Posts Tagged ‘welfare’

For The Record, Barack Obama IS Gutting Welfare Reform As Passed By Republicans In Congress And Signed Into Law By Bill Clinton

September 6, 2012

This piece easily refutes the two lies coming out of the Obama campaign: 1) that Obama somehow isn’t gutting welfare reform by essentially removing the work requirement and 2) that “Republicans did it too” when in fact no they didn’t.

I probably ought to point out here that the Government Accounting Office just issued a statement that Obama circumvented the law in gutting the work requirement of the welfare reform law.

The most dishonest presidency in American history is merely at it again:

Morning Bell: Obama Denies Gutting Welfare Reform
Amy Payne
August 8, 2012 at 9:15 am

The Obama Administration came out swinging against its critics on welfare reform yesterday, with Press Secretary Jay Carney saying the charge that the Administration gutted the successful 1996 reform’s work requirements is “categorically false” and “blatantly dishonest.” Even former President Bill Clinton, who signed the reform into law, came out parroting the Obama team’s talking points and saying the charge was “not true.”

The Heritage Foundation’s Robert Rector and Kiki Bradley first broke the story on July 12 that Obama’s Health and Human Services Department (HHS) had rewritten the Clinton-era reform to undo the work requirements, in a move that legal experts Todd Gaziano and Robert Alt determined was patently illegal.

The Administration’s new argument has two parts: denying the Obama Administration’s actions and claiming that Republican governors, including Mitt Romney, tried to do the same thing. In essence, “We did not do what you’re saying, but even if we did, some Republicans did it, too.” Both parts of this argument are easily debunked.

Obama Administration Claim #1: We Didn’t Gut Work Requirements

Ever since the 1996 law passed, Democratic leaders have attempted (unsuccessfully) to repeal welfare’s work standards, blocking reauthorization of the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program (TANF) and attempting to weaken the requirements. Unable to eliminate “workfare” legislatively, the Obama HHS claimed authority to grant waivers that allow states to get around the work requirements.

Humorously, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius now asserts that the Administration abolished the TANF work requirements to increase work.

HHS now claims that states receiving a waiver must “commit that their proposals will move at least 20 percent more people from welfare to work compared to the state’s prior performance.” But given the normal turnover rate in welfare programs, the easiest way to increase the number of people moving from “welfare to work” is to increase the number entering welfare in the first place.

Bogus statistical ploys like these were the norm before the 1996 reform. The law curtailed use of sham measures of success and established meaningful standards: Participating in work activities meant actual work activities, not “bed rest” or “reading” or doing one hour of job search per month; reducing welfare dependence meant reducing caseloads. Now those standards are gone.

Obama’s HHS claims authority to overhaul every aspect of the TANF work provisions (contained in section 407), including “definitions of work activities and engagement, specified limitations, verification procedures and the calculation of participation rates.” In other words, the whole work program. Sebelius’s HHS bureaucracy declared the existing TANF law a blank slate on which it can design any policy it chooses.

Obama Administration Claim #2: Even If We Did, the Republicans Tried It, Too

Though the Obama Administration is claiming it is not trying to get around the work requirements, it is also claiming that a group of Republican governors tried to do the same thing in 2005. Clinton also said in his statement yesterday that “the recently announced waiver policy was originally requested” by Republican governors.

Heritage welfare expert Robert Rector addressed this claim back on July 19. As Rector explains:

But [the governors’] letter makes no mention at all of waiving work requirements under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program. In fact, the legislation promoted in the letter—the Personal Responsibility and Individual Development for Everyone (PRIDE) Act—actually would have toughened the federal work standards. It proposed raising the mandatory participation rates imposed on states from 50 percent to 70 percent of the adult TANF caseload and increasing the hours of required work activity.

The governors’ letter actually contradicts the Administration’s main argument: If the law has always permitted HHS to waive the work requirements, then why didn’t the governors just request waivers from then-President George W. Bush? Why would legislation be needed?

Two reasons: First, it has been clear for 15 years that the TANF law did not permit HHS to waive the work requirements. Second, the Republican governors were not seeking to waive the work requirements in the first place.

Obama’s Evolution from Welfare to Work and Back

President Obama had a convenient change of heart regarding welfare reform when it was time to run for President. In 1998, when he was an Illinois state senator, Obama said:

I was not a huge supporter of the federal plan that was signed in 1996. Having said that, I do think that there is a potential political opportunity that arose out of welfare reform. And that is to desegregate the welfare population—meaning the undeserving poor, black folks in cities, from the working poor—deserving, white, rural as well as suburban.

The same year, he reiterated that “the 1996 legislation I did not entirely agree with and probably would have voted against at the federal level.”

But in 2008, when he was running for President, Obama said he had changed his mind about welfare reform: “I was much more concerned 10 years ago when President Clinton initially signed the bill that this could have disastrous results….It had—it worked better than, I think, a lot of people anticipated. And, you know, one of the things that I am absolutely convinced of is that we have to work as a centerpiece of any social policy.”

One of his 2008 campaign ads touted “the Obama record: moved people from welfare to work” and promised that as President, he would “never forget the dignity that comes from work.”

This evolution is unsurprising, considering the vast majority of Americans favor requiring welfare recipients to work.

President Obama has finally accomplished what Democrats have been trying to do for years. He has even gotten President Clinton to turn his back on one of the signature achievements of his Administration to give him political cover—which Clinton was quick to do. In 1996, Clinton had to compromise and allow the tough work requirements to get the legislation passed.

Both Presidents have now revealed their true feelings about welfare—and there’s no denying it.

Obama is counting on the ignorance and increasing depavity and cynicism of the American people.

Advertisements

Mitt Romney To Announce His VP Pick Saturday Morning At 8:45 A.M. EST. I Believe It Will Be Paul Ryan, And Here’s WHY.

August 11, 2012

“Which of the two do you want me to release to you?” asked the governor. “Barabbas,” they answered.  “What shall I do, then, with Jesus who is called Christ?” Pilate asked. They all answered, “Crucify him!”  “Why? What crime has he committed?” asked Pilate. But they shouted all the louder, “Crucify him!”  When Pilate saw that he was getting nowhere, but that instead an uproar was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd. “I am innocent of this man’s blood,” he said. “It is your responsibility!”  All the people answered, “Let his blood be on us and on our children!”  Then he released Barabbas to them. But he had Jesus flogged, and handed him over to be crucified. — Matthew 27:21-26

I was quite surprised to hear that Mitt Romney had announced that tomorrow was “the big day” to announce his vice president selection.  Like most, I assumed he would be making it immediately before the GOP National Convention.

I was also somewhat surprised to hear that, apparently, Romney had called Marco Rubio and told him that he would NOT be the running mate on the ticket.

We don’t know who it will be, of course, but there’s been a fair amount of intelligent conservative speculation that it may very well be Paul Ryan.

That will be an incredibly bold choice from a man who has a been cautious for most of his life, but this is what I believe Romney’s reasoning is:

Marco Rubio would have been a good choice if Romney was thinking in terms of winning more Hispanics or winning Florida.  And Rob Portman would have been a good choice if Romney felt that he would need Portman’s pull to carry Ohio.  Nikki Haley or Kelly Ayote would have been a decision to pursue “the women’s vote.”  But none of these excellent choices would define the race the way Paul Ryan would. 

Paul Ryan is all about the budget – and by that I mean more than ANYODYand the need to get dead serious about reducing our spending.  Versus Democrats who haven’t bothered to even TRY to pass a budget for 1,199 days and a president who has not received a SINGLE DEMOCRAT VOTE for one of his depraved and lunatic budgets in three years.  Meanwhile as Obama and Democrats have made reckless irresponsibility their “governing strategy,” we just found out our true debt and our real fiscal gap just grew by a massive $11 trillion to – and you’d better sit down – $222 TRILLION:

Republicans and Democrats spent last summer battling how best to save $2.1 trillion over the next decade. They are spending this summer battling how best to not save $2.1 trillion over the next decade.

In the course of that year, the U.S. government’s fiscal gap — the true measure of the nation’s indebtedness — rose by $11 trillion.

The fiscal gap is the present value difference between projected future spending and revenue. It captures all government liabilities, whether they are official obligations to service Treasury bonds or unofficial commitments, such as paying for food stamps or buying drones.

[…]

The U.S. fiscal gap, calculated (by us) using theCongressional Budget Office’s realistic long-term budget forecast — the Alternative Fiscal Scenario — is now $222 trillion. Last year, it was $211 trillion. The $11 trillion difference — this year’s true federal deficit — is 10 times larger than the official deficit and roughly as large as the entire stock of official debt in public hands.

This fantastic and dangerous growth in the fiscal gap is not new. In 2003 and 2004, the economists Alan Auerbach and William Gale extended the CBO’s short-term forecast and measured fiscal gaps of $60 trillion and $86 trillion, respectively. In 2007, the first year the CBO produced the Alternative Fiscal Scenario, the gap, by our reckoning, stood at $175 trillion. By 2009, when the CBO began reporting the AFS annually, the gap was $184 trillion. In 2010, it was $202 trillion, followed by $211 trillion in 2011 and $222 trillion in 2012.

If in fact Mitt Romney picks Paul Ryan, THAT reckless fiscal insanity will be the central defining issue of the campaign.

More than any election in American history, this would be a true “monumental choice” election: do you want Obama and a welfare America that will utterly implode under the supermassive weight of hundreds of trillions of dollars of debt, or do you want to have at least a chance of national survival???

Many are saying that the Democrats are “licking their chops” over the prospect of running against Paul Ryan.  Democrats have demonized Paul Ryan viciously, using a look-alike to depict him pushing an elderly lady in a wheelchair off of a cliff. But the actual reality is just the opposite – as the facts prove.  For what it’s worth, the left was going to basically run against Ryan anyway.

Over one hundred million Americans are now on some form of welfare.

And Obama just gutted the work requirement that the Republican Congress had passed and Bill Clinton had signed back in 1996 in order to receive welfare.

Food stamps have increased 53 percent since Obama took office, from 30 million receiving them in 2008 to 46 million people receiving them today.  In the 1970s when the food stamp program began, one in fifty Americans were on them; one in seven Americans are on them now.  And more Americans are filing for disability today than are getting jobs, with the number of Americans expected to go on disability expected to jump 71 percent in the next ten years.  For the record, only 1 percent of people who go on disability ever return to work.  You either think these are good things or you think they’re terribly bad things.  And this November you’re going to vote which you think it is.

If you want to abdicate all personal responsibility and parasitically suck off the tit of a government that takes from the producers to hand out to those who vote Democrat until America collapses, then vote for Obama.

If you are looking around and saying, this can’t possibly continue. America is simply doomed on the path we’re on, then vote for Romney.

No one in America is more able to get our spending, deficit and debt under control than Paul Ryan.

If Paul Ryan is the guy, more than any other guy that Romney could pick, America will face a true choice in November. 

City after city is beginning to collapse into bankruptcy as the choices to run up debts and deficits made by Democrats run their toxic course.  Liberal California is leading the way into total fiscal disasterLiberals keep pointing to the example of Europe even as Europe proves more every day that it is a terribly foolish model to follow.  And the liberals that gave us nearly ALL of the $222 trillion debt that is utterly unpayable and utterly unsustainable keep demaning that we double down and then triple down and then quadruple down until America simply implodes.  And don’t think the left doesn’t literally HOPE that day happens.

This election will mark the greatest and most monumental choice for the direction of America and the world since the one I cite at the beginning of this article.  I pray that we have more wisdom than that last momentous decision.  Israel was wiped off the map less than forty years later as a result of their choice; our disaster will ensue far faster than that if we choose foolishly and wickedly for Obama.

Obama’s ‘Innocent’ Illegal Immigrant DREAMers Have Been Charged With WAY Over 16,226 Subsequent Crimes AFTER Being Released

August 10, 2012

Just remember, it doesn’t matter how many crimes they commit and it doesn’t matter how many American women are raped and murdered.  What matters is how many VOTES Obama gets.  And if you think otherwise, you’re a racist.

Arrested illegals who were released charged with 16,226 subsequent crimes
12:40 AM 08/09/2012

President Barack Obama‘s decision not to deport some arrested illegal immigrants has enabled a crime wave — but no American or immigrant victims have been publicly identified, and GOP politicians have mostly remained mute.

Illegal aliens who have been released from custody between 2008 and mid-2011 have been charged with 16,226 subsequent crimes, including 19 murders, 142 sex crimes and thousands of drunk-driving offenses, drug-crimes and felonies, according to a new report from the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service.

“Rather than protect the American people he was elected to serve, President Obama has imposed a policy that allows thousands of illegal immigrants to be released into our communities,” said a statement from Rep. Lamar Smith, the chairman of the House judiciary committee.

The criminals “were in the government’s custody, were identified as illegal immigrants and then let go because this administration has refused to request the resources to hold them and deport them,” said Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies.

The White House press office did not respond to The Daily Caller’s questions.

The CRS study uses data subpoenaed from the federal government by House Committee on the Judiciary. The data details 159,286 cases where legal and illegal immigrants were arrested, identified via FBI databases and then let free, said the report.

Over a 33-month period, from October 2008 and July 2011, roughly one-sixth of those let go were later arrested for crimes.

The data shows that 26,412 of the 159,286 released legal and illegal immigrants were arrested later for 57,763 crimes, said the CRS.

The CRS found the federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency “likely” had authority to deport only 7,283 — or 40 percent — of those repeat offenders. The other 19,129 had some form of legal status, and would not be liable for deportation until after conviction in a civil court.

After being released, the 7,283 deportable aliens were later charged with 16,226 crimes, including 19 murders, 142 sex crimes — such as rape or child molestation — almost 1,000 other major criminal offenses or violent crimes, plus 489 cases of theft, 551 traffic violations, 1,929 DUI violations and 156 parole violations.

Together, the released 26,412 illegal and legal immigrants were charged with 59 murders, 542 sex crimes, 6,270 drug crimes and up to 5,342 “major criminal offenses … [or] other violent crimes.”

“It is amazing to me there hasn’t been more fallout … [but] it is the Messiah’s administration [and] the media isn’t making a fuss,” Krikorian said. “It’s appalling.”

So far, the GOP “is cowed and scared that Hispanics won’t vote for them if they highlight illegal-alien murders” of Hispanics, he said. “It is so ridiculous, because the victims of immigrant gang-members are other immigrants.”

Chairman Smith, however, has pushed the issue. Obama’s “unwillingness to enforce immigration laws puts our communities at risk and costs American lives. We elect leaders to protect us — not put us in danger,” he said.

The new data about crimes committed by released legal and illegal immigrants comes as the administration rolls out a variety of new measures to boost the administration’s support among Hispanic voters. (RELATED: Obama immigration policy loosens work permit requirements)

The administration has also boosted welfare programs for legal and illegal immigrants and has redefined nearly all welfare programs to bypass laws barring welfare-receiving immigrants from residency or citizenship.

The Internal Revenue Service has also rolled back oversight of fraud in a program intended to handle immigrants taxes and refunds, according to an investigation by the IRS inspector general. The program provided $6.8 billion in refunds to immigrants, said an Aug. 8 report in The Washington Times.

Illegal immigrants were fraudulently given $4.2 billion in 2010 child-support tax credits, according to a July 2011 report by the Treasury Department’s inspector general. In 2012, that illegal claims likely will reach $7.4 billion, said the report.

In 2012, top Senate Democrats blocked a reform of the refund process.

Administration officials have rolled back enforcement of immigration laws, and have directed immigration-officers to release illegals, including some who have been approved by judges for deportation.

In recent months, the administration has offered what conservatives call a de-facto amnesty to an estimated 1.76 million illegal immigrants, including an estimated 350,000 illegals with little or no high-school education. The policy will more easily grant work permits, and will allow them to compete for jobs against 23 million unemployed or under-employed Americans.

The two-year amnesty, dubbed “deferred action,” is being offered free to illegal immigrants, including people also schedule for deportation. However, the illegals will have to pay the standard cost of $465 for the work permit.

The amnesty will not include convicted felons, drunk drivers or people who committed a series of felonies.

However, immigrant officers will not try to find out if amnesty applicants have committed crimes, such as identity theft, an administration official said Aug. 6. “We want to maximize participation.”

Don’t you DARE try to enforce immigration laws now, the Border Patrol and ICE are discovering.  Rather, if the illegal immigrant tells you he or she had been in the U.S. prior to turning 16 whether they can prove it or not, that assertion is to be treated like the Gospel. 

And we’re now learning that Obama is planning to redefine “misdemeanor” to get as many votes as he can possibly bring in:

One official suggested in the draft paper that the relevant agencies could “adopt a different definition of misdemeanor” for childhood arrivals. Existing guidelines that were published on the CIS website last week stated that for government officers reviewing these applications, “the absence of the [applicant’s] criminal history…or its presence, is not necessarily determinative, but is a factor to be considered.”

And it seems that no application will be rejected outright. “If the case is to be processed for a denial,” the DHS draft stated, “the case is routed to the Background Check Unit…where the case will undergo supervisory review before the denial is issued.”

What is going on is genuinely evil.  It is the most cynical and most depraved and most self-serving policy we have ever seen in this country.

And Obama is doing this over and over again, such as what we just learned about Obama demanding that police not be allowed to punish fascist Occupy OWS protesters.

Our nation is going bankrupt and Obama doesn’t give a damn.  If he can bring in another million welfare recipients who will vote Democrat, he’ll bring in another million more welfare recipients.  And if they are criminal welfare recipients, well, you’ve got to break a few eggs to bake a cake, don’t you?

100 MILLION Americans are now on some form of welfare:

And that aint nearly enough for Obama and for the Democrat Party.  When they can get an overwhelming majority of Americans – or at least “Americans” – utterly dependent on their socialist giveaways, they will finally get the goose-stepping power they’ve always wanted.

Will America collapse as fewer and fewer people bother to work?  You’re damn right it will.  But that’s a good thing, too.  Because Obama will get the true socialist State he has always dreamed of “fundamentally transforming America” into.

Frightening Obituary For America (b. 1775 d. 2008)

March 24, 2012

The following is being passed around the email world.  But it’s interesting and it offers some important truths:

In 1887 Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh, had this to say about the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2,000 years prior:

“A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse over loose fiscal policy, (which is) always followed by a dictatorship.”

“The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:

From bondage to spiritual faith;
From spiritual faith to great courage;
From courage to liberty;
From liberty to abundance;
From abundance to complacency;
From complacency to apathy;
From apathy to dependence;
From dependence back into bondage.”

The Obituary follows:

Born 1776, Died 2012
It doesn’t hurt to read this several times.

Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University School of Law in St. Paul , Minnesota, points out some interesting facts concerning the last Presidential election:

Number of States won by: Obama: 19 McCain: 29
Square miles of land won by: Obama: 580,000 McCain: 2,427,000
Population of counties won by: Obama: 127 million McCain: 143 million
Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by: Obama: 13.2 McCain: 2.1

Professor Olson adds: “In aggregate, the map of the territory McCain won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of the country. Obama territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in low-income tenements and living off various forms of government welfare…”

Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the “complacency and apathy” phase of Professor Tyler’s definition of democracy, with some forty percent of the nation’s population already having reached the “governmental dependency” phase.

If Congress grants amnesty and citizenship to twenty million criminal invaders called illegal’s – and they vote – then we can say goodbye to the USA in fewer than five years.

If you are in favor of this, then by all means, delete this message.

If you are not, then pass this along to help everyone realize just how much is at stake, knowing that apathy is the greatest danger to our freedom.

This is truly scary!

Of course America is not a democracy, it is a Constitutional Republic.

Someone should point this out to Obama.

Of course we know he and too many others pay little attention to The Constitution.

There couldn’t be more at stake than on Nov 2012.

The email gives the die date of America at 2012 (assuming we re-elect Obama).

It may already be too late for America.  Just as one can smoke tens of thousands of cigarettes and only quit smoking after one has already guaranteed contracting a lingering death by cancer, we may have already put ourselves into such a state of deficit and debt that we cannot recover no matter what we do now.

We are to a point when we are more than $211 TRILLION in debt and we cannot even possibly dig our way out of the grave we have dug for ourselves.

We are to a point when fully half the population pays absolutely no federal income taxes at all while demanding that the few who still DO pay taxes pay more and more and more of the burden.

The Book of Jonah records the way a society can spare itself from the destruction that it richly deserves.  But if Ninevah had had a Democrat Party, it would have been the story of Sodom and Gomorrah instead.  And I fear that we’re at the Sodom and Gomorrah point.

Obama ‘Fundamental Transformation’ Taking Us Way Back To The Flinstones Rather Than Way Ahead To The Jetsons

January 30, 2012

Obama told us he was going to fundamentally transform America:

And, of course, he has.

Food stamps:

This year, more than 46 million (15% of all Americans) will get food stamps. That’s 45% higher than when Obama took office, and twice as high as the average for the previous 40 years. This surge was driven in part by the recession, but also because Obama boosted the benefit amount as part of his stimulus plan.

Government-dependency benefits:

According to the Census Bureau 49% now live in homes where at least one person gets a federal benefit — Social Security, workers comp, unemployment, subsidized housing, and the like. That’s up from 44% the year before Obama took office, and way up from 1983, when fewer than a third were government beneficiaries

Direct government payments to the permanent welfare class that Obama has massively increased:

The amount of money the federal government hands out in direct payments to individuals steadily increased over the past four decades, but shot up under Obama, climbing by almost $600 billion — a 32% increase — in his first three years. And Obama’s last budget called for these payments to climb another $500 billion by 2016, at which point they would account for fully two-thirds of all federal spending.

Judi McLeod of the Canada Free Press points out the fact that:

“Most know by now that Obama dedicates his time to the end of America as it presently exists.”

One of the ways to illustrate what has happened in America is the flak that Newt Gingrich has taken for talking about a vision to not only put a man on the moon, but have a space station there.  There is doubt, skepticism and outright mockery of him in the mainstream media (“Newt Skywalker“?).

Greta Van Sustern asked Newt about why that was.  And Newt went right after Obama for killing America’s dreams and her future.

Gingrich pointed out that JFK in 1961 offered an even MORE audacious vision of putting a man on the moon when not only had no man ever been on the moon but when only the Soviet Union had ever even sent a man into orbit.  JFK said we would put a man on the moon within ten years.  And while he did not live to see the day because a leftist socialist assassinated him, we DID put a man on the moon within ten years of that famous speech.

Why can’t we now?

Because Obama has “fundamentally transformed America” into a country that can’t do anything and knows it can’t do anything, that’s why.  And of course how could we with such pathetic, failed leadership?  How could we possibly ever thrive under the wings of a man whose only talent is reading off a pair of teleprompter screens?

And the naysayers are completely right: nothing great is possible under this fool.

Only real leadership can get us to the Jetsons.

Newt Gingrich is dreaming of a day when America isn’t under the disgraced and failed leadership of “the Failure-in-Chief.”

Obama is taking us to the Flintstones.  And the sad fact is that the dinosaurs we’ll encounter won’t be anywhere near as friendly as that cartoon described when we get to where Obama is taking us.

Please vote for the destruction of America and a future that takes us – and in particular our children – down into collapse and depression.  Please give us more Obama because we simply don’t deserve to continue the way we’re going.

P.S. Hat tip to Fox News’ Greg Gutfeld for his “Jetsons-Flintstones” analogy.

Al Sharpton: You Can’t Call Yourself A ‘Christian’ And Be Against The Big Government Welfare State

November 2, 2011

Sharpton: Republicans Can’t ‘Use Christianity’ Then Vote Against Welfare
By Mark Finkelstein | November 01, 2011 | 21:53

Call yourself a Christian? Then you can’t oppose whatever welfare programs the Democrats come up with. So in effect argued Al Sharpton on his MSNBC show this evening.

In the course of criticizing House Republicans for having passed a bill reaffirming “In God We Trust” as the national motto, Sharpton somehow equated Christianity with support for the liberal agenda. And although I’m the opposite of an expert on Christian theology, he also came up with a formulation on faith and works that might be surprising to some Protestants. [See site for MSNBC video].

Watch Rev. Al suggest that being a good Christian requires supporting liberal welfare programs.

AL SHARPTON: Now a lot of people on the right are trying to put this around the blogosphere that the president doesn’t mention God. And clearly they’re trying to play now towards this real right-wing, religious-right kind of thing, which I think is unfortunate. And that’s why I wanted to raise it. I’m glad you are, Reverend Cleaver, because clearly, you and I and many Christians have firm belief. But it’s based on your work. You can’t use God and Christianity, and then turn around and vote against trying to feed the hungry, care for the outcast, clothe the naked. Your action: faith without works is a dead thing.  They need to read the Bible that they quote.

Actually, “faith” with Al Sharpton is a dead thing.  And it really isn’t that hard to show that being opposed to big government welfare programs is hardly “unchristian.”

So let’s read the Bible and see what it says.

First there’s that little passage in 1 Samuel that warns about the danger of a socialist king who would seize what rightly belonged to the people if they wickedly chose big government instead of trusting in God (as I previously have pointed out):

The story of abusive big government is not a recent one. The prophet Samuel describes it in the Old Testament:

But the people refused to listen to Samuel. “No!” they said. “We want a king over us. Then we will be like all the other nations, with a king to lead us and to go out before us and fight our battles. — 1 Samuel 8:19-20

Who are we really rejecting?
God said to Samuel:
“…it is not you they have rejected, Samuel, but they have rejected me as their king.” — 1 Samuel 8:7

Samuel told all the words of the LORD to the people who were asking him for a king. He said, “This is what the king who will reign over you will do: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants. He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants. Your menservants and maidservants and the best of your cattle and donkeys he will take for his own use. He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves. When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, and the LORD will not answer you in that day.” — 1 Samuel 8:10-18

The tenth of everything that God warned the people the king would take was on top of the tenth that belonged to God. Which is to say that the king would double their taxes in addition to treating the people like they belonged to him. Of course, that tyrant king was only seizing an additional tenth of his people’s wealth; imagine today, where in the highest-taxed states (which are all Democrat states, fwiw), some Americans are forced to pay more than half of their income in taxes. A mere extra tenth would be like a blessing to them.

It doesn’t sound as if the king whom we are told again and again – “he will take” – is a good thing.  Except on Al Sharpton’s and demonic Democrats warped and evil account of the passage.

Then there’s Jesus, who contrasted what the government confiscated with what belonged to God:

“Show me a denarius. Whose portrait and inscription are on it?”  Caesar’s,” they replied. He said to them, “Then give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.” — Luke 20:24-25

Notice that what belongs to God isn’t also described as belonging to Caesar.  What Jesus is MOST DEFINITELY NOT SAYING here is that giving unto Caesar is in any way, shape or form tantamount to giving to God.  Unless, that is, you are a Democrat (i.e., a demonic bureaucrat), in which case worshipping the State is identical to worshipping God.

When Democrats want to let Obama take more of what belongs to us, they are giving their god his due, not the God of the Bible.

The case of Annas and Saphira in Acts chapter 5 is a good indicator of what is true Christianity – which no baby-murdering Democrat will ever understand.  True Christians were giving not to the government, but to the CHURCH, as they were led to do.  They were in fact free to give everything or NOTHING to the apostles.  As verse 4 of Acts chapter 5 demonstrates:

“The property was yours to sell or not sell, as you wished. And after selling it, the money was also yours to give away. How could you do a thing like this? You weren’t lying to us but to God!”

Democrats have done everything they could do to cripple the Church.  They certainly aren’t advocating that taxes go to the Church instead of their actual god the Government.  Further, in the account of Acts, the ability to give or not to give was up to each individual – whereas the Democrats (again, the demonic bureaucrats) want to forcibly seize/confiscate property and give it to their god the State.

The next time a Marxist half-wit – be it Al Sharpton or anybody else – tries to say that Christianity is communist, please “render unto him” both barrels of the Truth.

Allow me to add something I wrote for another article about welfare versus genuine Christian charity (which America was not short of prior to the advent of Statist Democrats):

I once quoted Burton Folsom in his great book “New Deal Or Raw Deal?” It’s time to quote that passage again:

Throughout American history, right from the start, charity had been a state and local function. Civic leaders, local clergy, and private citizens, evaluated the legitimacy of people’s need in their communities or counties; churches and other organizations could then provide food, shelter, and clothing to help victims of fires or women abandoned by drunken husbands. Most Americans believed that the face-to-face encounters of givers and receivers of charity benefited both groups. It created just the right amount of uplift and relief, and discouraged laziness and a poor work ethic.

The Founders saw all relief as local and voluntary, and the Constitution gave no federal role for the government in providing charity. James Madison, in defending the Constitution, observed, “No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity.” In other words, if relief, and other areas, were made functions of the federal government, the process would become politicized and politicians and deadbeats could conspire to trade votes for food” (New Deal or Raw Deal, page 76-77).

Prior to FDR, the American people took care of their OWN, family by family, town by town, county by county, state by state. They had NEVER had welfare, and in fact found the very concept of welfare distasteful. And I’m going to tell you right now that they were better, stronger people than we are as a result of that moral superiority and that faith in THE PEOPLE and not the GOVERNMENT.

Barack Obama – who gave virtually NOTHING to charity when giving would have demonstrated the character he proved he DIDN’T have – doesn’t trust the American people, or much care about them, for that matter. He doesn’t want to help people; he wants to grow the size of government. He wants only to make the state bigger and bigger and more and more powerful and controlling. Obama is angry because he doesn’t believe people should have the right to decide for themselves how much of their own money they “need”; HE wants to make that decision for them and then impose it on them so he can seize their money and redistribute it to people who will vote for him and for his party.

Whenever a Democrat calls for more taxes, understand that what they are really saying is that they believe that the government is too small and needs to become larger. And whenever they call for more taxes for the sake of helping people, what they are really saying is that you are a bad and immoral person who can’t and shouldn’t be trusted to help people in need and that it is better to take your money away from you and put it into the coffers of a big government socialist redistributionist agency which will piss it away on boondoggle programs that benefit the politically connected far more than they do the poor. And the fact that even as Barack Obama and the overwhelming Democrat majority that had dictatorial control of both branches of Congress made government bigger than it has ever been and yet blacks are now worse off than they’ve been for generations and women are being set way back is the icing on the cake of the proof of that fact. Liberals hurt the people they cynically and falsely claim to be helping – and then demagogically use the misery that they themselves created to accumulate even more power for themselves and their failed agenda.

But let me be even more specific and address Obama directly. Obama says rich people – who already pay a massive share of the income taxes in America – should have more of their money seized so it can be redistributed in the form of student loans. What is interesting is that this massively subsidizes the university system that has been almost entirely hijacked by the ideological left. The more money becomes available in student loans, the more these supposedly “caring” liberals increase the cost of college tuition (the price of which has inflated FAR more than the price of ANY OTHER good or service). So what happens? Obama takes money OUT of the private economy, and OUT of the hands of the people who actually create jobs, and puts it into the pockets of liberals in universities who then turn around and raise the cost of tuition to screw college students. And this “progressive” boondoggle has been going on for YEARS.

THAT’S what liberal compassion looks like: it bascially looks just like the hypocritical, self-righteous face of Barack Obama.

Obama Wants To Force You To Surrender ‘Money You Don’t Need’

July 15, 2011

At the center of his tiny, shriveled little cockroach soul, Barack Obama is a Marxist.

Allow me to recite the central tenet of Marxism: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”  And please, PLEASE someone explain to me how Barack Obama and the modern Democrat Party are NOT Marxist given that they believe the SAME garbage.  Liberals constantly huff at the suggestion that they are socialists as though it is the silliest damn thing they have ever heard.  The thing is that they don’t want their ideology identified with socialism merely because it is a bad word.  BUT “IT” IS A BAD WORD FOR A REASON, AND “IT” IS IN FACT PRECISELY WHAT THEY ARE.

The shoe fits, and Obama and his socialist Democrats need to wear it.

Obama Aims for the Money You Don’t “Need”
Mike Brownfield
July 13, 2011 at 9:55 am

Over the past several weeks, America has seen on grand display in Washington a singular mindset emanating from the White House: We must raise taxes so that we can keep on spending. This week, though, America was treated to something different—a glimpse inside President Barack Obama’s mind, a roadmap of his economic worldview. And what was revealed was a philosophy that is fundamentally at odds with America’s job creators.

That insight came during the President’s press conference on Monday in which he broached the subject of raising taxes as part of the debt limit deal:

“And I do not want, and I will not accept, a deal in which I am asked to do nothing, in fact, I’m able to keep hundreds of thousands of dollars in additional income that I don’t need, while a parent out there who is struggling to figure out how to send their kid to college suddenly finds that they’ve got a couple thousand dollars less in grants or student loans.”

If you read between the lines, which doesn’t take much decoding, President Obama effectively believes that any income you have which you don’t “need” belongs to the government, as writer John Steele Gordon explains in Commentary. And, Gordon writes, Obama’s statement “demonstrates an astonishing economic illiteracy”:

To be sure, someone earning a great deal of money has an income greater than what he spends. . . But, unlike Scrooge McDuck, the rich do not put the excess in a vast money bin and frolic about in it. They invest it. What a concept! Where does Obama think new capital comes from, the tooth fairy?

How much income is too much? It’s hard to say, and the President doesn’t put a number on it. But that high-tax policy is so important to the President that he is willing to personalize the issue, offering up the fact that he has made a boatload selling books and can afford to pay taxes on it, as he did in his Twitter town hall when he remarked:

“But what I’ve also said is people like me who have been incredibly fortunate, mainly because a lot of folks bought my book . . . for me to be able to go back to the tax rate that existed under Bill Clinton, to pay a couple of extra percentage points so that I can make sure that seniors still have Medicare or kids still have Head Start, that makes sense to me.”

On top of personalizing the issue, the President is pulling out all the stops in a take-no-prisoners demagoguery campaign, ranging from the subtle to the explicit. His criticisms of tax loopholes for corporate jets and oil and gas companies are legion, his calls for millionaires and billionaires to “pay a little bit more” are anything but subtle, and his threats over the failure to reach a tax-soaked debt limit deal are frightening.

The President’s “your money is the government’s money” mindset is having an impact on the mind’s of America’s job creators. A new survey of small business owners and executives prepared for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce shows how the U.S. political environment has impacted the business environment, and the insights are troubling.

According to the survey, a vast majority of small business owners (84 percent) say the U.S. economy is on the wrong track. Tellingly, the threat of regulation and taxes are the two issues in Washington posing the greatest threat to their business, while economic uncertainty, America’s growing debt and deficit and Obamacare are top challenges as well. And when asked whether they’d like Washington to lend a hand or get out of they, 79 percent choose the latter.

And therein lies the difference. When President Obama sees successful businesses, he sees green. And when they look back, they see red. The President wants to take more so he can spend more and do more, whereas those who are the engine of America’s economy just want the government to do less so they can thrive. Unfortunately, a meeting of the minds seems a long way off.

Democrats are at their hearts Marxists and fascists who believe that you and everything you produce belongs to the government – and that the government should belong entirely to THEM so that they have the power to decide who wins and who loses.  I’ve written about this fact at length before.  Again, this is a central tenet of Marxism and socialism, but for some reason we’re not supposed to be able to call these people what they clearly are.

Mind you, this disgraceful little turd Barry Hussein is a HYPOCRITE Marxist, as the following evidence of what a stingy, selfish, greedy little swine Obama was with his own money just a few short years ago when he was a rich liberal who didn’t think anyone was watching.  Amazingly, the facts show that Obama didn’t seem to think there was such a thing as “money he didn’t need” then:

Did you know, for instance, this about Barack Obama?

Prior to his run for President, Barack and Michelle Obama were in the top 2% of income earners, but actually gave less than the average American in charitable giving.

Obama gave .4% of his income.  In spite of being rich, and being in the top richest 2% of Americans, Obama gave only $1,050 to charity.  When the average American household (that’s mostly us in the bottom 98%) gave $1,872, which was 2.2% of their incomes.

For the record, Barack Obama was 450% more selfish, more stingy, more greedy and more self-centered than the average American.  Even though the average American had nowhere NEAR Obama’s wealth.  And that is a documented fact.  And let’s also consider how much Michelle Obama earned by receiving lavish political patronage because of her husband’s career.

Obama seemed to “need” every penny of his money when he was selfishly refusing to give basically ANYTHING to the poor that he now so hypocritically and self-righteously claims he cares about.  And that is a FACT.  So when this vile little hypocrite weasel self-righteously lectures us on how much we should be willing to give more in taxes to Big Brother, just realize it is coming from the very worst kind of demagogue and liar.

Then there’s the fact that if these rich liberals want to give more money, THEN THEY CAN AND SHOULD GIVE MORE MONEY.  They can give to charity; they can give to a government fund that uses the money to pay down the debt when they do their taxes.  They keep talking about how generous they should be but they never seem to be generous with their own money.

Let me go on quoting from the same article on liberals and “paying their fair share”:

And then you find that as cheap and chintzy and stingy and selfish as the redistribution of wealth president (a.k.a. Barry Hussein) was before he decided to run for president, his vice president was even STINGIER.  Because Joe Biden gave less than one-eighth of one percent of his wealth to charity.

And, of course, Democrats who lecture us on “paying our fair share” while they either welch on their debts, refuse to contribute to charity, cheat on their taxes, or all damn three are a dime a dozen.  Let’s have a few prominent examples: Bill and Hillary Clinton, who have largely welched on Hillary’s campaign debts.  There’s Charlie Rangel, the man who chaired the committee that wrote the tax laws while not bothering to pay his own damn taxes.  There’s “Turbo Tax” Timothy Geithner, the man in charge of the Treasury and I.R.S. who didn’t bother to pay his own taxes.  There’s former Democrat candidate for president John Kerry, a millionaire, who tried to wriggle away like the worm he is from paying the taxes he should have paid on his yacht.  There’s Kerry’s wife and fellow Democrat Teresa Heinz-Kerry, who in spite of inheriting the Heinz fortune actually pays less in taxes than the median American family.  And then there’s a bunch of more garden variety cockroach Democrats such as Eric Holder, Tom Daschle, Bill Richardson, and Claire McCaskill.  And don’t forget the vile putrid bunch of Democrats running Bell, California.

And let me throw in “San Fran Nan” Nancy Pelosi into the mix.  Here’s an already filthy rich woman who increased her wealth by 62% last year while millions of Americans are suffering.  She’d certainly be one who would say, “Screw America, screw the American people and screw the unemployment rate; I’m getting MINE.

These people just make me want to lose my lunch into a bucket.  That’s something I wouldn’t mind donating to the government.

I once quoted Burton Folsom in his great book “New Deal Or Raw Deal?”  It’s time to quote that passage again:

Throughout American history, right from the start, charity had been a state and local function.  Civic leaders, local clergy, and private citizens, evaluated the legitimacy of people’s need in their communities or counties; churches and other organizations could then provide food, shelter, and clothing to help victims of fires or women abandoned by drunken husbands.  Most Americans believed that the face-to-face encounters of givers and receivers of charity benefited both groups.  It created just the right amount of uplift and relief, and discouraged laziness and a poor work ethic.

The Founders saw all relief as local and voluntary, and the Constitution gave no federal role for the government in providing charity.  James Madison, in defending the Constitution, observed, “No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity.”  In other words, if relief, and other areas, were made functions of the federal government, the process would become politicized and politicians and deadbeats could conspire to trade votes for food” (New Deal or Raw Deal, page 76-77).

Prior to FDR, the American people took care of their OWN, family by family, town by town, county by county, state by state.  They had NEVER had welfare, and in fact found the very concept of welfare distasteful.  And I’m going to tell you right now that they were better, stronger people than we are as a result of that moral superiority and that faith in THE PEOPLE and not the GOVERNMENT.

Barack Obama – who gave virtually NOTHING to charity when giving would have demonstrated the character he proved he DIDN’T have – doesn’t trust the American people, or much care about them, for that matter.  He doesn’t want to help people; he wants to grow the size of government.  He wants only to make the state bigger and bigger and more and more powerful and controlling.  Obama is angry because he doesn’t believe people should have the right to decide for themselves how much of their own money they “need”; HE wants to make that decision for them and then impose it on them so he can seize their money and redistribute it to people who will vote for him and for his party.

Whenever a Democrat calls for more taxes, understand that what they are really saying is that they believe that the government is too small and needs to become larger.  And whenever they call for more taxes for the sake of helping people, what they are really saying is that you are a bad and immoral person who can’t and shouldn’t be trusted to help people in need and that it is better to take your money away from you and put it into the coffers of a big government socialist redistributionist agency which will piss it away on boondoggle programs that benefit the politically connected far more than they do the poor.  And the fact that even as Barack Obama and the overwhelming Democrat majority that had dictatorial control of both branches of Congress made government bigger than it has ever been and yet blacks are now worse off than they’ve been for generations and women are being set way back is the icing on the cake of the proof of that fact.  Liberals hurt the people they cynically and falsely claim to be helping – and then demagogically use the misery that they themselves created to accumulate even more power for themselves and their failed agenda.

But let me be even more specific and address Obama directly.  Obama says rich people – who already pay a massive share of the income taxes in America – should have more of their money seized so it can be redistributed in the form of student loans.  What is interesting is that this massively subsidizes the university system that has been almost entirely hijacked by the ideological left.  The more money becomes available in student loans, the more these supposedly “caring” liberals increase the cost of college tuition (the price of which has inflated FAR more than the price of ANY OTHER good or service).  So what happens?  Obama takes money OUT of the private economy, and OUT of the hands of the people who actually create jobs, and puts it into the pockets of liberals in universities who then turn around and raise the cost of tuition to screw college students.  And this “progressive” boondoggle has been going on for YEARS.

THAT’S what liberal compassion looks like: it bascially looks just like the hypocritical, self-righteous face of Barack Obama.

NFL Black Liberal: Just Because I Get Paid $10 Million A Year Doesn’t Mean I’m Not A Slave

March 18, 2011

This appears to be an argument that no amount of sanity or reason can possibly win.  Because it doesn’t matter how fairly you treat a black person, or how much you pay them, you are simply defined in terms of being on the wrong side of slavery.

Adrian Peterson: NFL Like ‘Modern Day Slavery’
First Posted: 03/15/11 02:19 PM Updated: 03/15/11 02:24 PM

Minnesota Vikings running back Adrian Peterson made some controversial comments about the NFL labor situation in an interview with Doug Farrar of Yahoo’s Shutdown Corner. The interview was conducted just before the NFLPA decertified.

“It’s modern-day slavery, you know? People kind of laugh at that, but there are people working at regular jobs who get treated the same way, too. With all the money,” Peterson continued. “The owners are trying to get a different percentage, and bring in more money.”

Farrar took out the quote shortly after publishing. He tweeted that he wanted to give Peterson an opportunity to explain. Farrar described the comment as “a real misstep.”

When asked about the owners not showing their financial information, Peterson suggested that they are hiding something.

“Well, show us.’ We want more information, and they want to bull****, going around, saying this and that, just open it up and give us the information we want. If they have nothing to hide, just give us the information,” the 25-year-old said. “Why not? Obviously, there’s a lot to hide — these guys are professionals, and they’re maximizing what they do.”

You can read the entire interview here.

This is a mindset that is so committed to an ideology of victimization that it becomes incapable of any form of personal self-introspection whatsoever.  It is immune to fact, to logic, to criticism or to the fact that it is quintessentially hypocritical.

What you end up with is people with giant chips on their shoulders and chutzpah the size of Jupiter.

I have no idea how many black people think the way Adrian Peterson thinks (i.e., that life is one big entitlement and that they can invoke the ghost of slavery to get what they want whenever they want it).

I have had the honor of knowing a few black people who were very, very elderly (in one case over a hundred years old!).  And I heard them tell their stories.  The thing was, I knew the eras they had lived through; and I knew from their stories where they had lived (e.g., Mississippi).  So I knew as they told their stories that they had without any question suffered real racism. 

The kind of racism that an Adrian Peterson has never begun to experience in his entire self-centered, self-absorbed life.

And the thing that most impressed me as I heard these several stories from these great elderly black men was how sweet they were.  There was no bitterness in their souls, because they had always sought the best in people, and found it often.  Even in white people.  And when (not if) they were abused by one white person, they chose instead to focus on the kindness and graciousness of another white person instead.  And they were the  kind of people who made the best of their world, and enjoyed their lives, and fixated on what was good and kind and decent instead of what was hateful and bigoted and cruel.

Another thing that characterized them was their sense of personal responsibility and drive.  They didn’t wait around for handouts, because they knew there wouldn’t be any handouts.

This crap –

“I won’t have to worry about putting gas in my car.  I won’t have to worry about paying my mortgage.  If I help him, I know he’s gonna help me.”

– and this crap

ROGULSKI:Why are you here?
Woman: To get some money.
ROGULSKI: What kind of Money?
Woman: Obama money.
ROGULSKI: Where’s it comin’ from?
Woman: Obama.
ROGULSKI: And where did Obama get it from?
WOMAN: I don’t know, his stash. I don’t know. I don’t know where he got it from, but he’s givin’ it to us. And we love him. That’s why we voted for him. O-ba-ma. O-ba-ma.

– was just alien to their thinking.

It is that perversion, that degeneration of what used to be a proud spirit but which has been corrupted into something pathetic, that Anne Wortham so eloquently denounced.

This is the new black community:

DAYTON — The Dayton Police Department is lowering its testing standards for recruits.

It’s a move required by the U.S. Department of Justice after it says not enough African-Americans passed the exam.    

Dayton is in desperate need of officers to replace dozens of retirees.  The hiring process was postponed for months because the D.O.J. rejected the original scores provided by the Dayton Civil Service Board, which administers the test. 

Under the previous requirements, candidates had to get a 66% on part one of the exam and a 72% on part two.

The D.O.J. approved new scoring policy only requires potential police officers to get a 58% and a 63%.  That’s the equivalent of an ‘F’ and a ‘D’.

 “It becomes a safety issue for the people of our community,” said Dayton Fraternal Order of Police President, Randy Beane.  “It becomes a safety issue to have an incompetent officer next to you in a life and death situation.”

“The NAACP does not support individuals failing a test and then having the opportunity to be gainfully employed,” agreed Dayton NAACP President Derrick Foward.

That local NAACP president is “old school.”  He was told to shut the hell up by his national leaders, who have since loudly defended flunking police officers, as long as those flunking police officers are black.

Something has happened to the black community at large.  And it isn’t good.

Many black people in America today are the descendants of slaves.  Those slaves were involuntarily forced into their slavery, and dreamed of freedom for themselves and for their children.  And yet today, their descendents have to a shocking degree and extent willingly placed themselves in the relationship of dependents waiting for their handouts.  I quote myself:

Democrats were the party of slavery, and the party of the Klu Klux Klan (and see the link here for a thorough treatment).  They were the party of the Klanbake at the 1924 Democrat National Convention.

But at some point, the Democrat Party began to morph into the party of the immediate post-civil war reconstruction, when elitist whites decided that ignorant, inferior blacks couldn’t do anything for themselves.  They needed whites to lead them.

They went from being the Confederate Party of institutionalized slavery to the Union Party of the white benefactor, as epitomized by the words of the Colonel James Montgomery character in the movie Glory:

“They’re little monkey children, for God’s sake. And you just gotta know how to control them.”

Good little monkey child.  Keep voting for us and we’ll keep handing out bananas.

Charles Payne – a man I genuinely admire and respect – had this to say about his black community in a powerful discussion:

“I believe a lot of this goes back to when black Americans accepted this liberal premiss that we’re not accountable for anything; that because we’re descendants from slaves, that you know, ‘it’s OK, it’s not your fault, you’re a victim’ – and they’ve created this sort of pool… you  know it’s not just a physical ghetto I’m talking about but a mental, sort of barrier.

“Where, you see, OK Michael Vick is a victim of the justice system, not a person who committed a crime. That mentality is pervasive. You see it over and over, and it’s fed to us and it’s fed to us, and it’s fed to us – and we accept it. We take it.

“And at the end of the day what we’re getting for it: we wait for our welfare checks. We wait for it – people wait for it like ‘I wait for my check,’ like it’s something I worked for. And it has taken away everything; everything that God gave us innately – you know, when you put two people on an island they’re going to have certain things innately; they’re going to have the desire to survive, to thrive, to do better – all that is suppressed in our community. And what’s left is this sort of squalor.”

I don’t doubt that I’m going to get called a “racist” for writing this piece.  I’m fine with that, because I know my own heart, and the hateful opinions of bitter, malicious race-bating demagogues doesn’t mean squat to me.  I want to see black people lift themselves up and get respect because they EARNED respect.

The government is running out of other people’s money, which Margaret Thatcher famously said was the singular inevitable problem of socialism.  And there’s a massive reckoning coming

We have seen the total abysmal failure of welfare to foster an environment of anything other than more and more generational failure: a permanent dependent class waiting for their government handouts.  Handouts don’t work at creating work; it is simply a fact no matter how you slice it.

Under Obama, we have seen a shocking failure in the ability of government to take care of the poor.  Which means that the poor had damn well better learn to start taking care of themselves.  But I have literally come to believe that black leaders want their people to be totally unprepared to take care of themselves 1) so they continue to be slavishly dependent on these selfsame failed leaders; and 2) so that when their black community begins to suffer the fruits of generations of stupid and immoral decisions from their failed leaders, they can decry how evil “conservative” “whitey” is and demagogue their way to continued power.

Even Jesse Jackson once questioned the abortion-on-demand liberal mindset that he predicted would one day lead to hell on earth.  That was back in 1977 when the man may have had a shred of personal honor and decency.  Today, with the assistance of black leaders like Jesse Jackson, three out of every five black babies are murdered by their mothers in the womb.  Which amounts to a self-genocide of massive and evil proportions.

But instead of trying to do that, we just hear more and more demands from the left for the rich to have their wealth seized by the government and redistributed to the poor.

There’s a massive problem with that – especially for black liberals who decry slavery.  I write about this despicable hypocrisy in an article titled “Obama’s Government As God Believes It Owns Everything The People Earn.”  Basically that problem is that, in order to maintain this belief, one has to believe that the government very literally owns everything that its citizens earn or build, and then allows its citizens to keep some of that wealth and seizes the rest to give it away to others who did not earn it.  Which is to say that you have a shocking number of black people saying today that the government de facto owns people and owns their labor and owns the fruit of that labor.  And ought to be able to take it away from the producers as it wills in order to hand it out to someone else.

And for all that millionaire Adrian Peterson decries the NFL that made him a rich man, THAT is what slavery is.

Too many blacks have joined too many liberals in demanding that rich people pay their fair share.  But these poeple are paying massively more than their fair share, while nearly half of the country pay no federal income taxes at all.  Meanwhile, those who pay nothing demand more and more from those who are already paying everything.  That is not only sick, it is depraved.

About 13% of American citizens are black, according to the census data.  That is a large enough number that this country cannot succeed if African-Americans are anchors weighing us down rather than angels lifting us up.  But they have been anchors for a generation, and seem determined to continue to be anchors.  When 13% of the population is determined that the other 87% owes them something, and when you have one of the two major political parties cynically demagoguing that bitterness – the result is bad for everyone.

I myself am a disabled veteran.  And for a while I had the idea that everyone owed me for my sacrifice.  I was particularly bitter that my disability had significantly worsened due to inadequate treatment.  One day I realized that I could continue to keep thinking that way, and continue to wait for someone else to give me what I thought I deserved, or I could actually take personal responsibility for myself and improve my own lot in life.  Fortunately, I chose the latter path for myself.  But that is a reckoning that the black community will tragically never have as long as they listen to the demagogues in their communities and in the Democrat Party.

Tipping Point To Disaster: More Than Half Of Americans Now Live Off Government

March 11, 2011

I’m not the only one who thinks this doesn’t sound good at all, am I?

 It’s Official: Most Americans Make Their Living Off The Government A widely covered report from TrimTabs Investment Research, based on data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis, has found that 35 percent of all earnings are now direct transfer payments from the government. According to CNBC, “social welfare benefits make up 35 percent of wages and salaries this year, up from 21 percent in 2000 and 10 percent in 1960.”

But the real story is much worse. Nearly 8% of Americans work directly for the government while an additional 9.6% of Americans work as contractors for the government. Taken together, more than half of all Americans make their living directly from the government. “We have reached a tipping point,” says Grassfire Nation’s Steve Elliott. “That’s why what is happening in Wisconsin could have huge ramifications. Unless citizens stand now for less government and fiscal restraint, the government-dependent class will demand more and more government and our nation will be destroyed from within.”

I don’t want to see my country go the way of the Dodo bird, but at this point, it very much looks like we’ll be taking the trip.

Just remember when Soylent Green time comes to eat all the liberals first.

Latest ObamaCare ‘Oopsie’: HealthCare Destruction Act Already Killing People

December 16, 2010

It’s too expensive…so we’re going to let you die.” – Robert Reich, lifelong Democrat “expert”

A program that saves young people produces more welfare than one that saves old people” – Obama Regulatory Czar Cass Sunstein

At least we can let doctors know — and your mom know — that you know what, maybe this isn’t going to help. Maybe you’re better off, uhh, not having the surgery, but, uhh, taking the painkiller.” – The Hussein himself, informing a woman that it’s basically time to let her mother die.

ObamaCare Factoid: Access To Health Care Doesn’t Mean Squat When Hospitals, Doctors And Pharmacists Bail” – Title of article by Michael Eden now factually demonstrated to have been completely right.

Before I provide the article of the day, allow me to show you some things that I posted/wrote nearly a year ago:

This is nothing compared to what might happen under Democratic health overhaul plans, which would slash Medicare spending by nearly $500 billion over 10 years. As Medicare actuaries recently pointed out in understated fashion, such cuts “may be unrealistic.” But, if Congress actually carried them out, about one in five hospitals, nursing homes and home care agencies could lose money, they warned in their report. As a result, such providers could drop Medicare, leaving seniors with less access.

[…]

Don’t think for a second that this isn’t directly related to the disaster known as ObamaCare.  Democrats are gutting Medicare reimbursements and blocking the essential “doctor fix” from their bill to create the contrived and bogus illusion that their boondoggle will provide “deficit neutrality.”  They are playing all kinds of games and gimmicks, such as taxing for ten years and only providing benefits for five, to support that illusion. It will fail, and a lot of people will die.

[…]

And so, what do you think will happen when Democrats cut the reimbursement rates?  People who have commons sense know: hospitals and doctors will begin to see fewer and fewer Medicare patients, as a matter of simple economic necessity.   That isn’t a “reform,” but a disaster.

And this stuff is why the dean of the Harvard Medical School gave ObamaCare a failing grade.  It’s why the California Medical Association recently came out strongly against the bill.  It’s why more and more state governors – Democrats as well as Republicans – are beginning to scream that ObamaCare merely turns Medicaid into a giant deficit-creating unfunded mandate on the states (again, to create the illusion of being “deficit neutral”).

And, now, without further delay, the article of the day’s latest demonstration that the Democrat Party is the political arm of the devil and Barack Obama is leading America into ruin not seen since the last time socialism devastated Europe when our grandparents were young kids…

It is somehow ironically fitting that this destruction of our health care system would be described in Obama’s hometown.

Medicaid cuts: teeth pulled, transplant called off
By The Associated Press
Posted Dec 15, 2010

CHICAGO —

In Illinois, a pharmacist closes his business because of late Medicaid payments. In Arizona, a young father’s liver transplant is canceled because Medicaid suddenly won’t pay for it. In California, dentists pull teeth that could be saved because Medicaid doesn’t pay for root canals.

Across the country, state lawmakers have taken harsh actions to try to rein in the budget-busting costs of the health care program that serves 58 million poor and disabled Americans. Some states have cut payments to doctors, paid bills late and trimmed benefits such as insulin pumps, obesity surgery and hospice care.

Lawmakers are bracing for more work when they reconvene in January. Some states face multibillion-dollar deficits. Federal stimulus money for Medicaid is soon to evaporate. And Medicaid enrollment has never been higher because of job losses.

In the view of some lawmakers, Medicaid has become a monster, and it’s eating the budget. In Illinois, Medicaid sucks up more money than elementary, secondary and higher education combined.

“Medicaid is such a large, complicated part of our budget problem, that to get our hands around it is very difficult. It’s that big. It’s that bad,” said Illinois Sen. Dale Righter, a Republican and co-chairman of a bipartisan panel to reform Medicaid in Illinois, where nearly 30 percent of total spending goes to the program.

Medicaid costs are shared by the federal and state governments. It’s not just the poor and disabled who benefit. Wealthier people do, too, such as when middle-class families with elderly parents in nursing homes are relieved of financial pressure after Medicaid starts picking up the bills.

Contrary to stereotype, it’s the elderly and disabled who cost nearly 70 cents of every Medicaid dollar, not the single mother and her children.

In California, Medicaid no longer pays for many adult dental services. But it still pays for extractions, that is, tooth-pulling. The unintended consequence: Medicaid patients tell dentists to pull teeth that could be saved.

“The roots are fine. The tooth could be saved with a root canal,” said Dr. Nagaraj Murthy, who practices in Compton, Calif. “I had a patient yesterday. I said we could do a root canal. He said, ‘No, it’s hurting. Go ahead and pull it. I don’t have the money.”’

Murthy recently pulled an elderly woman’s last tooth, but Medicaid no longer pays for dentures.

“Elderly patients suffer the most,” Murthy said. “They’re walking around with no teeth.”

States can decide which optional services Medicaid covers, and dental care is among cutbacks in some places. Last year’s economic stimulus package increased the federal share of Medicaid money temporarily. But that money runs out at the end of June, when the federal government will go back to paying half the costs rather than 60 to 70 percent. So more cuts could be ahead.

During the Great Recession, millions of people relied on the Medicaid safety net. Between 2007 and 2009, the number of uninsured Americans grew by more than 5 million as workers lost jobs with employer-based insurance. Another 7 million signed up for Medicaid.

Just when caseloads hit their highest point, the nation’s new health care law required states not to change the rules on who’s eligible for Medicaid. That means states can’t roll up the welcome mat by tightening Medicaid’s income requirements.

So states have resorted to a variety of painful options.

In Arizona, lawmakers stopped paying for some kinds of transplants, including livers for people with hepatitis C. When the cuts took effect Oct. 1, Medicaid patient Francisco Felix, who needs a liver, suddenly had to raise $500,000 to get a transplant.

The 32-year-old’s case took a dramatic turn in November when a friend’s wife died, and her liver became available. Felix was prepped for surgery in hopes financial donations would come in. When the money didn’t materialize, the liver went to someone else, and Felix went home. His doctor told him he has a year before he’ll be too sick for a transplant.

“They are taking away his opportunity to live,” said his wife, Flor Felix. “It’s impossible for us or any family to get that much money.” The family is collecting donations through a website and plans a yard sale this weekend, she said.

The choices are difficult for states that have already cut payments to doctors and hospitals to the bone.

“If we don’t see an economic recovery where state revenues rebound, they’re really going to be very strained on how they can make ends meet,” said Diane Rowland, executive director of the Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured.

States may consider lowering payment rates to nursing homes or home health agencies or further reducing payments to doctors, Rowland said.

“The problem here is the program is pretty lean, and payment rates are pretty low,” she said. Patients can’t find care because fewer doctors accept the low payments.

Prescription drug coverage in states is an optional benefit, another possible place to cut, Rowland said. “But if you cut back on people’s psychotropic drugs, is that penny-wise and pound-foolish? Do they end up in institutions where Medicaid pays more for their care?”

In Illinois, late payments became the rule.

Tom Miller closed his pharmacy in rural southern Illinois this summer and is going through bankruptcy, largely because the state was chronically late making Medicaid payments to him. Most of his former customers are in the program.

With the state sometimes months behind in payments, he couldn’t pay his suppliers. Five workers lost their jobs when his business closed.

“You can only fight it for so long,” said Miller, 54. He now works as a pharmacist in a hospital. He misses his old clients, the families he grew to know.

“I was in my third generation. I’ve had moms who had kids. I saw the kids raised, and they had their own children,” he said. As a neighborhood pharmacist, “you’re their friend. You’re family.”

The death panels are right around the corner.  To the extent that they’re not already here right now, as with the case of Francisco Felix, who is being denied life by being denied a liver by Medicaid.

Francisco Felix never stood in front of a death panel; but bureaucrats don’t need you wasting their time with bothersome questions when they decide to let you die a slow and agonizing death due to medical neglect (or maybe you’re fortunate enough to get that pain pill from Obama?).

We told you so.  We told you soWe told you soWE TOLD YOU SO.

As one speaking from the lofty vantage point of one having a one-thousand percent batting average, let me forewarn you Democrats yet again: Someday, when you’re burning in hell for all eternity for your direct participation in the murder of 52 million innocent human beings in America alone through abortion, realize that God is going to turn up the fires a few billion extra degrees for the coming horror that is going to come to this country as a result of your ObamaCare disaster.