Another government showdown is looming. This time the hostage is immigrants. Those who seek a better life, refuge, dreams, riches, freedom. What ever their motivation many have braved leaving loved ones behind, poverty, perilous journeys and indentured servitude. Once here they face various new obstacles that depends on ethnicity and geographic location of settlement.

Hundreds of years ago individuals came to the New World to obtain a fresh start and the rest is history. But since the 1930s the altitude of Americans towards immigrants have moved from inviting to hostile. The issue of a shrinking job market has created many to see these hopeful citizens as invaders. With a willingness to accept lower wages citizens have been sold the ideology that aliens have adversely affected our job market.

Defining illegal immigrant or alien often differs based on political rhetoric and emotional attachments. Canadians and Europeans are oftentimes exempted from this list for more obvious reasons. While Latins have been grouped up as Mexicans and displayed negatively by politicians, media and the public. Needless to say South and Central Americans are not Mexicans it had very little bearing on how they appear in the publics eyes beyond the obvious. Bringing to like the U.S.’s love affair with skin tones and racism.

Fair skin is a premium in these the United States. Where darkies can expect to be treated poorly. A issue that is echoed globally in country after country. But racism is not the only factor.

Migratory workers in the Midwest and Southern states face Jim Crow type laws. Followers of Islam face stereotyping of being associated with terrorist groups. Africans deal with mistaken identity being grouped with Blacks who they share no cultural ties to. While Canadians and Europeans slip under the radar blending into the ruling class.

Our immigration laws have monetized the process. If you have thousands of dollars to invest, citizenship is at arms length. For those workers who are pursuing a fresh start, a conclusion to the process may never materialize. Consequently, this has forced many to slavery and indentured servitude for the opportunity to establish future generations of U.S. born descendents. One of our darkest secrets lies in our governments denial of such practices. Many of which are run by financial institutions and gangs.

Affluent communities have catered to another demographic of immigrants, those that receive visas and refugee status. Our welfare system picks up the tab for housing, education, groceries and consumer loans to non citizen immigrants. Most will never seek citizenship or contribute in any way to our economy.

When the media talks immigration it’s easy to think of the poor Mexicans crossing the boarder or the Asian business owner. We don’t consider the fair skinned Canadians or Europeans who blends into Corporate America’s elites. Also the African political refugees who become permanent residents of this country tax free receiving government assistance. To say a system is broken is to suggest the goal would be to process individual applications for citizenship. But in the U.S. money rules everything.

Posted from WordPress for Android

Conservative thought would tell us that businesses and the rich would invest more if they had financial incentives. These incentives come in the forms of tax break, subsides or other financial benefits, provided by the government. This theory has been championed by President Reagan then extended by Presidents GW Bush and Obama. Under a microscope and in a classroom environment this is a sound theory. Preschools use it all the time during share time. Consequently in the real world it has yet to show it’s marketed functionality. Unless the goal all along was to create a even larger financial disparity.

Corporations that have benefited from current policies are energy, automotive and financial companies that traditionally do well in terms of sustainable profits. In the past 8 years these companies have seen record profits. They are fueling a stock market that keeps rising. Many are expanding and buying up smaller weaker companies without government incentives. Paying top executives lucrative incomes. Laying off entry level and skilled positions to make inflated quarterly projections, which is to supposedly prevent them from loosing money.

Most of the financial benefits were first used in agriculture where the government paid farmers to lose money. It insured the supply would not be greater than demand. Keeping produce and other agriculture goods at a standard price was deemed good for the country and all farmers involved. Now the same principles are being applied to the top grossers. Only thing is, they were already making large profits now those profits are astronomical at the expense of tax payers.

Our media has been pivotal in the mis-education of the masses by using different terms for theoretically identical benefits. When it applies to those who do not need them they say “subsidy”, “loophole” or “incentive”. When it applies to those that need then they say “welfare” or “enablement”.

The only group suffering and paying for these benefits are middle class citizens who do not qualify for any of the above incentives. The ones they do qualify for are currently on the chopping block on both parties current budget proposals. One thing I’ve learned over the years is this, to get a better idea of what the government is doing is to understand the origin of a program. From there you analyse the application and reasoning behind them to determine if it was inacted in good faith or deceptive principles. In this case the evidence shows deception was used to line the pockets of the wealthy. If continued the destruction of the middle class is imminent.


Picture is from Occupy Democrats Facebook page.

What I’ve noticed through all the conversations and comments in life and virtual world is simple. People vote the way their parents vote or they evolve toward political awareness.

I’ve heard arguments for and against a number of sensitive issues. But to hear the individual beliefs in no means guarantees they would vote either way. Then they tell you they believe in the separation of government and religion. Yet their votes tend to sway towards religiously held beliefs.

Another more prevalent issue is ideology versus real life. Their the ultra conservative gays or the fanatical tree hugging liberal racist. Most fall closer towards the middle of this spectrum. It’s not enough to say this is the right way to go. What is right for one is not right for all.

My question to all is this does it work for society or just a group? Beware of the error of Baalam warned that the process does not dictate the outcome when it comes to a nation. History shows us that even dark times humanity has found a way to correct itself. Voting should be based on what would bring strength and unity.

Many of our laws do not work because of the loopholes and special interest. It has nothing to do with the actual legislation itself. That’s why get upset when people vote on merit. A proposition is for gay rights but it’s wording alienates religious rights in the process. A proposition is for cancer research but none of the money goes to cancer researchers. Enter the Spin Artists, those who will use words to deceive the masses. Blatantly abusing the good faith of those hypocritical enough to be listen to their rhetoric.

In the U.S. citizens have the freedom to be dumb or ignorant about important matters like government. They find it hard to distinguish between the roles of the separate branches and often can’t identify federal, state and municipal jurisdiction. Yet they take pride in voting politicians into office unaware of their job description.

In Atlanta the Mayor is being ripped apart because the freeways weren’t property prepared for an ice storm. Clearly this is a state matter. Public schools not closing also does not fall under the authority of any mayor, which is why municipals vote on schools boards.

Presidential candidates are forced to answer judiciary or legislative inquiries from pundits who know the difference but play on the publics fears and ignorance. We have a congress right now that complains that the president has not lived up to his promise. Then they admit they in fact are responsible for blocking him from keeping his word. In the very next breath they say he has yet to present the legislation, which is handled by the Speaker of the House. If the Speaker does not want it heard it will be buried in the House and impossible to come to fruition.

I heard John Boehner say some things that really bothered me this week. Each president since George Washington has used the executive order for one reason or another. One constant theme is to interpret our constitution as it pertains to everyday life. Several presidents used executive orders to desegregate, raise pay, establish trade and advance the research of natural resources. All things that our current president is being considered a dictator for, by stating his intent to pass executive orders to push legislation the country unanimously supports. This is a blatant act of fear mongering. Representative Boehner was happy to have President George W Bush raise his pay through an executive order.

President Obama is not doing anything new by using an executive order to address our immigration. Without executive orders their would have been no Civil Rights Movements. Here’s a site that shows all the rights executive orders established.

From Reddit US Politics on Reddit

Sent via Scope (

Do people really vote, based on what they believe? Or what they were taught to believe? Like weed smokers voting against the legalization of marijuana. You see gays voting for anti same sex marraige politicians and legislation. Union workers supporting union busters and those with anti union rhetoric. Blacks and Hispanics feeling that affirmative action is pointless and a form of reverse discrimination. All are just a gambit of oximorons. Enough to fill a landfill because to me it is ll rubbish.

I can recall a conversation with a spoiled, rich daddy’s girl who had not yet been forced to live by her own means yet. Her ideologies reflected that of her conservative rich but, but not her liberal lifestyle. We often times have a disconnect between our morals and our lifestyles. But that can be seen in the current state of our bi partisan country. A few years later the same young ladies political views had changed to reflect the liberal world she had long embraced.

What happens is (I think at least) we all live in this Utopian bubble we call “our parents house,” where our rules and regulations are theirs. We hate abortion, marijuana, unions, taxes, welfare, planned parenthood, tuition forgiveness, tree hugging, environmentalists, government regulations, Obama, gays and affirmitive action. Then we move out and: get a job, go to college, travel the world or live off our parents as we pursue some pipe dream and realize, “hey I really don’t hate those things.” Your BFF is gay, you’ve had a homosexual relationship, would opt for an abortion, smoked pot, can’t pay back student loans, think Obama is not that bad, wish we all would do more environmentally, became a vegan, want healthcare but job won’t offer it, had to apply fr food stamps and Medicare after being fired, have no opinion on unions (let alone know what they do), still don’t see the significance of affirmative action or government regulation and thinks taxes are a yearly bonus.

Seeing some of the posts and RNC speeches about how much the Obama administration has cost the country. The conjecture that Reagan was such a great Conservative and president with an economic plan that was unrivaled by any other modern president has left me a tad heated. It is one thing to have Conservative ideologies, which I am okay with, but to not have any facts on the matter is appalling.
I’m not a numbers don’t lie type of person when it comes to statistics. When it comes to dollars and cents talk is cheap and it is all in the numbers.
So let’s see what the numbers say:

Initial Run-Up of Debt









$ Billions

$ Billions

Whose Debt?











Reagan-Bush 1993





Oct.1 1993 — Sept. 30, 2001


Interest on their


debt during the


Clinton years.









G. W. Bush 1993




Obama stimulus

As of:









Oct.1 2009 — Sept. 30, 2010


Interest on Total




$12 Trillion =


Total Reagan-Bush Debt on 9/30/2010

Now put that in your pipe and smoke it!

I’m not the brilliant mastermind behind this graph instead it was done by Steven Stoft at

“What’s on the zFacts agenda?  As of August 2011, I’m planning on trying out a newsletter, and seeing if we can figure out how to make zFacts more effective, and perhaps get some research help.  My next focus is the $12 trillion dollar Republican debt. Blaming that on the Democrats or Obama is the biggest political lie of my lifetime.”

Cancer has affected use all. I have lost countless family and friends to the disease. No one I know has yet to be traumatically effected by it. Prop 29 is for the eradication of a deadly and silent killer. Too bad they didn’t tell the lawmaker to write it up that way.

California politicians have gone all in when it comes to foolery. This prop is proof that they will go to no limits in an attempt to steal from the little man. Note that the tax does not reach the tobacco industry. Ads that target youth will still be ran. Oh let’s not forget some of the money will be used to offset some of the money lost by consumers smoking less. Because we know that they will use other options to obtain cigs. You think!

So you’ve created something that you admit will decrease the amount of money available every year it is in effect. Why not a $.50 increase and get $400 million? After all the $900 million last year was not effective compared to the $6 billion the Federal Government doles out for the same things.

Just in case you did not know $50 million of the $900 million went to California programs. That accounts for not 10% but slightly more than 5% of the money taken from California smokers, retailers, distributors and delivery drivers. You already admitted the consumption would go down without admitting California will not benefit long-term. They use the same amount towards Admin payouts to government agencies, including law enforcement. These are small numbers in comparison to the lump sum.

Figure 2 How Estimated Revenue From New Cigarette Tax Would Be Allocated
(Dollars in Millions)
  2013–14 Funding (Full Year)
Estimated Revenue From New Cigarette Tax Less backfill to Proposition 99, Proposition 10, General Fund, and Breast Cancer Fund — $810 –75a (20%)
Estimated Net Revenue Allocation of Estimated Net Revenue

Research Fund 60%

Facilities Fund 15%

Tobacco Prevention and Cessation Fund 20%

Law Enforcement Fund 3%

Committee Account 2%

a LAO estimate. Backfill amounts would be determined by the Board of Equalization.







When you break down the numbers this prop looks like it is a good joke gone bad that gets worse every time you hear it. Let’s talk about who in California gets the money 25% goes to the supporters of the prop directly to be used for admin costs. All of this will be allocated by a Committee made up of people elected by our Governor, California Department of Public Health and 3 UC Chancellors. But wait isn’t the DPH the benefactor of 20% already to share with the Department of Education and only 3 UCs actually qualify to be included.

Let’s focus on who will be on the committee or control the money. Governor Brown has 4 appointees, DPH 2 and 3 Chancellors from Berkeley, San Francisco and Santa Cruz (only post 1900 schools). The accountability issue is true seeing that only Brown is an elected official. Once enacted, electors are the only persons allowed to amend the prop earlier than 15 years from the effective date.

When the smoke clears and the mirrors shatter the act is not meant to cure cancer. The criticism is 100% accurate and well document in the language. To play on the citizen’s fears and emotions of cancer should be criminal but it is not. Unless you are a smoker, shop owner, distributor or vendor of tobacco this will not affect you at all. The money does go to organizations that work towards the cure for cancer; needless to say those are the only criteria for receiving funds. Meaning no geographical limitations or corporate status was specified. If properly disclosed money can be funneled to organizations that are affiliated with the appointed committee members with no oversight. I’m not comfortable with this one but maybe you are.

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.