Now we look at the definition of “terrorists” in the dictionary and we find:  1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.  2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.  3.  a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

Now, so far, the Republicans have not resorted to any overt violence that has been publicized but they are using threats on a daily basis and not afraid to hide them from the Media.  This must be what their Republican constituents expect from the GOP or why else would the Republicans do it?  So, assuming the Republican supporters are in concurrence with their party’s tactics, does this not make all Republicans terrorists, by definition?

The second part of the definition discusses a state of fear and submission.  Once again the Media reports that the Democrats are having to submit to Republican demands that the wealthy get tax breaks that will cost the average taxpayers about $800 million.  This causes “fear” among all the Americans who are going to be forced to pay higher taxes despite their apparent tax “breaks” which are being extended by the Obama Administration, thanks to the Republican Terrorists in Congress.

Part 3 of the definition lists “resisting a government”, which is what the Republicans admit without equivocation, and they insist that they are going to bring down the present Democratic Administration, mirroring the threats from the Middle East Taliban and Al-Qaeda.

Our Republican government has lead us to believe that the “old ways” of the Bush era are best if replicated, while we all still remember the lies and embezzlement of that Administration, plus the fact that our National Debt was raised several trillion dollars under the ear-mark of “protecting American citizens”.  And let us not forget the Patriot Act that still holds us hostage at the airports and submits us to intense scrutiny when entering government buildings.  The same government that the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, and lately the Republican Party, have sworn to defeat!

Perhaps it is the mean old Al-Qaeda we should blame or is it the fact that the Republicans have broadcast the fact that they will resist our current government to the best of their abilities from within!  Remember that old term “divide and concur”?  Have the Republican voters divided the House and Senate by electing Republican terrorists to represent them and their ideals as terrorist supporters?

I’m reminded by the poster below that there was a time when the Republicans represented American Business, and it seems that has not changed.  But Business has changed.  In the 1960’s a tax break could have been given to corporations and our economy would experience the “trickle down effect”, an economists term depicting how the corporations would take the tax benefits and buy new equipment which would employ more machinists, and then those machinists would make home and auto repairs that would boost other sectors of the economy and so on, until the entire nation benefited from the corporate tax breaks.  But now in the 2000’s it seems that the corporate CEO’s are taking the added tax breaks as a “bonus” in their year-end salary and blocking the benefits to the rest of our society.  Corporate Fat-cats supported by Republican fat-cat Congressmen.  Its a tightly knit group that some accredit to the Illuminati or the Masons.  In any case, the loyal, native Americans are now being harmed by the Terrorist Republicans who swore at one time to support all Americans.

If this make sense to you, please favor this announcement with a kind recommendation and check the “I liked it” box!  And, please,  remember this article when you vote at the polls in 2012! 

Image by Cornell University Library via Flickr

There is a lot of false pride today because of the fact that slavery was long ago abolished. But, was it really? It may be that the name, Slavery, was just changed to Minimum Wage and the color “black” was changed to “diverse” which includes all colors as well as white. When I told my Sociology professor that I thought, in some instances, slavery might be better than working for minimum wage in today’s society, he said that thought was ludicrous. I understand why he said what he said, but I do not think he understood why I said what I said. Have you ever tried to live and pay bills on minimum wage in today’s society?

According to sources found here, on July 24, 2008, Alabama does not have a minimum amount an employee must be paid. Alaska workers must be paid at least $7.15 per hour while Georgia workers must be paid at least $5.15 per hour if the company employs six or more. Kansas has to pay employees a measly $2.65 per hour and Illinois pays a whopping $8.25 per hour as a minimum amount allowed paid to employees. South Carolina and Tennessee have no minimum amount that employees must be paid. Wyoming employers must pay at least $5.15 per hour to employees. At $5.15 per hour, an employee would have to work a half week just to fill a car up with gas.

Unbalanced Pay Scale

When I hear of the $700 billion bail-out that is going to be paid in order to save the hide of greedy money mongers who have taken much and turned it into nothing, I am appalled. Large corporations as well as some smaller companies are paying hard working, honest employees a “minimum wage” that leaves them in a lifetime of poverty just so CEO’s can be paid millions of dollars so they can waste it on stuff that deteriorates as fast as it is made. And we read in textbooks that slavery was abolished a long time ago? How does one figure that?

Minimum Wage Laws Feed Poverty

Just who is it that has the authority to decide who is worthy of excess and who is worthy of crumbs? Realistically, a modest budget of one person consists of rent of at least $500.00 per month, utilities at a cost of approximately $160.00 per month, car payment or transportation of $250 – $300 per month, fuel for the vehicle at a cost of at least $100 per month, food at a minimal cost of $300 per month, cable and internet, which some might consider a luxury, costs at least $100 per month, $300 a month for miscellaneous such as clothes, shoes, cell phone, cough syrup, soap, shampoo, toothpaste, toilet paper, car maintenance such as oil change, liability car insurance, etc. While $1,300 doesn’t sound like a lot of money for a very modest budget, a person earning $8.25 per hour might be able to scrape by but will remain at poverty level. If this person has a child and has to pay for school lunches or incurs any expenses associated with children, this person is screwed. Of course, this is in Illinois and I have no idea as to the real cost of living there. It can be calculated quite easily how a person making less than $8.25 per hour would fair while on an extremely modest budget. There is NO WAY this person can exist comfortably.

Minimum Wage Laws a Bargain for the CEO and Corporations

Comparing a worker who lives on minimum wage to slavery, I am still not sure that minimum wage is better. To pay an employee $5.15 per hour and then be done with him at the end of the day is actually a bargain for any employer. Slave owners had to provide housing, food, clothes, etc. and not all slave owners mistreated their slaves. Some were actually good to their slaves. When I think of earning $5.15 per hour and then being told to provide my own housing, transportation, food, clothes, etc., I cringe. There is no way it could be done. The figures just don’t work. Idealistically, it may sound like living in slavery would be worse than living “free” on minimum wage but realistically, living in slavery may actually be the better of the two evils. A ludicrous thought? Yes, according to my Sociology professor, but realistic to me. To work for an amount that does not pay for acceptable food, shelter, clothes, and transportation is worse than slavery and gives no hope for survival. A life of poverty with no hope to do better possibly drives people to crime, drugs, and dependence on others.

Greedy CEO’s Dependent on Minimum Wage Workers as Well as Government

Ironically, CEO’s who shovel in millions of dollars in pay are actually dependent on workers accepting less pay and minimum wage workers in order to be able to feed their greed. Why are these CEO’s who have taken much and turned it into nothing worthy of a $700 billion bail-out by “our” government when some who work hard and honestly are only “worthy” of minimal pay? CEO’s can be compared to slave owners in that they consider themselves more deserving and minimum wage workers can be compared to obedient slaves because in reality, they are able to exercise no control over their destiny. Minimum wage laws are implemented to protect the CEO’s and business owners to insure a desired profit level. Minimum wage workers are no better off today and may even be worse off than slaves of many years ago. The name has been changed but the concept remains the same. Those who think they are deserving reign over those deemed undeserving…by the implementation of minimum wage laws which actually insure that CEO’s have labor similar to that of slaves. Not only do some expect earnings in excess of millions of dollars but they also expect the government to bail them out to the tune of $700 billion when they prove to be incompetent or unworthy of their earnings.