Pension Theft and Broken Promises

I just read a couple of articles that show how one way or the other they are going to get your pension.

Huffington Post - Stealing From Federal Civil Servants: You May Be Next. Apparently the Federal Government is seeking to change the way that cost of living increases are calculated. Why does this matter, well, because these costs were promises made to retirees, completed contracts. Lets say you made a promise to me that if I worked for you for a year then you would pay me $100,000 at the end of the year. I give you a years worth of work and then you tell me you are only going to pay me $60,000. You don't complain about the work and you have the money; but, you want to spend the difference on someone else to work for you.

Maybe you don't care about federal employees being cheated; but, what is to prevent them from doing the same to everyone who has contributed to social security. There is an attack on all forms of retirement funds.

Bankrate.com - Is your public pension at risk?. State and local pensions are not part of the federal system. Yet, they are also being attacked. In Detroit's attempted bankruptcy the judge has stated that the city can reduce pension payments to people who are already retired even though the State's constitution specifically prohibits this.

The media just lies about public pensions. I read papers from all over the world and United States and see the same story repeated again and again. Do you really believe that not one public pension was properly funded? Not one? The best example of this nonsense is the Postal Service, they are being forced to front fund pensions that won't be drawn on for 30 years. I wrote about this recently, regarding how there are people who are attempting to end the public post office.

Pensions, retirement funds and social security are all under attack. Thieves go where the money is and they want everyone's.

The Next Financial Meltdow Is Being Planned

We all know about the housing collapse and the stock crash and the bailouts. Well the House of Representatives has just passed a bill to eliminate the regulations over derivatives. Lets consider what that means. After the bailouts some regulations on certain types of financial instruments were put back in place and now we are eliminating those regulations. In England, they are actually promoting a new housing bubble similar to the one that happened in the United States. Why would anyone intentionally replicate something that has already failed? The answer is that a few made a lot of money on the financial collapse.

Wall Street created some rather fancy financial transactions, we call these derivatives. They knew that these products that they sold would fail and bet on them failing. As someone recently said, basically it is like someone making a car that they know will have and accident, selling you the car and then taking out insurance on the car having an accident.

Why would congress go back to allowing Wall Street to sell toxic financial instruments? The next crash is going to be worse and it is coming. Some people plan on making a lot of money on this coming crash.

Do You Ever Wonder Why Young Men Have Breasts Now

I was reading a weekly paper today and there was an add for male breast reduction. This is not a result of natural selection. Why do men under 35 have breasts now? Men born in the 1950s and 1960s don't have breasts. So, what has changed? What has changed is our food. What has changed is the hormones that we give to chickens and other animals. Why doesn't this bother anyone? Why doesn't it bother people that we are genetically modifying our crops?

Big Banks as Beggers

A few years back the big banks went before the government to request to be "bailed out". Basically, they were insolvent and wanted the government to lend them lots of money. This was done under Bush and was called TARP. The theory seemed to be that banks that had made bad loans on mortgages should sell those loans to the government. Treasury Secretary Paulson went before congress and basically told them that the world would end if the government did not buy these loans. Currently, the government owns over 80% of all mortgages because of this program.

YouTube - Congressman Brad Sherman: Martial Law if We Voted No [1]
.

I do hope you watch the whole video, it is only ten minutes. The TARP bill allowed half of our bailouts to go to foreign banks and the truth is, we do not know how much did and will be told. In fact, Federal Reserve Chairman Greenspan later told congress quite specifically that he did not have to tell them and did not. The second really interesting point was that Mr. Sherman pointed out that he was being called by people who worked on Wall Street basically begging for the bail out.

What began this market failure was the deregulation of the banking industry which was strongly supported by Greenspan. Mr. Greenspan did not believe in any financial regulation and was a follower of Ayn Rand. We therefore have two things going on that are fascinating and are largely responsible for our current financial problems. One was the belief that regulating business is wrong and that is why none of these bankers responsible will ever go to jail for the horrible things that they allowed and promoted. If you are a supporter of this "libertarian" perspective (it is not libertarian, it is objectivist and practically a religion) then why regulate begging?

In the past few years cities have put restriction on begging in public. There is one city that is even attempting to outlaw feeding the homeless in City parks or property. The bias seems to be when the poor ask for a handout but not when wealthy supporters ask for one. Think about it this way, millions are losing their homes; but, the people that lent the money after having asked for deregulation were bailed out and put the cost on you and I.

The problem seems to be that there is no justice. Justice is when we are all treated the same regardless of wealth, color, religion or sex. Nope, Mr. Trump summed it up best. He said if you owe someone a thousand dollars, you have a problem; but, if you owe them a Billion dollars, they have a problem. We call this blackmail.

Nelson Mandela and Illegal Aliens in America

Nelson Mandela has passed away. Mr. Mandela led an interesting life and after taking over South Africa managed to prevent it from sliding into what could have been a horrendous civil war. Not an easy thing to do. Prior to the end of apartheid in South Africa many westerners made a lot of claims against apartheid; but, rarely was the whole story told and part of it has some relevance for the United States.

South Africa, like many other countries, allowed people from neighboring countries to come there on work visas for decades. These people were not considered citizens. One of them was a young Indian attorney named Gandhi. He later left and return to India where he was the primary force behind freeing India from English control. While in South Africa, Gandhi set out to give Indians the vote; but, they were not citizens. In fact many were indentured servants who had come there with no expectation of citizenship. Here is the hypocrisy, today many are applauding Mr. Mandela's life, as they should; but, many of these same people are outraged that the United States has illegal aliens here from Mexico.

Some may argue that these people are here illegally and they are; but, many of them have been here for decades working in the fields. How is it that we allow so many people to come here to work as undocumented workers picking our fruit and being given so few rights? You cannot have it both ways. There is a discussion going on right now about giving citizenship to "illegal aliens" in America and I think we need to see how we had called for the same in South Africa.

Part of the reason that we don't see the similarity is because many viewed the situation in South Africa as being the same as it was here; but, there were some real differences. You might be interested to know that South Africa abolished slavery before the United States did. Most people don't know that. It should also be noted that South Africa had a lot less slaves than we did.

I am not arguing for open borders, I am questioning our claim on moral superiority over what went on in South Africa. We have whole families that were born here to parents who came here illegally. If caught, the parents can be sent back to Mexico and the families ripped apart as their children have no right to Mexican citizenship. Over the next few days we are going to hear a lot about how great Mr. Mandela was for ending apartheid, my question is, how much sympathy and compassion can we find for people who come here without permission that work the most menial jobs in our country?

A Few More Thoughts on Pastor Daniels

In the last few days I have received some comments on the case of Pastor Daniels. I checked to see if there were any news updates and found none other than what I posted recently. In the course of this I was talking to a friend about the comments I had received and up showing him the site on Google Earth and explaining some of my thoughts on the matter. It got me thinking about the facts of the case again.

We do not believe that the murderer enterred through the front door because the front of the church could be seen by cameras and the police said that no car pulled up in front other than hers based on the camera footage. We know that the police took the back door into evidence and have reason to believe that something was written on it in the Pastor's blood. While I have never read about what was written or drawn on the door, we know they kept the door as evidence. It is also most likely that the murderer entered through that door. If a window had been broken, I think that would have come out. In fact, we were told that a couple of her friends had come by and found the front door locked, they would have checked the windows to try and see inside and would have noticed if any were broken.

This is probably a minor point; but, how did the intruder open the back door? Did they have a key or did they force it open? If they did not force it open then where did they get the key from? If they forced it open they must have lived close by. There are at least four or five houses with line of site views of the back of the church. It can also be seen from the convenience store. I am sort of train of consciousness writing this, so excuse me if it is not completely thought out and develops as I write. A group of people could not have entered the church they would have been noticed. My guess is that the door was forced open by one person.

Another thought. Anyone just passing by would not have known there was a back door. I had considered the possibility that someone headed to the casino up the road could have done it; but, it doesn't make sense that they would know there was a backdoor unless they had been behind the church previously. Why would anyone think that church had a back door and not be afraid to be seen entering through it? How did this person know that they could break open the back of that church, get inside and not have the cops called. This is especially odd as the police station is so close by, about a block away.

I read somewhere that one of Pastor Daniels relatives asked what happened to her briefcase, I found that odd at the time; but, didn't quite know why. I have preached many times and have never brought a briefcase with me, I just bring my bible. It is not as if she thought she would be taking up a collection because everything I have read said that many times nobody showed up. It is my understanding that she really went there to serve two elderly members of the church. She would not need a briefcase to carry their contributions if they made any.

I had asked myself at a time if there could have been an economic motive behind the killing. I wondered if someone had wanted to acquire the property; but, it is a memorial and as far as I know, nobody tried to buy it. To the church it is a loss of an asset economically. They did not sell it off. I cannot see how anyone benefited economically from the Pastor Daniels death. A planned murder like this always has a motive. The most common motives for crime are money or personal revenge. We know that most people know their murderers at least on some level. Who did she meet in Anadarko that would want to harm her? How many people did she even know in the whole town, she only went there on Sundays for a couple of hours. It is not as if she went door to door inviting people to the church or at least I have read such a thing.

I believe we must assume that Pastor Daniels had met her killer previously. I believe the person was a local and felt secure in entering through the back door without being noticed in broad daylight. Kicking a door in makes a fair amount of noise, I have done it. If you kicked in my neighbors door, I would hear it and respond. The church was next door to a house. I assume the person in that house could have heard the door being forced open unless they were deaf or not at home. In either case, how did the murderer know it was safe to kick in the door or otherwise force it open?

The rational options are limited. It is possible that some random Satanist that hated Christians or Blacks randomly chose this church; but, that really makes no sense. We have been told that they brought some chemical to destroy the DNA evidence and I am convinced this murder was planned and targeted at just Pastor Daniels.

My problem with this case is that is does not make any sense to me. My little autistic brain hates a broken pattern without a good reason. I can understand how the crime was committed technically, we have sufficient information on those aspects. The motive escapes me completely. It was not random, was planned, yet, was not the work of a serial killer. Why didn't the killer set fire to the building, that would have destroyed all DNA evidence and could be done in a delayed manner. The killer was willing to do horrific things to Pastor Daniels body, why not just torch the building to hide what happened and even possibly the crime? They wanted people to know or they were concerned that a fire might impact them.

I should be sleeping; but, my mind is now too busy. The person who killed her wanted others to know that she had been killed. That effects the motive. Why would you want people to know that someone had been murdered and not want them to know that you had done it? That may sound strange so I will try and explain. When I was younger, I was very cold. My father was in federal law enforcement. My belief is that if you believe it right to kill someone (as police do on occasion) then you do it in public and take responsibility (yes, I am now a pacifist). The opposite end of that spectrum is that you don't want people to know what you have done or have any chance of catching you, you torch the building and leave no evidence that a murder even happened.

This murder was both planned and involved rage, very rare. A long time ago I learned something. Gay murders of other gays tend to be very brutal. I want to point out that I am not anti-gay, I could care less what people do in there bedroom. There are many gays that are brutalized by their self condemnation because the world tells them that they are evil. This is why we believe they can brutal in their killings of fellow gays, a sort of self hate. Brutal and explicit murders are rare. The person who killed Pastor Daniels was making a statement. If the statement were anti-Black, it would be very fuzzy as they placed her in the crucifix position according to all reports. If this then was an anti-Christian killing, it makes little sense as the church was so small.

My problem is that I cannot think of a motive that matches the method. If the police have any skill whatsoever, they have a pretty good idea of the height of the murderer. If you torch the building that would not be possibly known. The easiest thing to protect yourself from being caught is torching the building and that was not done nor planned. If there is an answer to this case, it just might be that back door and what was put on it. It may not be decisive information; but, it may be the most important clue that is left.

Ayn Rand the Swine

There was a female writer named Ayn Rand, she wrote a book called "Atlas Shrugged". She created a "philosophy" which she called objectivism, in simplest terms she believed in selfishness and did not believe in "collectivism" which she defined as being required to contribute to the society that you live in. The famous conservative, "William Buckley" considered her extreme.

YouTube - William Buckley on Ayn Rand & Atlas Shrugged

Ms. Rand did not believe in empathy, sympathy or compassion. One of her followers was Alan Greenspan who went on to control the Federal Reserve and was responsible for a lot of the deregulation of the financial system. If we are to understand why the economy collapsed (and will again) and if we want to understand why the corruption on Wall Street and in the City of London went on and continues to go on, it is because many in charge of the system follow Ayn Rand's beliefs.

The people who run this world, that benefit the most from it, often seek to justify not contributing back. We saw this when Warren Buffet said that the wealthy could and should pay taxes at the same rate as the middle class. He was attacked for saying this by some politicians and bankers. One of the reasons I do not support Ron Paul is because he seems to think like Ayn Rand.

YouTube - Firing Line: Ron Paul and William F. Buckley (1988) - Part 1 of 4
. A quote from the video - "Dr Paul wants to abolish the CIA, the FBI, the draft, welfare, foreign aide."

The point is that Ayn Rand was an extremist and there is no example in history of a society being successful based on her types of beliefs. Traditional conservatives, such as Mr. Buckley, know this. My issue with the current Republican party is that it has moved in the direction of Ms. Rand.