The most recent example? The recent tax law passed by Congress designed to shovel gigadollars toward wealthy individuals and corporations. Since the Trumpenator signed that legislation, corporations have used the majority of their newfound wealth to fund enormous share repurchase plans, which fatten their stock prices while diminishing the power of shareholders. Since executive compensation at the upper levels is based primarily on stock price, the fat cats in the C suites now have billions more in personal wealth than they did 6 months ago. Meanwhile, Congress is hard at work figuring out how to slash funding for Medicare and Medicaid while eviscerating Social Security to pay for that billionaire booster. An example of how the system works: Walmart made a big show of paying bonuses to some of its employees. Then it laid them off. They are eligible to apply for reinstatement, however, provided they accept lower wages. See how the little people get it in the neck every time? The rich get richer. Everybody else gets a slap in the face. Welcome to the brave new world of benevolent corporatism.
A report from the World Inequality Lab makes the lie behind “trickle down economics” crystal clear. The report is featured in the March edition of the Harvard Business Review. The stated mission of the Lab is set forth in the Executive Summary of the report: “By developing this report, the World Inequality Lab seeks to fill a democratic gap and to equip various actors of society with the necessary facts to engage in informed public debates on inequality.” The Executive Summary is available in 8 languages.
“The series presented in this report rely on the collective efforts of more than a hundred researchers, covering all continents, who contribute to the WID.world database. All the data are available online on wir2018.wid.world and are fully reproducible, allowing anyone to perform their own analysis and make up their own mind about inequality.”
The game is called “divide and conquer” and it has been well known since at least the days of Sun Tzu in 512 BC. The appeal to single-issue voters made easier by digital communications means whenever the people begin to get a whiff of the deceit rolling downhill towards them, the masters of the universe distract them with cries of “What about abortion?” or “What about transgender kids urinating in the wrong toilet?” or “What about forcing people to bake cakes that offend their religious principles?” or “Carrying a rifle that spits out 100 bullets a minute is right guaranteed by the Constitution!”
When the smoke clears, the rich get what they want and the rest of us get bupkes. If you are a single-issue voter, you are not a patriot, you are just a patsy begging to be manipulated by special interests who do not have your best interests at heart. At least as far as American politics is concerned, it is clear that both political parties have aligned to punish the majority in order to enrich the minority.
America desperately needs new political institutions.
That’s the conversation we should be having now, not whether Trump did this or Nancy Pelosi said that.
The students at Parkland High School have shown us we don’t have to accept being be stepped on by our government and its so-called leaders. If the people will lead, their leaders will follow.
Don’t think for a minute these people give a flying fig leaf about you. They are largely in it for themselves and only themselves. They deliberately pit us against each other so they can rob us blind while we are busy fighting each other. We can choose to not let this happen, but it means taking off our “single issue” blinders and talking to each other rather than past each other.
The ultimate objective is to subdue the citizens, totally depoliticize social life in America, prevent people from thinking and conceptualizing, from analyzing facts and challenging the legitimacy of the inquisitorial social order which rules America.
The Big Lie becomes the Truth. Realities are turned upside down.
War becomes peace, a worthwhile “humanitarian undertaking”,Peaceful dissent becomes heresy.
Acceptance of poverty, social inequality and the police state for “the good of mankind” is the consensus. “The American people have spoken”.
The objective is to create an atmosphere of fear and insecurity, with a view to upholding the New World Order.
And that can only begin The Road To Hell.
What are Virtues?
Kindness. Honesty. Service. Virtues are the essence of our character and when we keep the practice of virtues at the heart of everyday life, we live with purpose.
Because of these virtues or positive character traits, he or she is committed to doing the right thing no matter what the personal cost, and does not bend to impulses, urges or desires, but acts according to values and principles.
Virtues need to be cultivated to become more prevalent and habitual in daily life.
With the habit of being more virtuous, we take the helm of our own life, redirecting its course towards greater fulfillment, peace and joy.
So why then, if we know what to do, do we still stay stuck?
Because we have not yet consciously and boldly applied a virtue to a given situation so as to alter its outcome, from what has always been to what can be.
Becoming More Virtuous People
We know we are becoming more virtuous people, not only because of the results above, but also because of the way other people respond to us. Our friends, families, co-workers and neighbors will trust and rely on us. They will come to us for guidance and help, and will want to be around us because we inspire them to be better people.
We will be known as people with exceptional character who make the right choices and strive for excellence in all we do. Can life be lived any better?
In summary, the practice of virtues allows us to develop our potential, and live a more purposeful, better life; a life not ordinary but extraordinary.
Becoming more virtuous people attracts great things to us; it’s a certainty.
Why Practice Virtues?
Virtues are universal and recognized by all cultures as basic qualities necessary for our well-being and happiness.
Necessary because when we practice virtues and build the “character muscle,” we will attract what may have been missing in our life such as fulfilling relationships, achievement of meaningful goals, and happiness. The moment we declare, “I am persevering to achieve this goal in spite of all obstacles, self-doubt and fear,” a shift occurs where we naturally become more focused, determined, and courageous, leading us to success.
The search for a definition of right conduct.
Ethics (or Moral Philosophy) is concerned with questions of how people ought to act, and the search for a definition of right conduct (identified as the one causing the greatest good) and the good life (in the sense of a life worth living or a life that is satisfying or happy).
The word "ethics" is derived from the Greek "ethos" (meaning "custom" or "habit"). Ethics differs from morals and morality in that ethics denotes the theory of right action and the greater good, while morals indicate their practice. Ethics is not limited to specific acts and defined moral codes, but encompasses the whole of moral ideals and behaviours, a person's philosophy of life (or Weltanschauung).
It asks questions like "How should people act?" (Normative or Prescriptive Ethics), "What do people think is right?" (Descriptive Ethics), "How do we take moral knowledge and put it into practice?" (Applied Ethics), and "What does 'right' even mean?" (Meta-Ethics).
"Nature does nothing in vain"
Socrates, as recorded in Plato's dialogues, is customarily regarded as the father of Western ethics.
He asserted that people will naturally do what is good provided that they know what is right, and that evil or bad actions are purely the result of ignorance: "There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance". He equated knowledge and wisdom with self-awareness (meaning to be aware of every fact relevant to a person's existence) and virtue and happiness. So, in essence, he considered self-knowledge and self-awareness to be the essential good, because the truly wise (i.e. self-aware) person will know what is right, do what is good, and therefore be happy.
A tall order never avoids
exercises in thehealth of the spirit.
According to Aristotle, "Nature does nothing in vain", so it is only when a person acts in accordance with their nature and thereby realizes their full potential, that they will do good and therefore be content in life.
He held that self-realization (the awareness of one's nature and the development of one's talents) is the surest path to happiness, which is the ultimate goal, all other things (such as civic life or wealth) being merely means to an end.
He encouraged moderation in all things, the extremes being degraded and immoral, (e.g. courage is the moderate virtue between the extremes of cowardice and recklessness), and held that Man should not simply live, but live well with conduct governed by moderate virtue.
Virtue, for Aristotle, denotes doing the right thing to the right person at the right time to the proper extent in the correct fashion and for the right reason - something of a tall order.
“Nothing rankles more in the human heart than the feeling of injustice.” American lawyers have devised a system of substantive law and legal procedure so convoluted that it denies access to justice to anyone who didn’t have a lawyer to navigate it. This system could be fixed immediately by greatly multiplying the number of legal-aid societies specialized in trusts and senior law. The ability for any Senior to invoke the full protections of the law, realistically, are only as good as ones self help ability to discern if proper proceedings where followed and if the court (especially probate) recognized those improper invasions of elder rights law, by whomsoever attempted to do otherwise, violated that seniors freedom and equality - destined to vanish into nothingness.
Needing a lawyer and not having one are not well documented at all.
The main divisions in the debate today are about resources: between those who want to see realities vision realized, with lawyers central to the story, and others who are convinced it’s not possible to provide enough lawyers to meet the need—and who also believe that, in many instances, a lawyer isn’t needed to solve the problem; and between those who think it’s essential for the federal government to fund legal aid (with many convinced the government should provide much more money than it now does) and others, like officials in the Trump White House, who say the federal government should have no role in paying for legal aid.
EARLY THIS YEAR, almost 20 percent of Americans lived in families with household income low enough to make them eligible for legal aid paid for by the federal government. The threshold is at or below 125 percent of the federal poverty level ($30,750 for a family of four this year). Of these 60 million or so people, around seven out of 10—more than 40 million—were in households that had faced a civil legal problem the previous year. Most say the problem “severely” or “very much” upset their lives: they lost disability benefits, could no longer afford essential medical care, fell behind on rent and were evicted. Despite the high incidence of these problems and their often-devastating consequences, in nearly nine out of every 10 instances, the people involved lacked the help of a lawyer, leaving them at the mercy of courts and other government agencies with byzantine rules, insufficient resources, and short supplies of mercy. That’s the basic measure of the “Justice Gap,” as a recent report by the Legal Services Corporation calls it—the difference between low-income Americans’ need for legal help in dealing with calamitous matters and the resources available to provide it.
BOTH the House and the Senate recommendations maintain dozens of restrictions on how LSC can spend its money. Legal-aid organizations receiving LSC grants can’t take part in class-action lawsuits; they can’t get involved in litigation or other activities about immigration, abortion, assisted suicide, desegregation of public schools, or civil rights of prisoners, LSC itself, or (with narrow caveats) criminal cases. They can’t engage in legislative or regulatory lobbying, political activities like voter registration and promoting ballot measures like referendums, or welfare reform. They can’t engage in or encourage public demonstrations, picketing, boycotts, or strikes.
The restrictions are meant to keep legal-aid organizations focused on solving legal problems for individuals. More to the point, they are meant to keep them from engaging in collective action to reform laws and public policies, from representing large groups of people in lawsuits challenging government agencies or major corporations, and from taking sides in disputes about the most divisive social issues. They are intended to safeguard the status quo.
Further restrictions follow a formula when making grants: each state receives its share of funding based on its share of the American population in households with income at or below 125 percent of the federal poverty line for households of that size, from one person ($15,075)
to eight ($51,650), with each additional member allowed a modicum of extra income ($5,225).
In fiscal year 2015, 93 percent of total spending was on formula-based grants to legal-services organizations everywhere, with the most ($43 million) going to California and the least ($0.5 million) to Vermont.
The bipartisan backing in Congress is a product of all of these restrictions, which reflect a history filled with controversy. A national Legal Services Program was part of the Office of Economic Opportunity during President Lyndon Johnson’s War on Poverty in the mid 1960s. Although only a small fraction of the initial funds went to legal services, the new program greatly increased the country’s support of legal aid for the poor.
Earl Johnson Jr., then the program’s director and later a judge on California’s Court of Appeals, reported in 1968 that it had funded “250 locally-operated programs in forty-eight states” which had “set up 850 Neighborhood Law Offices” and hired “more than 1,800 full-time attorneys”—“almost as many lawyers” as were “employed by the United States Department of Justice and all of the United States Attorneys Offices around the nation.”
Those lawyers provided legal aid to the poor while seeking to reform law that penalized people for being poor. During the almost century that some form of legal aid had existed in the United States before the Legal Services Program, the Supreme Court heard one case brought by a legal-aid lawyer. Between 1965 and 1974, legal-services lawyers became the voice of the poor at the Court. It accepted 64 percent of the cases the lawyers asked them to, a remarkably high rate. Of the 110 cases considered, those lawyers won 62 percent, with conservative justices supporting those victories as fully as the liberals. Legal-services lawyers developed a new field of poverty law while obtaining justice.
The opposing view?
Ignorance, basically, about the value of evidence-based research.
Very few in the American bar or on the bench believe in rigorous evaluation of civil legal services or court techniques—but “just because we have been doing something one way for a long time doesn’t mean it’s the best way to address any particular problem.”
The main premise behind all American Justice is to stand under God, figure out what works, do it, then rigorously test it before God.
"We The People", starting today, must set all Discernment standards as goals in demand of the United States to close all of it's ungodly gaps completely by 2026 - in no exception.
United under God must transform all legal and political problems into moral ones before any generation can honorably claim it helped to close that nations ungodly gaps.
“If a man vows a vow to the Lord, or swears an oath to bind himself by a pledge, he shall not break his word. He shall do according to all that proceeds out of his mouth.”
Numbers 30:2 ESV
“Again you have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform to the Lord what you have sworn.’” Matthew 5:33 ESV
“I will not violate my covenant or alter the word that went forth from my lips.” Psalm 89:34 ESV
“Let what you say be simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything more than this comes from evil” Matthew 5:37 ESV
Not only did God command us to be people of our word and to keep promises, but He gave us the ultimate example of someone who did it: Himself! He did not leave us without an example, and this should encourage us as we seek to be people who emulate
Him and keep our promises to others.
We must not make promises that we do not think we should keep.
Among other definitions, Webster describes integrity as “soundness of moral character.” Integrity from a biblical viewpoint has to do with being morally sound. What does it mean to be morally sound? A person with integrity knows what is important to God and consistently lives in light of what is important to Him.
It involves more than living our values; it involves subscribing to God’s values and with His help learning to conform our conduct to those values. Integrity is like the foundation of a house, if it is unstable, the entire house may come apart when it comes under pressure.
Integrity is the basic element of Christian character. It is the first characteristic of those welcomed into God’s presence (Psa.15:2). It is the first characteristic that distinguishes godly leadership: “So he shepherded them according to the integrity of his heart, and guided them with his skillful hands” (Psa. 78:72) Integrity is not determined by circumstances, based on credentials and is not to be confused with reputation. A person with the integrity of heart is a morally and spiritually healthy individual.
A person’s reputation is only the shadow of his character – in some cases the shadow (reputation) may appear larger or smaller than the actual height (character) of the person. A good reputation may or may not be an accurate reflection of a person’s character. A good reputation is as good as gold but a person with integrity owns the gold mine. If you take care of your character and become a person of integrity, your reputation will take care of itself.
Integrity has to do with a sense of consistency between a person’s inner values and attitudes and his outward words and actions. The more consistent we are, the higher the degree of integrity we possess. A good biblical example of integrity is Daniel (5:13-17). Daniel’s values, words and actions were thoroughly consistent. You can’t put a price tag on integrity because genuine integrity is not for sale.
Integrity helps us know what to expect from others. The more consistent a person is, the more confidence we have in how they will act in the future. An unpredictable leader suggests that they are not making decisions on the basis of deeply held biblical values but on how they may feel at the moment. It is hard, if not impossible, to trust such people. People will trust those who have proved themselves to be trustworthy.
A lack of integrity may take one of four different forms
Inconsistency between a person’s words and actions (saying one thing and doing another). Verbal inconsistency expresses itself as a lack of honesty (Acts 5:1- 10). Honesty is without question an absolutely essential quality of leadership.
Inconsistency between one’s actions on one side and against one’s words and values on the other. This inconsistency comes across as a lack of courage to act according to his values (Mk.14:29-32, 66-72).
Inconsistency between one’s values on one side and one’s words/actions on the other. This political syndrome results from saying/doing what we think others want to hear in order to please them.
Inconsistency in every area – no consistency/integrity among a person’s values, words and actions. Such a person is out of touch with himself and reality; he is not functioning in the real world.
The common denominator in all these different forms of a lack of integrity is simply: inconsistency. We all have values we live by whether we are conscious of them or not. Our values energize our motives that drive our actions. The important thing is that we consciously choose to live by God’s values in Scripture. People with high integrity have high values and live by them.
All godly leaders have a clear sense of biblical values that gives guidance regarding how to relate to God, ourselves and others. We must seek to relate to each other in humility and love. We need to learn to listen, speak the truth in love, persuade, build consensus, handle disagreement, forgive, receive correction, confess sin, appreciate the concept of collective wisdom and understand the point of view – even with people with whom we disagree. Proverbs 10:9 says, “He who walks in integrity walks securely, but he who perverts his ways will be found out.”
How can we develop and maintain integrity?
Integrity is developed as we learn and practice certain skills:
The first skill is learning to develop a deep personal honesty through radical self-confrontation. A person of integrity does not make excuses or blame others for his short-comings.
If we would become persons of integrity we must first develop the proper moral stands. Since God is the source of morality, the proper moral standards are based on His character as revealed in His Word and reinforced in our consciences by the Holy Spirit.
If we would become persons of integrity, God’s standards must become our standards; His values must become our values; we must learn to love what He loves and hate what He hates.
In order to do this we must learn “the fear of the Lord” – we must develop a healthy respect for God. “The fear of the Lord” teaches us to love what is good and hate what is evil (Rom. 12:13). God’s Word must be effectively assimilated in our heart, mind and conscience so that it will influence our thoughts, words, actions and attitudes.
Next, to become persons of integrity we need to realize that we can’t live the Christian life in our own strength. We need God’s enablement; therefore must learn how to be controlled by the Holy Spirit (Eph. 5:18). In order to be controlled by God’s Spirit we must submit ourselves to God. We need to allow God to make the final decision for us based on His wise and loving Word.
If we wish to be persons of integrity we must develop genuine humility. What you see is what you get. We are not pretending to be some one we are not. A humble person is a realistic, teachable person.
Finally, if we would become persons of integrity, we must learn the wisdom of being personally accountable to others for our moral and spiritual development. It takes others to bring out the best in us and we all need accountability partners that serve as an encouragement and a reality check.
Americans have expressed their frustration with Washington and its elected officials in myriad ways. Yet there are things that can be done to ensure that institutions are clean and that taxpayer dollars are spent in alignment with the public's concerns and not just with special corporate and elite interests.
The findings of the US Corruption Barometer 2017 reinforce this message.
America needs actions – not just words – towards a cleaner and more open government.
1. TRANSPARENCY IN POLITICAL SPENDING:
Make all spending on politics genuinely transparent, with:
- real-time information accessible in online, machine-readable form to the public
- transparency on political spending by publicly traded companies
- transparency to the public on every level of influence, from political ad campaigns, to lobbying, to bundled campaign contributions.
2.PREVENTION OF REVOLVING DOORS:
Stop the unchecked exchange of personnel among corporations, lobbyists and our elected and high-level government officials.
3.ESTABLISHING WHO OWNS WHAT:
End the use of anonymous shell companies, which can be a source of conflict of interest and/or vehicles for illicit activity.
4.STRENGTHENING THE ETHICS INFRASTRUCTURE:
Reinforce the independence and oversight capabilities of the Office of Government Ethics.
5. PROTECTION OF WHISTLEBLOWERS:
Improve and implement laws and regulations to protect the whistleblowers who expose corruption and other misconduct by the government and its contractors.
6.PROVIDING BASIC ACCESS TO INFORMATION:
Increase access to information about the government, as a means to empower the public to fight corruption.
