What if Obama Had Actually Run a Business Sometime During His Career?

Not only is the Tea Party quite angry with the Obama Administration, but most small businesses in this country are as well. I keep thinking to myself, and asking myself this question; if President Obama had run a small business at any time during his career prior to getting into politics, how much difference would that make in the way that he leads, the decisions he makes, and the policies that he pursues? Now then, after considering this at length, I'd like to explain some of my thinking on this.

If President Obama had actually run a business, he would've never made those disparaging comments to "Joe the Plumber" during his election campaign. Indeed, President Obama would have made sure that small business regulations were reduced, and would not have allowed ObamaCare to put all the burden of health insurance onto employers, especially smaller companies. Further, I doubt if he would have allowed General Motors and Chrysler to forgo their franchise agreements and cut hundreds of their dealers, all smaller businesses.

Also, I don't think he would've made those comments recently about business aircraft, corporate Jets, and other tax write offs, and depreciation schedules. Further, I don't believe he would have supported the minimum wage laws in the way that he did, and I don't believe he would be so quick to hand out corporate welfare. Next, if President Obama had run a smaller business at any time during his life, including a lemonade stand he probably wouldn't have assigned the SBA the task of keeping small businesses in our country healthy.

It is entirely obvious to me that the Obama Administration is all talk when it comes to the smalltime entrepreneurs in our country, and I'd even go so far as to say they really don't care. After all, the small business community didn't support Obama because they felt he was a socialist, or he had socialist tendencies. In hindsight they were exactly correct, they pegged his mindset, and his thinking in my opinion. Our nation has drifted closer towards socialism now than at any time since FDR, which is the problem with unemployment, as we've drifted away from free-market capitalism.

Since socialism doesn't work, and all the Obama Administration understands his crony capitalism, and since they have literally forgotten the small businessperson in this country it is no wonder we are the situation we are in today. Further, we shouldn't expect job growth, not from our smaller companies, the growth engine that creates jobs until President Obama is no longer an office. Anyway, I thought I would share my feelings on this matter, and my personal assessment, and observations. Please consider all this and think on.

Lance Winslow is a retired Founder of a Nationwide Franchise Chain, and now runs the Online Think Tank. Lance Winslow believes writing 24,222 articles by July 22, 2011 at 2:22 PM is going to be difficult because all the letters on his keyboard are now worn off now..

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Lance_Winslow

»»  READMORE...

What Excuse Will Obama Use When Unemployment Hits 10%? Can't Blame That One On Bush

One thing I've learned from listening to President Barack Obama in his beautifully choreographed teleprompter readings and speeches is that anything that happens bad in this country is not his fault. No sir, it's the fault of the Bush Administration of course. Now then, I have a question for you; "what if President Obama was not allowed to blame everything on President Bush?"

Well, I suspect that President Obama would simply find someone else to blame it on, rather than admitting his poor performance, less-than-perfect leadership skills, or the unintended consequences of moving our nation more towards socialism, and away from capitalism which has works so well in this country up until now. Okay so, let's discuss some solutions for President Obama, and some other people he might be able to blame things on in the future.

After all, he's going to need to find other entities, people, companies, countries, and organizations to blame for the serious economic crisis that he's gotten us into. He's going to have to find someone to blame for our unemployment figures which will probably hit 10% by the time he seeks the vote for reelection in 2012. Yes, we all know that the unemployment rate is actually over 10%, but I'm talking about the official unemployment rate the government puts out to keep us all happy.

Below I've listed the usual suspects that far left leaning candidates like to blame things on, especially lately;

1. Blame it on the Tea Party
2. Blame it on Jobs Moving to China
3. Blame it on Wall Street Banks Not Loaning
4. Blame it on Debt Limit Negotiations and Republicans
5. Never Admit that the Obama Administration is Indeed Unfit to Lead

Indeed, if the Obama Administration continues with their previous strategy to bolster their acceptance in the media and by the American people playing the blame game, then we can expect them to blame large corporations for moving their jobs to China, the tea party for reducing federal expenditures, thus causing more layoffs at all levels of government. And we can expect them to blame things on Wall Street banks for not loaning money to small businesses, as well as of course the Republicans for raising the cost of borrowing money due to the fallout during the debt ceiling limit the notations.

And one thing we can guarantee, and that is this; the Obama Administration will never admit that it is unfit to lead, that it has made terrible economic mistakes, and that socialism doesn't work, and it's wrong for America. Indeed I hope you will please consider all this and think on it.

Lance Winslow is a retired Founder of a Nationwide Franchise Chain, and now runs the Online Think Tank. Lance Winslow believes writing 24,222 articles by July 22, 2011 at 2:22 PM is going to be difficult because all the letters on his keyboard are now worn off now..

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Lance_Winslow

»»  READMORE...

Las Vegas Still Angry at Obama for Job Losses, He's in Office Because Half of Nevada Voted for Him

The other day, I was talking to an individual from Las Vegas, and somehow we got on the subject of politics. Yes, I know you're not surprise considering how many words I've expended on the topic, but nevertheless, they admitted to me that they voted for President Obama. This surprises me, because most people in Nevada will not admit that they voted for President Obama even though he did win state. In other words, a little over half the people who did vote, voted for the gentleman.

What happened after that was quite interesting. President Obama made statements about fat cat corporations having their annual meetings there and wasting money in Las Vegas. That's pretty unfortunate for a city which prides itself on tourism, and without tourism cannot exist, because there would be no jobs. After all the city is in the middle of a desert, there's nothing there, and there's no reason for a city other than entertainment, gambling, and the fact that it is a destination location.

When President Obama publicly dissuaded people from going to Las Vegas, it severely hurt tourism. Then the cost of fuel went up, and airline fares increased, all this in the middle of a recession, and Las Vegas was one of the worst cities hit after the real estate bubble collapse. Indeed, it was among some of the fastest growing cities in America, and it was blindsided when the growth stopped. Anyway, the gentleman I was talking to who did vote for Obama tells me that Las Vegas is still quite angry for the job losses, after President Obama made all those comments.

Now then, I do not believe that President Obama can win the State of Nevada again. I don't believe the unions that work for the hotels will vote for him, and I think most everyone in the city is against his party, and the Obama Administration's actions, not to mention some of Obama speeches and jabs at wasteful trips to Las Vegas. How many people lost their jobs? Well, in the hospitality industry alone in Las Vegas the job losses were well over 25,000 and although many of those jobs have returned finally, not all of them did come back.

Thus, there are quite a few angry folks in the city who probably wouldn't vote for President Obama if he was the last person on the planet. Seriously, that is a direct quote from the individual I was talking to, and I thought you should know. Indeed I hope you will please consider all this and think on it.

Lance Winslow is a retired Founder of a Nationwide Franchise Chain, and now runs the Online Think Tank. Lance Winslow believes writing 24,222 articles by July 22, 2011 at 2:22 PM is going to be difficult because all the letters on his keyboard are now worn off now..

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Lance_Winslow

»»  READMORE...

Obama Pulls a Cantor

Well the good feeling that we were getting from DC last week was dashed this week as Obama pulled a Cantor and walked out of deficit reduction talks. It was a show of just how far Obama has fallen off of the wagon with concern to his calm, cool demeanor over the last 2 and half years.

It was the fourth meeting in as many days and there has not been much progress made, mostly because the President and Democrats refuse to see the light that the American people are not willing to just accept tax increase without serious spending cuts. Which in every poll put out in the last week has shown that Americans want what the Republicans are offering, massive spending cuts, and what the democrats want in tax increases.

Of course as is the norm with the American population, they want tax increase on everyone but themselves. And they want spending cuts on all the programs that they personally do not see a use for. So maybe my last bit of writing on the good news was a bit naive. Because nothing can be done if people are too stubborn to give up their own favorite Government entitlement. To solve this issue it is going to take a much broader approach to the problem.

The Republicans are in the driver seat, they will get to decide how this goes. The only thing the President and the Democrats in the senate can do is either pass what is passed in the house or look like the fools to the American people when we default on our loans. So with this in mind the Republicans should do the following.

First the Republicans should pass a bill that is short term, and would require a vote to be taken ever 4 months to raise the debt ceiling as well as cut the the same amount from the budget. So if it is 500 billion increase in the debt ceiling it is to be accompanied by 500 billion in spending cuts. This is a good compromise for everyone that is agreement that we need to raise the debt ceiling and spending cuts. It also means that everything has to be on the table, we cannot protect one Government entitlement over another. This means that the Liberals will have to swallow cuts to social security and medicare/medicaid and Conservatives will have to swallow the cuts made to defense. It has to be done, it cannot be put off any longer.

Second the Republicans should include in the bill a balance budget amendment that states that congress cannot vote for increases in spending over 2% from the previous years income. Meaning that if in 2011 the IRS collects 2.4 trillion dollars the 2012 spending bill cannot be more than 2.448 trillion dollars. There is no reason that Government spending should be 25% of our GDP and that is what it is currently.

Third the Republicans in the house should put for a bill that will eliminate the tax deductions that can be taken at tax time and lower the corporate tax rate to 20%. This will make it more competitive to do business in the US, as well as be a back door tax increase with the removal of deductions that corporations and individuals can take. This would be a great compromise in raising taxes but keeping to the pledge of not raising taxes while in congress. Most people will not associate the removal of deductions as a tax increase, so it would be a win win for everyone involved.

If the Republicans did those three things it would then force Obama to put aside the partisan politics and accept the deal, he does not want this in the news come next summer. Plus he would then be able to say he won a great victory for the country and to his base he could say that he raised taxes on the wealthiest Americans do to the removal of deductions from the tax code.

The question is, will any of them have the political oomph to do such a thing?

Jack Simms is a comment writer and opinionated commentator at a political forum called Partisan divide.

Come visit for on topic discussions in daily political news that affects all our lives.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Jack_R_Simms

»»  READMORE...

We Need More Passenger Trains in the US Because China Has Them - Irrelevant Excuse Really

Perhaps you recall President Obama's plea to the American People to think innovation, and win the future. He also noted that China had faster high-speed rail trains than we did, and that we were getting behind, as if to inspire us to move ahead and compete with China? Okay so, let's talk about this, because it now appears that China made a serious mistake promoting high-speed rail and now they are paying for it, and thus, maybe we should attempt to follow them down that dead end track or unfinished bridge to nowhere.

Is there light at the end of tunnel for America's 10s of billions of dollars designated for high-speed rail projects? It doesn't look as if these projects would account for much employment in the US (shovel ready jobs). In fact, we'd probably end up buying Chinese trains in a low-bid situation with a GE partnership of some type I imagine, that is if any of this comes to fruition. Meanwhile, Amtrak continues to lose money every year in the US, and although it's not as bad as the USPS for a bottomless money pit, Amtrak certainly isn't anything to ride home about.

Recently, there was an interesting article in China Economic Review on July 20, 2011 titled; "Debt Piles Up at China Railway Ministry (MOR)" which stated that;

"MOR had accumulated $294.87 (USD) billion of debt by the end of the first quarter this year, causing its asset-liability ratio to reach 58.24%. The MOR said it would issue $3.1 billion in short-term financing bonds on July 21 to support railway construction, train purchases, and capital turnover. MOR completed construction on 8 fast railways in 2010, or 1,554 kilometers of track, is constructing 18 high-speed railways that year. The MOR plans to invest $115.3 billion in fixed assets in the railway sector in 2011."

Now then, it is great to see China marching ahead 8-men abreast into the South China Sea with their high-speed rail projects, but as it stands with all that debt, they will have to charge such high rates to passengers, that it will be cheaper to fly. Meanwhile, China is also subsidizing their airlines, another challenge, this time a runway to nowhere.

Okay so, the reason I bring all this up is that when President Obama came into office he told us that Europe had free-healthcare for all, and so should the US. But the EU nations are worried about defaulting on their debt. Whoops? I guess we shouldn't have tried to follow the socialists into the health and human services abyss. But now Obama has another grand plan, follow the Chinese by providing high-speed rail. No, China is not a socialist nation, it's a communist nation. Why are we following them, as they are trying to imitate us?

Sounds like a giant game of musical chairs in a giant circle jerk. Well, I guess the recent piece on ForaTV said it best; Washington DC is a Giant Ice Cream Cone Licking Itself. Yes, I laughed too when I heard that, but he has a point. Maybe it's time America stopped blowing money on nonsense, what say you?

Lance Winslow is a retired Founder of a Nationwide Franchise Chain, and now runs the Online Think Tank. Lance Winslow believes writing 24,222 articles by July 22, 2011 at 2:22 PM is going to be difficult because all the letters on his keyboard are now worn off now..

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Lance_Winslow

»»  READMORE...

If Your Corporation Needs Subsidies to Survive - Welcome to the Twenty First Century, Game Over

Well, it looks as if corporate subsidies are getting the budget axe left and right as the debt ceiling debate rages on. A large number of corporate and industry subsidies fell onto the chopping block during the previous 2011 Federal Budget negotiations. Ethanol being a major one, but now the US Congress reminds us that there will be many more and they've found billions of subsidies which they hope to cut to help trim the deficit spending and reel in the debt.

There was an interesting piece in Industry Week Online recently titled; "With Ethanol Getting Clipped, What's Next? - As the battle over ethanol heats up, the next generation of biofuels waits for its moment in the spotlight," by Frank Andorka published on July 20, 2011 - which stated that;

"The battle over biofuels has finally been joined in Congress. After nearly 30 years of focusing on corn ethanol as the primary alternative fuel (and creating government support with that in mind), the Senate voted in June to do away with the Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit (VEETC), which provided a 45-cent-per-gallon tax credit for every gallon of 190-proof or better ethanol that blenders mixed with gasoline."

One question might be; is your industry next, and how will this affect you? Will it cause unemployment in your sector, a more cautious approach to re-investment, expansion, or quell new projects? It may, too much disruption can cause problems especially if it happens all at once. Still, our government needs to live within its means and corporate welfare, subsidies, and massive tax breaks may not be in the cards in the future. Thus, if your corporation or business needs those government gifts, or subsidies to survive, well, it may not be long for this world, as the game is in play, and so far no options have been taken off the table.

There will be hundreds, if not thousands in many industries who lose their jobs over all of this, although one could say; those are indeed jobs which should never have been available in the first place, as they were not economically viable without the government throwing money into the ring. It would be nice if there were fewer lobbyists, but major corporate welfare cutting might actually increase the number of lobbyists as each industry will be vying for fewer dollars and will want to make sure they get their fair share of that never ending flow of taxpayer's dollars. Indeed, I hope you will please consider all this and think on it.

Lance Winslow is a retired Founder of a Nationwide Franchise Chain, and now runs the Online Think Tank. Lance Winslow believes writing 24,222 articles by July 22, 2011 at 2:22 PM is going to be difficult because all the letters on his keyboard are now worn off now..

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Lance_Winslow

»»  READMORE...

Healthcare Reform Act: Costing You Much?

A few months ago I posed this question: New laws just put in place by the healthcare reform act are going to be costing companies significantly more than they have been used to. AT&T, for example, just took a Multibillion dollar hit to it's bottom line due to these changes. 3COM followed with $90 million charge as well, and many more large companies are hinting at drastic cuts coming very soon because they are all staring down the barrel off significantly lost revenue due to increased costs.

Are small & medium businesses in danger of becoming a statistic and falling prey to the new increased cost of doing business in the U.S.? According to some, this is all you need to know regarding the new Healthcare law: By 2014, states must set up Small Business Health Options Programs (SHOPs), which allow companies with fewer than 100 workers to pool their resources - and risks - to buy health insurance. Until the SHOPs are established, businesses with 10 or fewer full-time workers earning less than $25,000 on average will be eligible for a 35 percent tax credit. Firms with up to 25 workers with an average salary up to $50,000 will receive partial credits while businesses with 25 or more workers will receive no credit. Beginning in 2014, firms with more than 50 workers must offer health care coverage to employees or pay penalties of up to $2,000 per person for all but the first 30.

OK, Should just ignore the rest of the picture? By some counts, less than 12% of small businesses will fall within the strict limitations put on those tax credits. Don't think even if you do fall within those limits that you're going to see any benefits from it either. Save that cash because here comes the whopper that snatches it right back out of your pocket: Section 9006 of the health care bill -- just a few lines buried in the 2,409-page document -- mandates that beginning in 2012 all companies will have to issue 1099 tax forms not just to contract workers but to any individual or corporation from which they buy more than $600 in goods or services in a tax year. What small business is going to be able to handle this on their own? 1099's for tangible goods too? They might as well print a W9 with your receipt at every register! If you think getting people to cooperate with sending you a W9 was difficult before, Wow! Calculate how many transactions over $600 you make each year and just watch the cost of collecting W9's and producing 1099's literally bury you in red tape.

Let that piece of news settle for a bit as all of the ramifications begin to sink in... Oh! Don't forget; no more exemptions for Corporations. It's not that simple either, 2,200 pages of new regulations look to cost small businesses in added consulting costs just to make sure that they are in compliance with all of the employer mandates so they don't find themselves subjected to fines and penalties. The government agencies tasked with creating the structure and foundation for SHOP still have not responded to any requests for information about how it is even going to work. Nor have they produced a single document even hinting at what that might be. Washington wants more revenue, and they don't mind burying small businesses in the process. And, the IRS isn't even scheduled to release it's rules on the new tax laws until some unknown date next year, and the IRS doesn't even know when that might actually be.

Realistically speaking, if you are one of those business owners that thinks you're gunna slide by On some theory that "Government subsidy (welfare)" checks will help you slide by, then your short-sightedness will land you in some "Safe job" wishing you had paid better attention to the handwriting on the wall.

Want the whole picture? Try this for a wake-up call: http://www.nfib.com/insight/cmsid/51105

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Bob_Duker

»»  READMORE...

Media and Politics - What Is the Role of Media in Politics?

There has been some rumbling in the UK media about the plight of a US media company over what a British media company did. Now both of these companies do share the same parent company, and there has not been any evidence that the media company, which is based in the US, did anything wrong. That has not stopped British liberals from salivating over the demise of a media empire, an empire that could be said donates millions of dollars to the very causes they support. It just so happens that the media empire covers the news of the day from a perspective that they do not agree with. In fact the owner of the company does not seem to agree with the news his company produces, if campaign donations are an indicator of his political leanings.

You might be asking yourself what this all about and if you are American, it would be understandable. Because lets face it, British scandals do not compete well with the next missing blonde on national TV or cable news channels. The scandal in question is the News of the World alleged hacking of cell phones in Britain and apparently 9/11 families now. Which is quite a serious charge and as we know with Liberals it is the seriousness of the charge that matters, not the evidence.

So the story goes that the British paper, News of the World, hacked a murder victim's cell phone, hacked the cell phones of the 7/7 terrorists and even the phones of the royal family. Of course all of this is still being investigated and Rupert Murdoch has stated that it did not happen, he even said that his company investigated the issue when it first came up and found nothing. That has not stopped the British Parliament from trying to bring down News of the World though and Scotland yard is investigating the allegations.

All of this has not stopped the media in the UK and even in some European countries from writing sensationalized stories on the empire that Rupert built. This story is nothing more than red meat for the a demoralized Democrat base that does not have much to be excited about with their hope and change from 2008. And what is a little help from the Liberals on the other side of the pond?

Many of them are saying that broadcasting laws in the US are set in such a way that Fox News could lose its license because of the actions of another part of the parent companies media outlets. The problem is that the laws they are saying could lead to this, rest solely on Rupert Murdoch's involvement in the scandal. Because the law says that a license cannot be given to a owner of questionable character. So is it the law that a CEO or Owner is responsible for what the employees do? Even though there has not been any conclusive evidence to pin on said employees?

Looking over the US laws, it seems that they would need to prove that the order to hack the phones came from Murdoch himself, and barring that there is not much more that can be done to Murdoch or even Fox News. Granted if the FBI does find something tying Fox News to the hacking of 9/11 families, well that would spell doom for the network. And it would lose a lot of creditability with the very people they aim to put in chairs and on couches night after night.

So far there is not even evidence that supports bringing charges against News of the world in the UK, let alone speculation over whether or not Fox news will be allowed to broadcast in the US any longer.

Jack Simms is a comment writer and opinionated commentator at a political forum called Partisan divide.

http://www.partisandivide.info/index.php?/index

Come visit for on topic discussions in daily political news that affects all our lives.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Jack_R_Simms

»»  READMORE...

Media Compliant in White House Leaks, Where Is Their Integrity?

The Republicans have offered a plan, an ambitious plan that will not be accepted by the President or the Senate, but it is a plan that we can read, hold and talk about. When will the Democrats offer up a detailed plan? When will the President Obama offer up his plan?

They talk a great game, the President Obama has said repeatedly that he is for cutting entitlements, that he is willing to go as high as 4 trillion dollars in spending cuts. Yet he has not provided a single detail as to what he would cut, and how much that program would be cut. The Senate Democrats have said much the same thing, they would cut but it cannot be the 2.4 trillion dollars that the Republicans have put forth. In fact the 2.4 trillion has hard numbers put to each program and we can dissect it and criticize the Republican plan 24/7. We, however, do not have the same from the Democrats and President Obama.

Our country is based on a two party system, with 3 equally separated branches of Government. Unfortunately in the last 2.5 years we have not gotten any leadership from the Senate Democrats (from 2006 to 2009 house Democrats either for that matter) or the President on the issues that will do the country the most good. Both sides agree that we have to tackle the deficit, and both sides agree that we have to raise the debt ceiling. Yet only one side is putting forth specific ideas that are designed to do just that. Raise the debt ceiling, lower our spending, and keep us from having to go this route again in the future.

It is so blatant that the Democrat party and the President are not prepared to lead this nation by their refusal to put for a budget for the country spanning over 800 days, it makes you wonder if any of them have a live heartbeat. They are sitting there telling us that everything is on the table, yet when a plan is put forth, that plan is not on the table. Does this make any sense to you?

While watching PBS "Inside Washington" the other night and they had a discussion on this very topic. I do not remember everyone that was on that night but I do remember that they had Charles Krauthhammer, Nina Totenberg and the hose (I forget his name), anyway Dr. Krauthhammer brought of the fact that the media is compliant in repeating whatever the leak is from the Whitehorse, and they never question the statements. And when asked for the two Liberals on the panel to offer up just 1 cut of the 4 trillion dollars that President Obama offered up, they were silent and just repeated the daily talking point of how great it was that President Obama was offering to cut spending 4 trillion dollars. It proved Dr. Krauthhammers point on how compliant the Liberals in the media are at just talking about what is said and not what is proven from the White House.

There are a lot of questions that need to be answered in this debate and unfortunately we have a media that is in the pocket of the Democrat party and more specifically the President of the United States. Can you give just 1 spending cut in the Senate Democrats plan to do what they agree we must do? And make no mistake about it, they have stated that we need to cut spending, but it cannot be as high as 2.4 trillion and they have not offered up one plan of their own that tells the American people what they plan to do. All we hear is that the Republicans are not playing nice and are threatening the elderly, military and the poor with their incessant bullheadedness to not raise taxes on all Americans.

Jack Simms is a comment writer and opinionated commentator at a political forum called Partisan divide.

http://www.partisandivide.info/index.php?/index

Come visit for on topic discussions in daily political news that affects all our lives.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Jack_R_Simms

»»  READMORE...

Should We Get Rid of Welfare?

The egalitarianism and welfare of modern liberal government are incompatible with the facts of human nature and the human condition. This article explains the opinion that liberal agenda gratifies various types of pathological dependency; augments primitive feelings of envy and inferiority; reinforces paranoid perceptions of victimization; exploits government authority for power, domination and revenge; and satisfies infantile claims to entitlement, indulgence and compensation.

Modern liberalism rejects, to one degree or another, the competence of the common man and subordinates him to the will of the government run by elites who are liberal. The liberal agenda does not insist on the individual to provide their own economic gain, it does not idealize individual liberty or defend the basic rights of property and contract; it does not appreciate autonomy and mutuality; it does not esteem self-determination, courage, forbearance or resilience.

The liberal mind protects pitiful, sorrowful, needy, poverty-stricken, discriminated against victims by seeking a very large authoritarian government that regulates and manages society through a cradle to grave agenda of redistributive care taking. The liberal mindset wants to promise everyone health care, protect every one's self-esteem, correct every one's social and political disadvantage, educate every citizen, and eliminate all class distinctions.

With this kind of thinking economic growth and creativity will suffer. Confiscatory taxation will make others pay for those unwilling to work hard and smart to get ahead.

People should not be enabled to be lazy and not suffer consequences or someone else who is taking care of business will have to pick up their slack. If everyone is offered a free ride our creative passion and resilience will suffer. I do think we should educate everyone and health care should be provided to all. I think food stamps are a blessing but money should be earned, not given without efforts or training.

We need to focus on how to build up released prisoners so they can become working members of society. Training isn't available in prison so we have to find ways for the community and church to pick up the slack, otherwise, both suffer the consequences. Drug addicts need treatment facilities but it is the same thing once a drug addict is sober, he or she must find a way to contribute to society by working. Homeless people need shelters but again, we need to create programs that actually place these people in a win-win situation, job training and placement, otherwise we still have the problem.

In prison on drug charges, I felt inspired to start writing--to bring a view never before seen, and to show that the path we are on is only building bigger criminals. Roll Call by Glenn Langohr-Amazon
Out of prison I started http://www.lockdownpublishing.com to help other prisoners find another way through writing and art.
Kirkus Discoveries, Nielsen Business Media
discoveries@kirkusreviews.com

A harrowing, down-and-dirty depiction-sometimes reminiscent of Steven Soderbergh's Traffic-of America's war on drugs, by former dealer and California artist Langohr.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Glenn_T_Langohr

»»  READMORE...

Should the Drug Cartels Be Considered Terrorists?

Recently we have been getting reports that terrorist organizations like Hezbollah are working with Mexican drug cartels close to the border. When, then President Bush, responded to the 9-11 tragedy with his broad branding of evil, terrorist, and drug dealer approach to drawing a line in the sand he reached to far. In his defense, he has part of it right. Drug proceeds fuel terror plots. But, doesn't that approach only force more terrorism? What are we going to do, label everyone that gets involved in drug use a future terrorist?

In California there are 33 state prisons. More than 70% are there for drug crimes. Soccor moms are watching their kids get caught up in this culture of using drugs, getting put on probation, then going to prison. In prison that addiction is bred into an affliction much harder to escape where races are segregated and violence and tattoos are the only solution. With this approach the prisons are spitting out displaced aliens unable to adapt back into society. In California recidivism is the worst in the nation. Released prisoners are back in prison within three years over 70 percent of the time. Studies show that prisoners who continue to go back to prison again and again, become gang members. Soccor mom's blond headed little boy is now a skin head.

So back to the original question, what is terrorism and who is qualified to decide? As 9/11 as an example, the U.S. spoke terror over and over on the news, "That we must eradicate terror and go after evil for the free world." The actions after 9/11 by our government at many levels are in direct conflict with that statement. We are the leaders of the incarcerated world with approximately seven million people either in prison or have served time there. The rest of the world combined doesn't reach those numbers.

Also post 9/11 our military went into Afghanistan and incorporated a working relationship with The Northern Alliance. The Northern Alliance earn their income in the Poppy fields and sell heroin but because they were the chief competition to the Taliban, our military figured we could expect to attain a working relationship and obtain information that would lead to the enemy, those evil forces referred to earlier. The information didn't pay off in a significant way.

The War on Terror is similar to the War on Drugs and the root of both problems are found in poverty. Desperate people do desperate things to survive. If we look at it from a spiritual perspective we can learn more about the problem, rather than create a bigger problem.

I started writing drug war novels from prison while serving time for drug charges. My novel Roll Call by Glenn Langohr is on Amazon. http://www.lockdownpublishing.com
Kirkus Discoveries, Nielsen Business Media
discoveries@kirkusreviews.com
A harrowing, down-and-dirty depiction-sometimes reminiscent of Steven Soderbergh's Traffic-of America's war on drugs, by former dealer and California artist Langohr.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Glenn_T_Langohr

»»  READMORE...