I am addressing a suspicion which I can no longer deny. The New World Order Types want to turn the US into a Social Democracy to facilitate their power over it. We were once a nation of fiercely strong lions, instead they want to tun us into obedient sheep. They want to turn us into tar victims, stuck in the black ooze of mandatory financing for universal welfare programs.
Their plan is to create a utopian One World Government for themselves to acquire absolute power and wealth. Greed has overtaken them and they clearly see where they can encourage our weaknesses which exist like a dam with cracks. They will let, (through encouragement,) that dam break to wash away anything standing in their way for world dominance. To fight the NWOTs is to regain what we stand to loose. Keep the dam from breaking, I say:
No taxes for universal welfare programs.
- there are many avenues for encouraging the dam to break. Consider where where the cracks exist:
*Entertainment media: Television and movies.
*Print: Magazines and newspapers.
*Internet: All sites which feature conversation, opinions, information, news etc.
*Placing "their people" in positions of political power.
*Financing NWO political campaigns and schemes.
Are we talking about the new global economy and how it exploits poorer countries and is heavily responsible for global climate change?
Yes, why let everyone be wealthy and healthy when we can just stick with Capitalism and ensure that only the top 1% are wealthy and healthy?
Kathryn,I lived in California for a while in the late 70's while in the U.S.N..You are very cute! I'm sorry we never met.
I'm curious: What period of American history are you referring to when you say,"We were once a nation of fiercely strong lions ..." ? During a period of nearly 400 years (1492-1865) Indigenous and African people were kidnapped and used as slaves by the Colonial Powers, and later the United States.During that time, millions of acres of land were stolen outright from the Indigenous nations, or through treaties at the point of a gun.I think a nation of greedy vultures or parasites would be a more appropriate metaphor.Of course,my first question is rhetorical.What I really want to know is: Why would an intelligent woman like yourself pretend that the United States had once been something good and wonderful,when history teaches us that it never was? Not just from my perspective,but as a woman ,surely you are aware of the discrimination,inequality, and violence against women that has existed here since the very beginning.
As far as your title is concerned: Having suffered through my preceding diatribe,you might be surprised to find that I see nothing wrong with your usage of "tar babies".Political Correctness is a fascist mechanism.Free speech is non-existent unless it is absolute.Meaning: You can call me names if you like ; I won't be offended.
Education and awareness of the truth is the only way to fight their onslaught of lies.
The title of this forum is highly offensive. Tar baby is a derogatory term for African Americans. As a person of that ethnicity, I cannot condone this
Tar baby: "A difficult problem that is only aggravated by attempts to solve it."
Tar baby may be in the dictionary, but so is another derogatory term. Doesn't change how it is sometimes used
never heard of it. how could it be used in a derogatory fashion?
I am not referencing to that here. So, how dare YOU!
Much in the same fashion as other racial slurs. Especially when focused on a person with extremely dark skin
Wow. "Angry white person" response.
I quickly found the derogatory meaning on Urban Dictionary (n-word censored by myself):
"Tar baby is a synonym for n*****, except that it is only used in bigoted manners, whereas n****** can be a sign of respect, if the speaker is also African American.
It comes from a children's story in which the dark skin and seeming ignorance (caused by a lack of schooling) of slaves were explained by the idea that black children were baptised in tar, which made them dark and dumb. "
So yeah, it is racist. And the correct response, even to accidentally offend, is to say "sorry, I didn't know it had this meaning." not "HOW DARE YOU ACCUSE ME OF BEING A RACIST". Even if you want to stick to your guns, you could at least have the decency to acknowledge the word's racist meaning and apologetically insist on using it in an alternative meaning.
That's not even to comment on your massive conspiracy theory. Maybe the title suits the post in that regard, lol.
It can also be found in wikipedia under list of ethnic slurs
Okay.. I've been enough of a jerk.. I wasn't really offended, but I did want to point it out that it can be deemed offensive because it is considered a slur.. I'm sorry, Kathryn. I really am.
Sorry, I don't have your dictionary, guys.
Pardon me for my ignorance. Unfortunatly I chose a tainted term through no fault of my own, except ignorance. My apologies. Can't erase it now. I do not like that feature of not being able to edit the title.
- anyway you all are-side skirting the issue. Thank you sqeeknomore and wilderness. I guess I should let this thread quietly die…
…like the country covered in the black tar of governmentally mandated welfare released from the dam of ignorance and false hopes.
Tar *victims* is what I meant
No, Don't let it die.. I agree with some of your OP. The government is and always has tried to exert control over the masses. It is becoming more prominent when looking at the shutdown. People willing to shut the government and country down all in the desire for control.
Well, what other role should government take? By design it is supposed to govern over large groups of people. The issue is that no one can decide on what ideology should influence that government, whether it's conservatism or progressives and there are so many versions throughout the entire spectrum. Progressives believe those programs should help people, conservatives prefer that people be left alone. One way or the other, a democracy is supposed to give us the power to control these decisions through voting and 'lobbying', but people are people and will always take advantage of something. It's the way we are -- however, everyone wants to give each other credit for being better than that which we're not. We're impulsive and selfish and scared because that's our nature. Those of us who realize this limits are very few and have no voice but our own, which no one listens to. So this is going to go on and on and on...
I would rather the thread die. Only a few are ready for it.
Kathryn, the majority of the population agrees that the use of the word Tar Baby is a racist statement. While this is certainly not the case, most will respond to it derogatory before they look it up. It's a lot like when someone would refer to a black person as a uncle Tom which became derogatory but if anyone read the book they would find that uncle Tom was a very kind, humble and a person everyone should strive to be. Slow down, stop being a reactionary and do some research before you post... unless you're one of those trolling from a reaction.
Correct. It is a derivative from the Uncle Remus stories in the 1800's about Br'er Rabbit and Br'er Fox. The tar baby was a statue made of tar and turpentine that entrapped Br'er Rabbit when he struck it repeatedly for not speaking back upon being addressed.
Similar tales come from South America, Meso America, American Indians and as far away as West Africa and Jamaica.
Some of us live in the real world, not the dictionary. Even I know the derogatory/racst meaning of the world and I am not even American.
No it isn't! Only You have brought that up. I refer to the Uncle Remus story of Br'er rabbit getting stuck in tar by Joel Chandler Harris. It has no negative racial reference or connotation. We are going to be stuck in tar just like the rabbit in that story. Thanks for nothing deepes.
Joel Chandler Harris (December 9, 1848 – July 3, 1908) was an American journalist, fiction writer, and folklorist best known for his collection of Uncle Remus stories. Harris was born in Eatonton, Georgia, where he served as an apprentice on a plantation during his teenage years. He spent the majority of his adult life in Atlanta working as an associate editor at the Atlanta Constitution.
Not sure where you hail from, butt Deepes is right. I was so shocked by the title I clicked on it to see what was up. The term is considered racist here where I'm from.
And I'm on Kathleen's side - never heard it as anything but a doll in a Remus book. Maybe just local interpretations, then.
Let's not reopen this argument. Kathryn and I handled it. It's done
I saw your post a moment ago. Agree. Didn't want an argument anyway, just smoothing feathers that might be ruffled.
Thanks Emile. But I apologized for being a jerk just to make a point and she apologized for not knowing. I wasn't really offended.
We kissed and made up.. I think.
Good to hear. Don't want you to keep a bad picture in tour head of me even though I used a strong way to make a point.
Okay.. back to the topic at hand. Congress did not want a delay. They wanted him to totally remove it. Republicans have fought President Obama on everything he has wanted to try. Some things I can understand totally. Others it seemed just that they wanted to fight him period. In either case, the Republicans only damaged their own image and standing going into the next election
…the house finally passed a bill to get rid of Obama's PPACA exemptions of Congress and their staff. It is Constitutionally established that the leaders must abide by the same laws as the people.
The Senate still needs to pass it to solve the issue.
He wouldn't/won't hear of it ...and thats why the shut-down continued.. it is only temporarily open now… the shutdown will continue after February unless the President complies with Constitutional law. He can't be changing laws that have been established.
They gave up every other demand except that one.
No, Kathryn L. Hill. It is not a force from without. It is worse. A force from within. We ourselves are making the cracks worse by willingly voting away our liberty through social welfare programs.
Too true. Should we then limit voting rights to those that pay in taxes more than they take out in "entitlements" in order that people don't continue to vote themselves "free cake" at other's expense? Would it do any good?
- say that again? Interesting! that would be a check on the intentional takers. I hate to think that there are intentional takers. I would rather think there are those who just become weak depending on the government. It becomes a way of life. We have to be careful not to create dependency within the population.
it is very easy to do.
It is human nature to get addicted to *the outer*. Drugs, for instance: take heroin once and you're hooked. Why? cuz if the body gets it *from without,* it figures, why do I have to work so hard to be happy? Just give me some more of that!!!!.
Feel good chemicals are percolating within us. We need to respect the natural high we carry around *within* and not destroy it with substances from *without.*
In the same way, we have a way to make ourselves happy here in America. We have to depend on ourselves to make ourselves happy and prosperous and successful. That is the true nature of being human.
And it comes from within.
Not from without.
Keep the inner life free.
Just say no to taxes which support universal welfare.
"The nations of our time cannot prevent the conditions of men from becoming equal, but it depends upon themselves whether the principle of equality is to lead men to servitude or freedom, to knowledge or barbarism, to prosperity or wretchedness.” (v.2 bk. 4 c. 8)" Alexis De Tocqueville
If the new world order's goal is to help poor and disabled people--I am all for it, including my tax dollars.
A social democracy is soft despotism in that it takes away the power the people have,
through managing their own supply of money.
When they manage their own money, they manage their own lives,
and do not need to rely on the government...
or therefore be at its mercy.
Not too many people do. Unfortunately, as the government shutdown proved, we are in a way
Deepes, the shut down was to slow down the implementation of Obama care which in my view is merely part of the ooze coming to get us.
The govt. shut down was for a good cause. It was a fight against a major crack in the dam… the desire for equality in health insurance/care.
How is it a good cause if it prevents fair access to all for things that are needed. I read the article and I agree with some of the points mentioned, but equality is about more than just handouts. Its about ensuring that all people have the same treatment and fairness. To this day, women may have more opportunities for advancement in the workforce, but they are still being paid less than less qualified male counterparts. Short term and long an extended government shutdown could have and would have crippled this country and possibly brought another great depression. Their efforts to seal a"crack" would have blasted the dam aaltogether. Sorry, there is no good cause in that, especially since Congress was still collecting paychecks while military and other government personnel were not.
...and all President Obama had to do was agree to certain non-harmful/helpful requests. HE, however refused. He is the one to blame.
Equality can not be guaranteed. Only the unalienable rights. And that is saying a lot. It is called justice.
..here is a great article by Richard Williams which explains the problem of insisting on equality. http://mypoliticalsolutions.com/discuss … Vs+Freedom
"The nations of our time cannot prevent the conditions of men from becoming equal, but it depends upon themselves whether the principle of equality is to lead men to servitude or freedom, to knowledge or barbarism, to prosperity or wretchedness.” (v.2 bk. 4 c. 8)" Alexis De Tocqueville
Surprisingly enough, I am looking for people who agree with me!
We need to keep a social democracy at bay. End of story. How? Stop agreeing to more and more taxes.
It's rather bizarre that you have such a reaction to the notion of state provided health care funded by general taxation that provides free health care at the point of need irrespective of socio-economic status. This system works very well in much of the Western World without hysterics of a new world order. Perhaps you haven't the faintest idea about what happens outside your country. Have you ever seen anything other than Fox News? Do you know what the BBC World Service is? Do you have a passport? Have you ever left your own country?
For gods sake don't quote the BBC as an impartial purveyor of the truth and all that is right in the world, the BBC has become a political monster, only telling the truth if it suits the hierarchies political slant. It has become the mouthpiece of the left and knows no bounds in its hypocrisy.
State provided health care is a noble notion indeed as long as you can keep it away from the politics of insanity, Take a look at the NHS in the UK, at the point of service it is free to all but the cost is extortionate because of the politics of running a huge organisation has outweighed its original design.
There are as many mangers looking after the political aims of the organisation as there is doctors and nurses looking after its users.
Tar babies? I have never heard of the term here in the UK, we have many derogatory terms for all ethnic cultures here, even for whites. But the worst of all things that I can be called by anyone is a racist, it boils my blood when someone who knows me not calls me one based on a short conversation or just the fact that I am white. I also think it is an absurdity that someone adopts a word or term to suit their own meaning and then tout it as racist, the original meaning lost in the mire of political correctness and the inability to see through ones own political trait. Lets take the N word for instance, my very good friend told me I cant use it because I am white and didn't understand the meaning, I suggested he couldn't use it because he was black and obviously did understand the meaning. The meaning of the N word has certainly been lost if one can use it but others cant, should we all stop using it?
As for the NWO is it an urban myth perpetrated by the left to inspire others to believe all things capitalist is bad?
Hey Silver, what's your idea of an impartial news source? The Daily Mail
You surely haven't forgotten which government decided that matrons and the like were far too working class and ought to be replaced with nice middle class managers with no nursing experience?
- so you are against keeping taxes low?
No John I am not touting the Daily mail as an impartial news source, but I must say they usually print the stories the BBC keep quite about because of their PC slant.
I haven't forgotten John, I also haven't forgotten who reintroduced them after 13yrs of Labours political meddling and increase in the management of NHS politics. When the politics of the left meddle in anything it becomes the beast that eats itself.
Have you ever thought that the stories the BBC keep quite about aren't stories at all?
Have you any examples?
Make up your mind, either Labour or the left. Remember that was another of her successes - to destroy the left as a political force in the UK.
Sorry John I forgot about your hatred of anything Thatcher. She in fact destroyed the unions and the grip they had on the country at the time. However under the Labour government the Unions have once again risen to the levels of stupidity they enjoyed in the 70's and early 80's.
No John the BBC only reports things that suit their slant on politics. I am not saying its all BS just like any other news agency but it certainly looks very selective. I noticed this week that the pro EU BBC didn't mention anything about the report that states the UK as the most densely populated area in Europe, I wonder why that is?
There are still a lot of lefties that make up the Labour party john, the unions that control the labour party confess to being leftists. You notice I haven't said socialists John.
Referring to the Daily Mail, I see they claim the UK as the most densely populated country in Europe (except for Malta) but why is that news?
How can you claim that the unions have risen to their levels of the 70s and early 80s when there were 13 million members in 1979 but only 6.5 million now - and that's with a supposed larger working population.
I didn't read it in the mail John but to some who see what's happened here I suppose it isn't really news is it. The fact that the immigration programs of past governments has placed immense strain of services, the NHS, housing and employment isn't really news is it.
I claimed they had risen to the level of stupidity that they had in the 70's and 80's John, a different thing than the level of members.
But we have always been densely populated, why is that news? There has always been immigrants to this country, remember the Romans and before them Vikings.
I can't find any figures on the average IQ of union members then and now so can't counter your claim that present day union members are as stupid as past members.
I thought we were talking of the modern world John not living in the past like you seem to think we still are. And I doubt if it was ever the most densely populated country in Europe at anytime in its past.
Who's on about IQ? Bob Crowe must have a huge IQ as he has blagged his members into thinking he is worth £200k a year and a very good benefits package whilst insisting his members go on strike and loose money.
So when is the cut off point where immigration ceases to be acceptable? it was probably while we had a Labour government rather than Conservative.
You misunderstand unions - a leader can advise but not compel.
Do you really believe that company profits are more important than the people who help to make those profits?
The cut off point John should be when we start a program of mass unrestricted immigration. There is nothing wrong with immigration John, on the contrary its helps a country to grow, but to just allow anybody in and let them in as uncontrolled numbers is ridiculous.
I don't misunderstand them at all John, that's why I stopped being a union rep in 2002. In the main it has nothing to do with company profits its more to do with political affiliations.
Do you really think the demise in numbers of the union members has something to do with the employers or the unions themselves? (I suppose it was all Thatcher's fault)
So the cut off point is 1948 when Powell started to bring in much needed labour from the colonies?
The demise in union membership had a lot to do with legislation outlawing much union activity combined with employer resistance.
That's exactly it isn't it John, there was a great need for people to come here in the 40's and 50's, I will give you one guess to why that was. In 1997 we had nearly 2 million people unemployed, why would we need to import more workers? Not all of them were skilled or prepared to work either.
So the government said no one can now join a union then? What legislation did they bring in to stop people joining a union then John?
You do realise that until 2001 the largest group of immigrants in this country were from Ireland?
"He [Norman Tebbit] set about stripping the unions of their legal protection. Flying pickets, the shock troops of industrial warfare, were banned and could no longer blockade factories, ports, public bodies and much more during disputes. Strike ballots became compulsory. The closed shop, which forced people to join a union if they were seeking employment in a particular trade, was outlawed."
Sorry it's the biased BBC but have a look for yourself http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/3067563.stm
From Ireland? So what's wrong with that? Its not about where they are from its about numbers.
So you think that flying pickets, undemocratic strikes and people being forced to do something is all ok then John?
I remember my father worked at BL during Red Robbo's time, my father was a staunch union man (TGWU) until they had to strike because some lazy bastard had got caught asleep and was sacked so they all went out in support no vote on it either. I remember him ripping up his union card although he had to pay his fees because he wouldn't have a job because it was a closed shop. Do you really want to return the unions to that sort of power?
I still believe in the power of the worker to withdraw his labour if the situation calls for it, I do not however believe they should have the power to stop anyone else working as a direct action.
Yes, it's about numbers and until 2001 the largest number of immigrants to the UK were from Ireland.
Flying pickets and secondary picketing enabled workers to support essential workers who could not go on strike.
Do you think then that workers should be allowed to benefit from concessions won by the unions without being members and contributing to costs?
So what does it matter where they came from then?
Rubbish, its nothing to do with supporting others its to do with supporting their own cause.
I still believe that nobody should be forced to join a union and I know for sure unions don't consider non union members when they take action so why should they be bothered if some benefit, in fact they not bothered when they don't benefit.
So what has Labour immigration policy have to do with Irish immigration then?
Yes, good riddance to the unions, they blocked zero hour contracts and prevented us from having to support them out of our taxes.
Labours immigration policy was one of open doors, open to all, regardless of whether there was work for them, regardless of whether they were criminals or not. Labours immigration policy was about importing voters not workers.
But john the influx of unskilled labour from Europe has enable the zero hours contracts to take hold. This migration has enable other countries to remove their problems by exporting them.
The Unions received £235m from the taxpayer in 2012. Most councils pay for full time representatives out of council tax collections (I cant remember agreeing to that) whilst employing temp staff on zero hours contracts to do the jobs the union reps were supposed to be doing.
There is nothing wrong with zero hours contracts if it suits your employment needs, many people take them up, if they didn't there wouldn't be zero hours contracts.
No, importing tax payers not voters. As a population we are getting older, older people pay less in taxes and demand more from taxes. Somebody has to pay the shortfall.
I don't think you understand that many people take jobs because they have to, not because they want to.
I didn't fall for that old trick John, especially when they told me I would have to work until I was 67, so what advantage have these new taxpayers given to the country?
I don't think you understand that people take jobs because they have to pay their way and stop expecting everyone else to pay for them.
And without the immigrants contribution you might have had to work to 69.
That is exactly why people take jobs - any jobs, even minimum and zero hour contracts.
And if the government (this and the last) had more control over what they spent then we could probably retire at 60.
If we needed to import workers to cover the gap in taxation and expenditure why do we still have 1.8 million unemployed?
Wasn't it the Labour politicians who were banging on about mobility of labour for 13 years.
Its ridiculous to think all jobs should be 37 hours a week, that everybody can work mon-fri and that everybody should get £34k a year for doing so.
And can you be sure that without immigration we would not still have had 1.8 million unemployed?
So are you trying to tell me that by not importing 6 million "workers" we would still have 1.8 million unemployed? The maths certainly doesn't add up John, but then that's never been the lefts strongpoint has it.
Gordon Browns idea of borrowing considerably more than we could ever pay back didn't really work out to good did it.
Well you tell me.
If we import people to do jobs that our own unemployed are not qualified to do why should that affect our unemployment figures?
Gordon Brown the only PM to have ever borrowed money! You learn something new every day.
I am glad you are learning something John.
Are you saying that all the jobs the immigrants filled were skilled labour jobs then? I doubt very much that even 10% were skilled. Lets revert to the old labour party chant of "we need these immigrants to do the jobs the lazy British worker wont do," a remark that has since been apologised for, I also believe they have apologised for their immigration policy. But hey we feed the unemployed that well that we have to import a workforce to do the jobs. What was wrong with training our own workers to do the jobs? It obviously didn't fit in with the immigration policy of the Labour party. Since Labour were removed by the electorate (as they didn't manage to import enough voters obviously) My own daughter has been able to retrain as a nurse, she was unable to get the funding under the Labour government but found it much easier under the new coalition. So there is no need to import anymore nurses then if we can train our own.
Gordon Brown was perfect wasn't he, made the country run like clockwork.
Training takes years, not much use if you need the trades today.
Name me one perfect PM.
But Labour had 13 years to train people John.
Gordon was both chancellor and prime minister and left the country in the biggest amount of debt since the end of the second world war. Not a great advert is it. I noticed he got a consultancy job with some of the banks he bailed out. Nice work if you can get it.
Not Labour, New Labour, a political party approved by Thatcher.
Did they get rid of all their old left wing politicians then john, did they stop all the union contributions and meddling then. It was still a left of centre party with a mish mash of left wing political policies and ideas. The New new labour party is still controlled by union meddlers and the politics of the left. In the main because the base of the party faithful has never changed.
I was wondering how long it would be before you blamed Thatcher for the rubbish Labour party years.
I didn't blame Thatcher, I just pointed out that New labour met with her approval.
And if it is a mish mash of left wing policies and ideas, why then did Blair not kick out right wing policies rather than saying that he would carry them on?
Some say a One World Religion is also coming into being.
My fight is to protect our autonomy through preserving the liberty of the individual. We need to keep our individuality and not fall for government oriented schemes, such as social welfare programs, which sound good in theory but can't function as they are envisioned in the real world...
These schemes present, propose and implement soft despotism. How soft? Hard enough to hurt our Spirits: Our motivation, our Enthusiasm and ultimately our Joy of Life. Thats what we stand to loose through the soft despotism of social democracy.
A one World religion is coming? Where do you get this from? What are its doctrines? Is it an organised religion with a hierarchy of bishops, imams and druids? What will its churches, mosques, stone circles look like? Will their construction be funded by general taxation? What will constitute the central committee? You do realise there are 10,000 christian denominations that can't agree, two main sects of islam bent on killing each other, and umpteen pick and mix pagan belief system don't you? How on Earth are you expecting everyone to drop their beliefs and sign up to a new invented religion? Ah the magical antichrist.
Social welfare: the concept were those poor and in need in society receive support from the government funded by general taxation is inherently evil? State provided health care is evil? Somehow these things infringe the rights of the individual? I guess government should also stop funding schools, the road network, anc national parks too. After all funding a park requires tax dollars which infringes on your rights.
When were we lions? And if we were, don't you think that the same ones were at the head of those governments?
Happy New Year and lets keep our taxes low enough to enjoy all the new years to come.
by Mike Russo4 years ago
I have been in many controversial political discussions on hub pages. I consider myself a centerist. I believe we need both some components of socialism to provide the things that we can't do as individuals and...
by mosaicman5 years ago
It is ok for African Americans to use it in context between their friends. They may be careful in using it in public around others they do not know (especially if someone feels uncomfortable hearing the word). Is it ok...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.