Recipients of unemployment benefits to work again cleaning subways

This is another one of those ideas that looks great at first glance, until you stop to think about it for a second and realize this is yet another propaganda piece, and actually a very terrible idea. “Why,” you ask, “would it be a bad idea to put people on welfare to work?”

Well right out of the gate we have a problem there. Unemployment insurance is not welfare. It is an insurance program paid for directly by tax-paying workers, in case they ever lose their job through no fault of their own and are unable to find a comparable job quickly. So we aren't talking about people who don't want to work, or are normally unemployable for some reason. We are talking about people who have lost their job through no fault of their own, and have paid into this insurance system. So in other words, this is like being told that you can't collect on your Social Security at 65 unless you go mop out subway trains.

I find it offensive, yet curious that the Daily News does not have the wherewithal to make that distinction in their article. Is the newspaper truly that ignorant, or is this yet another subtle ploy for the hearts and minds of the sheeple, in order to divide and blind them? Notice how in the article, they state that just about every one they spoke with in the subway thought it was a good idea. Also note that the poll questions shows shows about 99% of the people in favor, while reading over their comments section there is nowhere near that same rate of approval.

Here is a link to the Daily News article...

http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2011/03/29/2011-03-29_cashpoor_mta_may_put_recipients_of_unemployment_benefits_to_work_again_cleaning_.html

Well since I have started asking questions now, here is another big one that needs answering. If the MTA has work available, why aren't they hiring these people directly, and keeping them off of welfare in the first place?

Oh, but these aren't actually paid jobs.

You know, there is a word for forcing people to work without pay, it's called slavery.

But it's not really slavery because they are being paid in foodstamps, and given shelter with programs like section-8.

Now this may come as a surprise to you, but even slave-owners fed, sheltered and clothed their slaves. Slave-owners knew that they had to take good care of their slave-worker, the same way you might take care of your car, or a farmer takes care of his tractor.

But this isn't really slave labor because these people have a choice, they could have gone out and gotten a job.

Oh really? So in the last few years tens of millions of Americans up and decided to become lazy all of the sudden and not take any of these millions of jobs that are out there? Yes, that is sarcasm you are detecting.

Now let's not forget, that it was the banks who drove our economy into the ground in the past few years, putting millions out of work and onto government programs, and it is banks like JP Morgan and Chase who are now clocking a fortune off of welfare Electronic Benefit Cards. When private companies control the government, you have fascism folks.








So slavery doesn't bother you? Not afraid of Fascism? Well try this on for size you good Republican voter, or you mindful Conservative Democrat. What do you call it when you have a separate class of workers who receive no pay, but instead live is state-tenements, wearing state issued clothing, and eating food bought with government ration vouchers? Thaaaat's right hot-rod. Communism. If you support this program, you are a dirty Commie. You are telling the government that the American worker is not worth anything more than some crappy one-room roach dorm and a few slices of processed cheese.

Don't let Americans become slaves to Communism. Hold our leaders accountable. Tell them that this idea sucks. Welfare is not the result of laziness and bad choices, it is the product of failed policy and vampire economics. Last year the MTA laid off over 3,500 paid workers, only to turn around and replace them now with unpaid welfare workers. Coincidence? Does that really even sound like a “solution” for welfare to you?

And for some background info, this isn't the first time they have “tested the waters” with this sort of idea. Check out this article from the MSMR written when Republican candidate for N.Y. governor Carl Paladino has said that he would like to send welfare recipients to go live in vacant prison cells and do work for the state....

http://msmreview.blogspot.com/2010/08/prison-labor-re-education-camps-for.html

...There is an agenda folks, and you aren't scheduled to be one of the winners. Also, check out the article “Unpaid Jobs: The new Normal?” linked here...

http://stationsixunderground.blogspot.com/2011/03/unpaid-jobs-new-normal.html

Opinions as headlines

We are all entitled to our opinions, and free speech should be just that, free. But there is still something inherently wrong with newspapers that deliberately and blatantly spread propaganda. It has certainly become more and more prevalent as more and more media outlets come under the control of fewer and fewer companies. And as blatant as it may be sometimes, it is almost as if it is hidden in plain sight with headlines like this one...

Obama strongly defends US military action in Libya

Now there are a few big problems with this headline. The first being the use of the word "strongly." So much for objectivity in reporting stating an opinion in their headline.

Second of all, did you actually see that speech? So chock full of the same flag-waving garbage rhetoric that we have been hearing for years that I might have thought Bush was standing up there if Obama had managed to fumble a few words. As if we have some inherent duty to "help" the Libyans, while throughout the rest of Africa, indeed throughout the rest of the world, despots slaughter and starve their people with impunity.

Well enough of my own opinions on the subject, but one simple fact remains. That this newspaper has used a statement of opinion as a "factual" reporting of news in their headline. Trashy reporting or subtle brainwashing?

Congressional hearings on Islam: Rise of the Fourth Reich

Congress will begin hearings Thursday on the threat of radicalization of Muslims, despite protests and questions of Islamophobia. Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) who is the the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee has stated that the goal of the hearings is "to establish and show the American people that there is a real threat of al-Qaida recruiting and of homegrown terrorists being self-radicalized within the Muslim community."

So in other words, it's stated purpose is propaganda. King has already made up his mind and now seeks evidence to support his biased position after the fact, and a pulpit from which to spread his message to the American people. In one breath he says that his only target is al-Qaeda, but in the next he talks about how the Muslim community is not doing enough to deter extremism in their midst.

But let's stop right there for a moment. Al-Qaeda. While the government and the media still use the term to instill fear in the hearts of Americans each day, it has been well established that there is no such thing as al-Qaeda. There is no monolithic terrorist network, there is no organization taking orders from Osama bin-Laden or any successors.



Okay, so there really is no al-Qaeda. But is there a threat from radicals and fundamentalists on American soil among American-Muslims? King brings up 9/11, of course. So ten years after the fact, Congress suddenly now finds the need to have these hearings on the threat of Muslim radicals in our midst? Let's not forget that the alleged 9/11 hijackers were not Americans. Not even Afhganis of Iraqis for that matter. They were mostly Saudi Arabians. That is of course, if you take the government's word for it.



Okay, so maybe there are still questions about 9/11, but we know there are religious radicals. The question then is, are religious fundamentalism really a threat here in America, domestically? Well, we know that the Oklahoma City bombing was done to avenge the deaths of radical Christians. That bombing was entirely domestic. Everyone involved were American citizens. So why did we never see Congressional hearings about Christian fundamentalists? Or, for that matter, radical elements within the U.S. Military? After all, Timothy McVeigh was a decorated war hero.



See our related article: Border War: The Blind Eye of America

In the wake of 9/11, such domestic threats are overshadowed by the fear of Muslim extremists, the sort who are alleged to have carried out the most spectacular act of terrorism the world has ever known. So how many extremist are there in the world? What are the chances of something like that actually happening again ? What is the real threat? One in five people on the planet are Muslim, yet the world is not ablaze with daily horrific acts of terrorism in the name of Islam. The reason for this is that the fraction of Muslim fundamentalists which exist could be likened to what the Ku Klux Klan or the Westboro Baptist Church is to Christianity.

Now among that faction of radical Islam, we actually have to look a little deeper too. How many Muslims are really so committed to their rhetoric, that they are willing to die for it? How many would act, and not just spew hate speech? A much smaller percentage again, to be sure. Just like the KKK and their ilk, they talk a good line, but when was the last time you heard of a Klansman even going to prison for his beliefs, much less dieing for them? But let's go ahead and assume that some of these Muslim radicals are a little more committed than their Christian counterparts Out of what is estimated to be a few thousand truly hardcore radicals around the globe, from more than a billion Muslims, how many would actually be able to carry out an attack on American soil? Especially one anywhere near the scale and complexity of 9/11. How many radicals would actually have the will, the commitment, the capability, the skills, the connections, and the resources to carry out such an attack? When you think about it that way, it's pretty hard to imagine how a ragtag group of hard-drinking strip-club visiting cocaine snorting supposedly strict adherents of fundamentalist Islam were able to even carry out 9/11 in the first place.

Of course, that doesn't mean the Muslim terrorists didn't actually carry out the 9/11 attacks. That can be debated elsewhere. It also doesn't mean that it would be impossible for Islamic radicals to carry out a terror attack, on any scale, here on American soil, however unlikely that prospect might be. But is that enough to have Congressional hearings singling out Muslims as a threat or as harboring a threat against the American people?

According to the official story, Muslim radicals are responsible for 2,998 American deaths, in one, single, coordinated attack on American soil. Last year, 5,890 people were murdered by a black person. This means that in 2009 you were almost twice as likely to be murdered by a black person, than you were to be killed by a radical Muslim in the year the attacks actually happened. Now compound those odds over a ten year period, since 2001, in which no more attacks have happened, and you can see that blacks are are a far greater threat to Americans than any Muslim.

Oh, did you find that offensive? Good. Because these hearings are just as offensive, with even less merit.

Some have called these hearings a return to McCarthyism. No folks, it is far worse than that. This is the face of Fascism, on the order of what happened in Germany in the few short years before the Holocaust. This isn't about political ideals. This is about the United States Congress making an open attack on a religion, with strong racial and ethnic overtones.

The only question then is, why? Feel free to contact us if you really don't know at this point, but let's finish off with this. There is no real threat from Muslims. No more so than any other group of people, far less in fact. You are twice as likely to be crushed under a vending machine than you are to be killed by a terrorist. Your odds of being killed in a 9/11 style terror attack are about 8 million to one. You have a better chance of being struck by lightning... four times.