Separation of Church and State, Please?

Source: The unemployed ‘shall not eat’: Texas Republican uses Bible to justify cuts to SNAP benefits

Separation of Church and State, Please?

Representative Jodey Arrington(R-TX) used an obscure passage from the Bible to eight justify the proposed cuts to SNAP benefits.  Once again, the Bible is being used to justify further punishing the poor and underprivileged.  Whatever happened to the concept of separation of church and state?

Even though this concept is not in the U.S. Constitution nor the Declaration of Independence, it was advocated for by Thomas Jefferson and other members of the Founding Fathers.  It is strongly implied to be part of the First Amendment, even though it is not included.  I, for one, wish that these fundamentalist Christians would stop trying to shove their religion down my throat.  Worse yet, seeking to use religion as a weapon to be used to further vilify the poor and downtrodden citizens of the United States.

Poor people in the United States have been vilified for far too long, often because of some asshole, like Arrington, go so low as to use the Bible as some justification for punishing the poor.  No person chooses to be poor.  Poverty is something that can happen to anyone at any time.  Arrington should realize that fact because there is no guarantee that some adverse circumstance might not befall him, causing him to be forced to live in poverty.  He should understand that they bastard on that no matter how rich you are, or what position you have established, poverty can strike you at any time.  It has happened before to many people; many of whom have adopted the same level of arrogance as Arrington.

Arrington used an obscure passage from Thessalonians 3:10, which says, “those who shall not work shall not eat.”  He used this as some justification for advocating inflicting further misery on people who are already not doing w the right side cell.  I suggest that we would be better served if Arrington remembered another passage from the Bible (I forget which one) that says, “do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” As a poor person, I greatly resent politicians implying that I, and other poor people, are parasites not deserving of any consideration.

If he were truly a Christian, as he says, he would be advocating for an increase in SNAP benefits, not cuts.  He would also realize that he was a hypocrite because he was not practicing his faith, such as, emulating what Jesus would do.  This is what I always thought that a true Christian should do in their daily lives, not beat people up because they are the different life circumstances.  In this country had real separation of church and state, as was intended, we could forego many of these problems and the people who cause them like Arrington.

This age-old implication that poor people are lazy and unwilling to work is the most overused stereotype of poor people who exists.  I get so tired of seeing people like Arrington use their religion as a justification for imposing draconian cuts to social services every time they want to balance the budget.  I also get exhausted of the concept of separation of church and state, which I hold to be sacred, be continually ignored by these holier than thou politicos.

Separation of church and state, if used appropriately, would work very well in the United States to protect people from the same type of abuses.  Thomas Jefferson and many others understood that in Europe the church was often equal to the government, usually a King, and constructed laws that governed people’s lives.  Thomas Jefferson, realizing the potential abuses of this antiquated system, fought for separation of church and state. He was a very wise man, and we should listen to him.

 

Separation of church and state in the United States – Wikipedia

Separation of church and state” is a phrase used by Thomas Jefferson and others expressing an understanding of the intent and function of the Establishment …

Yes There Is a Constitutional Separation of Church and State | The …

Sep 21, 2015 Comments included “Clearly, someone hasn’t read the Constitution, because there is no such thing as “separation of church and state” in the …

 

 

Neil Gorsuch: A Danger to Disability Rights

Judge Gorsuch’s opinions on disability rights for children and adults are troubling.

Source: Gorsuch would endanger most vulnerable: persons with disabilities

Neil Gorsuch: A Danger to Disability Rights

If Neil Gorsuch is confirmed to fill the vacant seat, left vacant by the death of Antonin Scalia, on the US Supreme Court, it will be a disaster for people with disabilities.  As a judge, Neil Gorsuch has made several rulings that have flowed in the face of not only the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) but also the Individuals with Disabilities Educational Act (IDEA).  He, if confirmed, will pose a great danger to people with disabilities in their quest for justice and equality.

In one case, Hwang vs. Kansas State University, a longtime professor, Grace Hwang was recovering from breast cancer when she contracted leukemia. She requested an extended leave of absence to recover from her illness, especially after receiving a stem cell transplant to cure her leukemia.  Upon doctor’s advice, she delayed her return to work because of an outbreak of influenza on campus.  Her doctor w somewhat Gilmore six as afraid her compromised immune system would make her more susceptible to catching the flu.  When she requested an extended leave of absence as a reasonable accommodation, she was denied by Kansas State University.  When she sued the university, she lost because of a controversial ruling against her by Judge Neil Gorsuch.

In his ruling, Judge Gorsuch said that Professor Hwang had already taken enough time off and that she was not entitled to have any more time.  He gave his decision, despite the fact that Grace Hwang was recovering from not only breast cancer but also leukemia.  Apparently, Judge Neil Gorsuch also has a medical degree that he hasn’t told anybody about because he overruled a physician when making this decision.  He showed absolutely no compassion for this woman, despite the fact that his mother had died from cancer.

Even though I agree that a judge must be unbiased, the lack of compassion displayed by Neil Gorsuch showed him to be the type of person that I find unsuitable to occupy a seat on the US Supreme Court.  His total lack of compassion in this particular case shows him to be nothing more than a cold-blooded legal robot.  Is this the type of person that we want sitting on the highest court in the land?  I hardly think so!

Hwang-v.-Kansas-State-Univ.

 

 

Neil Gorsuch: Who is he? Bio, facts, background and political views …

Jan 31, 2017 Judge Neil Gorsuch, 49, is President Donald Trump’s choice to fill the Supreme Court seat vacated a year ago by the death of Justice Antonin …
Neil Gorsuch, Trump’s Supreme Court Pick, on Euthanasia and …

Feb 1, 2017 Neil Gorsuch, President Trump’s pick for the U.S. Supreme Court, is deeply interested in matters of life and death. His most lasting legacy from …
The Future of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia

The Future of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia is a 2006 book by Neil Gorsuch. The book presents legal and moral arguments against euthanasia and assisted
mtnintrovert

RT @nowthisnews: OP-ED: Here’s what America has to lose by nominating Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court https://t.co/o94BbE5SLh

 

 

A Disparity Of Systems Endangers Employment of the Disabled

Working In These Times is dedicated to providing independent and incisive coverage of the labor movement and the struggles of workers to obtain safe, healthy and just workplaces.

Source: How States Are Trying to End the Disability Unemployment Crisis – Working In These Times

A Disparity of Systems Endangers Employment of the Disabled

In this country, there is currently a crisis in the employment of the disabled. Even though there are many disabled people who have adequate opportunities for vocational training, or are already trained, there are many others who don’t have an equal opportunity to training, or employment opportunities.

This problem causes a huge amount disabled people in the United States to be unemployed.  This unemployment puts them in a position where they must receive some public help to survive.  It isn’t because disabled people are lazy or unmotivated.

One of the biggest disincentives for disabled people looking for a job is that every state deals with the problem of disability employment in a different way.  Every state seems to have its idea how to discuss this issue. This disparity of services causes a huge dilemma for employment of the disabled.  There is a patchwork of different ideas about how to solve this problem, some being good and others bad.

One of the biggest problems making it more difficult for employment of the disabled is that if a person with a disability finds a job, the government starts taking away valuable services such as medical care, housing, and other benefits necessary for survival.  This problem puts most disabled people in a Catch-22 situation because, if they work they lose services they cannot live without, and if they don’t work, they are forced to live in poverty because government benefits don’t equal the amount of money a disabled person can make if I have left five a job.

This denial of services is a huge disincentive for employment of the disabled is because most disabled people start a beginning salary that is much too low to be able to afford to offset the cost of benefits they lose.  Disability rights advocates have pointed this fact out to the government for years but to no avail.

One state, South Dakota, has started to recognize this disincentive for employment of the disabled and are starting to give medical benefits to disabled people who work.  Hopefully, other states will follow suit and start allowing disabled people who seek work, not to be penalized for doing so.

 

Did the ADA Reduce Employment of the Disabled?

Did the ADA Reduce Employment of the Disabled? “Apart from a short-term effect of the ADA’s requirement of special accommodations, the ADA was not …
Consequences of the Americans With Disabilities Act

The authors’ findings regarding the ADA’s negative effects on employment of the disabled take into account employment trends, composition effects, and …

 

 

 

How the American Health Care Act (AHCA) Is Bad for People with Disabilities

Alana Theriault from DREDF on Vimeo.

How the American Health Care Act (AHCA) Is Bad for People with Disabilities

Alana Theriault, a friend of mine, explains how the American Health Care Act (AHCA) is bad for people with disabilities and how it endangers our right to live independently in the community.

AHCA poses a huge threat to those of us who are disabled living independently within the community, as is our right. It will either alter or cut valuable funding that we disabled people depend on for our survival. Among the items that will be affected is valuable funding that comes from the federal government to support home care services that we depend on to be able to live independently.

These funds are not only important for our independence, but for our basic survival. Forcing us into institutions will be the only alternative for many people with disabilities. It is a well-known fact that these type of skilled nursing facilities are far more expensive than providing disabled people with the necessary funding to live in the community.

Community-based services are always less expensive for the taxpayers than institutional care. That fact has been proven many times. The AHCA will gut those community-based services to the point of nonexistence. AHCA will force many disabled people, now living independently with the help of community-based services, no other choice than to give up their independent lives and be imprisoned in nursing homes.

The AHCA is the biggest threat to the independent living movement to ever come along. Hopefully, it will not pass through Congress. If it does, we disabled people are doomed.

 

 

 

Trumps Great Distraction: The Trump Tower Bugging

Since the FBI announced that it is investigating Donald Trump and his campaign for possible irregularities, he has doubled down on his ridiculous claim of the Trump Tower being bugged.

Trumps Great Distraction: The Trump Tower Bugging

 

Since the FBI announced that it is investigating The president and his campaign for possible irregularities, he has doubled down on his ridiculous claim of The Trump Tower being bugged.  Hopefully, most people realize that this allegation is entirely groundless and just another distraction thrown up by Donald Trump to distract away from the real issue; did his campaign work with Russia to fix the 2016 election for Trump?

Just to bring anyone up to speed that may be so put off by this entire thing, The president is claiming that President Barack Obama wiretapped The Trump Tower.  As ridiculous and paranoid as that may sound, Trump is arguing that it happened.  FBI Director, James Comey says that his agency has no evidence that The Trump Tower was ever under electronic surveillance of any type.

However, Trump is sticking by his claim, because as most of us who have watched him for a while, know that Donald Trump always thinks the is the smartest guy in the room, no matter how stupid he is in life.  These days, our “president” has taken paranoia to a new level that would make even Richard Nixon wince in fear.  Trump’s paranoia is making me wonder if he truly is as paranoid as he seems, or is he just pretending?  Could this high level of arrogance and fear just be another one of his dog and pony shows, for which he is famous?

No matter how hard he may try, I sincerely hope that the American people don’t believe Trump any further that they can throw a bus because he is as guilty as shit of colluding with Russia to fix the election.  Hopefully, the FBI investigation of his campaign will show what a bastard Donald Trump is.

 

Hundreds protest president by mooning Trump Tower in Chicago …

Feb 13, 2017 Chicago saw a very different kind of protest against President Donald Trump over the weekend.
Trump Tower Climber Snatched by Police as the Internet Watches …

Aug 10, 2016 A man started to climb the Trump Tower in Midtown Manhattan around 3:40 p.m. with what appeared to be suction cups. Police officers …

 

 

 

Why Isn’t Scott Pruitt Fighting EPA Budget Cuts?

One question that has crossed my mind is, “why isn’t Scott Pruitt fighting the federal budget cuts to the EPA?”

Why Isn’t Scott Pruitt Fighting EPA Budget Cuts?

One question that has crossed my mind is, “why isn’t Scott Pruitt fighting the federal budget cuts to the EPA?”  It would seem natural that the director of any agency would be fighting to save his agency from massive federal budget cuts.  After all, I always thought that one of the major functions of any director worth his salt is to protect his agency from these types of things.  Why is Scott Pruitt any different?

I pretty much have the answer to my question already in mind.  The reason why Donald Trump’s EPA pick, Scott Pruitt, isn’t fighting against these massive federal budget cuts proposed by President Donald Trump is that he is just one of Trump’s “boys.”  In other words, Scott Pruitt is just playing ball, just the way Trump wants him.  In my mind, this is just more evidence that Donald Trump intends to abolish the EPA, and Scott Pruitt is working in collusion with his boss.

Scott Pruitt is just another one of Donald Trump’s saboteurs.  In a previous article I wrote, I told about the idea that many people have that Trump’s appointees to various cabinet positions were planted there for a particular reason. Scott Pruitt’s lack of even a token defense of his agency from these federal budget cuts, makes one wonder if he cares about the EPA at all.

It is a common belief of many of Donald Trump’s appointees to cabinet level positions have been put there to sabotage the respective agencies so that the president will say they are a waste of time and money, and should be eliminated. What other excuse is there for an agency head to be so neglectful as failed to defend that body against federal budget cuts.  Scott Pruitt doesn’t even try to put on an act of caring about the well-being of the EPA.

The EPA, because of this regulatory power to control the pollution created by large companies is a direct threat to everything people like Donald Trump stand for: making a profit, no matter who is hurt.  In this respect, Scott Pruitt is just another corporate shill who is unwilling to rock the boat of bank capital.  Even though he is the director of the EPA, he has shown no willingness even to attempt to fight the federal budget cuts to his agency.  To the contrary, he perceives his job as being a contributor to its demise, as Donald Trump intends him to be.

 

Trump team prepares dramatic cuts | TheHill

Jan 19, 2017 Donald Trump is ready to take an ax to government spending.
Scott Pruitt Shows Himself To Be Even More of a Hypocrite

  Scott Pruitt Shows Himself To Be Even More of a Hypocrite Scott Pruitt, the new director of the EPA, shows himself to be even more of a hypocrite at the CPAC convention. He seems to be very pleased, even though the EPA is targeted for a 25% budget cut. Even though this …

 

The Investors in the Dakota Access Pipeline

In August 2016, EEP announced that it had formed a joint venture with MPC in the Dakota Access Pipeline.

Source: Must-Know: Which Companies Own the Dakota Access Pipeline? – Market Realist

This infographic shows who the investors in the Dakota Access Pipeline are, and what companies are involved in this environmental tragedy.  The Dakota Access Pipeline threatens the safety and tribal sovereignty of the Standing Rock Sioux, and these companies should be considered to be enemies of not only the Sioux Nation but all of us.

Please use this information wisely and effectively.  One suggestion I might have is to stage a boycott against these companies.  Even though boycotts are a strategy that was used in the 60s and many people don’t seem to have the patience to go without a particular product, I believe that boycotts can be an effective tool to affect social change.  We must all do everything we can to curtail the profits from the Dakota Access Pipeline.  One strategy that seems to be having some effect is the movement towards pressuring various banks into divesting themselves of interest in the Dakota Access Pipeline.

After looking at this infographic, I can see that the Marathon oil company is one of the investors.  Marathon is a common brand of gasoline in various parts of the country.  Perhaps you could try boycotting Marathon and use another brand of gasoline for your car. Just an idea!

These investors in the Dakota Access Pipeline should be considered as enemies of the people.  They stand to profit, while the rest of us lose.

 

Citibank

17 Banks Funding the Dakota Access Pipeline“. YES! Magazine. Retrieved 2017-02-15.  “Who Is Funding the Dakota Access Pipeline? Bank of America, HSBC
Dakota Access Pipeline protests

The Dakota Access Pipeline protests, also known by the hashtag #NoDAPL, are grassroots movements that began in early 2016 in reaction to the approved construction