first blogs info

Following 9/11, thousands of American workers signed on with companies who contracted to aid in U.S. efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Many of these people paid dearly for that decision.

Tragically, many of these workers became injured while overseas. Adding to their difficulties, many of these injured workers, who put themselves on the line working in support of the American mission,faced steep medial expenses and loss of income as they recovered.

Some of these workers lost their lives, leaving their spouses and family in financial crisis. Many others who are unable to work watch their family’s savings and assets dwindle, and their security disappear.

A law exists to ensure fair workers compensation for these people. This law is known as the Defense Base Act. Unfortunately, too few people in need of its protection understand their own rights under the law. Even fewer know what to do to guarantee those rights.

Recuperation can be difficult enough without mounting bills, the threat of bankruptcy, and an inability to get proper medical care and rehabilitation. That’s to say nothing of the financial threat to the families involved.

The Defense Base Act requires that contractors working with the U.S. Military in war zones carry worker’s compensation insurance. This type of insurance is compulsory for organizations employing U.S. citizens or residents, and all employees or subcontractors hired on overseas government contracts.

These companies have been known to fail to inform their employees of their rights under the law. In numerous cases, insurance carriers have refused valid claims, thus leaving the injured party- who had taken the risk to supported the American mission- to face financial ruin.

Fortunately, Federal law provides a genuine solution, though unfortunately few injured workers know how to apply it. The Defense Base Act is part of the Longshoremen and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, and covers to employees of government contractors working overseas under contract to the United States Government.

To be specific, the Act pertains to workers employed by companies contracting to perform public works for the U.S. government in U.S. territories, or at U.S. military bases located outside the continental United States, in support of military aid programs within allied nations. The Act protects workers, even in situations that are not overtly dangerous, such as building embassies.S. government buildings abroad. As with domestic workers compensation laws, the Act covers medical treatment and compensation for defense contractors employees injured in the course of employment.

For thousands of American workers injured abroad, the Defense Base Act has provided support them under devastating circumstances. Claims under the Act have been successfully filed by many individuals, including some contact workers injured in Korea, VietNam, both Iraq wars, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. All of these come under the general coverage of the Act.

The Defense Base Act mandates that any injured worker should be confident of having an attorney at his side to ensure a just outcome. Both injured workers and family member of someone who has died from job injuries overseas are covered. Compensation can be given for partial loss of earnings, and in a case of death substantial death benefits are commonly paid to surviving family.

To their great relief, injured workers and their family discover that they they are not responsible for attorney fees under the Act. The Defense Base Act requires that all attorney fees depend entirely on the amount of money the claimant receives. No outrageous legal fees are possible. The fees are awarded by the Department of Labor,and are never included in any other compensation to the claimant. The injured party does not pay the lawyer out of his or her compensation. Instead,compensation is awarded to the attorney by the court, and paid by the insurance company or the original employer.

American civilians working in support U.S. military and U.S. State Department objectives continue to experience difficult injuries to this day.

For these injured civilians, the key to success in securing just compensation under the Defense Base Act is finding the right lawyer. This is a highly specialized area, and familiarity with standard Workman’s Compensation Law is simply inadequate. Claimants are advised to find a Defense Base Act attorney with years of experience and success with these claims.

William Prescott is web copy writer and researcher of health issues. This article is based on interviews with legal expert Kurt Gronau, a well-known Defense Base Act attorney.

Our world changed on 9/11. Most of us remember exactly what we were doing when we heard the news of the terrorist attacks. Indeed, most of us remember what President Bush was doing when he first heard the news…So, President Bush was reading children a book when news came that the World Trade Center had been hit. What did he do then? He kept his bearings and delivered a message televised to the country just hours later. You will recall that John Kerry tried to lambaste him for doing this too, until it was uncovered that he had reported that he himself “could not even think” upon hearing the news.

To say that “he kept sitting there for twenty minutes with a baffled look on his face” is a blatant, ridiculous, falsehood. Even Michael Moore said it was seven minutes. To even belly ache about this at all is beyond absurd. This man was President of the United States on September 11, 2001, not exactly an enviable position. It was decided that it was not safe to return to the White House the morning of 9/11. No kidding. Most of us will recall the story of Flight 93, which as far as we can tell was headed for the White House or Capitol, and as far as we can tell would have hit their intended targets were it not for the brave efforts of the passengers on board who happened to already be aware of the earlier attacks and took sacrificial action to prevent even worse carnage.

He was “paralyzed” in the days following 9/11? For someone who claims that we were “all frozen in front of our TVs” this smacks of serious selective amnesia. Not only did he address the nation just hours later but just days later, at Ground Zero itself, he ventured away from the speech’s expected course to speak freely with the crowd and rescue workers. When someone in the crowd yelled out: “George, we can’t hear you!” Bush responded, “I can hear you, the rest of the world can hear you, and the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon!” resulting in cheers from the crowd. Mr. Iacocca calls Mr. Bush at this moment “paralyzed,” while not mentioning the fact that the United States has not seen a terrorist attack since.

But what has happened since?

Our intelligence and law enforcement agencies communicate with each other better than they did before September 11. Numerous terrorist cells have been broken up and several major terrorist plots have been thwarted by U.S. and British intelligence, including one involving the prospect of several jumbo jets exploding in mid-air en route from London to the States. The Brooklyn and Golden Gate Bridges. Fuel lines connecting the boroughs of New York. The Fort Dix Six. The plot to explode the Sears Tower. These are just a few of the ones that we know about. So President Bush said he does not listen to the polls — because the “polls stink?” President Bush garnered not only the most votes ever of anyone running for any office in the history of the United States, but also enjoyed the highest approval rating of any President ever. And Bush has consistently said he does not pay attention to the polls. Would you rather someone who didn’t say this, i.e. Bill Clinton, be President during 9/11? You will recall that 9/11 was not the first time that terrorists attacked the World Trade Center.

The embassy bombings… the USS Cole… and 9/11 all took place in a span of a mere 37 months. Yet, 9/11 was the first and the last that was on Bush’s watch. And there have been 2,400 days and counting since, Mr. Iacocca. Would you have predicted that on September 12, 2001? Past American hesitation in the face of attacks on our interests gave our enemies reason to perceive America as being, in Osama bin Laden’s words, a “weak horse,” and convinced them to pursue more. Al Qaeda has repeatedly said that part of its rationale for 9/11 was the belief that, based on years of observations, that the greatest country in the world was a toothless tiger. After the Marine barracks bombing in Beirut, there was no retaliation. During the Clinton administration, America left Somalia in the wake of the “Black Hawk down” incident in Mogadishu. Following the first WTC attack that same year, we held no regime responsible. (the killing of our soldiers in Saudi Arabia and on the USS Cole, Clinton responded with a handful of cruise missiles against a country that harbored thousands of terrorists.) Now, our enemies see us piddling over the costs of Iraq, our counterterrorism measures, and Guantanamo Bay.

Under President Bush, the United States military engineered the toppling of the Taliban in Afghanistan, extracting a dangerous haven of al Qaeda and international terrorism from which the 9/11 terrorists drew aid, comfort, and safe harbor. Bin Laden is living under a rock in a cave (assuming he’s alive at all, which French and Saudi intelligence have reported that he is not), while 95% of Al Qaeda’s top dogs are either dead or in custody, cooperating with U.S. intelligence. The Bush administration has succeeded in badly damaging al Qaeda and making it very difficult for terrorism to take root upon American soil.

A majority of Democratic senators voted for the war. John Kerry himself acknowledged that in certain situations pre-emptive military action had always been an acceptable strategy of the U.S. When he was running for President Kerry claimed that he only voted to authorize force against Iraq because Mr. Bush promised he would only use that authority as a last resort after exhausting diplomatic avenues and even more weapons inspections. The resolution placed no such conditions on Mr. Bush, and he made no such assurances regarding his acquiescing to the tyrant any longer.

Hillary Clinton made the same claim, as well as insisting that President Bush duped her on the intelligence about weapons of mass destruction (WMD) — though she admitted she failed to even read the intelligence reports made available to senators. She has voted to fund the war no less than 10 times. Most of Congress was convinced that Saddam Hussein was a bloodthirsty, genocidal mass murderer and that he used his wealth to acquire dangerous weapons, and they were convinced that such savagery is not acceptable in our post-9/11 world. Many Democrats are on video claiming this. Congress crafted 23 formal causes for invasion of Iraq, only one of which was the prospect of WMD.

The director of central intelligence appointed by President Clinton, George Tenet, assured Bush in 2002 that Saddam having them was a “slam dunk case.” The events of 9/11 were the catalyst to see Iraq’s refusal to abide by U.N. resolutions in a clearer light. In 2002, senator Jay Rockefeller told the Senate, “There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years.” These remarks by Democrats are curious given the fact that Harry Reid called the Senate into secret session to discuss whether Bush administration officials had exaggerated pre-war intelligence about Iraq.

Those (including many of the above) who are now calling for withdrawal from Iraq have the moral responsibility to demonstrate that this would make the U.S. safer. They have not. They must show that slaughter of epic proportions would not directly follow. They have not. However acceptable these Democrats may find defeat, the consequences would be devastating. Our military is doing a tremendous job in Iraq, real progress is being made on many fronts, but today, just as then, it’s as if the media is trying to turn it into defeat.

Saddam Hussein’s capture was a swift and successful complex military operation considered by many to be the most efficient ever — and there is now a democratically elected government in this powerful Arab Muslim nation. When Operation Iraqi Freedom began, Allied troops were outnumbered nearly 3 to 1 by Saddam’s military, yet it took just three weeks to liberate Baghdad. Apparently Democrats found little positive about this historic development.

Granted the road that followed has been more difficult than expected. But at the same time just how barbaric Saddam had been was understated by the media: it was too risky to elaborate on the mass graves of dissidents, the thousands of Kurds gassed to death, the camps where he trained terrorists. Other Middle Eastern states are moving toward democracy as well. This will be seen as a major geopolitical change in a region characterized by despotism and instability. The United States and coalition are there to train, coach, and respond to crises as the new government learns by doing, sometimes by failure.

The day after Hussein was captured, Libya’s Col. Gadhafi informed U.S. diplomats he would terminate his nuclear weapons programs if the U.S. and Britain would lift the economic sanctions against him. Negotiations began immediately. Meanwhile political changes in Europe show that the anti-Bush, anti-America tide that the media likes to stress may be turning. The winners of the most recent major elections in France, Germany, and South Korea are decidedly pro-American and have reached out to form a more closer alliance with the U.S. on a number of fronts. And in Africa, President Bush has granted more humanitarian aid to fight disease and hunger than any other president in history.

So Mr. Iacocca lived through WWII and the Korean War. Well, this is the 21st century and we are now having to shore up a new kind of defense — one against fanatical terrorists and fanatical leaders of rogue regimes.

The terrorist attacks collectively sucked trillions of dollars out of the U.S. economy before Bush had eight months in the White House. Yet Bush’s tax cuts prevented an economic collapse in its wake. Unemployment has been low, and inflation has been kept in check, hovering at 20-year lows. Productivity is up, family wealth stands at a record $54 trillion plus, and real, after-tax income has grown 15% since 2001. The inflation-adjusted GDP averaged more than 3% (in the 2nd quarter of 2007). Bush’s tax cuts have also helped overcome other big blows, such as the Enron scandals, Hurricane Katrina, and the bursting of the dot com bubble.

Mr. Iacocca speaks often about President Bush’s other “failures,” such as his attempt to save Social Security and improve border protection. No word is mentioned about the fact that his predecessor made little attempt to accomplish either. Then again, nor is al Qaeda mentioned at all. President Bush bravely tried to sell the idea of having workers put some of their payroll taxes into personal investment accounts they would own and that would yield higher returns on their money and thereby build a larger nest egg than Social Security could. It was the House and Senate Democratic leaders who knifed Bush’s attempts in 2005, with their campaign claiming that the system was already in good shape and that stocks were too risky for the average American.

Liberals seem to have forgotten that President Clinton proposed letting the government invest some payroll taxes into the stock market in the belief that the higher returns could be used to finance future benefit checks. The idea of the government owning huge portions of the economy is socialism and would wreak havoc on the economy. Meanwhile, the Democratic presidential candidates who told voters that the system was just fine have said nary a word about it in their current campaigns, while the idea seems to be alive and well among their Republican counterparts. And Mr. Iacocca tries to lay the blame for Social Security being on “life support” on President Bush.

Mr. Bush was the first president in modern times to have the political courage (one of Iacocca’s ‘C’ words) to try to avert a storm of red ink in Social Security over the next generation. So the President likes to go to his ranch in Texas. It uses up a tiny fraction of the energy that Al Gore’s mansion does. And if you want to talk about a President’s extra-curricular activities to sell some books, might I suggest those of Bill Clinton’s might sell more.

If the “thumping” of 2006 “woke Bush up,” why is Iacocca still belly aching? This rant has no new ideas, at least none that would actually work — much like the current Democrat-led Congress that currently has an approval rating even lower than that of President Bush. Regarding their handling of the war, Congress currently has an approval rating of 3%. As this is being written, Senator Reid himself too has an approval rating lower than Bush.

In the months since their swearing in, the Democrat controlled Congress has: passed a budget that would raise our taxes more than ever before (which will cost the average American family more than $3,000 per year), tried to pass legislation to force conservative talk radio shows off the air (whilst Air America goes bankrupt), and have of course voted over and over to try and force a premature surrender in Iraq. The term “do-nothing” Congress seems to have left the vocabulary of Speaker Pelosi and Senator Reid since the Democrats took control. Meanwhile Senator Reid has no problem claiming that this “war is lost.” He claims that the new Iraqi government needs to work out their “political differences,” while stirring up political strife himself over here.

What happened to the courageous party of Harry S Truman? Truman was also a very unpopular president (with numbers even lower than Bush’s) during an equally unpopular war, and his reputation has been rehabilitated by the passage of time, and historians consider his presidency to be among the best. Another war president, Abraham Lincoln, was at one time hated by a full half of the population. So gas prices skyrocketed. Guess what, the President has little to do with that, no matter who it is. When the tide has turned, you don’t hear any of these belly achers thanking the Bush administration. You’d think that a big wig in the auto industry would know this. It’s just yet another red herring the Bush haters use to try to get people to back their cause.

I “can’t call myself a patriot if I’m not outraged?” Well Mr. Iacocca, maybe you could explain this. Islamic extremists kill Americans in cold blood, and there is no widespread outrage. Meanwhile, American soldiers play Britney Spears’ music for detainees and there are investigations. Iacocca may be outraged, but his outrage is directed at precisely the wrong direction. For all the vitriol he spews at President Bush, this rant does not even include the words “Islamist,” “terrorist/terrorism,” “extremist,” or “bin Laden.” Since Iacocca’s book was published, President’s Bush’s much critiqued troop surge in Iraq has seen important, undeniable successes, which many of the Democrats refuse to accept, particularly those invested in a defeat they could blame on Bush/Cheney. General Petraeus argued convincingly in September 2007 that we are making real progress there, that the downward spiral of violence has been turned around, and the battle against al Qaeda there is succeeding. The surge has driven the terrorists out of key provinces, while giving the Iraqis time to strengthen their own military. The Washington Post reported on Page 1 that American troops have dealt “devastating and perhaps irreversible blows to al Qaeda in Iraq.” On November 19 it editorialized, “By every metric used to measure the war — total attacks, U.S. casualties, Iraqi casualties, suicide bombings, roadside bombs — there has been an enormous improvement since January.”

A main problem with our efforts in Iraq is having lost the war at home. Most Americans go about their lives day to day without nearly the amount of sacrifice in earlier wars, yet we have too many armchair generals with their own agendas who want us to surrender. No Congressman challenged Dwight Eisenhower to set a timetable for redeployment from Europe during World War II. No one summoned him home to answer the type of questions Petraeus has in the midst of the Battle of the Bulge. No one summoned Admiral Nimitz after Iwo Jima to ask, “can you give us any idea as to how long it will take” to defeat Japan?

Meanwhile as 2007 came to an end, we saw that the federal budget deficit got smaller and is now only about 1 percent of GDP, which is much less than the average over the last half-century. The economy grew in every quarter of 2007 (4.9 percent in the last, averaging almost 3 percent annual growth since 2001), despite the subprime mortgage problem and energy prices, obstacles that would have derailed many global competitors. It’s easy for the Bush critics to try to discredit, disgrace and defame our president – that’s what they do. What’s not so easy for them to do is to refute irrefutable facts, no matter how they might try.

Erik is the creator of the long-running sites http://www.getaclu.org (as in the ACLU needs to get a clu), and http://www.nomorehoyer.org about the current House majority leader.

“Fascism is a radical totalitarian political philosophy that combines elements of corporatism, authoritarianism, extreme nationalism, militarism, anti-anarchism, anti-communism and anti-liberalism.”

This seems to me to be a pretty darn good definition of what our current administration has done to this country in the wake of and name of 911. However, it seems to this administration, the best defense is a good offense and a whole bunch of projection to boot.

“Fascism is associated by many scholars with one or more of the following characteristics: a very high degree of nationalism, economic corporatism, a powerful, dictatorial leader who portrays the nation, state or collective as superior to the individuals or groups composing it.” Wikepedia “Facism”

That seems pretty darn accurate too, in describing how it feels to live in America today.

“Fascism New Buzz Word Among Republicans
By TOM RAUM
AP
WASHINGTON (Aug. 30) – President Bush in recent days has recast the global war on terror into a “war against Islamic fascism.” Fascism, in fact, seems to be the new buzz word for Republicans in an election season dominated by an unpopular war in Iraq.

Bush used the term earlier this month in talking about the arrest of suspected terrorists in Britain, and spoke of ‘Islamic fascists’ in a later speech in Green Bay, Wis. Spokesman Tony Snow has used variations on the phrase at White House press briefings.

Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., in a tough re-election fight, drew parallels on Monday between World War II and the current war against ‘Islamic fascism,’ saying they both require fighting a common foe in multiple countries. It’s a phrase Santorum has been using for months.

And Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld on Tuesday took it a step further in a speech to an American Legion convention in Salt Lake City, accusing critics of the administration’s Iraq and anti-terrorism policies of trying to appease ‘a new type of fascism.’”

So according to this, we now are fighting not just terrorists, but “Islamic radical totalitarian political philosophy that combines elements of corporatism, authoritarianism, extreme nationalism, militarism, anti-anarchism, anti-communism and anti-liberalism.” Hmmm, when was the last time the world was threatened by Islamic Corporate greed and the religious leaders just also happened to be the leaders of multinational corporations that were sucking the life blood out of the economy and the individual? This definition of Islamic Fascism sounds an awful lot like a very good definition of America under the Republican party agenda as played out over the past five years to all our harm. Aren’t these the guys who used to run for less government and responsible spending? No, we are not one bit better off today than we were five years ago…a whole lot worse with heartache over the loss of where the soul of America went.

Let’s see, we have a President that said he didn’t mind dictators as long as “I am the dicatator.” You see I have this gut feeling that when people say funny things like that, it’s really not so funny and their subconscious mind is running the show. That has to be a form of a radical totalitarian political philosophy. He is definately “the decider,” so that qualifies for the same. I’d think that letting most corporations off one hook or the other over the past five years, along with giving the few chosen ones that personally benefit many in the current administration all the contracts from Iraq, to Afghanistan and New Orleans, might qualify for corporatism. And aren’t all the real leaders in this administration the once heads of really big corporations? And am I wrong, or are these not men that were ever prone to the draft, war or military service of any kind, but know how to make war against the planet? And wasn’t it just yesterday that Don Rumsfeld intimated that to speak out agains the war or the President was a kind of disloyalty and almost siding with the terrorists themselves? Sounds like extreme nationalism and anti-anarchism to me. I don’t know. I wasn’t all that political until about five years ago so I might be misunderstanding. I used to pray just for the Kingdom of God to come but now it’s more “God save me from your followers!” Well to me anyway, but I don’t really know much.

And then there is this thing we call projection. That’s where one tends to label others the very things that they fear they might be involved in themselves. It’s like a minister railing on the adulterers in the congregation, only to find out later, he was, well you know. He laid on them his own shortcomings and sins. I have seen ministers rant and rave against homosexuals and “queers”, only to find out, well you know.. So when George Bush Sr. calls Sadaam the “new hitler,” it makes me wonder. When George Bush Jr does the same or throws that at the current leadership in Iran, it makes me feel that there is some projection going on here. Maybe it’s just me. What do I know?

In this administration it seems that peace is just around the corner when it isn’t. Help is just around the corner, when it isn’t. Victory is just around the corner when it isn’t. Hostilities have ceased, when they have only just begun and “they hate our freedom,” when I think sometimes He hates our freedom and the people of Islam really just want to be left alone and not be taken advantage of. And of course, staying the course is a bit like digging a grave these days. Just keep at it long enough and you’ll never be able to climb out of the pit you have dug. You can take credit for “staying the course,” but of course, you’ll never see the light of day again.

Continuing in the article, “Stephen J. Wayne, a professor of government at Georgetown University, suggested White House strategists “probably had a focus group and they found the word `fascist.’

“Most people are against fascists of whatever form. By definition, fascists are bad. If you’re going to demonize, you might as well use the toughest words you can,” Wayne said.

After all, the hard-line Iranian newspaper Jomhuri Eskami did just that in an editorial last week blasting Bush’s “Islamic fascism” phrase. It called Bush a “21st century Hitler” and British Prime Minister Tony Blair a “21st century Mussolini.”

See what I mean, projection again! I think someone got tired of being called “fascist” so they decided to just turn it all around and accuse everyone else of the very thing that seems to be unfolding in our own country since 911.

Oh well, what do I know. I’m just the average American watching this show, paying the price, agonizing over the losses. Let’s face it…it was not “WE” the American people who blew it when the world stood with us after 911, it is “THEM”, the administration that blew it. Of course, if there is an agenda the “WE” get left out of knowing about, then “THEY” did what they really intended to do in the first place. Shhhhhhhhh, they are listening.

I think if you don’t want your own people to suspect that one has turned our beloved country into a fascist regine of sorts, you accuse everyone else of being that and call them names like Hitler, when down deep you might suspect you yourself are acting out that role. The public does not seem to know much about nor care about the concept of Presidential Signing Statements, and I didn’t know the President could sign something into law, and then, behind the scenes, sign something else that said it didn’t apply to him if so chose. Wow, that’s amazing. Sounds Nazi-like to me.

I don’t know. I scare myself sometimes seeing what I see. All my friends see it too. I live in the Republican State of South Carolina and it’s a lot easier to speak up now than it was just two years ago. I imagine the Internet drives those who have less than our best interest in mind nuts.

I even have 01-20-09 on the back window of my car now. It’s my open secret code that I enjoy watching the people behind me in traffic try to figure out. I can always tell when they get it. They smile. I never would have done it had I not noticed that “Fascism, a radical totalitarian political philosophy that combines elements of corporatism, authoritarianism, extreme nationalism, militarism, anti-anarchism, anti-communism and anti-liberalism.” had seemingly takine over my beloved country in the past ten years and really had more to do with what was going on at home than anywhere else. Sheesh…that’s a darn good definition of most fundamentalist churches too!

Where were you on that horrible day, September 11th, 2001? As for me, I will never forget. I was driving to meet with a high-powered business man in my community. I couldn’t believe my ears as I pulled my car into his parking lot, listening with shock to my radio. Only one plane had struck at that time. I ran inside, straight to his office and told him what I’d just heard. He had no idea but quickly commanded all radios be tuned to a particular radio station. We sat listening quietly as the radios echoed throughout the building, the only sound one could hear. The phones weren’t ringing as they normally would have been. At one point, the business man looked at me and said, “This is worse than Pearl Harbor.” After nearly an hour, I suggested we resume our meeting at another date. He agreed. Before I left, I commented that I felt like I needed to go home and pray. He smiled and said, “Not me. I had enough of that hellfire and damnation stuff when I was a kid.”

As I pulled into my apartment parking lot, a young lady backed her black pick-up truck squarely into the grill of my beat-up car for which I’d paid $500. She jumped out, crying, “I’m sorry…it’s just this stuff going on in New York…!” I told her not to worry about it and that God was still in control. She thanked me, smiled and got back in her truck.

Once inside, I turned on my computer to check the latest news. I received an Instant message from an 11-year old girl. She was at home, sick, and heard the news. She was afraid. I dialogued with her for a while before I reminded her to pray as I was about to do. She was glad I was there. So was I.

The events of that day were a horrible kind of East meets West situation. An attack on our own soil was a terrible and shocking experience for Americans but it’s something that other parts of the world are all too familiar with. When the nations of the world reached out to us in sympathy, some also sent us this message: “Now you understand what we’ve been going through.” We can be thankful for a strange gift we received that day: a new kind of bridge to the other nations of the world. Whether it’s a family reunion at the expense of a loved-one’s funeral, a tornado at a mobile home park or a terrorist attack, why must it take a disaster to pull us together and perhaps even push us in spiritual directions? We don’t know why it works that way, but we know that 9/11 didn’t just happen to those on the airplanes, or in New York and Washington, D.C. It impacted the world.

What man intends for evil, God will use for good. Jesus’ death on the cross for the good of all mankind is the greatest example of that.

The Holy Bible directs us to “Give thanks at all time.” On the 6th Anniversary of the horrible attack on America, let’s all give thanks.

LET’S PRAY TOGETHER…

Father God, we give thanks to you for choosing to allow us to be born in this great nation. We had no choice in that. Thank you for allowing us to see ourselves as stewards of this privilege. From those who are given much, much is required.

Thank you for giving us the grace to love our enemies as Jesus taught us. “Love your enemies and do good to those who mistreat you,” He said. By so doing, we become a little more like Christ. Thank you for that.

We thank you for dealing with each of us individually, and helping us to remember to pray for those who hate this nation….and for those who hate us personally. Thank you for giving us the grace to forgive those as Jesus forgave our sins at the cross. Help us to take up that cross and follow His example.

Regardless of our political party or our personal sentiments regarding the war on terrorism, thank you, Father, for reminding us to pray for our President and all those in authority over us, just as Jesus commanded. We pray that you give them wisdom in liberal amounts as they guide this nation and our troops. We pray that they learn to seek and trust YOU in all their decisions. Thank you for reminding us to pray for our troops, not merely declaring that were are or reminding others to do so. We pray that they will be used, not as conquerors or crusaders but as compassionate Christ-bearers. May every nation who is not serving Christ become seekers of Christ once the dust of war has settled.

Thank you that, despite so many of our people dying and being wounded in the Middle East, the numbers could be so much worse and aren’t nearly as bad as they are here in peaceful America where some of the war’s first casualties took place from among the ranks of Fire Fighters and police Officers. Thank you for those who live in Iraq and Afghanistan who are glad we are there…glad enough to become informants, warning our troops as to the whereabouts of roadside bombs and the hiding places of our enemies, and taking up arms alongside our military forces. Thank you for giving the Iraqis the freedom they desire, just as you gave that freedom to our forefathers who fought and won our own war of independence along with the help of other nations. Thank you for allowing the Iraqi people to one day experience the ultimate freedom – the freedom that can be theirs only through Jesus Christ.

Father, on this anniversary of the tragic September 11th terrorist bombing of the World Trade Center, while many of the wounds have healed, many have not. Thank you for your Word which states, “If my people who are called by Name will humble themselves, pray, seek My face and turn from their wicked ways, THEN you will hear from Heaven, forgive their sins and heal their land.” Father, we need your help. We have become too proud to humble ourselves and, therefore, require humbling. We are too independent a people to spend much time praying; Lord, make us a prayerful people. We don’t seek your face through relationship with you, but rarely hesitate to seek your hand of blessing and protection. May we have relationship with You, our God, and not settle for mere religious activities? Help our nation to receive its Savior and the forgiveness He gained for us at the Cross. Heal our land, Father, not only so that we may be healed, but so that we, as a people, will become healers of the nations through Jesus Christ.

Lord, many families are still mourning, some are fearing for family members who are fighting overseas. Thank you for comforting them, Father. Security has visibly increased in many places and, every day, we experience the effects of terrorism. Officials are saying that it will be a long war and we, as Americans, are accustomed to getting things done quickly. Thank you for maturing us through this war, causing us to grow in grace and in our knowledge of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. Father, help us to resist the urge to harbor animosity toward Muslimpeople. Thank you for reminding us that Jesus died for them, too. We pray for their salvation along with anyone else’s for whom we pray.

We ask all of this in Jesus’ precious Name.

Amen.

AN EXERCISE IN HEALING:

Imagine, if you will, the back side of a completed jigsaw puzzle as seen from the underside of a glass table. What do you see? Brown, odd-shaped pieces of cardboard, right? Nothing much to look at. But as you rise from beneath that glass table, you see the front side – the beautiful side – of that jigsaw puzzle. Whether it’s a beautiful autumn woods scene, or a field of flowers, maybe even a beach scene with a lighthouse and seagulls, point is, there’s another side to the puzzle; A beautiful side.

If events such as 911 puzzle you, the only way we can even begin to rejoice is by knowing in our hearts, by faith, that there is surely a beautiful side to this puzzling situation. From Heaven’s perspective, there IS!

Let us no longer dwell upon what happened on that terrible morning 6 years ago. Instead, let’s focus on the good and turn toward the light. Let’s look in our collective “mirror,” and think about three specific things: Healing, Hope, and Community.

How is our shared experience of 9/11 affecting the way we as a nation – as Christians – experience those three things today?

How has it affected our attitudes toward Healing?

How has it impacted our feelings regarding Hope?

How has it changed our Communities for the better? (Faith communities, families, neighborhoods, civic groups, etc. – anywhere people gather together).

Every blessing,
Michael Tummillo
A servant of God
http://www.YouTown4Jesus.com
team1min@our-town.com

ABOUT THE AUTHOR
His mission is to bring Discipleship and Encouragement to the Body of Christ. Since ‘99, he has broadcast nearly 700 inspirational articles to his online subscribers and a dozen booklets on subjects sure to interest the thinking Christian and accelerate the process of spiritual development. He is the founder of t.e.a.m. ministries. An Author, Pastoral Counselor and Teacher, his eMail broadcasts, known as “Your Town for Jesus” are read around the globe. Subscribe at team1min@our-town.com

Outsourcing is emerging as one of the core strategies by ventures worldwide, with an eye on carving a niche in the competitive markets. It is tax working on a mutual terms according to the contracts signed between companies or individuals to increase the profit base while minimizing the costs. When it comes to accounting business finance outsourcing process, it encompasses accounting functions like payroll, billing and data entry. While some organizations outsource only major services, others prefer to outsource complete operations, including all important taxes technology and business process outsourcing. The crucial accounting projects involve hiring the service providers which might be both internal and external to complete them within the given deadlines. Here, the contracts signed can involve hundreds or millions of dollars yet there are certain disadvantages as well.

Accounting processes are basically utilized in the financial management. Financial information is processed in these functions and monetary allocations raised are used over a period of time. Organizations nowadays, hire the accounting business finance outsourcing personnel for the same and also in procuring cash amounts owned to it by the customers. Widely termed as factoring, it has gained immense popularity over the years and in this process a company is able to eliminate the waiting period ranging between a month to a quarter. The procedure is further accentuated by sending invoices or bills directly to the clients but comes with a warning though. Accounting business finance outsourcing with the help of factoring procedure can prove to be a useful tool allowing a company to focus its attention to core functions of business development.

The concept of factoring is further explained by a manufacturing company if it is selling cell phones to a large retailer. After the delivery of said stuff, an invoice is sent to the retailer through the factoring tax for payment of the amount. The contract terms and the face value of an invoice require a discount fee which is paid to the manufacturer by the factoring firm. An organization has the advantage of procuring immediate cash through accounting business finance outsourcing process which further helps in meeting the demand supply chain on time. In this case, a retailer pays the factor when the bill is about to be paid to manufacturer. India in this case, is the best outsourcing option for business establishments as far as the beneficial aspects of accounting are concerned. Accounting business finance outsourcing services hired from here fit in perfectly with the demands of any business organization. The standards of work are benchmarks in themselves and the charges are quite compatible with the requirements of a client.

A word of caution should be heeded in this case because of the existence of fraudulent practices in this field. But, this can be avoided with the help of internet which helps in a proper research and checking of the backgrounds before entirely relying on the services of the outsourcing firm. One of the main objectives of accounting business finance outsourcing process is the value creation and organizations worldwide, outsource their finance and accounting functions. India being on the radar of outsourcing services comes top on their factoring list. One of the most popular functions of these services is payroll followed by tax compliance and planning whereby the CEO’s and CFO’s come forward as chief decision makers.

Michelle Barkley is a CPA who advises people on tax preparation and tax calculation. She specializes in bookkeeping outsourcing and outsourced accounting. To know more about Finance Accounting Outsourcing, Bookkeeping Outsourcing, Tax Returns, Accounting Business Finance Outsourcing and Accounting outsourcing services visit http://www.ifrworld.com

The current U.S. Welfare system needs to have a complete overhaul, not only to provide better programs for those who really need it, but to help close some of the loopholes currently ravaging the program. Some people, like Stephanie and her friend Maria, who currently work at the Columbus Port International Airport, have a familiar scheme they use to cheat the system.

Stephanie and Maria work as customer service representatives for an airline, where they make $9 an hour. They both work full-time and put in lots of overtime hours, but since each has three kids, according to their household income, they are qualified to receive welfare assistance for as long as they earn a certain salary amount per month which is below the poverty level. Therefore, each month, they report to the welfare office that they only work part-time. They don’t tell the exact number of hours they each have worked, and welfare equates their hours with cash assistance to make up what they didn’t earn at work. In doing so, they keep getting money from the welfare office plus their real monthly earnings.

Other examples of those who might be exploiting the welfare system are the cases of Angela, Jackie, John, and Helen.

Jackie is a 45 year old woman, who has two grown daughters. Her husband passed away when the kids were 19 and 17. She lives in a nice apartment in a Section 8 division where she doesn’t pay any rent. She never graduated from high school and only has had a few odd jobs on and off, in her whole life. If you go in her apartment, you will not think that she is a welfare recipient, because she has a large TV screen, DVDs for almost every movie ever released, and she smokes about two packs of cigarettes every day. Jackie is completely healthy and is capable of finding and having gainful employment, but because she chose not to, she doesn’t have to work because she relies on her welfare benefits.

Helen is a 29 year old young lady and has 6 kids. Her oldest daughter is 13 years old and each child has a different father. Helen doesn’t have to work and she probably never will, because she receives welfare. For each child, she receives a certain amount of money each month, and she too lives in section 8 housing where she doesn’t have to pay rent.

John is 52 years old and has 5 kids. Each of his children live with their different mothers. For years, he has been in and out of jail for selling drugs, and now lives with his girlfriend in a one-bedroom apartment in section 8 housing, where they don’t have to pay rent for as long as they have no income. His girlfriend works, but she gets paid under the table and she doesn’t have to file her federal income tax, because of fear of losing their welfare benefits. John still sells drugs, and they have three different cars, except not one car is in their names, but in his brother’s name and his oldest daughter’s name.

Angela is a 46 year old lady, who has been legally deaf since she was in the 8th grade. She doesn’t have to work, never has, and probably never will, because she is legally disabled and therefore she receives federal welfare, which are housing, food and money each month.

As portrayed in the above examples, the current welfare system does not have the needed tools in place to help forcefully combat welfare fraud. It also handicaps and makes people to become lazy, because the longer they stay on welfare and don’t have to work, then the more they lose the will to ever look for a job. In addition, they may even forget any work they might have done when they were employed. These are the people who could be out there working, helping to contribute to the national economy, but they simply chose not to work and live off of welfare without having to ever worry about working and paying for rent, utilities and food.

America is the richest country on earth with the largest economy. The American government is well known around the world for taking good care of its own people, in terms of social welfare and socio-economic empowerment.

Most Americans, even those who are on welfare or live below the poverty level are still far better off compared to those in many other countries. However, in continuing to provide unrestricted welfare to some citizens, the government has been handicapping some of the welfare recipients by continuing to provide them with all their necessities without ever trying to help them improve their skills in order to find jobs in the future.

In achieving these goals of caring for its people, the U.S. federal government has instituted many programs designed to implement policies to achieve the highest well-being for every legal resident. The U.S. Welfare system is one of the best social programs in the U.S. designed to provide the necessities for those who are unable to work and have income to support their well-being.

The U.S. Social Welfare system was first introduced after the Great Depression in the 1930’s. The U.S. Social Security Administration website states that beginning in 1932, the Federal Government first made loans, then grants, to States to pay for direct relief and work relief. After that, special Federal emergency relief and public works programs were started. In 1935, President Franklin D. Roosevelt proposed to Congress economic security legislation embodying the recommendations of a specially created Committee on Economic Security. There followed the passage of the Social Security Act, signed into law August 14, 1935.

The current Welfare program provides necessary food coupons, known as food stamps, and housing assistance, known as Section 8 programs, for low income families and those who are unable to earn a living because of health related issues, as well as monthly cash stipend to some recipients.

Because of the current welfare system which most observers believe has loopholes, there have been talks about reforming the welfare system for many years. In 1997 President Clinton took the initial step in reforming the welfare system with his initiatives of a Welfare-to-Work program. The Welfare-to-Work program was specifically designed to help provide welfare recipients with the needed recourses, training and skills, so that they may get jobs in the future and not continue to solely rely on the federal welfare system. In doing so, the program will help more welfare recipients to return to the workforce.

According to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, the Welfare-to-Work program was tasked to encourage states to provide certain logistical support such as funding for transportation, vocational training, child care, and substance abuse treatment assistance for welfare recipients. However, many states have complained that they could not meet some of the requirements such as providing transportation and child care. Due to logistical and political reasons, the program abruptly ended in September 2004.

Some applauded the program while many thought that the program was designed to force people to work. In 2003, O’Neil of the New York Post wrote that politicians from both left and right perceive the Welfare to Work program as a success beyond expectations, but yet the program is nonetheless under political siege that requires it to reauthorize its basic component and it is now a year overdue and seems like it may never pass through Capitol Hill politics. In this article, O’Neil simply characterizes how some politicians from both left and right may say one thing, just to score some political points for future re-election purposes, but fail to fulfill their obligations and do the opposite.

President Clinton’s goal and purpose were to reform the Welfare system in order to better serve its purpose. He reinforced his rigorous commitment to provide welfare recipients with opportunities of attaining educational training and development that further help improve their knowledge and necessary skills in finding better paying jobs in the future and that help rid them from continually receiving welfare assistance.

However, when Bush came in the office in 2000, he had his own agendas such as the No Child Left Behind program, but not to make sure that the Welfare-to-Work program survives the political hurdle. It was also just a few months of him in office when the U.S. was hit by the act of terrorism in September 2001, and thereafter the War on Terror in Afghanistan and Iraq followed in October 2001 and March 2003 respectively.

Thus, maintaining and continuing to fund certain programs such as the Welfare-to-Work program might not have been a priority for the U.S. government during these years of war on terror and the recession. The U.S. economy has been slowing down since the early part of 2000, and up to now, in the year 2008, the economy has really never recovered to the point where the government may want to include certain programs such as the Welfare-to-Work system in its monstrous budget to fight and combat terrorism.

The Welfare-to-Work program was designed to be a solution to the welfare system and to provide constructive benefits to the recipients. However, President Clinton’s plan collapsed because he and his advisors failed to study it more on how to make it work better, given its complex task and States’ requirement. An addition to the cause of its collapse, the House was mostly controlled by the Republican lawmakers who severely opposed and voted against most of President Clinton’s proposals.

Thus not having provided all the needed tools, recourses and funding might have helped to contribute to the collapse of the program. If it was well studied and developed, then it could have lasted for a long time to help provide better incentives to help some people and families from solely relying on the federal government welfare subsidies.

In the article “Welfare-to-Work Transition” by Jacqueline J. Kirby, which appeared in The Ohio State University’s Human Development and Family Life Bulletin, she describes the history and the after effects of the Welfare to Work program and used data and information from various sources to compare her argument such as the concern related to the inadequate federal regulations mandating matches in state funding, the lack of specific eligibility requirement for each state around the country, and no stated guidelines and specific requirements about how or where the money will be spent in each state. She depicts a program, which was implemented for a good intention but lack proper execution.

There are a few federal programs that are well-managed and strictly designed to make it hard or almost impossible for anyone to cheat or take advantages of them. Programs such as the educational Pell grant and some states have programs such as unemployment benefits, which have some of the best controlling programs designed to measure and check qualifications for anyone who may apply for either.

The educational Pell grant has two prominent and strict rules – felony and time cap for completing the first undergraduate degree. Under these rules, when someone applies for the federal financial aid, in order to qualify for the Pell grant, the applicant must not have a drug felony on his or her record and must graduate for the first undergraduate degree within eight years. If one applies for the financial aid and has a drug felony on his or her record, then that applicant will not be qualified to receive Pell grant for his or her education. Also, if the financial aid recipient does not graduate with his or her first undergraduate degree within eight years, then after eight years, he or she will not be eligible to receive a Pell grant.

For unemployment, when someone has been laid off work for any reason other than quitting or resigning, when that person applies to claim unemployment benefits for every week, then he or she must provide complete details of him or her looking for work for each week claimed. If he or she fails to look for a job, then he or she is not eligible to claim unemployment for that week or any other weeks he or she has not looked for a job.

These two programs work fine and they have tools and resources in place that help prevent fraud and make it hard for anyone to continually receive the benefits. They encourage their recipients to make sure that they must follow and abide by their strict rules in order to be eligible for their benefits. However, the current welfare system does not have a limit of how long someone can continue to receive welfare benefits.

In some European countries such as Denmark, the government provides their citizens with government income subsidies, but they have an incentive program that encourages the citizens to work or do anything that may generate income for their households. In the U.S., it is different. For as long as one is unemployed and has a reasonable excuse to convince welfare officials, then he or she can perfectly and safely have access to government sponsored (section eight) housing without ever having to worry about paying rent.

Therefore, if the Welfare-to-Work program is reformed to equally and efficiently serve the needs of both the federal government, the states, and the welfare recipients, then it will help more welfare recipients to find jobs, which in turn will help them to become productive and that will help increase the GDP. A portion of the money spent in the program can be used towards other social programs.

Reforming the Welfare system has been a subject that has been discussed by many pundits over the years, but putting it into action yields little. Even our current presidential candidates, McCain, Clinton, and Obama rarely talk about it. But it is one of many issues that need immediate attention.

It poses no fair compliment to those who get up each morning going to work, just to help fund the welfare system for those who simply chose not to work, because they just do not want to work for as long as the welfare system finances their well-being.

In an article titled “Reforming welfare with work” Gueron decries how our country has been debating the question of how well to redesign the welfare system, especially the federally supported welfare Aid for Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program, which is equipped and is tasked to provide them with cash assistance for single-female-parent households. Gueron questions whether the welfare program should be continued with focus on providing broad assistance or it should simply become a “reciprocal obligations” program, whereby recipients must be required to find work within a given time period.

There are many Jackies, Johns, and Helens in most neighborhoods around the U.S. Let’s reform the Welfare system in order to help rehabilitate and empower them, give them the necessary training and skills and put them to work in order for us to further strengthen our economy.

Work Cited

Welfare-to-Work (1996, June). U.S. Office of Personnel Management. Retrieved Wednesday, April 9, 2008, from http://www.opm.gov/wtw/index.htm.

O’Neill, J. (2003, April 14). Welfare Reform Works. New York Post, pp.A11, A14.

Kirby, J. J. (1995). Welfare-to-Work Transition. The Ohio State University’s Human Development and Family Life Bulletin, Volume 1, Issue 4, Winter 1995. Retrieved Wednesday, April 9, 2008, from http://fcs.osu.edu/hdfs/bulletin/volume.1/bull14a.htm.

Gueron, J. M. (1987). Reforming welfare with work. New York: Ford Foundation.

Simon Kapenda Blog at http://princesimon.wordpress.com and his company is RentersQ at http://www.rentersq.com