Posts tagged "dollar"

Anti Poverty

Anti Poverty in USA

                          Even the wealthiest nation in the world like the United States does not escape the problem of poverty. This paper takes a critical look at poverty and anti-poverty policies in the United States. In this paper, I have argued that poverty is caused by several factors. This paper also discusses the liberal and conservative perspectives for reducing poverty in America. The conservatives have focused on individual factors such as wide wage gaps, breakdown of family, racial factors and other reasons while the liberals have focused on the structural transformation of the American economy to explain the persistence of poverty.  Since 1960, both the federal and state governments have been responding with policies that address the problem with mixed results. In this paper, I have analyzed the policies and have also recommended the possible ways to deal with this intractable nature of poverty.

                   According to Sen (1981), ‘the poor are those people whose consumption standards fall short of the norms, or whose income lie below that line’. The word "poverty" suggests destitution, an inability to provide a family with nutritious food, clothing, and reasonable shelter. Over thirty-six million Americans live below the official U.S. poverty line (Blank, 2007). This means a family of three earns less than less than $ 16,000 or a single individual earns $10,300 per annum (Blank, 2007, p. 17). Millions more struggle each month to pay for basic necessities, or run out of savings when they lose jobs or face health emergencies. Job cuts, high rates of unemployment, foreclosures and high food and gas prices continue to stimulate policy formulation designed to improve the condition of the poor.

                     Poverty is integrally associated with misery and suffering. The lost potential of children in poor households and the lower productivity and earnings of poor adults are all intertwined with poor health, increased crime and broken neighborhoods. Childhood poverty typically leads to poor health care and high crime neighborhoods. Persistent childhood poverty is estimated to cost the United States $500 billion each year, or about 4% of the nation’s gross domestic product (Blank, 2007, p.1).

                    One in eight Americans lives in poverty and poverty in the United States is far higher than in many developed nations (Rebecca Blank, 2007, p1). Inequality has reached record high. The richest 1 percent of Americans in 2005 held the largest share of the nation’s income (19%) since 1929 (Rebecca Blank, 2007, p. 2). At the same time the poorest 20% of Americans held only 3.4% of the nation’s income (Rebecca Blank, 2007, p.2).

                    Colorado in spite of being surrounded by the beautiful Rocky Mountains and experiencing a cool, mountain climate has many homeless people. Scholars have identified that, a growing number of single parent households, a shortage of jobs for lower wage workers and a low rate of high school graduation have contributed to the growth of poverty in Colorado. The Colorado poverty rate has increased from 9.2% in 2000-2001 to 10.6% in 2005-2006 while the poverty rate of United States has increased from 11.5% in 2000-2001 to 12.5 % in 2005-2006 (Center on Law and Policy, 2006, p.1).  Most of these ill-fated poor people suffer from mental and health problems. 

Causes of Poverty

                        Policy analysts are trying to explore numerous perceived direct and indirect causes of poverty in the United States to formulate effective policies to alleviate poverty. The work of scholars such as Corley (2003), Sowell ( 2004), Iceland (2006), Jencks (1992), James Tobin (1993) and others have shown that the intractable nature of poverty is a result of not any one factor but of the interaction of a variety of causes. The breakdown of family and other social causes as well as the structural changes in the economy, have all contributed to society’s failure to eradicate poverty inspite of ardent efforts by policy analysts.

                   Individual Explanation of poverty mainly stresses the attitudinal or motivational factors and human capital factors. Thus lack of motivation among indigents causes poverty. Generous welfare programs sometimes affect the mind-set of recipients and they prefer to stay at home and enjoy the benefits rather than work outside. Murray (1984) argues that individuals prefer to remain on welfare because of insufficient motivation to come out from public welfare programs.

                  Formulation and proliferation of policies to alleviate poverty has been a major concern of the United States Government since 1960. Educational attainment is necessary to get a high paying job. Elementary school education, as well as lack of adequate skills and motivation among indigents to come out of the situation is the major causes of poverty. People well equipped with technical skills get high salaried jobs while people who are school drop outs get low pay on an hourly basis. During the 1960s when the then- President of United States Lyndon Johnson began to implement the United States ‘war on poverty’, he placed great emphasis on education (Jencks, 1992). The Lyndon Johnson administration even invested in programs like Head Start and occupational training to upgrade the skills of the poor and also to prevent future generations from working in low-paying jobs. Scholars like Sowell (2004) and Corley (2003) have emphasized individual level factors as the central causes of poverty. They argue that a person’s compensation is based on his or her educational qualification and marketable skills. Sowell (2004) argues that the lack of appropriate skills has affected the ability of many indigents to climb out of poverty. He also argues that there has been an increase in the poverty rate of unskilled Americans, who have lost jobs to Asian immigrants. Corley (2003) also supports the above argument and regards ‘lack of educational attainment’ as one of the entrenched sources of poverty. Low quality education from poorly funded inner-city schools results in few marketable skills which leads to low-wage jobs and other miseries associated with it such as less ability to pay for housing, food, clothing, medical care, bad neighborhoods, funding problems for schools, and increased risk of serious illness (Corley, 2003). 

                          Many scholars have argued that structural changes are the primary reason for the persistence of poverty in the United States. Structuralists emphasize issues such as joblessness, discrimination in education, institutional racism and economic transformations in explaining the causes of poverty. Scholars argue that the inability to provide decent paying jobs for some American families and the ineffectiveness of American public policy to reduce poverty are basically the result of structural failures and processes. Poverty is rooted in the structure of American society. Rank, 2004 supports the above view and argues that lack of human capital tends to place individuals in a vulnerable state when events and crises occur. The incidence of these events like loss of a job, family break-up and ill-health often result in poverty. These ill-fated people unable to handle these situations often end up in paying more. Scholars also argue that the acquisition of human capital is strongly influenced by the impact of social class on this process (Rank, 2004). Apart from poor family, race and gender also play a role in the acquisition of human capital (Mark Robert Rank, 2004).

                          Globalization, the expansion of credit markets leading to greater indebtness and foreclosures leading to recession in 2008 all point to the growth of poverty.  Iceland (2006) primarily focused on economic factors and has argued that poverty is also the product of deindustrialization. As the U.S. shifts from a manufacturing, industrial society to a service-oriented, high-tech society, many of the blue-collar jobs that required little education but paid well are disappearing or are being outsourced. Rural areas, such as Appalachia, suffer losses of mining jobs, and cities such as Detroit lose many manufacturing jobs to automation or overseas factories. Some people are unable to follow the jobs or commute to work are left in neighborhoods without employment or tax-basis to support needed social functions, such as schools, public transportation, police departments, and so forth. Others simply cannot find jobs because of the shift towards a service-based economy; in economic terms these people are structurally unemployed due to the changing skills needed. Tobin (1993) supports the above viewpoint and emphasizes on the disappearance of jobs in the 1900s as the main reason for the country’s failure to eradicate poverty. Recent employment data shows that the US housing slump and the crisis in America’s credit markets are threatening to increase poverty levels. Isidore (2008) mentions that the job losses  are widespread, with the battered construction sector losing 51,000 jobs and manufacturing employment falling by 48,000 in the year 2008 . Retail employment dropped by 12,000 jobs, and business and professional service employers cut staff by 35,000. The unemployment rate jumped to 6.1% in September from 4.9 % in January (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2008).

                         Kelso (1994), argues that over the last forty years, there has been a major shift of American firms first to the west and then to the south. Part of this shift was due to the rise of the Cold War and the decision of the government to enlarge U.S. military power (kelso, 1994). He argues that as America elected to invest more in defense and in the aerospace industry, cities like Seattle and Los Angeles on the West Coast began to boom while the growth of a high technology and information based technology led to the growing affluence of California and the San Francisco Bay area. Later with the expansion of inter-state highway system and growth of jobs, markets were created in the south.

                         Iceland (2006) also argues that although the service sector of the economy has generated millions of jobs, but again polarized earning distribution based on educational attainment separates better paying jobs from poorer paying jobs. He supports a Marxian analysis of class conflict and exploitation and emphasizes on business owners favor hiring inexpensive labor to maximize profit. This also accounts for the inflow of cheap labor to the United States from Mexico and other countries. Greater access to credit has put cars, computers, credit cards, and even homes within reach for many more of the working poor. But this remaking of the marketplace for low-income consumers has a dark side. Roubini notes that, "Having access to credit should be helping low-income individuals, but instead of becoming an opportunity for upward social and economic mobility, it becomes a debt trap for many trying to move up (Grow and Epstein, 2007).

                          Inspite of public assistance and wide initiatives taken by both Federal and State governments, poverty still exists. Meticulous analysis of the situation and effective formulation of policies is needed to solve the problem of poverty in the United States. Scholars like Rank (2004), Blank (2007) and others have shown that the United States Government spends fewer funds addressed towards poverty than any other industrialized country. Thus a major structural failure is found at the political level (Rank, 2004). Most European countries provide a wide range of insurance programs, unemployment assistance, and wide universal health coverage along with considerable support for child care (Rank, 2004). Such social programs are far more generous than those in the United States (Rank, 2004). While, low-income families in the United States work more than those in other countries, they are still not able to make up for lower governmental income support relative to their European counterparts (Blank, 2007, 141-142).

                          The gross disparities among impoverished people in the United States along racial lines have led many scholars to speculate that institutional racism is responsible for much of the poverty in the United States. Racial discrimination in employment and   education contribute to the growth of poverty. Some scholars like Massey and Denton (1993) interpret the statistics in terms of institutional racism while others like Kelso (1994) interpret the statistics as evidence of deficiencies and suffering of blacks.   In spite of efforts to remove racism, slavery and Jim Crow segregation, Massey and Denton (1993) argue that racial segregation still exists and that the fundamental cause of poverty among African Americans is segregation. They argue that segregation has created and perpetuated a black underclass by limiting educational and employment opportunities. Massey and Denton (1993) have shown that Blacks were shown homes in racially mixed areas or areas adjacent to predominantly black areas.

                           Also, changing patterns of family formation are more pronounced among racial and ethnic groups. Family patterns are also one of the causes of poverty in the United States. There is a wide gender gap in wages. In 2004 the median income of FTYR male workers was $40,798, compared to $31,223 for FTYR female workers (DeNavas-Walt et al, 2005) Pearce (1978) argues that ‘poverty is rapidly becoming a female problem’. Iceland (2006) supports this statement and showed that in 2000, the female poverty rate (12.5%) was 26% higher than the male poverty rate (9.9%) (Iceland, 2006). According to Iceland, women have fewer economic resources than men, and they are more likely to be the head of single- parent families. It also leads to the greater likehood that single, divorced or widowed women will be poorer than their male counterparts because of less social security income or other retirement income in addition to higher female life expectancies. Women’s lower wages, lower retirement benefits and the increasing number of single mothers have led some scholars to talk about the “Feminization of Poverty.”

Federal policies

                       After the Second World War, by 1963, creation of jobs by President John F. Kennedy’s tax policies could not remove the problem of poverty. Poverty was still recognized as a major national problem. President Lyndon B. Johnson’s War on Poverty led to a host of programs that included Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamps, Aid to Families with Dependent Children, and others. These entitlements eventually consumed half the federal budget and could not alleviate poverty. The U.S. economy had been devastated by the recession of 1979-83 when the United Statess manufacturing infrastructure was shattered by the Federal Reserve’s skyrocketing interest rates causing unemployment to shoot up by sixty-five percent in four years (Cook, 2007). By the end of the 1980s the economy was in another recession, leading to the election of Bill Clinton who in 1992 replaced the incumbent George H.W. Bush. The investment boom of the 1990s was fueled by foreign capital lured in by the Treasury’s strong dollar policies. Jobs were created as the dot.com bubble expanded, trade barriers fell, and utility trading giants like Enron took off. NAFTA was enacted to promote free trade, welfare-to-work brought low-income women into the job market, and the Earned Income Tax Credit was extended. The party ended when the stock market crashed in December 2000 and millions of people lost their retirement savings and other investments. Recession was returning even as George W. Bush was being declared president by the U.S. Supreme Court in December 2000. The economic crisis deepened after the September 11, 2001 attacks when $1.4 trillion in wealth vanished during the worst five days of the stock market since the Great Depression (Cook, 2007). Cook (2007) argues that today, poverty is becoming a national catastrophe. Cook (2007) argues that from 2002 through 2006 the economy was floated by the housing bubble, with many lower income people getting into homes of their own through the proliferation of sub prime mortgages. With the financial woes in late 2008, many American citizens are left with inflated home prices and no way to pay for them.

                      The 1960’s policy initiatives and declaration of ‘unconditional war on poverty’ by the then president Lyndon Johnson marked a discrete change in the federal government’s willingness to intervene for the purpose of improving the economic situation of poor Americans. Despite the billions of dollars spent on programs like CETA (Comprehensive Employment Training Act), The Manpower Development and Training Act, Head Start, and the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the government efforts to deal with the origins of poverty have met with minimal success. During this period, implementation of the Social Security old-age program insured virtually all retired workers against the risk of outliving their savings. The Social Security Act of 1935 sought to protect the incomes of those who did not work because of age or a poor economy by establishing a federal framework for unemployment insurance, old-age benefits, and assistance to women. In early 1964, the two most pressing priorities of President Johnson’s antipoverty agenda involved passing a massive tax cut designed to stimulate the economy and organizing a task force to shape the ‘War on Poverty’. The Economic opportunity Act (EOA) signed by Johnson created a long list of programs designed to help individuals develop marketable skills, political power, and civic aptitude. But this anti-poverty legislation oversaw other programs like Community Action Program, Job Corps, VISTA, Head Start (1965), Legal Services (1965) which were not included in its framework. While extensive programs like the Food Stamp Program, Medicare for elderly, Medicaid applied to qualified poor residents, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act for poor students overshadowed the EOA. The Higher Education Act eased the financial burdens of millions of college students. The Civil Rights Act opened up new spaces in the American marketplace, while the Voting Rights Act did the same for the political marketplace. The Fair Housing Act established an important base of law to combat housing discrimination. As a result the EOA slowly lost importance. Again, Murray (1984) argues that welfare benefits had soared so high so as to make living in poverty a meaningful option for the poor. Even Burton (1992) has supported the above viewpoint and argues that the programs have done more to cause poverty than to alleviate it.

                          When Nixon assumed power, he tried to deal with poverty in a more direct way than emphasizing social programs. . Although President Nixon expressed dislike for much of the War on Poverty, his administration responded to public pressure by maintaining most programs and by expanding the welfare state through the liberalization of the Food Stamp program, the indexing of Social Security to inflation, and the passage of the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program for disabled Americans (Rank, 2004). The Nixon administration also endorsed a “New Federalism” in which the federal government shifted more authority over social welfare enterprises to state and local governments. His plan to implement the ‘Family Assistance Plan’ (FAP) consisted of various income provisions, work provisions, and training provisions for those below the poverty line (Rank, 2004). It failed to pass the Senate much like the ‘Programs for Better Jobs and Income’ initiated by President Carter in later years.                                       Welfare reform continued as a focus of federal policy debates even after the legislative defeat of FAP. Even though a cash ‘Negative income Tax’ (NIT) for all poor persons never passed, the Food Stamp program provided a national benefit in food coupons that varied by family size, regardless of state of residence or living arrangements or marital status. The number of AFDC recipients increased from about 6 million to 11 million and the number of food stamp recipients, from about 1 million to 19 million during the Nixon administration (Danziger, 1999, p. 8). Danziger (1999) also argues that as higher cash and in-kind benefits became available to a larger percentage of poor people, the work disincentives and high budgetary costs of welfare programs were increasingly challenged. The public and policy makers came to view increased welfare recipients as evidence that the programs were subsidizing dependency and encouraging idleness.

                        Despite the failure to enact a guaranteed income program, both the number of recipients and the amount of money spent on welfare programs increased substantially during the 1970’s (Rank, 2004). Rank (2004) has given an overview of Reagan’s policies and noted that Reagan emphasized individual action unhampered by government interference, rejected the social engineering of the 1960’s and also supported federalism, that is, returning power to the states rather than centralizing them within the federal government. Reagan tried to address the problem and set the tone for welfare reform that occurred in 1990 during his successor’s administration. The Reagan administration thought eligibility for welfare benefits had increased so much, that many persons who were not “truly needy” were receiving benefits. The Reagan Administration opposed simultaneous receipt of wages and welfare benefits. Rather, it proposed that welfare become a safety net, providing cash assistance only for those unable to secure jobs.

                    The Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), enacted in 1975, provides families of the working poor with a refundable income tax credit (i.e., the family receives a payment from the Internal Revenue Service if the credit due exceeds the income tax owed). Thus the EITC raises the effective wage of low-income families, is available to both one- and two-parent families, and does not require them to apply for welfare. The maximum EITC for a poor family was $400 in 1975 and rose to $550 by 1986 (Danziger, 1999, p. 14). The 1986 Tax Reform Act increased the EITC so that by 1990 a low-income working parent received a maximum credit of $953 (Danziger, 1999, p. 14). The number of families receiving credits increased from between 5 and 7.5 million families a year between 1975 and 1986 to more than 11 million by 1988 (Danziger, 1999, p. 14). Danziger, 1999 argues that as the expanded EITC supplements low earnings, it became easier for policy makers to emphasize welfare reform policies that could place recipients into any job, rather than training them for “good jobs.” Thus he argues that if a nonworking recipient took a low-wage job, a substantial EITC could make work pay as much as a higher-wage job would have paid in the absence of an EITC.

                         The Family Support Act (FSA) of 1988 expanded the scope of the AFDC program for two-parent families, instituted transitional child care and Medicaid for recipients leaving welfare for work, and added funds and required states to establish programs to move greater numbers of welfare recipients into employment. When the welfare rolls jumped in the late-1980s and early-1990s, from about 11 to about 14 million recipients, dissatisfaction with welfare again increased ( Danziger, 1999).    

                        President Nixon identified the two main economic problems, inflation and unemployment, that justify the need for economic recovery to the American worker. Reagan has emphasized despair caused by unemployment combined with high inflation. Reagan’s rhetorical construction of welfare recipients and the welfare system was aimed at reducing anxiety among Americans caused by increasing taxes, inflation and the continuous fear of losing jobs. To end this victimization, Reagan proposed a plan for economic recovery (Rank, 2004). Apart from cutting government spending, specifically spending on social programs, Reagan also proposed to have State governments assume control of Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) and the food stamps program in exchange for the Federal Government control of Medicaid. Although this proposal failed to reach the Congressional floor, his presentation of the proposal to exchange AFDC and food stamp program with Medicaid made poverty a local concern (Mark Robert Rank, 2004).  

                       Liberals and conservatives still disagreed on other goals of welfare-to-work programs. Liberals thought welfare reform should expand opportunities for welfare mothers to receive training and work experiences that would help them raise their families’ living standards by working more and at higher wages. Conservatives emphasized work requirements, obligations welfare mothers owed in return for government support whether or not their families’ incomes increased (Mead, 1992). 

                       In later years President Clinton’s approach also emphasized empowerment as a way of helping welfare recipients and to accumulate more savings without being penalized and expanding the earned income tax credit (Blank, 2007). By the mid-1990s, the focus of policy concern shifted from fighting poverty to reducing welfare dependence. President Clinton’s signing of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (the PRWORA) ended the entitlement to cash assistance and dramatically changed the nature of the social safety net. The Act created the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families Program (TANF). TANF began on July 1, 1997, provides cash assistance to indigent American families with dependent children through the United States Department of Health and Human Services (The Center for American Progress Task Force on Poverty, 2007).  Danziger, 1999 argues that each state can now decide which families to assist, subject only to a requirement that they receive “fair and equitable treatment.”  In instituting a block grant program, the PRWORA granted states the ability to design their own systems, as long as states met a set of basic federal requirements. The bill’s emphasis on ending welfare as an entitlement program, places a lifetime limit of five years on benefits paid by federal funds, and also aims to encourage two-parent families and discourages out-of-wedlock births. In granting states wider latitude for designing their own programs, some states have decided to place additional requirements on recipients. Although the law placed a time limit for benefits supported by federal funds of no more than 2 consecutive years and no more than 5 years over a lifetime, some states have enacted more stringent limits. All states, however, have allowed exceptions with the intent of not punishing children because their parents have gone over the time limit. Federal requirements have ensured some measure of uniformity across states, but the block grant approach has led individual states to distribute federal money in different ways. Certain states more actively encourage education, others use the money to help fund private enterprises helping job seekers. The PRWORA offers no opportunity to work in exchange for welfare benefits when a recipient reaches her lifetime limit of 60 months of federally-supported cash assistance. But the reform has certain limits. States may not use federal block grant funds to provide more than a cumulative lifetime total of 60 months of cash assistance to any welfare recipient, no matter how willing she might be to work for her benefits, and they have the option to set shorter time limits. States can grant exceptions to the lifetime limit and continue to use federal funds for up to 20 percent of the caseload. The extent of work expectations has also been increased. Single-parent recipients with no children under age one will be expected to work at least 30 hours per week by FY 2002 in order to maintain eligibility for cash assistance (Danziger, 1999, p 20). States can require participation in work or work-related activities regardless of the age of the youngest child. Thus PRWORA emerged from research that sought both to reduce poverty and welfare dependency (Danziger, 1999).  In the 1990s, following Clinton’s call to “end welfare as we know it,” policy makers escalated their demands for recipients to work and reduced government obligations toward and funds to serve them (Danziger, 1999).

                     When Bush took office in 2001, the U.S. was experiencing a national surplus, unemployment and poverty had been on the decline for years, and the economy was booming. Now, almost six years later, poverty is on the rise, healthcare coverage is on the decline, and the country is faced with the largest national deficit in history. Lower middle class families are slowly slipping below the poverty line and the poorest are becoming even more destitute. Most of these families are headed by women.

                      President Bush has extended the TANF. There has been a general economic stimulus policy initiative during the Bush administration but nothing targeting low income Americans has been enacted. President Bush signed the economic stimulus package (H.R. 5140) into law with the hope that it will provide a much-needed boost to the lagging economy. The package includes tax rebates for individuals, tax breaks for businesses, and a temporary increase of the Federal Housing Administration loans from $417,000 to $729,750 (White House report, 2008). More than 130 million people are expected to get tax rebates ranging from $300 to $1,200 per household for individuals earning $75,000 or less and couples earning up to $150,000 (White House report, 2008). While the stimulus package will provide much needed financial help to millions of people, it fails to target those most in need as it will not include an extension of unemployment benefits, energy assistance, food stamp benefits, or fiscal relief to states for Medicaid.                       

                  From the above analysis, the question arises whether poor are responsible for their own condition. The above analysis implies that recipients become dependent and lethargic due to vast welfare measures. Scholars such as Murray (1984) and Kilty and Segal (2006) have emphasized on individual factors. They argue that welfare measures and lack of spirit and motivation among indigents contribute poverty. Danziger, 1999 argues that during the Nixon era increased welfare measures encouraged idleness. Kilty and Segal, 2006 also argues that poor people can come out into a state of self-sufficiency from dependency by learning proper work attitude and skills. Kilty and Segal, 2006 argue the importance of welfare reform and a ‘tough love’ approach would ultimately help the poor by making them conscious of their condition and forcing them to take their own responsibility. Bill Clinton’s emphasis on ‘personal responsibility’ and measures to ‘end welfare as we know it’ in 1992 all supports the above argument.

                     Due to the implementation of TANF, the numbers of people on welfare have decreased. As a result more funds are accumulated. In 1996 the number of ADFC recipients was 12,644,076 while in 2001, the number of TANF recipients was 5,91, 811 and the poverty rate also reduced from 13.7 to 11.3 ( Kilty and Segal, 2006) and while in 2008 it is 1,628,422  ( US Dept of Health and Human Services). The share of single mothers on welfare (based on administrative caseload counts divided by population numbers) rose from 38 percent in 1969 to 48 percent in 1980, but had fallen to 30 percent by 1998 ( Kilty and Segal, 2006). These caseload changes are widespread, with every state in the country experiencing substantial caseload decline. This decline has been widely hailed by politicians as an indication that policies designed to reduce dependence on public assistance and move less-skilled adults into the labor market have been extremely effective ( Blank, 2007). But however Blank argues that declines in welfare do not affect the poverty rate. The poverty rate in 2007 was 12.5 percent, increasing slightly from its level of 12.3 percent in 2006. The poverty rate increased for four straight years from 2000 to 2004. In 2007, the poverty rate was 1.2 percentage points higher than it was in 2000 (Blank, 2007).     

States welfare initiatives

                      Most states took a significant decision about reform, and this decision was sensible in light of state goals and experience. A few states did not seriously make reform policy. New York was so deeply divided that it took no serious decisions about AFDC (Mead, 2002). Alabama and Missouri were pushed into reform by federal action and appeared to have little welfare policy of their own (Mead, 2002). In several other Southern states (Florida, North Carolina), policymaking appeared to be casual and personalized, with the governor or legislators offering reform plans with, apparently, little inquiry or evidence behind them( Mead, 2002) . Texas policymaking was incoherent as the state claimed to pursue work first but based its policy on an experimental program and focused far more on education and training (Mead, 2002). States have always emphasized on reform. But sometimes lower contribution towards these plans result in total failure of the program. Mead (2002) argues that in Florida and Georgia, however, officialdom was dragged into reform but showed little commitment to it. In Arizona and California, the agency or major localities had been heavily committed to a skills-oriented approach to welfare and resisted the shift toward work first. In Texas, welfare reform was a lower priority to administrators than rebuilding non-welfare employment programs and other initiatives. In Colorado and New Jersey, local agencies had a history of defiance toward the state government, and this prevented them from fully endorsing reforms decided in the capital. Mead (2002) argues that inspite of establishment of Employment Service (ES), a federally-funded job placement agency, and training programs under the federal Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA), poverty rate did not improve. After national welfare work programs were first enacted in 1967, the ES engaged in welfare practices. But because the ES’s routine stressed serving job seekers who came to it voluntarily, it generally performed poorly with welfare clients (Mead, 2002). These jobseekers came to it on a mandatory basis, as a condition of receiving aid. To succeed with them, the agency had to enforce work but also support employment with special services. The ES often found both these roles uncongenial (Mead, 2002). The ES was denoted to the role of contractor to welfare and later in 1988 the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) merged the ES, JTPA, and other non-welfare work programs. But this merging also created confusion. The problems included lack of clear procedures to refer clients to WIA, to serve them there, or to report results back to welfare. The states that lacked coordination and inadequate management information systems (MIS) were Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Washington, West Virginia, Florida, Georgia, and Tennessee.      

                         Colorado’s public reform has been associated with decline in poverty rate. By the close of 2000, Colorado’s unemployment rate dropped to 2.6 percent, personal income showed steady gains, state welfare cases declined dramatically, and State legislators wrestled with an estimated $833 million revenue surplus (Colorado Fiscal Policy Institute, 2001). But inspite of all the above facts poverty still persists as expenses like child care, out-of-pocket medical expenses and geo-graphic differences in housing costs increased. The increases occurred even after adjusting for income support such as tax relief, food stamps and school lunch programs, housing subsidies and energy assistance. A report published in 2001 by the Colorado Fiscal Policy Institute determined that a single parent with two small children living in Denver County would need to earn an annual salary of approximately $39,924 in order to meet their basic needs such as housing, food, health care, childcare and transportation without public or private assistance. Even child poverty rate is high in Colorado. About 180,000 children, 15.7 percent of the state total was living in poverty in Colorado in 2006, a 73 percent increase since 2000 (Frosch, 2008). The state of Colorado purchases childcare for income eligible families through the Colorado Child Care Assistance Program (CCCAP). The state allows individual counties to set the purchase price of childcare and make payments to providers from a combination of parental fees and federal, state and county funds. However, the Colorado Office of Resource and Referral Agencies (CORRA) found in a 2001 study that the average county payment fell below 75 percent of market value (Colorado Fiscal Policy Institute, 2001, pp 9). As a result counties forced providers to subsidize the cost of service to low-income families, which many were simply unwilling to do when limited slots could be filled with families that could afford to pay full rates. Other providers that chose not to simply refuse service to CCCAP families saved money by limiting the number of children on CCCAP that they would accept, cutting programs, or reducing workers’ wages. All of these actions limited availability and sacrificed quality of care to low-income children. Poverty still exists in Colorado despite initiatives to alleviate poverty as too many working families lives with incomes below the poverty line and more families earn wages simply too low to afford their basic needs. The Colorado government started the Common Good Caucus in 2007 to develop a 2009 agenda, emphasizing on K-12 education and determined to bring technologies out of the laboratory and into the marketplace by investing $4.5 million dollars in bioscience industry, supporting the Clean Energy fund to reduce high family utility costs , creating the Colorado Solar Incentive Program with $2 million to provide rebates for photovoltaic and solar thermal systems to help Coloradans join the new energy economy and cut their utility bills ( State Rep. Kerr Andy, 2008). Poor people cannot pay the full cost of heating and lighting their homes. Governments and social service agencies have long assisted low-income ratepayers in paying their bills through such programs as the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP), charitable fuel funds, levelized billing, discounts, home weatherization, energy efficiency, energy usage education and debt management. If all Americans live in weatherized and energy efficient homes and have the income to pay their full share of utility bills, all other ratepayers would save nearly $6 billion in poverty costs, including fuel assistance, lifeline and other rate assistance, weatherization and efficiency costs, the costs of late payments and service disconnections (Oppenheim and MacGregor, 2007).      

Recommendations  

              From the above analysis it is clear that poverty remains pervasive due to the economic system, social stratification and welfare measures. According to Iceland (2003) on one hand, economic growth and technological changes contribute to increase in wages and overall standard of living. Economic growth accompanied by rising education levels improves the condition of people. On the other hand, the market economy often exerts a contrary effect on poverty levels (Iceland, 2003). To maximize profits, businesses usually seek to pay low wage to workers which increase inequality and poverty. Again policy may increase or decrease the harmful effects of inequality. Combining the factors emphasized by both liberals and conservatives, poverty is multifaceted. I believe that a strong national effort would alleviate poverty. Employment opportunities for all so that that worker and their families can avoid poverty, meet basic needs and save for the future. Increasing hourly wages would definitely improve the condition of these people. A smaller share of unemployed low-wage workers, receive unemployment insurance benefits. I believe that states (with federal help) should reform “monetary eligibility” rules that screen out low-wage workers, broaden eligibility for part-time workers and workers who have lost employment as a result of compelling family circumstances. Workers should use this period of unemployment and the money received from the Unemployment Insurance System and upgrade their skills and qualifications. Thus adults should have opportunities throughout their lives to connect to work, get more education, and live in a good neighborhood and move up in the workforce.

                         Child care assistance to low-income families and emphasis on K 12 education would definitely reduce the rate of poverty in the United States.                          Low-income youth hardly attend college than their higher income peers. Pell Grants play a crucial role for lower-income students. Simplification of the Pell grant application process, and encouragement of institutions to do more to raise student completion rates would definitely improve the condition. Expansion of Pell Grants would make higher education accessible to residents of each state. The states at the same time should also develop strategies to make postsecondary education affordable for all residents. Expansion of the Saver’s Credit would encourage saving for education, homeownership, and retirement. As a result all Americans would have assets that would allow them to weather periods of volatility and to have the resources that may be essential for upward economic mobility. Apart from Saver’s credit, expansion of Earned Income Tax Credit would raise incomes and helps families build assets. Thus there should be opportunity for all so that children grow up in conditions that maximize their opportunities for success.

References:

Blank Rebecca (2007); Poverty to Prosperity; Center for American task force on Poverty;

www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/04/pdf/poverty_report.pdf – Similar pages

Colorado Statewide Homeless Count (2007), School of Public Affairs, University of Colorado, denver.www.dola.state.co.us/cdh/Publications/Winter_2007_Statewide_PIT.pdf – Similar pages

Cook Richard (2007), Poverty in America

www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=5905 – 61k – Cached – Similar pages

Corley Mary Ann (2003); Poverty, Racism and Literacy; ERIC Clearinghouse on Adult Career and Vocational Education

Danziger Sheldon (1999), Welfare Reform Policy from Nixon to Clinton, Institute for  for Social Research, University of Michigan.

De Navas-Walt, et al., “Income, Poverty and Health Insurance in the United States: 2005.

Diana Pearce Diana Pearce (1978) "The Feminization of Poverty: Women, Work, and Welfare," Urban and Social Change Review.

Iceland John (2006); Poverty in America; University of California Press

Isidore Chris (2008); the Trillion-Dollar Mortgage Bomb,

money.cnn.com/2008/04/21/news/economy/fannie_freddie/?postversion=2008042103 – 66k –

James Tobin (1993); Poverty in Relation to macroeconomic Trends, Cycles and Policies; Cowles foundation discussion paper.

Garima Dasgupta
http://www.articlesbase.com/politics-articles/anti-poverty-688499.html

Method to Ethically Eliminate All Political Corruption

Our Political System was a revelation in 1776, before
Hidden Microphones & Cameras,
Big Business,
Indoor Plumbing and Toilet Paper,
before Ethics was understood,
and
before the National Security Agency (NSA).

The actions of our political Representatives like George Washington were shaped by the ethics of honor instilled by the educational system and social awareness of that time.  Ethics plays no large part in our present educational systems.  Ethics should be a formal part of every class from pre-school to doctoral presentation.  Instilled formally, the people would better understand how to predict consequences from any proposed action.  The corrupt would die out with time and attrition.

Since the Declaration of Independence (and the first fights against taxation without representation), technology has allowed Special Interest groups (to include Terrorist Groups, souless Corporations, and corrupt politicians) to use the innate weaknesses of our political structure to undermine the basis for our Constitution; a modern form of racketeering and organized crime, jeopardizing national security.

The Citizens of the United States
require implementation of
State representation, including ALL states,
by a large and diverse Ethical Oversight Committee
to ensure the security of peoples Freedoms,
to manage National Security Agency (NSA) operations,
and
to determine how the information collected and derived by
the NSA shall best be used
as it relates to our Freedoms and Security,
and to “absolutely” restrict this information
from any other purpose.

Who are the ghosts behind the faces of our government, who continues to manipulate the world into a continuous chain of wars. A chain that has killed many millions of people, and that deters development?  This is only one relationship the NSA should be informing the public about.

The NSA is soley controlled by the office of the President of the United States and only needs a single judge to obtain a warrant to covertly monitor any person or corporation (wire tapping, covertly breaking in to copy documents, copy by any means computer information, record in detail the habits and personal relationships of anyone, …).

Recently, President Bush took control away from that judge and even though the judge was ineffectual, the President now has absolute control over the NSA.

The President is a puppet of the same organization that controls the Federal Reserve. Therefore they control the United States, not the President, not the People, and certainly not ethics.  The Fed encourages war to promote special interest prosperity.  Loans with interest to both sides of every war.  Interest paid on every dollar produced for the United States.  Who benefits from the interest paid?

Current NSA warrants are meaningless and effectively allows the NSA to collect information without public scrutiny, while Presidential directives prevent the NSA from monitoring special interest group corrupt practices and disclosing those actions to the public

Under our current system a single judge would have to oversee thousands of covert transactions nationwide to adequately monitor national security issues, and to follow up to ensure those requests were legitimate. Further, since information collected by the NSA can be arbitrarily “classified”, the NSA can arbitrarily prevent the judge from monitoring the kinds of data collected.

The current system is not practical and therefore unethical, there is no reasonable way the judge would know what the NSA does with the information collected; and since the judge is controlled by the President, this is highly susceptible to corrupt practices. The current system allows for shielding corruption while promoting unscrupulous special interest activities.

The “Protect America Act” is unconstitutional. But a “simple change” to provide “REPRESENTATION by all States” in the covert collection and processing of data would make the Act Constitutionally sound.

The NSA must be managed by doctors of science (one parallel position for each State elected political representative; but with no affiliation) to evaluate all data collected and eliminate the useless requirement of warrant by a judge (presently coerced into signing off on any NSA warrant presented before them); and to require the NSA to monitor for corrupt political practices (terrorist activities, criminal activities, political practices that endanger National Security, …), with the mandate to notify the offending parties quietly to correct their unethical behavior, only then after they have failed to correct their actions adequately, their actions are publish on a NSA publicly available website.

We the people would then boycott corrupt representatives and their supporting corporations. The associated District Attorney would be notified, and be given the details to substantiate investigation. The District Attorney would then fully investigate and prosecute in accordance with the law. The NSA would at no time directly intervene, thereby limiting their power to nudging our political system away from corrupt activities.

The following details how to update our 200 year old political structure to provide representative governance that promotes the economy, desires of the masses, and ethical government practices; allowing the Government and the people to think as ONE.  This same system can be seeded into other governments like Iraq to create an ethical environment for all peoples.

_______________________________________________________

To find & email your specific Congressmen and Senators:

• Your State’s Congressmen
• Your States’ Senators

To email Congressman all across the United States:

• http://www.conservativeusa.org/mega-cong.htm

To talk directly with the staff of your representatives:

• (202) 225-3121 for the House  
• (202) 224-3121 for the Senate

—————————————————————————————————

COPY & PASTE THE FOLLOWING to your Representatives  

Subject: Create an “Oversight of NSA Ethics committee” (ONE) to manage NSA Data Collection, Assessment, and Directives in the United States

As your constituent, I request that you forward the following to all political delegates in every State of the United States, and that a Highly Ethical group of diverse people representing every State and its population be instated to provide ethical oversight and management of all National Security Agency (NSA) data collection, assessments, and directives.

Because this large representative body of individuals will act as a covert, but highly trained publicly elected governing body, this will allow the NSA to continue data collection without warrant. The Senate and Congress will provide “oversight and not direct control” of this new branch in our political structure, thereby providing the needed checks and balances.

The problem with our current political system is that Special Interests (Oil Companies, Defense Contractors, Big Business Corporations, Foreign Interests, …) actively and covertly influence our political representatives. Private research (to include Terrorist involvement with genetic engineering in all its forms, nuclear physics research, economic initiatives, social reform efforts, …) are potentially high risk threats to National Security, yet are largely unmonitored. Corrupt and Neglective influences are not ONLY the fault of our Representatives, they are the fault of our unupdated 200 year old political structure.

To correct this weakness in our Government, in addition to the Senate and Congress, create a new branch of State elected political representatives whose only purpose is to manage the National Security Agency (NSA), which did not exist at the birth of our political structure.

Candidates for these new positions must be doctors of science with proven understanding of ethical evaluation. Doctors of science are necessary because they need to understand and interact with the inner workings of computer software to continuously analyze the large amounts of diverse real world data collected.

Our present political structure does not have an ethical political component to effectively neutralize the criminal aspect of political pandering, coercive control over our Representatives, or Terrorist influences in our Society and in our Government, but we do have the resources to do so.

The National Security Agency (NSA) monitors ALL organizations: CIA, NIS, Air Force, Army, PLO, Al-Qaeda, Defense Contractors, Oil Companies, Greenpeace, ALL of our Politicians, and basically all organizations whether domestic or abroad. Anyone with this information controls the focus of our Nation, along with our Freedoms and Security.

An important point here is that collecting information is necessary and of little negative consequence in an ethical environment, what specifically is done with that information is extraordinarily important, especially in unethical and abusive hands. Currently, Special Interests unethically manipulate our country’s assets, despite “We the Peoples” desires. How many people and soldiers have died supporting a business interest rather than a national interest?

Greater than $12 Billion “lost” in Iraq, destruction of New Orleans, War in Iraq, manipulation of the media, greater than $12 Billion illegally allocated to Halliburton where they subsequently moved outside of our legal system to Dubai (Saudi Arabia), …

As a consequence of Special Interest actions, they erode human rights, leave our country unnecessarily exposed to security threats, and hinder commerce that would flourish were it not for unethical business practices of Special Interests and Large Corporations.

Each “Oversight of NSA Ethics committee” (ONE) delegate represents elected representation by certified highly ethical doctors and non-partisan control over our country’s human rights, freedoms, and security.

Together with Congress and the Senate, ONE delegates provide a tertiary and complementary system of representation, with each representative political faction having unique assets and control mechanisms. The combination of focused representation for business, the people, and ethics makes the system innately representative, well informed, ethical, and stable. Businesses will continue to sponsor individual Senators and Congressmen, however, all money contributed to ONE candidates shall go into a common fund to promote all potential ONE candidates equally within each State.

Because this large representative body of individuals will act as a covert, but highly trained publicly elected governing body, this will allow the NSA to continue data collection without warrant.

No longer will we need to have less Freedom to have more Security, or vice versa.

These highly trained elected personnel provide for independent maximizing of Freedoms and maximizing of Security for all citizens !!! While the Congress and Senate provide oversight and continues to control the military as part of the checks and balances to make this political structure stable.

Presently, special interests make Security and Freedom mutually incompatible. Many countries have the same political structure as we do and yet live in a police state where the individual has no recognized rights; we must prevent a similar situation from happening here in the United States. The current actions of the President’s Office are a prelude of worse things to come.

To take into account all perspectives and actual events to maximize both Freedom and Security for our entire country requires much more raw information than 10,000 people can amass, and assessment that would take these people many lifetimes to be just. But events happen concurrently every day that threaten our Freedoms and Security.

NSA computers process diverse data at great speeds to provide minute by minute evaluation of threats to our national security, and currently as directed by special interests. To stop the unethical use of NSA resources, a large group of persons extensively trained in ethical reasoning needs to create the “computer-based automated keys” (Directives) for unlocking relationships related to promoting BOTH Freedoms and Security.

Directives are computer software analysis functions that sift through real world information. Something like Antivirus programs for protecting your computer. When key relationships are found, a task is generated to cleanup that corrupt system. Ethical care must be taken to ensure good relationships are not disturbed, while corrupt activities are corrected. The concept being: “To do the least necessary to allow unhindered natural social development; while ensuring that repeated corrupt practices of the same types identified do not recur.

As Directives are developed that can be generalized for a particular class of social system, they can be shared amongst similarally structured nations. Thereby helping to reduce the development costs for all countries; and provide international peer review of all Directives developed. At no time will raw data be shared by various National Security Agencies of the different nations.

Computer systems have been used for similar purposes for many years with great success in economics to limit risks and promote investment diversity. By developing automated directives, this helps to provide integrity and consistent behavior of the NSA. The derived results can then be evaluated by this large team of elected Representatives using state of the art ethical evaluation tools; thus ensuring the information collected is used solely to independently promote the Freedoms and Security of ALL citizens.

Please instate a comprehensive “Oversight of NSA Ethics committee” (ONE) to manage the National Security Agency (NSA) as outlined below, a system allowing the Government and the people to think as one.

• To maintain equitable representation of all peoples, each State shall publicly elect an Oversight of NSA Ethics (ONE) delegate paralleling each elected Congressman and Senator position; but having no affiliation.
• The Constitution for each State shall act as the basis for the ethical perspective of each delegate.
• The requirements for election as a ONE delegate are:
  
  • shall be a certified doctor from a nationally accredited school
  • shall have authored and published a paper related to ethics in a nationally distributed professional journal
  • shall be a permanent resident of that State
  • shall pass uniform but unique tests related to Ethics, Critical Reasoning, probability, and statistics
  • shall be free of a felony record
  • shall not be strongly biased regarding any special interests
  • shall forever be disallowed from ever discussing any information formulated or witnessed while in office; and shall teach ethical evaluation for two years after their term in office
  • shall submit themselves for lie detection and questioning periodically to prevent outside influence by any special interest

• The delegates shall be relocated to the surroundings near the NSA and will be furnished Government owned housing while in office. Physical security for the delegates shall consist of NSA surveillance with an armed NSA controlled security force to control any attempt to access or disproportionately influence the delegate or their family.
• Each delegate shall have a two person staff at the NSA and a two person staff in their home State to monitor, collect, and research information.
• Each State shall have one highly trained field agent for each delegate for that State whom shall collectively implement directives from the NSA using legal resources.
• All work surrounding NSA data collection shall be done in a secure facility protected from military threat.
• Absolutely no raw data or interest specific data or interest specific directives shall ever leave the facility under penalty of treason related to all intentionally involved.
• No interest specific data or interest specific directive shall be propagated outside of the confines of the NSA by delegate staff or agents under penalty of racketeering.
• The ONE delegates shall poll their respective communities related to values and perspectives, but polls shall not contain any Special Interest specific information.
• The NSA shall devise and maintain a relational database to allow delegates to productively relate all measure and kind of ethical issue to the vast amounts of information collected by the NSA.
• The delegates shall formulate “Automated Directives” for automatically: flagging potentially destructive relationships, developing priorities, developing issued directives to field agents, monitor metrics to verify results, track long term effects and related relationships, provide for a continuously updated scores related to the qualities related to our freedoms and security at that moment in time, and provide simulations for anticipating the effects of issuing a proposed directive and how it would affect the freedoms and security scores, …
• The creation of directives shall solely be governed by the ONE Committee. The President, Congress, the House, the Military, nor any other special interest group shall ever have any influence over the creation of directives, other than approved ethical channels of communication. Any attempt to do so outside of approved channels shall be considered treason within the confines of the NSA, and racketeering otherwise, and all involved shall share the same fate, regardless of political standing or financial backing.
• Because the positions of the delegates are elected positions. Data would be provided by the NSA which tracks the number of hours each delegate actively performed research, the influence each delegate had on the overall freedom and security qualities, and the core generalized formulas for creating the Automated Directives would be publicly disclosed but would not relate delegate involvement nor the data or type of data that they relate. This is necessary to help ensure high-tech corporations do not fillfully subvert NSA monitored data. Each delegate would be allowed to create public announcements that do not violate that which is outlined above.
• The ONE delegates shall govern themselves regarding inappropriate actions generated by a delegate, with periodic oversight by the Senate and Congress. A delegate that fails to use ethical reasoning in promoting a Directive and which benefits a special interest may be penalized and a State elected alternate may take their place.
• The term of service for each Delegate shall be four years; followed by a two year mandatory position at an accredited University teaching related ethics topics involving analysis and software. The Delegate may then accept nomination for the following election cycle.
• Classes in ethics for learning to create automated Directives shall use independently developed computer models and simulation systems. At no time shall any Directive from the NSA be directly analyzed. The simulated environment would cause errors inconsistent with NSA real world processing. However, relationships discovered can be submitted to the NSA for review through approved ethical channels.
• Collectively, the ONE committee shall determine the information necessary to guide the President, Congress, Senate, and the Military. The President, Congress, Senate, and the Military will have continuous one-way input into the NSA as part of NSA data collection, without warrant, the feedback will be immediate, so there is no need for any political party or military component to have dialog with ONE delegates or the NSA data collection and assessment systems.
• The Congress and Senate shall provide a team trained in ethical evaluation to periodically monitor (not control) the NSA and report back to the Senate and Congress.
• The military remains under the control of the Senate and the Congress; and the NSA shall only be allowed restricted control over a military asset with minute by minute support of the majorities of both the Senate and Congress where time critical relationships exist.
• Every political representative in the United States will be able to send their viewpoints to the NSA by sending an email to a NSA server, with only an automated response. But their views will be collected and processed automatically by the data collection system. The same applies for all citizens. All citizens shall have representation and voice.
• The administrators necessary to manage the NSA regarding operations personnel, supplies, existing field agents, the budget, and all other aspects of the NSA shall answer to the ONE committee and shall provide a continuous and accurate assessment of resource managment to Congress.
• As technology provides greater capabilities in diverse areas such as spy technologies, computer modeling of world economics, …, the NSA shall continue to evolve systems to better represent and anticipate the needs and desires of all citizens.

Under this system, the NSA shall collect and assess all information as practically possible worldwide, without the need for warrant in the United States.

Instate a comprehensive “Oversight of NSA Ethics committee” (ONE) to govern NSA data collection systems as outlined above; a system allowing the Government and the people to think as one.

James Dunn
http://www.articlesbase.com/politics-articles/method-to-ethically-eliminate-all-political-corruption-672089.html

There’s Always Enough Time!

I thought I’d begin this article by stimulating your mind with a
little time trivia contest! Are you ready? Alright then, here
goes…..

Question 1 – How many hours a day did Bill Gates have available
to him to conceptualise Microsoft and build it into a multi
Billionaire dollar empire?

a) 23 hours b) 25 hours c) 24 hours

Question 2 – How many days a week did Hilary Swank have to
become an academy award winning actress?

a) 6 days b) 8 days c) 7 days

Question 3 – How many weeks a year did Nelson Mandela have
available to him to free his country from the tyranny of
apartheid?

a) 51 weeks b) 53 weeks c) 52 weeks

* please note the answers are at the bottom of the article.

So how did you go?

Now if you answered all the questions correctly -
congratulations! You have just demonstrated to yourself that you
have the necessary intellect and awareness required to master
your own time!

If you answered any of the questions incorrectly – it’s ok.
Don’t beat yourself up about it. Just re-sit the test before
continuing the article!

We are all given the same 24 hours a day.

One of the most important things to recognise about time is that
each of us has been given the same 24 hours a day to work with.
It doesn’t matter if your one of the world’s great leaders or a
street cleaner, your time allocation remains the same.

Great people do great things in life not because they have more
hours than the rest of us but because they put their time to
good use. Your success in life therefore depends not on how many
hours you have available each day but on how you personally
choose to use your time. You always have enough time to create
an extraordinary life should you choose to.

But I don’t have enough time!

Whenever you hear yourself say that you don’t have enough time,
what you are really saying is that you have ‘chosen’ to do
something else with your time. How you spend your time is your
time is entirely your choice. The big question is, ‘are you
making the choices that will provide you with the maximum amount
of health, peace and happiness?’

Where are you wasting time? If you want to become a master of
your time one of the first things you need to do is work out
where you are currently wasting time. Are you spending too much
time down at the pub or watching TV or doing a job that you
hate? If you are then you have to do something about it. Nothing
will change unless you do.

Try giving up alcohol for month, selling your TV or volunteering
your time to a cause you feel passionate about. You’ll soon be
amazed at what else is possible for your life!

You can’t make time!

It’s important to understand that you can’t make time, you can’t
find time and you certainly can’t buy time. Time just is as it
is.

The issue is never about having enough time, but what you choose
to do with your time. There is always enough time to do the
things that you want to do. You just have to be to committed to
doing them.

* Answers

Question 1 – c) 24 hours Question 2 – c) 7 days Question 3 – c)
52 weeks

Copyright Damien Senn 2005. All rights reserved.

Damien Senn
http://www.articlesbase.com/self-help-articles/theres-always-enough-time-2529.html

Have you seen Fall of the Republic?

With the establishment at every level desperately attempting to extinguish the simmering fires of fury now burning within the psyche of grass roots America, devastated at the effect The Obama Deception had in unlocking people from the hypnotic trance of the left-right paradigm, Fall Of The Republic arrives to deliver the sucker punch to the new world order.

Resistance to tyranny is spreading like wildfire all around us as the masses finally begin the long process of awakening to the agenda of the globalists that targets them for total domination and the elimination of all human freedom and dignity.

But only with the activism of you, the front line soldier in the Infowar, can we ever hope to reach more people and accelerate the transformation of understanding now enveloping the planet as the new world order similarly accelerates its programs of world government and global enslavement in the knowledge that their time is running out.

We are putting out this urgent call to action to everyone reading these words – get Fall Of The Republic – get the DVD or download a high-quality version at Prison Planet.tv – make copies and hand them out, seed the online version to the four corners of the Internet. Spread the truth virally and help us reach tens of millions of people, just as we did with The Obama Deception.

This is not just about opening minds, its about saving souls from eternal bondage to the new world order system that seeks to strip them completely of their true inherent shining spark of humanity and love.

This is your chance to be part of history, to stand up for freedom, to stand up for humanity and become part of the solution that finally defeats the dark agenda of the new world order and leads to the spiritual renaissance of the 21st century.

Fall Of The Republic: The Presidency Of Barack Obama (FULL MOVIE)

http://gandeste.org/usa/fall-of-the-republic/6904

Fall Of The Republic documents how an offshore corporate cartel is bankrupting the US economy by design. Leaders are now declaring that world government has arrived and that the dollar will be replaced by a new global currency.

How many times will we defeat the tyranny before everyone is forced to accept the mark of the beast?

I have hope that we will defeat the tyranny of global government at least once more. The NWO may fail this time but will we have enough truth speakers and critically thinking minds left to defeat them next time?

No more times. Let me tell you how it will play out. Your national health care will bankrupt the United States, mainly because you will insure all illegal aliens. Then we will bail out California and other states. Once the U.S. is broke, China will call in its debts. Unable to pay and with the dollar as worthless, America will go to the Euro. When you have no money you have no power. One world monetary system in place, the UN will gain more power. Then comes the UN leader who will rule as the NWO leader. And people will not be chained down and forced to take the mark. They will be standing in line to get it. Wanting it as though it were the new iphone.

Alex Jones-9/11 Road To Tyranny Part 1 of 15

The mainstream media is whitewashing and lying about what really happened on Sept 11th. 911: The Road to Tyranny is shaking the foundations of Washington, DC as the definitive film on what really happened on Sept. 11th and who stands to gain. The dark forces of Global Government are funding, training and protecting terrorist groups worldwide. In this blockbuster which has gained worldwide prestige you will learn the origins and the true story behind 9/11.

THE ROAD TO TYRANNY EXPOSES: *HOW DOZENS OF FBI AND DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE AGENTS WERE THREATENED WITH ARREST BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IF THEY GOT IN THE WAY OF AL-QAEDA OPERATIONS *HOW THE CIA TRAINED, FUNDED AND PROTECTED BIN LADEN *THAT IMPEACHMENT LAWYER DAVID SCHIPPERS WARNED CONGRESS AND THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT OF THE IMPENDING TERRORISTS ATTACKS . (THE FILM INCLUDES AN EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW WITH SCHIPPERS ON THE ALEX JONES SHOW JUST 2 WEEKS AFTER THE ATTACKS. SCHIPPERS HAS SINCE BEEN THREATENED WITH ARREST IF HE CONTINUES TO SPEAK OUT, AND IS BEGGING THE MEDIA AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TO GET THIS STORY OUT) * HOW THE RECENTLY DECLASSIFIED TOP-SECRET NORTHWOODS DOCUMENT WRITTEN BY THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF LAID OUT PLANS TO BOMB WASHINGTON AND TO HIJACK AIRPLANES AS A PRETEXT FOR WAR *BILL CLINTON’S INVOLVEMENT IN THE OKLAHOMA CITY BOMBING AND HOW IT WAS CARRIED OUT BY INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES TO BE BLAMED ON THE RIGHT-WING *HOW THE FBI ORDERED THEIR INFORMANTS TO COOK THE BOMB AND TRAIN THE DRIVERS IN THE FIRST WORLD TRADE CENTER ATTACK IN 1993 *FBI TRAINING MANUALS THAT ARE BEING GIVEN TO POLICE DEPARTMENTS THAT STATE THAT CHRISTIANS, GUN OWNERS, AND “THOSE WHO MAKE FREQUENT REFERENCES TO THE US CONSTITUTION” ARE TERRORISTS …..THIS IS ONE FILM YOU CANNOT AFFORD TO IGNORE. THE FUTURE OF FREE PEOPLE EVERYWHERE IS AT STAKE.

Duration : 0:10:0

Read more…

Infiltrations

The one thing Targeted Individuals have to understand is the concept of Infiltration. This means that agents, hired operatives, civillian informants, etc will try to infiltrate your organizations or your life.

I recently posted an article about Infiltration of online groups. This has been happening for some time now. Many people think if they are posting online that they will not be investigated, but there are infiltrators who try to engage posters in conversations, where they get them to say things against the government, or use talk of violence, something that might not happen without the provocateur. These individuals are on most of the popular forums, and often you won’t know who they are. You might get a sense of who they are based on their postings, but that is not always the case.

Here on some things to be aware of regarding Infiltrations.

[quote]http://www.theage.com.au/news/technology/security/police-hire-private-spies-to-snoop-online/2008/11/26/1227491580370.html

Police hire private spies to snoop online

THE Internet communications and websites of anti-war campaigners, environmentalists, animal rights activists and other protest groups are being secretly monitored by state and federal agencies.

A Melbourne private intelligence firm specialising in “open-source intelligence” has been engaged by Victoria Police, the Australian Federal Police and the federal Attorney-General’s Department to monitor and report on the protest movements’ use of the internet.

The monitoring, which has been secretly conducted for at least five years, includes exploring websites, online chat rooms, social networking sites, email lists and bulletin boards to gather information on planned demonstrations and other activities. Many of those monitored have not broken any laws, but it is believed information about their participation in online activities is conveyed to government agencies that also deal with terrorism.[/quote]

These types of infiltrations are happening all over the Internet. Sometimes the poster will just be observing gathering information and monitoring. In other cases they will perform a similar fuction to their offline components, and they will engage posters in extreme conversations about violence, anti-government sentiments, etc.

When J.Edgar Hoover ran the FBI, the infiltration of the KKK was about 20% infiltration. The agents that had infiltrated the FBI were often responsible for encouraging acts of violence on others, or enacting those acts of violence themselves.

The FBI kept talking with Klan members. By 1965, some 20 percent of Klan members were on the

[quote]The FBI kept talking with Klan members. By 1965, some 20 percent of Klan members were on the FBI payroll, many occupying leadership positions in seven of the fourteen Klan groups across the country, states political scientist Robert Goldstein in “Political Repression in Modern America: 1870 to the Present,” [/quote]

http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/3-20-2006-91543.asp

[quote]Glick lists four main methods used by the agents:

1) infiltration by agents and informers with the intention to discredit and disrupt;
2) psychological warfare from the outside, using “dirty tricks” to undermine progressive movements; 3) harassment through the legal system, making targets appear to be criminal; and
4) extralegal force and violence including break-ins, vandalism, assaults, and beatings to frighten dissidents and disrupt their movements. [/quote]

[quote]
It was COINTELPRO “that enabled the FBI and police to eliminate the leaders of mass movements in the 1960s without undermining the image of the United States as a democracy, complete with free speech and the rule of law.

“Charismatic orators and dynamic organizers were covertly attacked and ‘neutralized’ before their skills could be transferred to others and stable structures established to carry on their work.”
[/quote]

This is why new movements have a hard time getting started. The legit movements are often infiltrated, with the provocateurs, or Informants moving to the forefront of the movement.

[quote]Dr. King was a target of an elaborate COINTELPRO plot to drive him to suicide and replace him “in his role of the leadership of the Negro people” with conservative Black lawyer Samuel Pierce (later named to President Ronald Reagan’s cabinet) according to revisionist historians including Glick and Zinn, who have come to view King’s assassination, as well as Malcolm X’s, as domestic covert operations.
[/quote]

The scary part of these operations is that they will allow a movement to go forward as long as they can eventually be in control. This means that had they been successful in getting Martin Luther King Jr, to kill himself, they would have had their man already set in place to take the helm. They don’t have a problem with the movement as long as they can run the show, or have their people running the show, and their information getting out to the public.

The other thing to be aware of is that they often start groups themselves, with their own people, this way it seems like there is a movement happening, but again they are running the show.

[quote]But Glick and several other researchers argue that COINTELPRO-white appeared only to go after violent right-wing groups, and that the FBI actually gave covert aid to the Ku Klux Klan, Minutemen, Nazis, and other racist vigilantes, under the cover of being even-handed.

“These groups received substantial funds, information, and protection – and suffered only token FBI harassment – so long as they directed their violence against COINTELPRO targets,” Glick wrote.

“They were not subjected to serious disruption unless they breached this tacit understanding and attacked established business and political leaders.”

Specifically, COINTELPRO documents indicate that some infiltrators discreetly spied for years without calling attention to themselves (like the Soviet moles or sleepers) while others acted as instigators to disrupt meetings and conventions or social and other contacts.
[/quote]

Sleepers that’s a scary concept, but even as far back as Cointelpro this idea was used. To always have one of theirs at the helm, ready to take over. It’s mind boggling how this system works.

[quote]Agents spread rumors, made accusations, inflamed disagreements, and caused splits. “They urged divisive proposals, sabotaged activities, overspent scarce resources, stole funds, seduced leaders, exacerbated rivalries, caused jealousy and public embarrassment to groups. They often led activists into unnecessary danger and set them up for prosecution.”

One common maneuver, known as placing a “snitch jacket” or “bad jacket” on an activist, damaged the victim’s effectiveness and generated “confusion, distrust, and paranoia.” The maneuver was used to divert time and energy and turn co-workers against one another, even provoking violence.
[/quote]

The only thing that’s changed is that they have probably become better at their tactics, and the world at large has become less aware, or completely oblivious.

In Russia this method of dissident infiltration was also used.

http://www.aclu.org/images/asset_upload_file744_30623.pdf

[quote]
In the Stasi’s “War on Dissent,” dissenters were the most valuable informants, and the Stasi recruited heavily within the very world it was trying to destroy, employing the very people it was trying to eliminate. As a result, East German dissident-informants often paradoxically “helped the [anti-government] movement , partly simply by swelling its ranks, but also by actively working on opposition activities.”[/quote]

Governments do go after dissidents or those they are trying to eliminate. This way if they can’t eliminate the target, they will try to turn the target. So you could actively have members of a movement who are working for both sides. They are moving the movement forward with one hand, and putting it two steps back with the second hand. It’s very frustrating, because some of these people did start out as genuine activists, but at some point, they were destitute, set up, arrested, institutionalized, etc. They decided to turn informant and work for the state.

I have come across a few of these in doing this research. At first I would judge these people harshly, but now I feel sorry for some of them. Some are happy enough to sell out, but others just really don’t know what to do. They are poor, and without means and resources. This is something groups should be aware of. Someone who is a true target today, might become a turned Informant working for the state. It’s a very scary concept, but it’s again something to be aware of.

http://security.resist.ca/personal/informants.shtml

[quote]

Some types of infiltrators stay in the background and offer material support, other informants may have nothing to do with the group or action, but initially heard certain plans and tipped off the police. Among the more active types of infiltrators can be a gregarious person that quickly wins group trust. Some infiltrators will attempt to gain key forms of control, such as of communications/ secretarial, or finances. Other informants can use charm and sex to get intimate with activists, to better spy or potentially destabilize group dynamics.

Active infiltrators can also be provocateurs specializing in disruptive tactics such as sowing disorder and demoralizing meetings or demos, heightening conflicts whether they are interpersonal or about action or theory, or pushing things further with bravado and violent proposals. Infiltrators often need to build credibility; they may do this by claiming to have participated in past actions.

Also, infiltrators will try to exploit activist sensibilities regarding oppression and diversity. Intelligence organizations will send in someone who will pose as a person experiencing the common oppression of the particular activist group. For example, in the 1960′s, the Weather Underground (“Weathermen” – a white anti-imperialist armed struggle in the US) was infiltrated by an “ordinary Joe” informant with a working class image. Black war veterans were used to infiltrate the Black Panther Party. [/quote]

You will see this a lot if you visit some online or offline groups. They profile you in many cases before hand, so they think they know what triggers to use on you. The only thing you can do is profile yourself and know yourself better than they think they know you. They will try to play off of your vulnerabilities if they can find them.

The government also used Informants on the panthers, that’s how they knew where Fred Hampton would be, and the informant might have drugged Fred Hampton, just before the assassination.

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/FBI/Fed_Bureau_Intimidation.html

[quote]
In 1976, the mothers of the victims filed a civil rights suit against the FBI. The COINTELPRO files released during the trial showed that the FBI had an informant named William O’Neal in the Chicago Panthers. O’Neal was a trusted friend of Hampton and chief of security in the Chicago chapter. Taylor described, “He was the classic provocateur under COINTELPRO, always suggesting far-out violent schemes. He turned out to be the Judas who helped set up Fred Hampton’s murder”

O’Neal fed information to FBI agent Roy Mitchell, who worked closely with the Chicago Police Department’s Gang Intelligence Unit, the squad that dealt specifically with Black organizations. Days before the raid, O’Neal gave Mitchell a detailed floor plan of Hampton’s apartment that indicated where Hampton and his fiancee Akna Ajeri (who was eight months pregnant with their child at the time of the raid) usually slept.

Taylor also believes that there is strong evidence that O’Neal drugged Hampton on the day of the raid. Hampton’s autopsy showed a large amount of secobarbital in his system, despite the fact that he was militantly against drugs.

Hampton was shot in the head in his bed. He never even woke up. In 1982, after many appeals, the courts finally awarded survivors of the raid $1.85 million in damages. But to this day, no police or FBI agents have ever been indicted for these ruthless murders.
[/quote]

An Informant was also able to get close to Malcolm X and became one of his bodyguards.

http://www.etext.org/Politics/Buzzkill/buzzkill.7

[quote]Malcolm X as early as 1953, when the young minister for the Nation of Islam was placed on a Security Index of people top be rounded up and detained in times of “danger to national security.” and there was at least one under cover informant present at his assassination:
Malcolm’s bodyguard Gene Roberts, who was actually an undercover cop with the New York Police Depart-ment’s Bureau of Special Services (BOSS).
[/quote]

These people in organizations have a way of rising to the top, getting into trusted positions. That is a part of the consistent M.O. that we see with Infiltrators. In researching I have not found any one surefire way of dealing with them.

The paid Infiltrators are often profiled, these are individuals that they would like to use as Informants.

http://november.org/stayinfo/breaking08/MolesWanted.html

[quote]

Carroll, who requested that his real name not be used, showed up early and waited anxiously for Swanson’s arrival. Ten minutes later, he says, a casually dressed Swanson showed up, flanked by a woman whom he introduced as FBI Special Agent Maureen E. Mazzola. For the next 20 minutes, Mazzola would do most of the talking.

“She told me that I had the perfect ‘look,’” recalls Carroll. “And that I had the perfect personality — they kept saying I was friendly and personable — for what they were looking for.”

What they were looking for, Carroll says, was an informant — someone to show up at “vegan potlucks” throughout the Twin Cities and rub shoulders with RNC protestors, schmoozing his way into their inner circles, [b]then reporting back to the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force, a partnership between multiple federal agencies and state and local law enforcement.[/b] The effort’s primary mission, according to the Minneapolis division’s website, is to “investigate terrorist acts carried out by groups or organizations which fall within the definition of terrorist groups as set forth in the current United States Attorney General Guidelines.”

Carroll would be compensated for his efforts, but only if his involvement yielded an arrest. No exact dollar figure was offered.

“I’ll pass,” said Carroll.

For 10 more minutes, Mazzola and Swanson tried to sway him. He remained obstinate.

“Well, if you change your mind, call this number,” said Mazzola, handing him her card with her cell phone number scribbled on the back.

[/quote]

This young man was originally arrested for spray painting. (There is no way to know if he was encouraged by an Informant to perform the action.)

After he served his time for the activity, he was contacted to become an Informant, which he declined. Yet they still kept pressuring him.

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=550324

A similar scenario happened to a young man over at the Storm Front Forum. He called to find out more information about the local laws regarding Firearms in the state. A few days later he was paid a visit by the FBI. After discussing his phone call, which is what initiated the visit. He was asked to become a paid Informant to infiltrate white nationalist organizations. He was also asked to name anyone he knew who was involved in any illegal activities.

He advised that he was not aware of anyone involved in illegal activities, and that he did not wish to become an informant. Since then he has been a target of Gang Stalking, and they occasionally call him to see if he will change his mind and become an Informant, which he constantly declines.

(The best thing to do in this scenario is to get a lawyer, and give them the phone number or the card of your lawyer the next time they come calling. )

This information is from the security culture brochure. If you do get a lawyer expect even more retaliation, but it’s apparently the best method for dealing with this kind of pressure.

http://www.gangstalkingworld.com/Handbook/TheHiddenEvil.pdf

On his former website, and PDF Mark M. Rich had also mentioned that these support groups might have been infiltrated.

[quote]If you join a support group, you may also receive harassment via threads posted on message boards. Like other mediums of harassment, the topics of these threads may be about events that are unfolding in your personal life, as well as threats or insults covertly directed at you. This will probably happen repeatedly by the same person or people.

They may also employ some Gaslighting, or Jacketing tactics. Jacketing was often used during Cointelpro to make genuine activists look like informants.(10) Some internet groups which help stalking victims are heavily populated with perpetrators posing as victims.(7) Some of these perpetrators seem to be very vocal & popular members of these support groups. It seems that this a damage-control mechanism put in place to corral people, manage them to some

degree, & impede the groups’ progress. These people may also help with misdirecting events, or generally keeping groups disorganized & ineffective, under the illusion that progress is being been made.

These informants/perpetrators will give you correct information, & you may not find out until later that they’re trying to traumatize you as well. You may not be able to make other group members aware of it, as these informants may be well-respected members. It seems like a contradiction. Why would a perpetrator give you valuable information?

While I don’t know the exact answer to this question, here are some possibilities:

1.They know you would have eventually found the information anyway, so this trade-off is worth appearing genuine & gaining your trust, which may be exploited at a later date.

2.Create fear & uncertainty within you, causing you to doubt your own judgment.

3.This
may further traumatize a person with feelings of hopelessness when they learn that a very well respected group member is harassing him/her.

If you think that the people who oversee these neutralization programs have not infiltrated these groups, or even deliberately created some as a catch-net in order to disrupt & minimize progress, you are probably mistaken. The people who designed this system were not incompetent & some of these support groups seem to be just another phase of the campaign. If you find yourself on the receiving end of repeated covert or overt criticism by one or more of these prominent victims, you can give yourself a great big pat on the back. This one of many layers in this system of control that you’ll encounter.

Also, some people who may have been genuinely trying to raise awareness, may have been bribed, blackmailed or simply tortured (Directed Energy Weapons) into becoming informants, & therefore, have been compromised. Some of the most outspoken victims & leaders in these groups appear to be deliberately operating within boundaries designed to slow progress. And, as in most social systems, there is envy, fear & jealously. If you choose to participate in one of these support groups, you may want to limit your exposure to certain people. However, although these groups are fraught with perpetrators, not all of them are. So you may still want to attend meetings & events as it will be a good opportunity to connect with other people. You will find many people who are very decent & you may even make some
new friends. Trust your own judgment.

I have been in contact with perpetrators posing as victims on the phone & via email that have hinted that I must not be genuine. It is likely that these fake victims have probably spread lies to targeted individuals indicating that I’m not really targeted since I don’t appear to be suffering or helpless. If you are raising awareness, then discrediting attempts such as these will be standard practice. It appears to be critical that they attempt to isolate you from group members who you may have a positive influence on. Once again, organizations were heavily infiltrated during Cointelpro & jacketing was used extensively.(10)
[/quote]

In his research in the PDF Mark had formerly covered the concept of Infiltrations as well. I am not sure if this is covered on the new site.

Infiltrations and organizations seem to go hand in hand. Even if you start out with a good crop of individuals, you still have the possibility of Informants infiltrating the group. They are prone to achieving high levels of trust in organizations, they can also be used for disruption and disinformation. They can even be used as sleeper cells for down the line.

With Infiltration the idea is sometimes to destroy the organization, at other times it is to ensure the state is in control of the organization, this is true offline and online. This is also true for personal infiltrations. Getting someone into your life so they are in a position of trust, which can be used later.

The idea is to not become too paranoid, because then you will not be able to function, however it’s wise to be cognizant of these Infiltrations on a personal and professional level.

http://milwaukee.indymedia.org/en/2005/08/203959.shtml

gangstalking
http://www.articlesbase.com/news-and-society-articles/infiltrations-704029.html

Is the term New World Order a system that includes all the world conspiracies?

Who could be the master mind behind the so called New World Order?

The term "New World Order" is more a descriptive code name given to an agenda; the agenda of bringing about a "One World Government". You might call it the "Mother of all Conspiracies". This agenda is and has been being executed by the Illuminati (a.k.a. : The Illuminated Ones; The Enlightened Ones; The Global Elite; The Money Changers; International Bankers; World Bankers; Secret Government; Shadow Government; "The Powers That Be"; Puppet Masters; Sheeple Herders).

The Illuminati is a group that practice a form of faith known as ‘enlightenment’. It is Luciferian, and they teach their followers that their roots go back to the ancient mystery religions of Babylon, Egypt, and Celtic druidism. They have taken each foundational practice and joined them together into a strong occult discipline. The Leaders are extremely wealthy people, known mostly as International Bankers, who finance goals and interact with the leaders of many countries. Their elite members include members of The Rothschild family, The Rockefellers, The Morgans, The Mellons, and The Warburgs just to name a few.
Illuminati Defector Details Pervasive Conspiracy

http://www.rense.com/general30/illuminatidefector.htm

In 1913, members of these International Bankers Shanghaied the U.S. government and economy: They managed to take control of the U.S. Monetary system. After seventy years of failed efforts, they were able to railroad the Congress and the President to pass the "Federal Reserve Act" and the "Income Tax Act" (Revenue Act). With the passage of these acts, our government is now required to pay interest, to the bankers, for money that is printed by their own privately owned Federal Reserve Bank. Before the passage of the Act, our government would just pay the printing cost for the money. Also, the people are now taxed for their labor, where as before, only capital gains was taxed. These two Acts help put billions of dollars into the control of the "World Bankers": Money which they ("these enlightened people") could use to direct our country and its people as they see fit. They now have control of the most powerful nation in the world, including control of its industries, national media, government agencies and military. Today, they use this power to secure most any resource they want from most any country.
AMERICA: FREEDOM TO FASCISM

There is video and photo evidence that captured members of the Illuminati and their guests (many U.S. Presidents and other high ranking officials), at Bohemian Grove California. There they were secretly filmed, wearing red robes and worshiping "Moloch", a giant stone owl of Babylon origin: The same owl that is printed (strategically hidden) at the top right corner of every one dollar bill the Federal Reserve Bank prints. They are definitely engaged in some sort of an occult practice, complete with all the rituals and symbolism that go along with occults. See time = 1:13:00
DARK SECRETS: INSIDE BOHEMIAN GROVE

The following link contains a list of organizations they have infiltrated and secret societies they control. It also contains a little history of the Illuminati and their strategy for bringing about "The New World Order" or "The One World Government".

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Aj7pVKnKu_JqcbKaOk2qqQ_ty6IX?qid=20070808181140AAw67sV&show=7#profile-info-AA10451238

This following video, tells most every important detail of the Illuminati. It will show you Who they are: Where they originated from: How they operate: Where they derive their money and power: Their goals and methods to achieve them and what impact they have on our government/ society/and the world. It will show you how to easily prepare for an economic disasters to keep a roof over your head and bread on the table for you and your family. The key to survival is knowing they control our currency, so you’ll need a medium of exchange that is out of their direct control, in case they decide to pull the plug (make money scarce or without value).
THE MONEY MASTERS -
How the International Bankers Gained Control of America

————————————–…
Additional Information

The Illuminati and the New World Order

The Illuminati and the Council on Foreign Relations

http://100777.com/myron

Additional Reading

BEHOLD A PALE HORSE by William Cooper

http://www.archive.org/details/WIlliamCoopersBeholdthePaleHorsePart1and2

CNBC – Dollar Will be Utterly Destroyed, Global Currency, New World Order

Friday, 6 Nov 2009 – The dollar will get “utterly destroyed” and become “virtually worthless”, said Damon Vickers, chief investment officer of Nine Points Capital Partners. Due to the huge wage disparities between the United States and emerging markets like China, Vickers said that may resolve itself in some type of a global currency crisis.

“If the global currency crisis unfolds, then inevitably you get an alignment of a global world government. A new global currency and a new world order, so we may be moving towards that,” he said.

For those who have claimed this is a fake clip I suggest you visit CNBC’s website:

http://www.cnbc.com/id/33709379

http://www.infowars.com

Duration : 0:3:52

Read more…

Is it possible that the leaders of the world are working together to create a "prison planet?"?

What do you say. I have been indifferent about various theories but I don’t know…it kind of seems as if this can’t be completely ruled out.

Note: I don’t listen to Alex Jones but have seen his movies and just about every other one in that genre so I don’t need a history lesson from bias points of view. I pay attention to what is going on and try my best to keep an open-mind.
IDK, but you have probably heard of the RFID chip that will be in your ID soon, you have to have a passport to leave the country, there are more survelience cameras popping up each and every day, the dollar is (questionably intentionally) being shrunk to nothing, we have all sorts of global organizations that many countries are part of, habeus corpus was loopholed over the years as the police can use militaryesque equipment.

I’m not saying that this is a sure thing by any means but shouldn’t an open-minded individual at least be open to this as a possibility?
Oh yeah, also there have been way too many laws created for the government to protect itself from a revolt. You really can’t even joke around about such a thing.

I’m not sure I buy into that concept just yet, but your right about an open mind. With Obama in charge we may end up with something like that. One answer was waisting money to fly convicts elsewhere. Think about how much it cost us now to take care of the bums.
Three meals a day, TV in their cells, get to work out all the time.
To see someone like Jeffery Domer get taken up in a space shuttle and shot out the poop shoot wouldn’t bother me in the least.