aldarondo was sentenced to 10 years in prison for raping his daughter between the ages of 9 and 17.

• Republican Mayor Philip Giordano is serving a 37-year sentence in federal prison for sexually abusing 8- and 10-year old girls.

• Republican campaign consultant Tom Shortridge was sentenced to three years probation for taking nude photographs of a 15-year old girl.

• Republican racist pedophile and United States Senator Strom Thurmond had sex with a 15-year old black girl which produced a child.

• Republican pastor Mike Hintz, whom George W. Bush commended during the 2004 presidential campaign, surrendered to police after admitting to a sexual affair with a female juvenile.

• Republican legislator Peter Dibble pleaded no contest to having an inappropriate relationship with a 13-year-old girl.

• Republican advertising consultant Carey Lee Cramer was charged with molesting his 9-year old step-daughter after including her in an anti-Gore television commercial.

• Republican activist Lawrence E. King, Jr. organized child sex parties at the White House during the 1980s.

• Republican lobbyist Craig J. Spence organized child sex parties at the White House during the 1980s.

• Republican Congressman Donald "Buz" Lukens was found guilty of having sex with a female minor and sentenced to one month in jail.

• Republican fundraiser Richard A. Delgaudio was found guilty of child porn charges and paying two teenage girls to pose for sexual photos.

• Republican activist Mark A. Grethen convicted on six counts of sex crimes involving children.

• Republican activist Randal David Ankeney pleaded guilty to attempted sexual assault on a child.

• Republican Congressman Dan Crane had sex with a female minor working as a congressional page.

• Republican activist and Christian Coalition leader Beverly Russell admitted to an incestuous relationship with his step daughter.

• Republican governor Arnold "The Gropinator" Schwarzenegger allegedly had sex with a 16 year old girl when he was 28.

• Republican congressman and anti-gay activist Robert Bauman was charged with having sex with a 16-year-old boy he picked up at a gay bar.

• Republican Committee Chairman Jeffrey Patti was arrested for distributing a video clip of a 5-year-old girl being raped.

• Republican activist Marty Glickman (a.k.a. "Republican Marty"), was taken into custody by Florida police on four counts of unlawful sexual activity with an underage girl and one count of delivering the drug LSD.

I always think :
If a person is religious
We should doubt about his morality
Because a really decent person
doesn’t need religious principles
A nondecent person becomes religious
cause he hopes religion will change him
or
he hopes God will forgive his sins

Advocates on here claim illegals are not soaking up welfare and our gov. services. If they are not, Why would activist ask for welfare to end for illegal alien lawbreakers?
_______________________________________________
Activists Seek End to $640M Calif. Welfare Program for Illegals

Monday, July 13, 2009 11:53 AM

By: Dave Eberhart

Activists in California are pushing for a ballot initiative that would end public benefits for illegal immigrants and terminate welfare payments for their children, according to a report in The Los Angeles Times.

Organizers have kicked-off a drive to gather the 488,000 voter signatures required to qualify the measure for the June 2010 election. It has been a slow start, however, with only $350,000 in the war chest. Typically, statewide initiatives consume about $4 million at the signature-collecting phase.

Supporters of the initiative further want to challenge the citizenship of children born in the United States to parents who are here illegally, San Diego political activist Ted Hilton told the Times.

Hilton argued that the 14th Amendment states, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside.”

Since illegal residents are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States, their offspring should not be citizens, he maintained.

Hilton pointed to estimates that California’s 2.7 million illegal residents account for $4 billion to $6 billion (mostly schools, prison space, and emergency healthcare) of the state’s $105-billion budget.

“Are we going to continue asking taxpayers to pay for these services when the state is completely out of money?” he asked.

The measure would end state welfare to an estimated 48,000 households and 100,000 children — aid that now costs the state $640 million a year.

Hilton has been beating the drum against illegal immigration for two decades. With regard to the new initiative, his organization, Taxpayer Revolution, has gotten the seal of approval from Republican Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, the American Legion California chapter, NumbersUSA, Save Our State, and the California Coalition for Immigration Reform.

The California initiative follows similar measures in Oklahoma, Colorado Virginia, Arizona and Georgia, according to the Times report.

Meanwhile, proponents for the rights of illegal immigrants argue that illegal residents pay taxes — sales taxes on what they buy, gasoline taxes when they fuel their cars, property taxes if they own homes. The Social Security Administration estimates that in 2007, illegal residents nationwide contributed a net of 12 billion dollars to the system.

Peter Schey, a Los Angeles attorney who successfully challenged Proposition 187, a similar measure, said courts would most likely sink the initiative.

“This proposal . . . has no chance of surviving a constitutional challenge,” he told the Times. “It is plainly driven by racism and a desire to whip up xenophobia during difficult economic times for U.S. citizens.”

Proposition 187 was halted in its tracks when a federal judge ruled that the measure unconstitutionally usurped federal jurisdiction over immigration.

Mike Hethmon, an attorney with the Washington-based Immigration Reform Law Institute, told the Times that the latest measure passes muster under federal authority delegated to the states to restrict access to benefits and verify applicants’ eligibility.

Unlike Proposition 187, the new measure does not attempt to curtail access to education – keeping it square with the 1982 Supreme Court ruling that states could not bar illegal immigrant children from schools.

Some features of the initiative:

Would cut off CalWorks payments to the children of citizens or legal residents who fail to meet eligibility requirements for state aid because they are unwilling to work, addicted to drugs or absent.

Would require that applicants for birth certificates verify their legal status.

Would require that those applicant for birth certificate unable to verify their legal status produce official identification from a foreign government, a record of any publicly funded costs for delivering the child, and other information before receiving their child’s birth certificate, which would be marked with the notation “foreign parent.”

http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/california_welfare_end/2009/07/13/234879.html
grease – read the question, it is about reforming the welfare system, not giving illegal lawbreakers reform, wow. you read one word and went off in your own little world. Answer the question about illegal lawbreakers getting welfare!!
REFORM the welfare system and deny illegal aliens benefits???
sagey – READ the ARTICLE!! They want reform so illegal aliens do not receive any more welfare, why do illegal advocates have problems reading the whole article and answering the questions asked????

Illegal aliens do take advantage of welfare programs in the US. Influx of illegals also contributes to lower wages for the unskilled in the US.

My question is, how can most people I hear talking about this topic get so passionate about poor people illegally immigrating from Mexico and stealing welfare, not get at least as angry about rich cats in their own government who steal much, much more?

The Democratic Senators and Congressmen can well choose to ignore polls. Polls go up. Polls go down. They may figure that the public will have moved on by the time they run for re-election, particularly those Senators who are not up in 2010. With four or six years to go in their terms, they can afford a relaxed view of polling data.

But the Democratic Party as a whole cannot afford to ignore a massive defection in the ranks of the elderly, one of its key building blocks. Ever since the New Deal coalition was cobbled together by FDR, the elderly have been a major component. Worried about Republican designs on their Social Security, they vote overwhelmingly Democratic.

But the Obama proposals, which many see correctly as a major cut in Medicare, might be seminal in driving them en masse away from the Democrats.

The Democratic Party is built on six pillars — blacks, Latinos, single women, young people, union members, and the elderly. If legislation threatens one of those pillars, it threatens the stability of the entire partisan structure. And Obama’s health care reform seems to do just that.

With 40% of the savings in medical spending coming from Medicare, the senior citizens of America are coming to see the Obama proposals as an assault on their health care system. Since their needs are fully met by Medicare, they see no need for monkeying with the system and are highly suspicious of any changes. When they watch as their fellow seniors attend town meetings to protest to their Congressmen about these cuts and are labeled "un-American" for their pains, their alienation from the Democrats just grows.

The fissure Obama is driving between his party and the elderly will not soon heal. When the elderly change their voting habits, they tend to do so for a very, very long time. Even Senators who are up in

2012 or 2014 should worry that their votes for the Obama plan could doom their ability to attract elderly support.

As to the young people who back the plan, once they learn that they will have to pay steep premiums for health care coverage, whether they want to or not, their support is likely to cool. Under the bill, for example, those making $30,000 a year would have to pay up to 7% of their income in health insurance premiums before they could get a government subsidy. A $2,100 bill for such a young person might seem affordable to Obama, but perhaps not to them. Thus, the legislation may well come to be seen as a tax on the young, another of the key constituencies of the Democratic Party.

The cost of Obama’s health care changes just keeps growing — financially and politically.

True? Yes.

Isn’t it interesting that Obama ran on the promise of "change" and that no one in the media asked "change in what and to what" and now he wants to control 14% of our economy? Any opposition to this is branded "Republican right wing" opposition, but, in many cases it is just senior citizens interested in what will happen to them.

How can the people of Massachusetts live with themselves as they keep electing Barney Frank and Ted Kennedy and John Kerry? Well, I guess there is some California in them.

Regards,
Dan

For example they used to be a powerful political action committee but now you don’t even hear of them.

The pendulum swings back and forth. Right now the swing is to the far left. It will swing the other way if our country survives Obama

I read that we, the US payed for 2/3 of Poland’s military contribution to Iraq. That was 2,500 troops first sent back in summer 03 i believe. What did small nations like Estonia or Tonga or Bulgaria or El Salvador send troops to Iraq? Do you think it was profitable to them in any way?

Poland supports its own armed forces. I think the US supplied logistical support to the Polish detachment. Small countries sought to help because they felt it was the right thing to do (ideological purposes) or because they felt it was a good strategic partnership (improve relations with the US), and finally with the hopes of achieving an agenda. In Poland’s case, it had hoped Iraq would cement its usefulness as a new member of NATO and US ally. Also, the Polish government hoped the US would add Poland to the visa waiver program, so that Polish citizens could travel to the US without restrictive visas (as Brits, Italians, French and most Western Europeans can do), as US citizens can now travel to Poland without any visa necessary. Bulgaria hoped to win US support as a mid-sized NATO member and bill itself as a strategic partner for Russian, Caucacasus and Mid East operations. Estonia entered primarily under ideological pretenses, the Soviet yolk was a bad experience and they wanted to show solidarity with the United States. Also they wanted to join NATO the following year and wanted to ensure they made it. The same can be said for Georgia, Lithuania, Latvia and Azerbaijan. A few nations such as the Netherlands, Denmark, the Philippines, Japan, South Korea and Spain and Italy had governments at the time that strongly bought into the notion that Iraq was threatening world stability with the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. As in most countries, their populaces were much more skeptical, especially Spain’s and Italy’s. South Korea and Japan both had an ulterior motive – both have something of conception of public debt to the United States for providing defense since WWII. Nations such as Czech Republic, Hungary, and Slovakia all hoped to showcase their capabilities within NATO, there was no financial gain to the best of my knowledge. Australia joined with the prospect of a free trade agreement with the United States.

Yes, Iraq was very profitable to several participants, however it cost the governments of many of these nations a lot of political credibility, as they largely acted in what was considered the country’s best interest, but not in accordance with the support of their populations.

post-note: To add to the previous poster’s comment.. Canada was much wiser and more patient than the US government in not sending troops. However this has nothing to do with its currency trading higher than the US dollar (the UK pound sterling is over twice the value of the dollar and it, I believe, sent more than a couple soldiers to Iraq). Also it doesn’t have a stronger economy, it has an economy less prone to fibulations in the housing market and a trade surplus rather than deficit. This has nothing to do with the war and should correct itself as the US pursues better policy directives in the coming administration.

counter to the conservative political coalition?

We need a bit more detail in this post.

Exodus 20:8-11

yes, it would.