Some 800 numbers are bad for your economic health mainly because they take away jobs Americans could be holding.

The following is an email I received from a friend. I have taken some liberties with it to suit my needs.

Any time you call an 800 number to contact a credit card company, your banking or insurance, company, or some kind help desk, and you find that you’re talking to a foreign customer service representative—perhaps in India or Philippines, or some other country—please consider doing the following:

After you connect and you realize that the customer service representative is not from the U.S.A (you can always ask if you are not sure about the accent), please, very politely (this is not about trashing other cultures) say, “I’d like to speak to a customer service representative in the United States of America.”

The representative may suggest talking to his/her manager, but politely say, “Thank you, but I’d like to speak to a customer service representative in the U.S.A.” YOU WILL BE IMMEDIATELY CONNECTED TO A REPRESENTATIVE  IN THE U.S.A. That’s the rule and the LAW.

It takes less than one minute to have your call re-directed to the U.S.A. Tonight when I got redirected to a U.S.A rep, I asked again to make sure—and yes, she was from Fort Lauderdale.

Imagine what would happen if every U.S. citizen insisted on talking to only U.S. phone reps from this day on. Imagine how that would ultimately impact the number of U.S. jobs that would need to be created ASAP. If I tell 10 people to consider this and you tell 10 people to consider doing this—see what I mean… it becomes an exercise in viral marketing 101.

Remember—the goal here is to restore jobs back here at home—not to be abrupt or rude to a foreign phone rep. You may even get correct answers, good advice, and solutions to your problem—in real English.

If you agree, please tell 10 people you know, and ask them to tell 10 people they know… etc.… etc.

What this email counsels us to do when we call an 800 number and we hear a foreign accent on the other end of the line is very good. Try it next time you get a person somewhere in the Far East or anywhere outside the United States, try it. You may save an American job.

Be a patriot; save a job for America.

There is no legal job an American will not do, if the money is commensurate with the needs of the job.

Get rid of every last illegal alien in the U.S.A. and get rid of the minimum wage laws, and you might be surprised at how quickly we no longer have a low wage problem or an unemployment problem in America. It will be just like the 50s all over again. One person will be able to support a family in better style than two people working can now.

There is a lot more stupid Federal Government programs and regulations to get rid of, but a good place to start is to get all Americans back to work at a good wage.

There is a small college up in Michigan that refuses all assistant from the U.S. Government. You may already know about it. It is Hillsdale College. Maybe you already know about its free monthly publication Imprimis.

Here is a small clipping from this month’s edition of Imprimis. The article is entitled The Right to Work: A Fundamental Freedom and is a very good in-depth essay of the problems we are facing in the United States in getting Americans back to work.

From 2000 to 2010, real personal income grew by an averages of 24.3 percent in the 22 right-to-work states, more than double the rate for the others 28 as a group.… In 2009, there were 20 percent more 25- to 34-year-olds in right-to-work states.

I think that little clip is a good note to end this piece on, however, you may click here to read the complete article.

No related posts.

I recently came across the following article, Dismantling America, written by Thomas Sowell and published in October of 2009. Those who love the America they were born and raised in will do well to read this article and take to heart the evidence Mr. Sowell so succinctly lays out for the dismantling of what is left of that America.

Thomas Sowell is a full-blooded America who happens to be black. I believe he considers the appellation African-American beneath his dignity. He is widely known and respected for his academic achievements and his knowledge of Economics, Education, Politics, History, Race relations, and Child development. He is a senior fellow of the Hoover Institute at Stanford University.

After reading this post, you might find it interesting to read these posts, Will the United States of America Fall Apart in July 2010? and Will the United States of America Become a Socialist Country in 2010?.

Unfortunately, what seemed too outlandish to even consider a few months ago, doesn’t seem quite so outlandish today. Mind you, I am not suggesting America will fall apart this year, but the coming November elections may well decide if America will survive or not as a free country.

Dismantling America

Will the country wake up before it’s too late?

Just one year ago, would you have believed that an unelected government official, not even a cabinet member confirmed by the Senate but simply one of the many “czars” appointed by the president, could arbitrarily cut the pay of executives in private businesses by 50 percent or 90 percent?

Did you think that another “czar” would be talking about restricting talk radio? That there would be plans afloat to subsidize newspapers — that is, to create a situation where some newspapers’ survival would depend on the government’s liking what they publish?

Did you imagine that anyone would even be talking about having a panel of so-called “experts” deciding who could and could not get life-saving medical treatments?

Scary as that is from a medical standpoint, it is also chilling from the standpoint of freedom. If you have a mother who needs a heart operation or a child with some dire medical condition, how free would you feel to speak out against an administration that has the power to make life-and-death decisions about your loved ones?

Does any of this sound like America?

How about a federal agency giving school children material to enlist them on the side of the president? Merely being assigned to sing his praises in class is apparently not enough.

How much of America would be left if the federal government continued on this path? President Obama has already floated the idea of a national police force, something we have done without for more than two centuries.

We already have local police forces all across the country and military forces for national defense, as well as the FBI for federal crimes and the National Guard for local emergencies. What would be the role of a national police force created by Barack Obama, with all its leaders appointed by him? It would seem more like the brownshirts of dictators than like anything American.

How far the president will go depends of course on how much resistance he meets. But the direction in which he is trying to go tells us more than all his rhetoric or media spin.

Barack Obama has not only said that he is out to “change the United States of America,” the people he has been associated with for years have expressed in words and deeds their hostility to the values, the principles, and the people of this country.

Jeremiah Wright said it with words: “G** damn America!” Bill Ayers said it with bombs that he planted. Community-activist goons have said it with their contempt for the rights of other people.

Among the people appointed as czars by President Obama have been people who have praised enemy dictators like Mao, who have seen the public schools as places to promote sexual practices contrary to the values of most Americans to a captive audience of children.

Those who say that the Obama administration should have investigated those people more thoroughly before appointing them are missing the point completely. Why should we assume that Barack Obama didn’t know what such people were like, when he had associated with precisely these kinds of people for decades before he reached the White House?

Nothing is more consistent with his lifelong patterns than putting such people in government — people who reject American values, resent Americans in general and successful Americans in particular, and resent America’s influence in the world.

Any miscalculation on his part would be in not thinking that others would discover what these stealth appointees were like. Had it not been for the Fox News Channel, these stealth appointees might have remained unexposed. Fox News is now high on the administration’s enemies list.

Nothing so epitomizes President Obama’s own contempt for American values and traditions as trying to ram two bills through Congress in his first year — each bill more than a thousand pages long — too fast for either of them to be read, much less discussed. That he succeeded only the first time says that some people are starting to wake up. Whether enough people will wake up in time to keep America from being dismantled, piece by piece, is another question — and the biggest question for this generation.

— Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. © 2009 Creators Syndicate, Inc.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Thomas Sowell: A Point Of No Return (riehlworldview.com)
• Health Care Reform: Point of No Return? (outsidethebeltway.com)

Related posts:

1. Will the United States of America Become a Socialist Country in 2010?
2. Will the United States of America Fall Apart in July 2010?
3. Pres. Obama wants Elective Surgery on Health Care

Obama Health Care Panacea

GOP and Demos Square off over the socialistic Obama-Reid-Pelosi Health Care Plan

The latest Rasmussen polls say 58% opposed and 49% are strongly opposed to the socialistic Health Care Plan. On the other side of the issue, among the 39% who favor the plan are 19% who strongly favor it.
Many people are questioning whether those in Congress know what enough of what is in it. Be that as it may, it is certainly clear from the numbers that we are having this socialistic health care panacea pushed down our throats by the Democratic majority in Congress.

Same Song; Second Verse

78% believe the Health Care plan will cost more than projected. Come to think of it, when has the federal government every missed on the high side of a cost projection.

Democrats and liberals have more confidence in the cost projections for the plan than do other voters, but the majority of all partisans share the belief that the costs will be higher than projected. That means people are at long last awakening to the dangers of bigger and worse government.

Plan Attack Spooks Public Confidence in War on Terror

Another Rasmussen poll says belief that the bad guys are winning the War on Terror is at its highest level in over two years, and nearly half of U.S. voters say America is no safer now than it was before 9/11.
A mere 18% believed the terrorists were winning when President Obama was sworn into office last January.  Now that figure has claimed to 30% of voters think the terrorists are winning the War on Terror.

Gift Cards: Use ‘Em or Lose Money

Did you get any gift cards form your local Chinese outlet store, Wal-Mart; or Bet Buy or American Express for Christmas?

Consumer advocates advise you to use them now, if you did. That is the best way to avoid potential fees and other pitfalls that can suck up the value of gift cards—at least, that is, until the Federal Reserve imposes limitations on some of those fees next year.

As far as many companies are concerned, it is still open season of shoppers. Of course, you can help make those merchants have a happy new year by not using the gift cards you received at all or not for full value, if you are feeling that generous this holiday season.

There is one other worry for you if you have a gift card. The merchant may fail before you spend it if you don’t hurry. That reminds me of a very big—for those times—check that Babe Ruth received for something-I can’t remember what off the top of my head. Anyway, the Babe showed that check around and bragged on it for a long time. Then, when he went to cash it, it the company had gone belly up and the check was worthless. Don’t let that happen to you with your gift cards. Spend ‘em.

Read full story here.

Now here’s some good news

Why doing nothing is good for you

Worried that the holidays have taken a toll on your fitness? Relax, a break from exercise is what you need

by Peta Bee

You might have been working out diligently since making last year’s resolution to get in shape. But what happens when you succumb to the inevitable under-activity and overindulgence of the festive season? Will hours spent popping chocolates in front of the TV and skipping the gym mean the past 12 months’ effort will count for nothing as your figure and fitness go to pot? Not necessarily, say leading exercise scientists. In fact, a break from the gym might be just what your body needs.

“Rest and recovery are often overlooked, but are as important as exercise itself,” says John Brewer, professor of sport at the University of Bedfordshire. “Even elite athletes have one easy day a week to allow their bodies to recover from the stresses of training and to encourage the positive physiological changes, such as muscle growth, that are induced by hard workouts.”

Without enough rest, Brewer says, a tough exercise regime is doomed. “You may improve in the short term, but each body part generally needs 24 hours to recover from hard exercise. If you have been lifting weights with your arms, for instance, it will take a full day for the tiny tears in muscle fibres to be repaired.” He says that most fitness injuries stem from a lack of rest. “Taking time out to let your body recover could save you weeks out through injury in the long run.”

Click here to continue reading the rest of the article

So, relax and enjoy for the moment.

I wish you one and all Happy New Year!

May God forget the bad that we have done and bless us abundantly.

Related posts:

1. Pres. Obama wants Elective Surgery on Health Care
2. Controlling Leviathan: The Battle for Limited Government

By Paul Craig Roberts – VDARE.com

An article in the journal,Sociological Inquiry, ["There Must Be a Reason": Osama, Saddam, and Inferred Justification, Vol. 79, No. 2. (2009), pp. 142-162. [PDF] casts light on the effectiveness of propaganda. Researchers examined why big lies succeed where little lies fail. Governments can get away with mass deceptions, but politicians cannot get away with sexual affairs.

The researchers explain why so many Americans still believe that Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11, years after it has become obvious that Iraq had nothing to do with the event. Americans developed elaborate rationalizations based on Bush administration propaganda that alleged Iraqi involvement and became deeply attached to their beliefs. Their emotional involvement became wrapped up in their personal identity and sense of morality. They looked for information that supported their beliefs and avoided information that challenged them, regardless of the facts of the matter.

In Mein Kampf, Hitler explained the believability of the Big Lie as compared to the small lie:

“In the simplicity of their minds, people more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have such impudence. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and continue to think that there may be some other explanation.”

What the sociologists and Hitler are telling us is that by the time facts become clear, people are emotionally wedded to the beliefs planted by the propaganda and find it a wrenching experience to free themselves. It is more comfortable, instead, to denounce the truth-tellers than the liars whom the truth-tellers expose.

The psychology of belief retention even when those beliefs are wrong is a pillar of social cohesion and stability. It explains why, once change is effected, even revolutionary governments become conservative. The downside of belief retention is its prevention of the recognition of facts. Belief retention in the Soviet Union made the system unable to adjust to economic reality, and the Soviet Union collapsed. Today in the United States millions find it easier to chant “USA, USA, USA” than to accept facts that indicate the need for change.

The staying power of the Big Lie is the barrier through which the 9/11 Truth Movement is finding it difficult to break. The assertion that the 9/11 Truth Movement consists of conspiracy theorists and crackpots is obviously untrue. The leaders of the movement are highly qualified professionals, such as demolition experts, physicists, structural architects, engineers, pilots, and former high officials in the government. Unlike their critics parroting the government’s line, they know what they are talking about.

Here is a link to a presentation by the architect, Richard Gage, to a Canadian university audience: The video of the presentation is two hours long and seems to have been edited to shorten it down to two hours. Gage is low-key, but not a dazzling personality or a very articulate presenter. Perhaps that is because he is speaking to a university audience and takes for granted their familiarity with terms and concepts.

Those who believe the official 9/11 story and dismiss skeptics as kooks can test the validity of the sociologists’ findings and Hitler’s observation by watching the video and experiencing their reaction to evidence that challenges their beliefs. Are you able to watch the presentation without scoffing at someone who knows far more about it than you do? What is your response when you find that you cannot defend your beliefs against the evidence presented? Scoff some more? Become enraged?

Another problem that the 9/11 Truth Movement faces is that few people have the education to follow the technical and scientific aspects. The side that they believe tells them one thing; the side that they don’t believe tells them another. Most Americans have no basis to judge the relative merits of the arguments.

For example, consider the case of the Lockerbie bomber. One piece of “evidence” that was used to convict Magrahi was a piece of circuit board from a device that allegedly contained the Semtex that exploded the airliner. None of the people, who have very firm beliefs in Magrahi’s and Libya’s guilt and in the offense of the Scottish authorities in releasing Magrahi on allegedly humanitarian grounds, know that circuit boards of those days have very low combustion temperatures and go up in flames easily. Semtex produces very high temperatures. There would be nothing whatsoever left of a device that contained Semtex. It is obvious to an expert that the piece of circuit board was planted after the event.

I have asked on several occasions and have never had an answer, which does not mean that there isn’t one, how millions of pieces of unburnt, uncharred paper can be floating over lower Manhattan from the destruction of the WTC towers when the official explanation of the destruction is fires so hot and evenly distributed that they caused the massive steel structures to weaken and fail simultaneously so that the buildings fell in free fall time just as they would if they had been brought down by controlled demolition.

What is the explanation of fires so hot that steel fails but paper does not combust?

People don’t even notice the contradictions. Recently, an international team of scientists, who studied for 18 months dust samples produced by the twin towers’ destruction collected from three separate sources, reported their finding of nano-thermite in the dust. The US government had scientists dependent on the US government to debunk the finding on the grounds that the authenticity of custody of the samples could not be verified. In other words, someone had tampered with the samples and added the nano-thermite. This is all it took to discredit the finding, despite the obvious fact that access to thermite is strictly controlled and NO ONE except the US military and possibly Israel has access to nano-thermite.

The physicist, Steven Jones, has produced overwhelming evidence that explosives were used to bring down the buildings. His evidence is not engaged, examined, tested, and refuted. It is simply ignored.

Dr. Jones’ experience reminds me of that of my Oxford professor, the distinguished physical chemist and philosopher, Michael Polanyi.

Polanyi was one of the 20th century’s great scientists. At one time every section chairman of the Royal Society was a Polanyi student. Many of his students won Nobel Prizes for their scientific work, such as

Eugene Wigner at Princeton and Melvin Calvin at UC, Berkeley, and his son, John Polanyi, at the University of Toronto.

As a young man in the early years of the 20th century, Michael Polanyi discovered the explanation for chemical adsorption. Scientific authority found the new theory too much of a challenge to existing beliefs and dismissed it. Even when Polanyi was one of the UK’s ranking scientists, he was unable to teach his theory. One half-century later his discovery was re-discovered by scientists at UC, Berkeley. The discovery was hailed, but then older scientists said that it was “Polanyi’s old error.” It turned out not to be an error. Polanyi was asked to address scientists on this half-century failure of science to recognize the truth. How had science, which is based on examining the evidence, gone so wrong. Polanyi’s answer was that science is a belief system just like everything else, and that his theory was outside the belief system.

That is what we observe all around us, not just about the perfidy of Muslims and 9/11.

As an economics scholar I had a very difficult time making my points about the Soviet economy, about Karl Marx’s theories, and about the supply-side impact of fiscal policy. Today I experience readers who become enraged just because I report on someone else’s work that is outside their belief system. Some readers think I should suppress work that is inconsistent with their beliefs and drive the author of the work into the ground. These readers never have any comprehension of the subject. They are simply emotionally offended.

What I find puzzling is the people I know who do not believe a word the government says about anything except 9/11. For reasons that escape me, they believe that the government that lies to them about everything else tells them the truth about 9/11. How can this be, I ask them. Did the government slip up once and tell the truth? My question does not cause them to rethink their belief in the government’s 9/11 story. Instead, they get angry with me for doubting their intelligence or their integrity or some such hallowed trait.

The problem faced by truth is the emotional needs of people. With 9/11 many Americans feel that they must believe their government so that they don’t feel like they are being unsupportive or unpatriotic, and they are very fearful of being called”terrorist sympathizers.” Others on the left-wing have emotional needs to believe that peoples oppressed by the US have delivered “blowbacks.” Some leftists think that America deserves these blowbacks and thus believe the government’s propaganda that Muslims attacked the US.

Naive people think that if the US government’s explanation of 9/11 was wrong, physicists and engineers would all speak up. Some have (see above). However, for most physicists and engineers this would be an act of suicide. Physicists owe their careers to government grants, and their departments are critically dependent on government funding. A physicist who speaks up essentially ends his university career. If he is a tenured professor, to appease Washington the university would buy out his tenure as BYU did in the case of the outspoken Steven Jones.

An engineering firm that spoke out would never again be awarded a government contract. In addition, its patriotic, flag-waving customers would regard the firm as a terrorist apologist and cease to do business with it.

In New York today there is an enormous push by 9/11 families for a real and independent investigation of the 9/11 events. Tens of thousands of New Yorkers have provided the necessary signatures on petitions that require the state to put the proposal for an independent commission up to vote. However, the state, so far, is not obeying the law.

Why are the tens of thousands of New Yorkers who are demanding a real investigation dismissed as conspiracy theorists? The 9/11 skeptics know far more about the events of that day than do the uninformed people who call them names. Most of the people I know who are content with the government’s official explanation have never examined the evidence. Yet, these no-nothings shout down those who have studied the matter closely.

There are, of course, some kooks. I have often wondered if these kooks are intentionally ridiculous in order to discredit knowledgeable skeptics.

Another problem that the 9/11 Truth Movement faces is that their natural allies, those who oppose the Bush/Obama wars and the internet sites that the antiwar movement maintains, are fearful of being branded traitorous and anti-American. It is hard enough to oppose a war against those the US government has successfully demonized. Antiwar sites believe that if they permit 9/11 to be questioned, it would brand them as “terrorist sympathizers” and discredit their opposition to the war. An exception is Information Clearing House.

Antiwar sites do not realize that, by accepting the 9/11 explanation, they have undermined their own opposition to the war. Once you accept that Muslim terrorists did it, it is difficult to oppose punishing them for the event. In recent months, important antiwar sites, such as AntiWar.com, have had difficulty with their fundraising, with their fundraising campaigns going on far longer than previously. They do not understand that if you grant the government its premise for war, it is impossible to oppose the war.

As far as I can tell, most Americans have far greater confidence in the government than they do in the truth. During the Great Depression the liberals with their New Deal succeeded in teaching Americans to trust the government as their protector. This took with the left and the right. Neither end of the political spectrum is capable of fundamental questioning of the government. This explains the ease with which our government routinely deceives the people.

Democracy is based on the assumption that people are rational beings who factually examine arguments and are not easily manipulated. Studies are not finding this to be the case. In my own experience in scholarship, public policy, and journalism, I have learned that everyone from professors to high school dropouts has difficulty with facts and analyses that do not fit with what they already believe. The notion that “we are not afraid to follow the truth wherever it may lead” is an extremely romantic and idealistic notion. I have seldom experienced open minds even in academic discourse or in the highest levels of government. Among the public at large, the ability to follow the truth wherever it may lead is almost non-existent.

The US government’s response to 9/11, regardless of who is responsible, has altered our country forever. Our civil liberties will never again be as safe as they were. America’s financial capability and living standards are forever lower. Our country’s prestige and world leadership are forever damaged. The first decade of the 21st century has been squandered in pointless wars, and it appears the second decade will also be squandered in the same pointless and bankrupting pursuit.

The most disturbing fact of all remains:

The 9/11 event responsible for these adverse happenings has not been investigated.

Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury during President Reagan’s first term. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal. He has held numerous academic appointments, including the William E. Simon Chair, Center for Strategic and International Studies, Georgetown University, and Senior Research Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University. He was awarded the Legion of Honor by French President Francois Mitterrand. He is the author of Supply-Side Revolution : An Insider’s Account of Policymaking in Washington; Alienation and the Soviet Economy and Meltdown: Inside the Soviet Economy and is the co-author with Lawrence M. Stratton of The Tyranny of Good Intentions : How Prosecutors and Bureaucrats Are Trampling the Constitution in the Name of Justice Click here for Peter Brimelow’s Forbes Magazine interview with Roberts about the recent epidemic of prosecutorial misconduct.

SOURCE: VDARE.com

Related articles by Zemanta

• U.S. Envoy: Timeline for leaving Iraq ‘achievable’ (cnn.com)
• New York to remember 9/11 victims (news.bbc.co.uk)
• Policeman’s Family Killed as They Slept in Iraq (abcnews.go.com)
• Human Rights Watch suspends ‘Nazi collector’ analyst (thejc.com)
• Iraq asks for money to restore ancient sites harmed by war, looting (nationalpost.com)
• Remains of pilot shot down in Gulf War found in Iraq desert (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
• After the Bombs, Iraqi Leaders Play the Blame-Game (time.com)
• Joseph Stiglitz: Bank Problems Bigger Than Pre-Lehman Era (huffingtonpost.com)
• Iraqi shoe-thrower released from prison (nationalpost.com)
• Iraqi trial a symbol of struggle (timesunion.com)
• Iraqi violence overshadows start of Ramadan (cnn.com)
• Theater Review | ‘Aftermath’: Exiles With Harrowing Tales From the Chaos of War-Torn Iraq (theater2.nytimes.com)
• Goldwag: Some thoughts about 9/11 Truth (boingboing.net)
• Charlie Sheen Joins the ‘Truther’ 9/11 Conspiracy Theory Fringe (usnews.com)
• Iraqi PM: election dispute poses risks to security (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
• Baghdad blasts: 132 people killed in worst attack in two years (telegraph.co.uk)
• the “Safe Haven” Notion of Afghanistan Is a Myth (iflizwerequeen.com)
• Mysterious ‘Saddam Channel’ Hits Iraq TV (time.com)
• Baghdad Car Bombs Kill Over 100 (huffingtonpost.com)
• Iraq’s national museum to showcase its treasures online with aid of Google (guardian.co.uk)
• Iraqi Refugees Forgotten, Like the War that Displaced Them (dailykos.com)
• At War: After the Attack (atwar.blogs.nytimes.com)

No related posts.