c07956f8-3ef6-44bc-a2da-5d30b9a3fa72

The Party of the Poor?

675e86d2-2f8e-42bf-99bd-923d1dfcfb4d

 

It’s been said many times that if you repeat anything loud enough and long enough sooner or later it becomes regarded as the truth. It’s a wise proverb and one which history has proven valid an innumerable number of times.

For example; ask just about anyone on Any Street in America, “Of the two political parties which is the one that tends to favor the poor?” Or, “Which one tends to favor the rich?” The answers you’ll get are entirely predictable, “Democrats are the party of the poor, Republicans of the rich.” It’s been stated, in fact drubbed, so loudly for so long that these statements and beliefs are de facto truth in the USA. But statistics have no agenda and do not lie. Does an analysis of evidence, facts and statistics bear these beliefs out to be true?

The United States has begun the seventh year of leadership under the most liberal of Democrat Presidents the Oval Office has ever known. Further, this president had control of one or both houses of Congress for all of his first six years in office. Thus it’s entirely accurate to state that the policy results in America today are thoroughly the result of Democrat party rule. Has all this implementation of Democrat ideology and policy initiative benefited the poor, made fewer poor, and been detrimental to the wealthy similarly making less of them as well? An objective analysis of the data leads to but one inarguable conclusion – not so much.

Under the first six years of the Obama administration the rich have gotten very rich, the poor have gotten very poor.

In 2012 the federal government (re)defined poverty as an annual income of $23,492 for a family of four. Today the number of Americans living in poverty is not only at alarmingly high numbers it has persisted at rates never before seen in the post-Depression era. The number of impoverished has steadily grown during the Obama presidency. According to data published by the U.S. Census Bureau in the first five years of the Obama presidency the number of Americans living at or below the federal poverty line was:

– 39.8 million in 2008
– 43.6 million in 2009
– 46.2 million in 2011
– 46.2 million in 2012
– 46.5 million in 2013

Numbers for 2014 are not yet published but estimates are that the number will be right around 50 million. 50 million Americans now living beneath the poverty line. Under President Obama the poverty level in America has broken a 50-year record.

Of course as the number of poor an impoverished continues to swell the numbers receiving some form of means-tested welfare has been rising as well. The number of Americans on federal welfare assistance has climbed every year of the Obama administration and will hit yet another post-Depression peak when the 2014 figures are released. Under Obama the number of Americans on SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program; formerly and often still referred to as “food stamps”) has also grown to and remained at record-setting levels. As of last summer an astonishing 46,225,054 U.S. residents were on food stamps.

This is a party and policy agenda that “helps” the poor, that “cares about” the poor? A more appropriate way of looking at it would be to say “Obama so loves the poor that he’s made millions more of them.”

But how about the rich? If Republicans are the party of the rich it would stand to reason that the rich should be faring poorly (no pun intended) under the Obama regime, but is that really the case? Once again, not so much.

The past six years have been very, very kind to the rich and ultra-rich in America. The Obama presidency has fostered an explosion in the number of millionaires within our borders and has bloated the bank accounts of the ‘already-millionaires’ in ways the George W. Bush presidency could hardly have imagined. (Or any other presidency for that matter.)

According to non-partisan wealth research and data firm WealthInsight, America added 1,000 millionaires per day or 1.1 million new millionaires during the first three years of Obama’s presidency. The pace for those entering the ‘now-we’re-rich’ ranks has not relented in the three years hence. And those at the top of the ‘already-filthy-rich-and-getting-richer’ pile have fared even better. Though he loves delivering swelling messages about the poor and middle classes and the need for government to do more to ‘help’ those struggling millions, the facts are that while the lower classes continue to miser away on penny-pinching budgets the economy on Obama’s watch has heaped huge windfalls on the already-rich.

The Obama economy has brought about the most number of households that report a net worth of five million dollar or more in U.S. history and also the largest number of households to report worths of twenty five million or more. The rich are getting very rich indeed.

According to CNN Money the number of households in the United States that have seen a net worth of one million dollars or more stood at 9.63 million in 2013, up by 600,000 from 2012. At 2008, the end of George W. Bush’s presidential tenure, the millionaires’ list stood at a now-paltry 6.7 million. In 2014 the Obama economy created 496,945 new millionaires. That’s last year alone!

No objective analysis of publicly-available data can lead to any other conclusions. Six years of an uber-liberal presidency has not helped the poor and lower classes nor has it harmed the rich and upper classes. It has done the exact opposite. We now have more poor and impoverished -historically high numbers of them; and we now have more wealthy and folks with money to burn -historically high numbers of them too.

So where does the notion of “Democrats are the party of the poor” and “Republicans are the party of the rich” come from? Well, if you repeat anything often enough it comes to be regarded as truth. If you repeat anything often enough it comes to be regarded as truth. If you repeat anything often enough it comes to be regarded as truth. If you repeat anything often enough it comes to be regarded as truth.

6e66e256-2d8f-4455-ae96-4adec0f49be0

Open Borders America

In case you didn’t know it (and everybody does) our President is a part of the “open borders” crowd. Open borders proponents believe ‘there are no lines’. When you look at a map, globe or atlas it has lines drawn on it which depict borders; where one nation ends and another begins. In reality of course those lines do not exist. No one ever took a giant piece of chalk and drew them onto the face of the earth. The Obama’s and open borders proponents of the world believe that if a person wants to live here there or wherever that it should be up to the individual not nations to make those calls. They believe that since no one owns the earth immigration is a right and that migration should be unfettered, unchecked and mostly if not completely unregulated. Anyone should be able to migrate any place any time they choose without check, restraint or even monitoring.

The open borders society is very real. They have their own foundations, lobby, websites and blogs, hold conventions and symposiums just like most special interest groups do. [http://openborders.info/] Their founding philosophy is that there are no lines, if you want to walk out of Mexico and into the United States to live who is the U.S. government to stop you? Or any other two bordered nations. Or any other nations whether they be bordered or not. This is the essence of open borders, “the world is not ours, we don’t own it, who are we to dictate who may go where or when?”

It’s a big idea to be certain, but there’s one more twist to discuss. See, many if not most of the people who want to come live in the United States cannot afford it. Most are destitute and reside in the nations of Central or South America. They would love to be in the USA and enjoy the standard of living here. Being impoverished in Guatemala and being impoverished in America are two completely different things. People living “in poverty” in America have refrigerators (with food in them), air conditioning, automobiles, access to world-class medical care, cell phones, etc. The question is, “How do we get there and who’s going to pay our way once we do?” Well, Mr. or Mrs. Impoverished in Guatemala, meet your hero and savior – Barack Obama.

Do you know what a “Family Reunification center” is? If not, you should. You’re paying for them. Family Reunification Centers are a part of President Obama’s vision for a fundamentally changed America and a part of the plan to push America into being a participant in an “open borders” planet, whether we the American people want it or not.

Remember those buses (paid for by you) which were all over the news a year ago? Department of Homeland Security coaches with the windows whited out so that we (the people who own them) could not see who was inside? Those buses were being used to shuttle tens and tens of thousands of children and young people to Family Reunification Centers in locations around our country. Exactly how many Reunification Centers there are, the locations of the FRC’s, how many children were being moved to them and what it all cost is information the DHS did not and has not made public. It’s all just buried someplace in the Department’s annual budget. (When you have a government with a $1.1 trillion 9-month budget it’s relatively easy to bury things.)

But make no mistake, this was a very intentional, extremely methodical progression. It’s happening in pre-programmed, incremental steps.

In his first term President Obama tried but could not get the D.R.E.A.M. Act (Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act) through Congress. Even though he had super-majorities in both the House and Senate when he tried to push the tab for paying the immigration bill for a million people onto the American people we went ballistic. Americans melted down our elected officials phone lines and broke their email inboxes with a resounding message of, “Heck no! You’ve gone too far, buster. Absolutely not! We are NOT paying for this. Period!” Capitol Hill Democrats ran for cover and there simply wasn’t sufficient congressional support to get the bill passed.

However we’ve seen multiple occasions what happens when there’s something Obama wants but the American people do not. As has come to be the norm, this President simply finds a way to impose his will upon the people by by-passing our Congressional representatives. In July of 2012 he resorted to his pen and got the “Dream Act” thru by signing an Executive Order claiming that it will “strengthen our economy and security.” With the stroke of a pen he granted amnesty to an estimated 800,000 to 1 million ‘young people’ or “Dreamers.”

Conservatives everywhere screamed, “Instead of ‘anchor babies’ this will create ‘anchor young people’! People will send children (who qualify for the Executive Order) then once the children are in the rest of the families will follow. This is a recipe for a border meltdown!” The administration denied such even existed in the world of possibilities. This is just for young people who are already here “through no fault of their own”, no such immigration magnet exists, conservatives are just a bunch of alarmists who hate brown people.

Well, we all remember the images. Children by the tens of thousands begin pouring across the southern border into our nation. The pictures are now infamous of rooms full of undocumented, under-aged children seemingly sent here by the world’s most irresponsible parents. They came by foot, by train, by truckloads. The images are no longer vogue and thus no longer make the evening news – but they’re still coming. Our southern border is under siege as you read this.

Those children were then herded onto buses and distributed to undisclosed locations around the nation. To taxpayer funded “Family Reunification Centers”.

Then the coup de gras. The second Executive Order. On November 20, 2014 President Obama gave every American household his personal Christmas gift (check that, he’d call it a “holiday” gift) when he announced his intention to grant citizenship-via-amnesty, regardless of age. The families of these young people/children/”Dreamers” now can be a part of the second much broader Executive Order, join the children they’d sent ahead in a Family Reunification Center, await citizen status for all them and *viola*, welcome new American citizens. No green card, no naturalization and immigration process, no learning about our founding, language, culture or customs, no classes or study about our Constitution, Declaration of Independence, system of self-governance nor none of what it formerly took to become a citizen. You just are one now.

If all of the above weren’t enough, once in they qualify for free schooling, free food, free phones, healthcare, driver’s licenses and last week we learned the IRS will award up to three years of past federal income tax “refunds” to these people even though they’ve never paid any income tax in the first place. And all of this, from the buses to transport them around the nation to the smart phones they’re using to surf the internet, is being paid for by you and me.

Welcome to the fundamentally transformed America. Welcome to hope and change. Welcome to a bold new world without borders.

e0f3fd51-09da-4fb1-aee3-4d6bd1c3e24f

The Case for Impeachment

In the event you missed it my latest column was published on American Thinker yesterday morning, “The Democratic Case for Impeachment“, and -sayso myself if I may- you don’t want to miss it. Its headed toward 300+ comments and 30,000+ clicks in less than 24 hours. In this piece I’ve made the cases that:

a) The ones who ought to be screaming for President Obama’s impeachment & removal from office are not the conservative Republicans but the nation’s Democrats!

b) “Many American voters, Democrats in particular, are in love with the idea of Obama but not in love with Obama’s ideas.”

I then lay out a statistical case for why these two notions are true.

The bottom line is; as upset as we conservatives are about this President’s agenda, policies & blatant disregard for the constitution its the Democrats who should be the most furious over Obama’s time in office. About the only thing Barack “The Destroyer of Democrats” Obama has been bombing is Democrat seats at legislative tables around the nation.

Be of light despair, patriot – things are never as bad as they seem nor as good as they seem, and the pendulum that has swung way out to the left will inevitably swing back the other way. (Obama is seeing to it.)

I highly recommend you check it out and then share it far and wide. Click here to see what I mean.

92718b93-70a1-4b02-8ebc-96c5846c1ca3

Abortion = 2 Classes of Citizens

The epicenter of the debate that’s been raging in America for decades surrounding abortion is the moral one; is it a “choice” or a life that’s worthy of protection? While that discussion grabs all the headlines, and rightfully so, there is another level of issue that’s seldom discussed but very important — the fact that abortion law in this country has divided us into two distinct classes of citizens; those with one set of rights, those without those -or any- rights.

Consider the following situations:

Scenario #1
A man and woman create a pregnancy (the only 2 people on planet earth that can, btw), He wants to have the child, is looking forward to teaching a son to throw a baseball, going to school plays, putting Bactine on skinned knees, etc. Very much wants the parenting experience, wants to become a father. She however does not want to become a parent. She goes to a clinic, aborts the pregnancy, terminates the baby’s life. She has acted within her “rights.” What rights did he, the other necessary half to this creation have? None.

He is another class of citizen.

Scenario #2
A man and woman create a pregnancy. She wants to have the baby and raise a child. He does not. He is powerless to stop it. When she gives birth she can go to a judge and via the courts he will be FORCED to provide financial support to rear this child he did not want or be thrown in jail. What rights does he have to opt-out of this coerced financial arrangement? None. His rights for the next eighteen years ended the moment she gave birth.

He is a different class of citizen.

The same government that holds him powerless to stop a birth he wants nothing to do with will similarly hold him powerless to stop the destruction of the child he wants everything to do with.

Scenario #3
A woman is walking into an abortion clinic to have her baby destroyed, a man jumps in front of her, punches her in the stomach and the baby dies. He can and will be charged with a homicide.

Scenario #4
She slips the punch, darts in the door and pays a doctor to end the baby’s life thirty minutes later, essentially doing the exact same thing her would-be attacker nearly did just outside the doors. What’s she charged with? Nothing. In fact, if she cannot afford to have the baby destroyed the same government that locked the man in #3 up for throwing the punch will provide her funding (extracted from you & me) so that she can have the baby killed.

She and he are different classes of citizens.

How does any of this make sense? How is any of this fair? It doesn’t and its not. We have created two classes of citizens; one protected class, one with a “special” set of rights. One that’s basically told “you are dog meat, you aren’t worth a damn.”

When evaluating candidate’s positions on a variety of topics I hope that all of us will consider this issue of abortion “rights” very carefully. Do we, as citizens, have equal rights? Or does my chromosomal makeup of having one X one Y somehow place me on different, unequal footing with those human beings with two X chromosomes?

The Mainstreaming of Cross-Dressing?

Cross Dressing Mainstream

In 2008 when candidate Barack Obama chose as his campaign slogan “Hope and Change” virtually all of us who were not swept up in the euphoria surrounding a young, seemingly bright, articulate, black candidate for president asked the glaringly obvious question, “Change from what to what?”

Sadly, tens of millions of Americans either never asked this basic question or simply didn’t care what the answer to it was if they did. And now we’re all finding out what some of the “change(s)” this man envisioned for our nation are.

From dismantling our military to all but abandoning Israel the list of “changes” is far too a tall, deep and wide to possibly delve into in a single newsletter (& keep that newsletter of a length that anyone would attempt to tackle.) So for now I’m going to focus on one such “change”; one that should be thoroughly alarming to anybody regardless of party affiliation.

Through out the history of mankind there has been ‘men’ and ‘women.’ Period. We used to have two genders; male and female. Thanks to the policy agenda of this administration that is now morphing into three; male, female, and “what I identify as.” The Obama administration is now saying that cross-dressing men must be treated like women, forcing employers that are federal contractors to install “gender neutral” facilities, and now schools in liberal parts of the nation are doing the same.

President Obama & A.G. General Eric Holder plan to recognize cross-dressing men as if they are women by re-interpreting the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

The Justice Department is now interpreting federal law to explicitly prohibit workplace discrimination against transgender people, according to a memo released by Holder. That means the Justice Department will be able to bring legal claims on behalf of people who say they’ve been discriminated against by state & local public employers. The federal government also will no longer take the position that Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act, which bans sex discrimination, does not protect against workplace discrimination on the basis of “GENDER STATUS”. Not “gender”, “gender status.” What, exactly, is “gender status”??

The memo is part of a broader Obama administration effort, the effort to introduce a new paradigm of three gender classifications. “The federal government’s approach to this issue has also evolved over time,” Holder wrote in the memo, saying his position was based on the “most straight forward reading of the law.”

Long story made short –if you’re an employer & one of your employees says he “IDENTIFIES” as a woman and you do not allow him to use the woman’s facilities or install special “gender neutral” facilities– get ready to be sued ….by the federal government!

That ‘gender unsure’ man can run to the U.S. Dept of ‘Justice’, scream “They won’t let me take showers in the woman’s showers, & God made a mistake – He gave me a penis but I’m not supposed to have one!” The United States government can take up that case, drag you & your company into court, force you to spend heaven knows how much to defend yourself & in the end you’ll lose anyway b/c the 64 Civil Rights Act is one strong, enduring piece of precedent – good luck beating it, even in this “re-interpreted” form.

This raises some interesting questions and possibilities: If we can “identify” as being another gender what else can we identify as?

How long will it be until someone, a Caucasian, brings a discrimination suit against the United Negro College Fund for denial of a scholarship on the basis of “I identify as being black”? “Yes, I may have light skin, but I have been identifying as black for over 10 years & as such am fully eligible for scholarship status.” How long until one of our nation’s few remaining all-women’s universities are similarly sued on the same basis? “I identify as an 18 year-old girl, let me in!”

Based on the announcement of the DOJ’s new interpretation of the 64 Civil Rights Act, the federal gov’t/DOJ itself would be compelled to carry such a suit. Girl Scouts? Boy Scouts? How about “I identify as a Native America Indian, that reservation on the other side of town is making millions off of those casinos & I demand, aka:am suing, to get my fair share of that money!”

How and where are the lines here?