The Son Of the Rock Report

The Son Of Rock Report ©
Or “And The Grasshopper Shall Inherit The Earth.”

CORRECTING MISCONCEPTIONS ON THE ROCK REPORT.

Some people read from the original rock report a sense of ill will against those who receive money from social programs. That is a mistake on their part because I did not write any ill will into the report. The references to parasitism represent a view point that I believe to be accurate and one that few people examine while debating politics. Please review the dictionary excerpts in appendix 1 of this report. (Sorry but sometimes the truth can be painful.)

The many references to money in the Rock Report may cause some to judge my views as greedy. Do I want to keep the money I earn? You are (@#$%) right I do.
However, that is not what the report is about. It’s about a simple case of right and wrong and what social legislation does to those who pay for such programs. Any argument on the redistribution of wealth is going to be filled with the word “money” because the redistribution of wealth concerns nothing else. (Always has, always will.)

While debating the report it was suggested that since I make a good wage I should not begrudge my tax dollars that go to welfare programs. I must presume that each April 15th. When I have paid that amount prescribed by law to support some other person. (that person being unwilling to support him or herself.) I am supposed to cheerfully say, “That’s all right; I make lots of money."
Assuming the same logic, if a thief (somebody who also prefers the earnings of others rather than their own), grabs my wallet and makes a run for it. Am I supposed to yell after him, “That’s all right, I make lots of money”? Is not the pick pocket’s need as great as that of the welfare recipient? Therefore does he not have an equal moral right to the money that I earn?
Are they not similar kinds of people both taking money that I supposedly do not need and can afford to lose? Somebody needs to explain to me why one such person is prosecuted by the law and the other supported by it. Perhaps we should make the crime of picking your pocket a social program just to be fair. OOPS! My mistake. I guess we already have. (sorry folks but sometimes the truth can be painful.)
Just out of curiosity.
If somebody grabbed your wallet and dashed away, what quaint phrase might you yell after him?

BRINGING BACK ROBIN HOOD.
In more than one political discussion the legend of Robin Hood has been raised to support the argument for social programs. A “robbing from the rich and giving to the poor” kind of thing. I have no doubt the many socialist proponents view themselves as Robin Hood like heroes. But perhaps we should take a closer look at the legend.
The poor in feudal England are defined as:
The working class, in fact they had to work for everything they had.
Just like me.
The people who paid the taxes to maintain the life of those who did not pay taxes.
Just like me.
The people who had no say in where their tax money goes.
Just like me. OOPS my mistake; I do have my right to vote. As do you.
Now the rich in feudal England.
Did not have to work, they received their wealth from taxation.
Just like those on welfare, only worse.
They did not need to pay taxes, they were the reason for taxation.
Not much has changed, has it?
Their property was granted them from the government.
Sounds like a medieval HUD program.
One of the their primary responsibilities was to defend the monarchy.
Just as the welfare class did in the November election.
(How many of those on welfare supported any candidate who had campaigned on welfare reform?)

When one looks closely at the legend of Robin Hood you find he was not fighting poverty; he was fighting oppressive taxation. So if you want to bring back Robin Hood by all means do so. The taxpayers of this country need all the help we can get.
::::::DISCLAIMER:::::: THE NEXT SECTION CAN EASILY BE MISCONSTRUED AS DESCRIBING YET ANOTHER GOVERNMENT CONSPIRACY. THIS IS NOT THE CASE. WHAT I WILL DESCRIBE IS JUST THE WAY THINGS WORK. THE ONLY CONSPIRACY INVOLVED IS THAT PERPETRATED PASSIVELY BY THE AMERICAN VOTER. AFTER ALL, WE VOTED THESE PROGRAMS IN.

A MATTER OF PRIORITIES
In creating the welfare state if you find two issues or philosophical concepts that can not coexist, you have to set your priorities and choose which of the two you want. We as a society have made those choices. And since we have made the welfare state preeminent all previous priorities must be rescinded. Those priorities we have given up in favor of socialist programs are:

1. INTEGRITY.
What man of high integrity would deem himself so morally superior as to decide how you or I should spend the money that we earn.
What man of modest integrity would go on welfare despite his need?
It’s ironic that people like that who are the most deserving of help would likely refuse to take it.

What man of modest integrity would, after publicly supporting social programs turn around on April 15 and search for every possible tax write off or loop hole.
i.e. if you support these programs would you not want to pay more taxes not less.
Such a person can claim that he paid his share but only after making that share as small as possible.
What woman of integrity uses her pregnancy as a means of increasing her welfare payments.
No, the welfare state and integrity are not compatible. One must go, and we have made our choice.
And all previous priorities have been rescinded.

2. HONESTY.
While standing in a market check out line , you observe that the man in front of you uses money for the liquor he is buying and then uses food stamps to pay for the rest of his groceries. If he has money for liquor why does he need food stamps? Do you think you have found an honest man?
When those on welfare claim it as their constitutional right, have you found honesty there?
If at the slightest hint of reducing welfare, people start warning and threatening that riots will occur. In other words their saying “ give us money or we will commit a crime “. Is this not the definition of “extortion “?
Would this be how you define honesty?
When high paid proponents of socialism claim the average recipient only spends two years on welfare?
Do you believe it? Come on; get real.
Honesty does not work in the welfare states because the entire socialist concept is based on lies.
All previous priorities have been rescinded.

I saw an excellent example of the big lie recently on the news. A woman in some state was complaining about welfare cuts. She stated that she needs her welfare money to be independent.
So in order to be independent she wishes to be totally dependent on the tax payers.
Am I the only one who sees a staggering contradiction here?
This woman is not clear on the concept.

3. HONOR.
What man of honor if forced by circumstance to go on welfare would not loathe being on it and work as hard as possible to return to self reliance ?
What man of honor would want his neighbor to pay for the mistakes that he himself has made in his life?
Sorry you cannot afford honor either.
All previous priorities have been rescinded.

4. RESPONSIBILITY.
The welfare state does not understand the concept.
Correction: the welfare state does know what responsibility means providing it is used in association with the phrase “paying for welfare”. As in “paying for welfare is your responsibility”.
All previous priorities are rescinded. Or in the case of personal Responsibility, to be avoided at all cost.

And yet what man having any of these virtues would not freely support local charities in his community if in his opinion those charities were properly run and not just throwing out cash as the current socialist system does?

5. THE AMERICAN PERSONA.
Few Americans would want the concept of parasitism to be an attribute which defines us as Americans. If one supports the welfare state then the American persona must be replaced. The only question would be replaced with what? Perhaps multi- culturalism might work? Or maybe it won’t.
All previous priorities have been rescinded.

6. EDUCATION.
Once you have created the welfare state, education must be suppressed . Since you will always need new subjects in order to feed the welfare machine and keep it growing. Education is the key to avoiding going on welfare and that must not be allowed.
In contemporary times the ballots in California elections have contained what are known as “Bond Initiatives” concerning the public school system.
The fact that such legislation must be presented to the voter directly would suggest that the California state legislators are not maintaining the school system to their constituents satisfaction. And those legislators must be bypassed via the electoral initiative procedure. The fact that these issues appear as I stated as “bond initiatives” means that the state needs to borrow money to improve the school system.

There are never bond initiatives in California ballots concerning increases to welfare. None are required. The state legislature always has cash on hand for social legislation. Their priorities are set.
The most important priority is rescinded.

Community colleges in California have long been a poor mans way to seek higher education for himself or his children. They are now forced to charge an ever increasing tuition to stay open. This slowly forces those on limited incomes (yes even those on welfare) to halt their pursuit for an improved life and greater job potentials.
Again we have set our priorities.
And all previous priorities have been rescinded.

7. JUSTICE.
Find a man who considers himself a just man and ask him.
If it is not a crime for people to take absolutely no responsibility for themselves or their family.
... And yet it is a very serious crime for a tax payer to refuse to take responsibility for that person or that person’s family.
( the crime is tax evasion. Refusing to pay that percentage of your tax that goes to welfare. )
Then how do you define justice?

Just as in education the criminal justice system in California goes ignored by the state senate and assemble as an example I offer Calif. Prop 205 from the 1996 November election ballot description.

California Election Proposition 205 November 1996
Youthful And Adult Offender Local Facilities Bond Act Of 1996.
This act provides for a bond issue of seven hundred million dollars ($700,000,000) to provide funds for the construction, renovation, remolding and replacement of local juvenile and adult correctional facilities. Fiscal impact: General fund cost of $1.25 billion to repay principle and interest, With annual payments averaging $50 million for 25 years. Unknown costs, potentially millions of dollars annually, to counties to operate new facilities.

( sure, let’s buy a $700 million prison and then pay $1.25 billion for it... sound like a good deal to you ?)

Again, as in education, the voters were required to bypass the negligent legislature and again we have to borrow for it. Notice that when we do borrow it nearly doubles the final price from the $700 million to $1.25 billion in prison improvements. Does anybody wonder why California prisons have revolving doors?
The welfare state and the concept of justice are not compatible
And all previous priorities have been rescinded.

8. THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE.
An initiative to halt social programs to illegal aliens in California having been approved by the voters of California has since been overturned by the state courts. The priorities of the California state judiciary are clear.
And all previous priorities have been rescinded.

It is not my assertion that those on welfare have lost these virtues. I am saying that these virtues can not and do not exist as a norm in our society as a result of the socialist legislation of the past thirty to forty years.
As an example for my assertion I offer the history of the Union Of Soviet Socialists Republic. OOP’s sorry I mean the former Union Of Soviet Socialists Republic. Big success story there, eh? And what a pillar of virtues they were.

Currently there is an on going debate about the effects of television on our society but surely the effects of legislation on our society far surpass any other influence. And yet this influence goes ignored.
When legislation creates a percentage of the population who receive free income? The rest may begin to ask “Gee how can I get my share?”
After all, what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. The moral precedent is set. It is acceptable for anyone to get free money by what ever means necessary. By fraud, theft, or joining the welfare roll them selves.
( Sorry; I did Not mean to be redundant. )
Once the precedent is established it will grow and continue to grow. This will be an inevitable path when honesty integrity and self reliance are punished by taxation while deceit, sloth and total lack of responsibility are rewarded with a welfare check.
Of Coarse... We Could vote to Stop It, if all of us voted.
It is my perception that the welfare state started to balloon in the mid 1960’s and also that what has been called the moral decay of our society began at about the same time. If that perception is correct, was it just coincidence?

What is your opinion?

So now you have read my second report... Thanks.
If you agree with it pass it around for comment by others.
If you disagree with it then write your own dam report and submit it for comment.

Submitted for your review by.
Mr. Eric (Rock) Andersen
A citizen 0f the USA.
Thus given the right to have and express an opinion.
Also:
A taxpayer of the USA.
Thus given the right to have and express an attitude.

One Last Thought:
As you listen to political debates concerning reducing social program funding you will notice that the liberal will always appear much more compassionate than the conservative. There is a specific reason for this. The liberal has learned a very important concept:
... that it’s so very easy to be compassionate when your spending other peoples money.

One More Last Thought:
Nothing in this text ( including the sarcasm ) should be construed as enmity toward those on welfare. Keep in mind that welfare is so ingrained into our society that any of us might have fallen into it’s trap.
There, but for the grace of God, Go I.

One More In A Never Ending Series Of Last Thoughts:
For those readers who support social programs:
regrettably welfare has popular support in many elections . However I have no doubt if asked in the proper manner we would see virtually no support at all. The manner is this.
Have a small check off box on the IRS income tax form. If the box is checked it means you are willing to support welfare. So you will pay 15 percent more tax for that year.
If the box goes unchecked then you desire not to support welfare and get to keep that 15 percent.
I would bet that those boxes will go unchecked form after form after form. Especially from those who are currently on welfare themselves.
Before you speak out in favor of welfare you had better take a good look in the mirror and ask yourself if you would really check that box? Would you?

Bon Appetit.