Tuesday, January 29, 2013

Political Updates in Current News

Bullies picking on kids with food allergies

Tuesday, January 29, 2013
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/038860_food_allergies_children_bullies.html#ixzz2JPLZC28E

NYPD looking to deploy naked body scanners on street corners as part of gun control roll-out

Tuesday, January 29, 2013
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/038872_NYPD_naked_body_scanners_gun_control.html#ixzz2JPLhzJKX


All across America, sheriffs are taking a stand against Obama's attempts to gut the Bill of Rights

sheriffTuesday, January 29, 2013


 http://www.naturalnews.com/038871_sheriffs_Bill_of_Rights_line_in_the_sand.html#ixzz2JPO6erSQ


225 Sheriffs Saying ‘NO’ to Obama Gun Control


 

Put Not Your Trust In Federalized Sheriffs

January 19, 2013, William N. Grigg
http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2013/01/put-not-your-trust-in-federalized.html

Scientists, health authorities blatantly lied to public in wake of study showing GMO corn causes organ damage and cancer

Tuesday, January 29, 2013


Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/038868_GM_corn_organ_damage_scientific_studies.html#ixzz2JPQMKDQ2


Organic farmers appeal Monsanto court ruling

Tuesday, January 29, 2013


Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/038870_Monsanto_court_ruling_appeal.html#ixzz2JPQqndnn

Wednesday, January 23, 2013

Uh-Oh...first health care, and now retirement care...

Govt Push to Seize Retirement Accounts
http://www.nationalseniorscouncil.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=89:obama-begins-push-for-new-national-retirement-system&catid=34:social-security&Itemid=62

The Democrats were discussing this four years ago and decided that the time was just not right for them to confiscate our 401's. But after our country re-elected our Socialist President they obviously feel it is time to move on it. Expect the scenario to look like this: immediately after the stock market has a severe correction they will be out everywhere with the message that you poor ignorant people cannot trust the private market and your misguided notions about what is a good investment. The Government will do this for you. They will confiscate your 401's and put in their place an equal value of "gold plated, secure" Treasuries - backed by the good faith of the United States. You know, those same pieces of paper, when offered to the world in 2011, couldn't find buyers for 61% of them so the Federal Reserve bought them.
You may be VERY interested in this:
(But they can only seize the accounts of US Govt Citizen Subjects) for now!!!!

Obama Begins Push for New National Retirement System

A recent hearing sponsored by the Treasury and Labor Departments marked the beginning of the Obama Administration’s effort to nationalize the nation’s pension system and to eliminate private retirement accounts including IRA’s and 401k plans, NSC is warning. The hearing, held in the Labor Department’s main auditorium, was monitored by NSC staff and featured a line up of left-wing activists
including one representative of the AFL-CIO who advocated for more government regulation over private retirement accounts and even the establishment of government-sponsored annuities that would take the place of 401k plans. "This hearing was set up to explore why Americans are not saving as much for their retirement as they could," explains National Seniors Council National Director Robert Crone, "However, it is clear that this is the first step towards a government takeover. It feels just like the beginning of the debate over health care and we all know how that ended up."
A representative of the liberal Pension Rights Center, Rebecca Davis, testified that the government needs to get involved because 401k plans and IRAs are unfair to poor people. She demanded the Obama administration set up a "government-sponsored program administered by the PBGC (the governments’ Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation)." She proclaimed that even "private annuities are problematic." Such reforms" would effectively end private retirement accounts in America, Crone warns. "These people want the government to require that ultimately all Americans buy these government annuities instead of saving or investing on their own. The Government could then take these trillions of dollars and redistribute it through this new national retirement system."  Deputy Treasury
Secretary J. Mark Iwry, who presided over the hearing, is a long-time critic of 401k plans because he believes they benefit the rich. He also appears to be one of the Administration’s point man on this issue. "This whole issue is moving forward very quickly," warns Crone.
"Already there is a bill requiring all businesses to automatically enroll their employees in IRA plans in which part of every employee’s paycheck would be automatically deducted and deposited into this account. If this passes, the government will be just one step away from being able to confiscate all these retirement accounts." NSC has taken the lead in warning the nation about this new government onslaught and is plotting ways to stop it. " This effort ultimately is designed to grab the retirement nest eggs of America’s senior citizens.
"This new government annuity scheme, even if it is at first optional, will turn into a giant effort to redistribute the wealth of America’s older citizens ," explains Crone. "This scheme mirrors what I expect the President will try to do with Social Security. He wants to turn that program into a welfare program, too."
NSC will likely unveil a new grassroots campaign effort later this year or early in January to coincide with the seating of the new Congress.



Is this a FTC matter or a federal courts matter? Is this a corporation industry (Sugar) attempt at ignoring the First Amendment's free speech, or is it holding another corporation industry (Corn Syrup) accountable for false advertising? Or is it a fine line of both, and if it is, what's the best solution?

The Sugar-y Sweet Temptation of Anti-Competitive Lawsuits

http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=3531

...Pending in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California is a lawsuit targeting producers of corn syrup for their “Sweet Surprise” advertising campaign...

...The sugar industry’s lawsuit is primarily based on Section 43 of the 1946 Lanham Act. The Lanham Act is typically associated with intellectual property rights, such as copyright or trademark protection. It also contains provisions prohibiting false or misleading advertising...

...The sugar companies dispute the claims made in the “Sweet Surprise” campaign and assert that corn producers are misleading the public. The sugar industry states that this has led to “actual damages in the form of price erosion and lost profits stemming from the artificially reduced demand [for sugar] caused by Defendants’ false and misleading advertising.” If it weren’t for the alleged misrepresentations being made in the Sweet Surprise campaign, they say, more Americans would avoid corn syrup products...

...Regardless of one’s views on the relative merits of corn syrup vs. cane sugar, Americans should be concerned about the effort to use the Lanham Act to silence commercial speech.

Under the First Amendment, commercial speech enjoys constitutional protection. Unfortunately, however, Section 43 of the Lanham Act creates a perverse incentive for a commercial rival to attempt to stifle speech—and to use litigation as an anti-competitive weapon.

By alleging that advertising claims are false and misleading, a plaintiff can impose huge legal costs on a rival for no other purpose than to seek economic advantage...

So long as there is free entry into the advertising realm, any company, organization or group of companies that finds a rival’s advertising claims to be questionable is free to disseminate information challenging those claims. They can present their views in a news conference. They can create ads of their own. They can mobilize allies in a grassroots effort.

Television, magazine, and internet advertisements are just a few of the vehicles available to educate consumers on the benefits or detriments of a particular product.

In a free society, this is how consumers gather information and make informed decisions about what products to purchase.

To the extent that consumers need additional protection, this should be left to neutral government agencies, such as the Federal Trade Commission, which is tasked with protecting the public from false advertising.

The FTC is fairly successful in its efforts. For example, just a few months ago the FTC successfully settled an action against Skechers USA, which it had accused of making false claims about the body toning effects of its shoes. Under the settlement, Skechers had to pay $40 million in consumer refunds and cease its misleading advertising. An FTC action is a much better vehicle than a lawsuit brought by a competitor that stands to benefit financially by harming a rival.

Speech, whether commercial or political, is important to our society. The sugar industry’s claims about the superiority of cane sugar over corn syrup are better brought in the court of public opinion than in federal court.

William Watkins, Jr.
Send email

William J. Watkins, Jr. is a Research Fellow at The Independent Institute in Oakland, Calif. and author of the Independent Institute book, Reclaiming the American Revolution

. He received his J.D. cum laude from the University of South Carolina School of Law and is a former law clerk to Judge William B. Traxler, Jr. of the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

William J. Watkins, Jr. is a Research Fellow at The Independent Institute in Oakland, Calif. and author of the Independent Institute book, Reclaiming the American Revolution
. He received his J.D. cum laude from the University of South Carolina School of Law and is a former law clerk to Judge William B. Traxler, Jr. of the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

Tuesday, January 22, 2013

Too bad this Founding Father's insight and forsight got left out of the US Constitution -- Not too late on the State level

Founding Father and Continental Army Surgeon General predicted the medical tyranny of today

Tuesday, January 22, 2013 by: Mike Bundrant

mental
 
Unless we put medical freedom into the Constitution, the time will come when medicine will organize into an undercover dictatorship to restrict the art of healing to one class of men and deny equal privileges to others; the Constitution of the Republic should make a special privilege for medical freedoms as well as religious freedom.  - Benjamin Rush (1746-1813)

Benjamin Rush was a signer of the Declaration of Independence and Surgeon General to the Continental Army. He was also a pioneer in psychiatry,

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/038774_Benjamin_Rush_health_freedom_Founding_Fathers.html#ixzz2IkiKl8DQ

Thursday, January 17, 2013

GMO labeling failed in California - which now leaves GMOs wide open for seeds and plants, regardless of labeling - Videos on USA farmers wanting help to accomplish what other countries have done against GMOs

GMOs: We need to go way beyond labeling to keep any healthy food

Thursday, January 17, 2013 by: Paul Fassa


Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/038718_GMO_labeling_healthy_food.html#ixzz2IGQG9Nvk
 
(NaturalNews) Labeling GMO foods is a good idea. But on the way to getting that accomplished, what will our food supply and topsoil be like? It's likely by the time enough consumers catch on, it will be too late for a consumer boycott "tipping point" that's supposed to bring the evil giant Monsanto to it's knees.

All the labeling in the world won't stop Monsanto from creating more seeds and planting more GMO crops, which will continue to contaminate non-GMO crops, including USDA certified organic.
All the side effects of GMO crops, damages from excessive glyphosates in RoundUp and other herbicides, toxins from GMOs that contain their own insecticides, will continue to destroy the soil, kill the honey bees, and harm the livestock that feeds on soy and corn. It's already happening.

What then must we do?

Not enough food savvy consumers in fast food America and an overarching corrupt government leave us with hardly enough ammunition. So we need to enlist farmers in the war against GMOs.

More and more farmers who were locked into Monsanto's diabolical contracts are stuck with lower crop yields and over run by RoundUp resistant super-weeds adding to their rising expenses from buying Monsanto's seeds without the right to save seeds for future planting.

Livestock farmers who use GMO grains to feed their livestock are reporting die-offs and increased stillbirths that threaten their animals. (http://www.gaia-health.com)

Enough farmers have been harassed by Monsanto for bogus patent infringements of seed or pollen drift to realize Monsanto is evil, but they are intimidated and feel isolated. We should find a way to unite, fund, and coordinate legal organizations for family farms. (http://axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/Article_65278.shtml)

Non-GMO and organic farmers have discovered this fact the hard way: There can be no co-existence with GMO and non-GMO crops. Pollen and seeds have gone beyond so-called "buffer zones" to contaminate non-GMO crops.
Conventional farmers are concerned about the biotech push for rice and wheat crops.  [Side Note: Remember the May 2012 article about GMO rice being grown in Junction City, Kansas that has human genes in it?  http://www.naturalnews.com/035745_GMO_rice_human_genes_Kansas.html]  A good part of what they grow goes to distributors who sell to foreign markets that do inspect imports for GMO contamination. They reject them even if they were inadvertently contaminated from other growers' fields. (http://www.savvyvegetarian.com/articles/GE-rice-contamination.php) (http://www.nwrage.org/content/jury-awards-riceland-1368-million)
After his organic beet crop was contaminated by a nearby GMO sugar beet testing field, Chris Hardy organized others in the Rogue Valley of Jackson County, Oregon to campaign for banning GMOs in that county. (http://www.occupymonsanto360.org)

There is precedence for this. In California, Marin and Mendocino counties have already established GMO planting bans. Get the idea? Planting must be stopped, but our federal government is too corrupt for this. Perhaps county by county and state by state, enough planting bans can be established.

Other countries have had enormous victories against Monsanto: Kenya, Peru, France, Scotland, Mexico, and Brazil because farmers took a stand and their governments backed them up.

There are many farmers who don't like Monsanto here in the U.S. too. But they they feel intimidated and isolated. Consumer activists here don't reach out to them. They only care about the right to choose. Farmers? What's that? Video: (
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNPCV7MEo2s)
We need to back farmers up, organize them more to educate and unite other farmers. We should coordinate existing farm legal foundations and fund them more. We need to help them say no to GMO and Monsanto's contracts while supporting their lawsuits against Monsanto. (
http://axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/Article_65278.shtml)

GMO planting must stop before we all are forced to play genetic roulette in a very real way no matter what the labels say. Please view these videos, Farmer to Farmer (
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jEX654gN3c4). And this classic, Canadian farmer Percy Schmeiser's David vs. Monsanto. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Se-1zesy450) (http://www.occupymonsanto360.org)
Sources for this article include:

Video interview of Dr. Don Huber - who expressed concerns to the USDA about a new dangerous microbe resuliting from GMOs and glyphosates
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=X4swW9OFmf8

Report on how agriculture and farmers are being hurt by GMO/Monsanto's impacthttp://gmo-awareness.com/all-about-gmos/gmo-risks/

About the author:
Paul Fassa is dedicated to warning others about the current corruption of food and medicine and guiding others toward a direction for better health with no restrictions on health freedom. You can visit his blog at http://healthmaven.blogspot.com





A Glimpse into the 23 Executive Orders issued yesterday to the Media

Obama's 23 executive orders on gun control: Doctors become snitches, gun ownership is a 'disease' and more

Wednesday, January 16, 2013
By Mike Adams
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/038706_Obama_gun_control_executive_orders.html#ixzz2IG8CRFHO
(NaturalNews) As promised, President Obama has issued 23 executive orders as part of his campaign to disarm the American people and strip them of their Second Amendment rights. These executive orders include things like turning doctors into police state snitches by order them to "ask patients about their guns."

It also orders the CDC to begin studying gun violence and gun ownership as if it were a "disease." This will no doubt become part of the mental health "solution" to disarming the public. Anyone who expresses a desire to own a gun will simply be labeled mentally ill and then denied the ability to purchase or possess otherwise legal firearms.

The following description of the 23 executive orders was provided by the White House. These descriptions are almost certainly deceptions, so don't take them at face value. The devil is in the details, as we all know, so until we get a chance to look at the actual wording of each executive order, we won't really know what Obama is trying to pull outside of law, without Congress and in violation of the U.S. Constitution.

There orders also completely ignore the issue of the psychiatric drugging of children, which we know is linked to nearly every school shooting that has taken place.

Furthermore, Obama has completely ignored the issue of violent video games, violent movies and violent television programming.

But here's the list provided by the White House so far:

1. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system.

2. Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.

3. Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system.
More In Guns

4. Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.

5. Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.

6. Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.

7. Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.

8. Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).

9. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.

10. Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement.

11. Nominate an ATF director.

12. Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations.

13. Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.

14. Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.

15. Direct the Attorney General to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun safety technologies and challenge the private sector to develop innovative technologies.

16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.

17. Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities.

18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.

19. Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education.

20. Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.

21. Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges.

22. Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations.

23. Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health.

 

Wednesday, January 16, 2013

What? Breaking a law to make a law??

FreedomWatch Sues to Block Obama’s Gun Control Initiative



Wednesday, 16 Jan 2013

http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/freedomwatch-sues-gun-control/2013/01/16/id/471743?s=al&promo_code=11F8C-1

The conservative group FreedomWatch is suing the White House task force that led to the gun control proposals offered by President Barack Obama Wednesday.

FreedomWatch’s suit is based on the argument that the White House group conducted illegal meetings with lobbyists without public notice that’s required. The suit, which was filed in Florida federal court, seeks to eliminate the task force and prevent any of its proposals from becoming law, The Hill reports.

The 1972 Federal Advisory Committee Act requires presidential task forces that include non-federal government officials to meet in public and publish notice of meetings in the Federal Register 15 days ahead of time.

“President Obama and Vice President Biden have thumbed their nose at the law and instead been holding closed door meetings with special interest lobbyists on both sides of the issue,” FreedomWatch founder Larry Klayman said in a written statement. “The American people, whose rights to gun ownership stem from colonial times and are enshrined in the U.S. Constitution, are being illegally shut out of the process.”

Tuesday, January 15, 2013

Video - Is this a fair critique, or is it a promo for the person's new book?

Don’t Get Your Money Advice from Suze Orman, Dave Ramsey: (says) Pound Foolish Author

A trillion dollar coin to pay off the national debt? Independent Institute's Senior Fellow comments about the joke posted in the New York Times

http://blog.independent.org/2013/01/09/krugmans-coin/

Krugman’s Coin

Paul Krugman has made a tongue-in-cheek proposal that has set tongues wagging—having the U.S. Treasury Department mint a $1 trillion platinum coin in order to circumvent the federal debt ceiling. Actually, Krugman was not the first to propose this solution he himself calls “silly” but he has given it wider exposure.

In these weird monetary and fiscal times, no proposal is so crazy that it will be dismissed as such by everybody who is generally perceived as sane. Eventually, it may become respectable. There is already an initiative in Congress to prevent the government from printing the platinum coin (something which an obscure norm would allow it to do), while a petition to the White House in favor of the solution has gained some traction. If it gets 25,000 signatures, the White House will have to respond…
The tongue-in-cheek debate has so far centered more on whether it would be legal for the Treasury Department to use the coin, i.e. to draw checks on it once it deposited it with the Federal Reserve, than on what would actually happen. The main argument against the legality of this move is that only Congress could authorize the expenditure. But, given all we know about fiscal spending, can we really trust that Congress will not authorize the government to spend more money? We know for a fact that in 2000 fiscal spending amounted to 18 percent of GDP and that today it amounts to 24 percent. We have just witnessed a tortuous negotiation aimed at averting a “fiscal cliff” that produced a tax hike, not spending cuts. The perception is widespread that entitlements are the only problem. Actually, discretionary spending went up by 70 percent in the last twelve years. How can anyone who keeps their head above their shoulders be so sure that the Treasury would not be authorized, sooner or later, to spend the coin?

Of course, the coin would add to the already colossal monetary base (the Fed´s total assets are already nearing the $3 trillion mark.) The government would use the money presumably to buy back debt. Even if it bought debt from the Fed rather than from the market the money would end up in the market, as it were, because the Fed would use the proceeds to keep buying government bonds. We know this because continuing with asset purchases is official Fed policy! Although I guess initially the coin would be a liability in the Fed´s balance sheet as would any deposit, it would gradually become also an asset either because the money paid into the market by the Treasury would end up as bank reserves at the central bank or because the money would be paid directly to the Fed in order to buy back debt. The effect, either way, would be inflation.

I am, of course, sidestepping the funny issue of how the coin would be turned into many parts, but in an era in which the Fed does virtually anything it wants to do and in which money is an electronic rather than a physical thing I am pretty sure they would find ways to break it up fairly quickly. I am also disregarding the obvious disconnect between the denomination of the coin and the real value of the metal—$1 trillion translates into several thousand tons of platinum, not just a coin. But in the era of fiat money, when was that an issue?

Perhaps there is an upside to discussing this silly gimmick as if it were a real option. Many intelligent solutions to the monetary problem sound to mainstream opinion leaders and politicians too nutty to even consider right now. But the more crazy inflationary ideas (that include monetary fraud) come into respectable circulation, the greater the chances that apparently crazy anti-inflationary ideas, including the abolition of the Fed and the return of the gold standard, can be productively discussed. So long live the Krugmans of this world!

Thursday, January 3, 2013

"Rich Dad, Poor Dad" by Robert T. Klyosaki

The author grew up in a sugar plantation town in Hawaii where both the poor and the rich kids attended the same school.  His best friend’s father was rich, whereas his own father, state superintendent of education, was highly educated but limited financially. 
As the author put it, the “poor Dad” would say, “I can’t afford it.”  Whereas, the “rich Dad” would ask, “How can I afford it?”  His “poor Dad” advised him to study hard to work for a corporation.  His “rich Dad” advised him to study hard to own a corporation.  Education needed for both, but different focus and different subjects. 
Remember hearing this?   “Go to school, study hard, and get a good job.”  But we’re not really taught how to deal with money at school or at home since not very many people know the answers.  Take accounting classes or investment classes, and you get the methods and infrastructure for the two topics, but you don’t get the extra part of learning how true investors really analyze their investment decisions.
Today we’re facing global and technological changes that are greater than during any other part of history.  So far there are “two choices: play it safe or play it smart by preparing, getting educated, and awakening your own and children’s financial genius.”
Money is not taught in schools.  Schools focus on scholastic skills and professional skills, but not financial skills.  The author’s belief is that the national debt is caused because of highly educated politicians and other government workers making financial decisions based on little or no training on the subject of money.  He says it’s time to have bold, new ideas in order to keep up with the changing times.
The “rich Dad” did not mean we’re to buy everything we want, but when we ask “How can I afford it?” this will stimulate the brain into thinking of solutions giving exercise to our brain, the same way our body requires exercise.  The author states, “Proper physical exercise increases your chances for health, and proper mental exercise increases your chances for wealth.  Laziness decreases both health and wealth.”
The “poor Dad” would say, “When it comes to money, play it safe, don’t take risks.”  “Rich Dad” would say “Learn to manage risks.”
“Poor Dad” thought the rich should pay more taxes to take care of those less fortunate.  “Rich Dad” thought taxes were a punishment against those who produce and a reward for those who don’t produce, since everybody’s salary between January and May pays for the taxes for the whole year.
One Dad felt the house they lived in was the largest and best asset, but the other Dad felt that owning a house was a huge liability, and if it was your largest investment, then it was trouble.
One Dad believed in job protection and job benefits while the other Dad believed in being self-reliant, not having an “entitlement” mentality because it created weak and financially-needed people.
One Dad thought of himself as “never being rich,” whereas the other Dad thought of himself as being rich at all times, even when financial setbacks hit, because he said there was a “difference between being poor and being broke…broke is temporary, poor is eternal.”
One Dad wanted the author to get a degree as a lawyer, accountant, or business major to work for money.  The other Dad wanted him to attend college and learn how money could work for him, telling the author, “I don’t work for money. Money works for me!”
Over 30 years, the “rich Dad” taught 6 main lessons, repeatedly, starting when the author was 9 years old.
The author asked his “poor Dad” how to be rich, and his father responded that he had to use his head to figure out a way to make money.  The author and his best friend, Mike, used their heads and became partners, collecting toothpaste tubes from all the neighbors, melted them down since they were made from lead and not plastic, and poured the melted lead into plaster of Paris molds inside school milk cartons.  They were making lead nickels. When his father arrived home from work, asking what they were doing, their response was, “We’re making money!”  The father then had to take them both to the front porch steps and explain what “counterfeiting” meant, and that their lead nickels were illegal.  But he did tell them to keep going, telling them that they’d be poor only if they gave up since most people just talk about getting rich. 
The “poor Dad” then explained that the rich kids they were referring to at school  had nice cars and nice houses because they worked for the sugar plantation company that provided the cars and homes, and that when the sugar plantation had financial problems, the “rich” kids would lose their nice home and car.  He encouraged them to seek counsel from Mike’s father, the “rich Dad,” because of how many times the banker had said how brilliant Mike’s dad was at making money (warehouses, restaurants, construction of roads and housing development, convenient stores).  Mike was shocked to hear this about his own father because there was no nice house or nice car!
When the boys asked the “rich Dad” to teach them how to be rich, he replied that if they worked for him, at 10 cents per hour for 3 hours every Saturday at one of his superettes, he’d teach them how to be rich, but it would not be classroom-style, it would be life-style, and if they chose not to work, he would quit teaching them.  They took the cans off the shelves, feather-dusted them, and replaced them on the shelves, every Saturday for 4 weeks, when the boys decided they were being used and demanded a raise or they’d quit.  The “rich Dad” laughed, saying he’d been waiting for this day to finally happen so they could move to the next level of being taught how to be rich.
“Rich Dad” explained that it was life that pushes people into learning things, not sitting in a classroom, and that people do one of 3 things:
1.     some let life keep pushing them into submission, making them unteachable, depending on their fear to keep them safe
2.     others fight back by blaming others (boss, spouse, job, pay, etc.) and quit one job to seek another job, living life waiting for that big break that will solve all problems,
3.     or the wise people learn:  “The poor and middle class work for money.  The rich have money work for them!”
LESSON #1:  The Rich Don’t Work for Money
The 9 year old was then told, in order to move to the next level and learn the lesson of not working FOR money, he could either quit, or keep the job and work for free.  The author was shocked by this new offer, but accepted the challenge out of curiosity on how this would teach him what he wanted.