Is being ‘poor’ a learned behavior?

This was first posted on my personal website several years ago…

I know I’ll probably cause a little controversy with this subject matter, so here goes. At one time, I believed that being poor was unfair, or that some folks just didn’t catch the right breaks in life, or maybe the odds were stacked against them so as to make overcoming them insurmountable. I don’t think that anymore. I’ve had the fortune, or misfortune… depending upon your view of life, to have met a diverse cross section of people from all walks of life. Those that were successful shared several positive traits, while those who occupied the bottom rungs of the socio-economic ladder, usually had a host of negative traits. Negative traits included limited education, limited marketable skills, little or no initiative, and poor lifestyle choices.

It is by talking to people over the years that I’ve come to the conclusion that being poor is a learned behavior. Some of the bad behaviors included drug/alcohol addition, gambling addictions, poor financial planning, poor saving habits, and the need for instant gratification… sacrificing financial futures for fulfilling immediate wants. It is with those negative habits that many people find it difficult to overcome. That does not mean people of means don’t suffer from those bad habits too… it just means that they have enough financial or educational resources at their disposal to offset many of the hardships associated with those habits. Comments?

Judicial Review

This is something every citizen must understand. We’re not taught this in schools. Most of the teachers I had in school believed the Constitution was a ‘living’ document. That is to say, the meaning of the Constitution changes over time. That couldn’t be more wrong. The Constitution is a rigid document. The ONLY way to change its meanings is via the amendment process.

 

http://constitutionality.us/SupremeCourt.html

 

Judicial Review

The Supreme Court of the United States spends much, if not most, of its time on a task which is not delegated to the Supreme Court by the Constitution. That task is: Hearing cases wherein the constitutionality of a law or regulation is challenged. The Supreme Court’s nine Justices attempt to sort out what is, and what is not constitutional. This process is known as Judicial Review. But the states, in drafting the Constitution, did not delegate such a power to the Supreme Court, or to any branch of the government.

Since the constitution does not give this power to the court, you might wonder how it came to be that the court assumed this responsibility. The answer is that the court just started doing it and no one has put a stop to it. This assumption of power took place first in 1794 when the Supreme Court declared an act of congress to be unconstitutional, but went largely unnoticed until the landmark case of Marbury v Madison in 1803. Marbury is significant less for the issue that it settled (between Marbury and Madison) than for the fact that Chief Justice John Marshall used Marbury to provide a rationale for judicial review. Since then, the idea that the Supreme Court should be the arbiter of constitutionality issues has become so ingrained that most people incorrectly believe that the Constitution granted this power.

 

More on this topic can be found on the link above.

Well, its done.

Barack Obama, head of the United Welfare States of America, won the election. I’ve said many times before, “the election of Obama is proof positive that too many stupid people have the ability to vote.” I stand by that comment but would also like to add to it. Here it is… “people have chosen to exchange freedom for the economic shackles of a welfare state. They’ve forgotten what it means to be a free people.” The entitlement class is quickly decimating our culture and work ethic. God help us all!

Ask yourself…

In less than a month, Americans across the country will go to the ballot boxes, casting their vote for President of the United States. I challenge each of you to take a moment and reassess your core values… What you believe politically, spiritually, and personally. What makes you who you are and why? Where did you obtain the basis for your belief system? Do you really believe something based upon what your parents thought? Or, are they your own values?

 

People typically reflect the values, faith, and political leanings of their parents and/or close family members. If your parents vote conservatively, chances are that you will too. The same can be said of your religious faith (or lack thereof), and your personal values. How many of us actually take the time to assess what we believe and why? Just because your family adheres to certain spiritual beliefs, does that mean those beliefs are right for you?

 

Now take a look at the two candidates running for President. Look at what both bring to the table, so to speak. Which one is best qualified in terms of background, experience, integrity, etc. Which one best represents you and your values?

Is he really that dense?

Business groups criticize Obama over remarks about government’s role in success

Prominent business groups are joining conservatives and Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney in calling out President Obama for his recent comments about the relationship between government and business.

The president made the comments Friday during a speech to supporters in Roanoke, Va. Arguing that successful business owners got help from others along the way and suggesting they should pay more in taxes in return, he noted how government often provides the infrastructure needed for success. “If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that,” Obama said. “Somebody else made that happen.”

David Chavern, chief operating officer of the Chamber of Commerce, accused Obama of slighting the remarkable achievements of extraordinary individuals.

“We should applaud the risk-takers and the dreamers who are willing to stand out from the crowd,” Chavern said in a Chamber blog. “Rather than denigrate what these people have done, we need to encourage more people to be like them.”

The National Federation of Independent Business said the president’s “unfortunate remarks over the weekend show an utter lack of understanding and appreciation for the people who take a huge personal risk and work endless hours to start a business and create jobs.”

“I’m sure every small-business owner who took a second mortgage on their home, maxed out their credit cards or borrowed money from their own retirement savings to start their business disagrees strongly with President Obama’s claim. They know that hard work does matter,” the group also said.

Romney spokeswoman Andrea Saul told FoxNews.com on Monday that the remarks “reflect just how unqualified he is to lead us to a real economic recovery.”

“They are also insulting to the hardworking entrepreneurs, small-business owners, and job creators who are the backbone of our economy,” she said in an e-mail.

The Obama campaign, though, accused the Romney campaign of launching a “false attack” to distract from questions over outsourcing tied to his former company Bain Capital. Campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt defended the premise of Obama’s comment.

“As President Obama said, those who start businesses succeed because of their individual initiative — their drive, hard work, and creativity,” LaBolt said in a statement. “But there are critical actions we must take to support businesses and encourage new ones — that means we need the best infrastructure, a good education system, and affordable, domestic sources of clean energy.  Those are investments we make not as individuals, but as Americans, and our nation as a whole benefits from them.”

Obama’s comment Friday came just days after he urged Congress to extend tax cuts enacted during the Bush administration only to families earning less than $250,000 annually — part of his argument that top earners have an obligation to pay more to trim the deficit.

“There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me because they want to give something back,” the president said. “If you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something — there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.

“If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen,” he said. “The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.”

Kevin Hassett, an economist with the conservative American Enterprise Institute, said Obama’s comments are “so far from the current debate,” but setting the stage for the administration’s tax argument.

“Obama is trying to create the intellectual space to take money away from people. He’s trying to say, ‘What you do on the playing field would never be possible without the help of the government,'” he said.

War of Northern Aggression (Civil War) Trivia

Calling out orders to imaginary units, Confederate LtGen Nathan Bedford Forrest kept moving one section of artillery in circles, thus convincing Union Colonel Abel Streight to think he was surrounded. Colonel Streight surrendered at Lawrence, Alabama on 3 May 1863.

Texas woman barred from US after swearing she is not American

 

BROWNSVILLE, Texas –  A Texas woman has been stranded on the Mexican side of the US border for more than three months after making a statement saying she was born in Mexico and was not an American citizen, The Brownsville Herald reported.

Brenda Vazquez said her “false” statement to a US border official at the Brownsville international bridge on Feb. 19 came after she was grilled for seven hours when she attempted to re-enter Texas — where she says she was born in Weslaco in 1982.

A petition filed in a US federal court on behalf of Vazquez claims she only signed the statement after a US Customs and Border Protection official seized her Texas driver’s license and US birth certificate and refused to allow her access to a lawyer until she admitted she was not American, the Herald reported in its Sunday edition.

Vazquez has been stuck in limbo in Matamoros on the Mexican side of the border ever since.

Her Brownsville-based lawyer Jaime Diez is attempting to retrieve her documents so she can re-enter the US.

US Customs and Border Protection officials did not respond to the newspaper’s requests for comment.

Mary Edwards Walker – Medal of Honor

Mary Edwards Walker served as an assistant surgeon in Kentucky and Tennessee for the Union. She was also the only woman ever awarded the Medal of Honor.

Citation: Whereas it appears from official reports that Dr. Mary E. Walker, a graduate of medicine, “has rendered valuable service to the Government. and her efforts have been earnest and llntirin~ in a variety of ways,” and that she was assigned to duty and served as an assistant surgeon in charge of female prisoners at Louisville, Ky., upon the recommendation of Major_Generals Sherman and Thomas, and faithfully served as contract surgeon in the service of the United States, and has devoted herself with much patriotic zeal to the sick and wounded soldiers, both in the field and hospitals, to the detriment of her own health, and has also endured hardships as a prisoner of war four months in a Southern prison while acting as contract surgeon; and

Whereas by reason of her not being a commissioned officer in the military service, a brevet or honorary rank cannot, under existing laws, be conferred upon her; and

Whereas in the opinion of the President an honorable recognition of her services and sufferings should be made:

It is ordered, That a testimonial thereof shall be hereby made and given to the said Dr. Mary E. Walker, and that the usual medal of honor for meritorious services be given her.

Given under my hand in the city of Washington, D.C., this 11th day of November, A.D. 1865.

(Medal rescinded 1917 along with 910 others, restored by President Carter 10 June 1977.)

San Diego Primary Election, 5 June 2012

Prop 29 (Imposes additional tax on cigarettes for cancer research initiative)
Imposes additional $1.00 per pack tax on cigarettes and an equivalent tax increase on other tobacco products. Revenues fund research for cancer and tobacco-related diseases. Fiscal Impact: Net increase in cigarette excise tax revenues of about $735 million annually by 2013–14 for certain research and tobacco prevention and cessation programs. Other state and local revenue increases amounting to tens of millions of dollars annually.


WHAT YOUR VOTE MEANS
YES
A YES vote on this measure means: State excise taxes on cigarettes would increase by $1 per pack to a total of $1.87 per pack. These additional revenues would be dedicated to fund cancer and tobacco-related disease research and tobacco prevention and cessation programs.

NO
A NO vote on this measure means: State excise taxes on cigarettes would remain at the current level of 87 cents per pack and would continue to be used for existing purposes, including childhood development programs and various health and tobacco prevention and cessation programs.

ARGUMENTS
PRO
The American Cancer Society, American Heart Association and American Lung Association wrote Prop. 29 to save lives, stop kids from smoking, and fund cancer research. Big Tobacco opposes Prop. 29 because they know it will reduce smoking in California. Prop. 29 saves lives, but only with a YES vote.

CON
Everyone supports cancer research, but Prop. 29 is flawed: $735 million annually in new taxes but doesn’t require revenue be spent in California to create jobs or fund schools. Creates new government spending bureaucracy with political appointees, duplicating existing programs. More waste, no accountability to taxpayers. No on 29. ReadForYourself.org

FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
FOR

Tim Gibbs
American Cancer Society
980 9th Street, Suite 2550
Sacramento, CA 95814
(916) 397-4618
Info@CaliforniansForACure.org
www.YesProp29.org

AGAINST

No on 29—Californians Against Out-of-Control Taxes and Spending, a coalition of taxpayers, small businesses, law enforcement and labor. (866) 662-7016
Info@NoOn29.com
www.NoOn29.com

Robert E. Lee (1807-1870)

“With all my devotion to the Union and the feeling of loyalty and duty of an American citizen, I have not been able to make up my mind to raise my hand against my relatives, my children, my home. I have therefore resigned my commission in the Army, and save in defense of my native State, with the sincere hope that my poor services may never be needed, I hope I may never be called on to draw my sword…..” Lee in a letter to his sister, April 20, 1861

The idol of the South to this day, Virginian Robert E. Lee had some difficulty in adjusting to the new form of warfare that unfolded with the Civil war, but this did not prevent him from keeping the Union armies in Virginia at bay for almost three years. The son of Revolutionary War hero “Light Horse” Harry Lee-who fell into disrepute in his later years attended West Point and graduated second in his class. During his four years at the military academy he did not earn a single demerit and served as the cadet corps’ adjutant. Upon his 1829 graduation he was posted to the engineers. Before the Mexican War he served on engineering projects in Georgia, Virginia, and New York. During the war he served on the staffs of John Wool and Winfield Scott. Particularly distinguishing himself scouting for and guiding troops, he won three brevets and was slightly wounded at Chapultepec.
Following a stint in Baltimore Harbor he became superintendent of the military academy in 1852. When the mounted arm was expanded in 1855, Lee accepted the lieutenant colonelcy of the 2nd Cavalry in order to escape from the painfully slow promotion in the engineers. Ordered to western Texas, he served with his regiment until the 1857 death of his father-in-law forced him to ask for a series of leaves to settle the estate.
In 1859 he was called upon to lead a force of marines, to join with the militia on the scene, to put an end to John Brown’s Harper’s Ferry Raid. Thereafter he served again in Texas until summoned to Washington in 1861 by Winfield Scott who tried to retain Lee in the U. S. service. But the Virginian rejected the command of the Union’s field forces on the day after Virginia seceded. He then accepted an invitation to visit Governor John Letcher in Virginia. His resignation as colonel, 1st Cavalry-to which he had recently been promoted-was accepted on April 25, 1861.
His Southern assignments included: major general, Virginia’s land and naval forces (April 23, 1861); commanding Virginia forces (April 23 July 1861); brigadier general, CSA (May 14, 186 1); general, CSA (from June 14, 186 1); commanding Department of Northwestern Virginia (late July-October 1861); commanding Department of South Carolina, Georgia and Florida (November 8, 186 1-March 3, 1862); and commanding Army of Northern Virginia June 1, 1862-April 9, 1865).
In charge of Virginia’s fledgling military might, he was mainly involved in organizational matters. As a Confederate brigadier general, and later full general, he was in charge of supervising all Southern forces in Virginia. In the first summer of the war he was given his first field command in western Virginia. His Cheat Mountain Campaign was a disappointing fizzle largely due to the failings of his superiors. His entire tenure in the region was unpleasant, dealing with the bickering of his subordinates-William W. Loring, John B. Floyd, and Henry A. Wise. After this he became known throughout the South as “Granny Lee. ” His debut in field command had not been promising, but Jefferson Davis appointed him to command along the Southern Coast.
Early in 1862 he was recalled to Richmond and made an advisor to the president. From this position he had some influence over military operations, especially those of Stonewall Jackson in the Shenandoah Valley. When Joseph E. Johnston launched his attack at Seven Pines, Davis and Lee were taken by surprise and rode out to the field. In the confusion of the fight Johnston was badly wounded, and that night Davis instructed Lee to take command of what he renamed the Army of Northern Virginia. He fought the second day of the battle but the initiative had already been lost the previous day. Later in the month, in a daring move, he left a small force in front of Richmond and crossed the Chickahominy to strike the one Union corps north of the river. In what was to be called the Seven Days Battles the individual fights-Beaver Dam Creek, Gaines’ Mill, Savage Station, Glendale, White Oak Swamp, and Malvern Hill-were all tactical defeats for the Confederates. But Lee had achieved the strategic goal of removing McClellan’s army from the very gates of Richmond.
This created a new opinion of Lee in the South. He gradually became “Uncle Robert” and “Marse Robert.” With McClellan neutralized, a new threat developed under John Pope in northern Virginia. At first Lee detached Jackson and then followed with Longstreet’s command. Winning at 2nd Bull Run, he moved on into Maryland but suffered the misfortune of having a copy of his orders detailing the disposition of his divided forces fall into the hands of the enemy. McClellan moved with unusual speed and Lee was forced to fight a delaying action along South Mountain while waiting for Jackson to complete the capture of Harpers Ferry and rejoin him. He masterfully fought McClellan to a stand still at Antietam and two days later recrossed the Potomac.
Near the end of the year he won an easy victory over Burnside at Fredericksburg and then trounced Hooker in his most creditable victory at Chancellorsville, where he had detached Jackson with most of the army on a lengthy flank march while he remained with only two divisions in the immediate front of the Union army. Launching his second invasion of the North, he lost at Gettysburg. On the third day of the battle he displayed one of his major faults when at Malvern Hill and on other fields-he ordered a massed infantry assault across a wide plain, not recognizing that the rifle, which had come into use since the Mexican War, put the charging troops under fire for too long a period. Another problem was his issuance of general orders to be executed by his subordinates.
Returning to Virginia he commanded in the inconclusive Bristoe and Mine Run campaigns. From the Wilderness to Petersburg he fought a retiring campaign against Grant in which he made full use of entrenchments, becoming known as “Ace of Spades” Lee. Finally forced into a siege, he held on to Richmond and Petersburg for nearly 10 months before beginning his retreat to Appomattox, where he was forced to surrender. On January 23, 1865, he had been named as commander in chief of the Confederate armies but he found himself too burdened in Virginia to give more than general directives to the other theaters.
Lee returned to Richmond as a paroled prisoner of war, and submitted with the utmost composure to an altered destiny. He devoted the rest of his life to setting an example of conduct for other thousands of ex-Confederates. He refused a number of offers which would have secured substantial means for his family. Instead, he assumed the presidency of Washington College (now Washington and Lee University) in Lexington, Virginia, and his reputation revitalized the school after the war. Lee’s enormous wartime prestige, both in the North and South, and the devotion inspired by his unconscious symbolism of the “Lost Cause” made his a legendary figure even before his death. He died on October 12 1870, of heart disease which had plagued him since the spring of 1863, at Lexington, Va. and is buried there. Somehow, his application for restoration of citizenship was mislaid, and it was not until the 1970’s that it was found and granted.
Source: “Who Was Who In The Civil War” by Stewart Sifakis

Translate »