Google+ Followers

Thursday, September 18, 2014

Wednesday, September 17, 2014 An Undocumented Community Organizer

Wednesday, September 17, 2014


An Undocumented Community Organizer

Image source unknown - But says it all!
by Lucinda Friggins, Contributing Author: If ever there was a question of which side of the terrorist agenda the Obama administration is on, this should clear it up.
• American journalist James Foley beheaded by ISIS terrorists…Obama goes to play golf
• American journalist Sotlof beheaded by ISIS terrorists … Obama leaves the country
• Islamic activists and lobbyists have successfully forced the removal of uncomplimentary references to Islamic terrorists from military training programs and a purge of information from the FBI materials under the direction of Attorney General Eric Holder.

We do not have a President/Commander in Chief in this country, we have an undocumented community organizer residing in the White House, who has put our country in a frightening position worldwide. He has already defected to the other side. His promise from the first day he took office was to change America. We are now witnessing the details of that promise.
• He has deliberately divided this country, racially
• He refuses to protect American citizens by ignoring his responsibility to secure our borders but is quick to take legal action against the states that attempt to do so.
• His corruption has encouraged many government agencies to break the law, followed by Eric Holder's determination to pick and choose which laws he will enforce.
• He's so busy fundraising that he can't and/or won't take the steps necessary to secure the safety of American citizens on our home soil or abroad.
• He is letting an American hero rot in prison in Mexico because he doesn't possess the leadership skills to call the President of Mexico and demand this hero's release.
• He has put in place restrictions on most every industry in the country to the point that we've quit producing, the coal industry for example.
• He wants to take our guns, regulate what we eat, regulate how we heat our homes, monitor what we say and where we can say it.
• He either has totally incompetent advisers, or he refuses to listen to their advice.
• He spends far too much time fundraising and playing golf racking up costly hours on Air Force One when he should be positioning himself in his land based office in Washington working with Congress and military advisers to wipe out ISIS, the cowardice scum of the earth.

If ISIS were truly being directed by the Koran, they would be proud to be identified for following their faith. They aren't though. They are a renegade band of denounced cowards who find it necessary to wear masks when murdering innocent victims.

British Prime Minister David Cameron held an emergency cabinet meeting Sunday following the release of a video of the brutal beheading of British aid worker David Haines. Cameron released a lengthy and powerful statement calling ISIS ‘monsters’ and itemizing what the British citizens are prepared to do to stop ISIS.

Obama delivered a statement void of any physical or emotional reaction to the killing of two American journalists and the atrocities carried out by the murderous terrorist gang ISIS. His address to the nation did nothing to establish our nation's plan to defeat ISIS or protect us at home, it merely highlighted what he feels his administration has done to make us safer since he took office. Our nation is less safe that it has ever been in history!

ISIS is recruiting our young people through social media. WHERE’S THE NSA? Why doesn’t the social media conglomerate ban this or report such chatter to NSA? If Obama had done his job correctly when it came to Iraq, chances are ISIS would be non-existent today. Al-Qaeda was not been defeated under the Obama administration, it was just splintered into even more radical Islamist extremist groups.

Obama has yet to do his job to protect the American citizens and our Constitution as he swore to do in his Oath of Office. His support comes from those Americans sitting a home waiting on their next benefit check and financial backers wanting to create a dependent society. Obama is a catalyst to misguided American youth hell bent on creating havoc, an embarrassment to informed Americans, and a disgrace among world leaders.

I disrespect this man so much that I cannot refer to him as President or even Mr., but pay attention to how often the media address him as Barack or Mr., not by his official title.

Ideally, we would be better off to give Obama paid leave for the remainder of his term, negotiate a slot for him on the PGA tour (with Harry Reid as caddy), put a "For Rent" sign in a window at the White House, and let him play golf and stay out of government affairs.
-------------
Lucinda Friggins is the pen name of a widowed great-grandmother who is concerned about out of control big government and the effect it will have on her children and her grandchildren. “Remember, all men would be tyrants if they could.” ~ Abigail Adams 

Tags: Socialist,islam,muslim,idiot,pathological liar,undocumented illegal?,democrats,ignorant people To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the The Blue View From MO Thanks!
http://patriotpost.us/digests/29240Patriot Post Digests - always worth the read

Tags: INSERT TAGS To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the The Blue View From MO Thanks!


The Giver and Bioethics
by Kerby Anderson

Subscribe to Kerby's Point of View

Two weeks ago I wrote a column based on the movie, The Giver. Today I would like to revisit the film because of an op-ed by Arina Grossu that appeared in USA Today. She wrote about the many bioethical implications of the movie. Everyone lives in a socialist paradise where everything is equal and everything (the environment, the weather, even emotions) is controlled.

The topic of surrogacy surfaces early in the movie. Surrogates in a clinic rear children away from their parents. They monitor the genetic and medical health of the children who are created. Only the healthy are allowed to survive. This sounds eerily like the recent story of a couple that asked a surrogate mother to abort one of the twins because he had Down Syndrome. When she refused, they took only the healthy twin sister and demanded a refund.

I might mention that one of the most jarring scenes in the film is when the father of the main character takes a needle and inserts it into the head of a baby who didn't make the grade. He says cheerfully to the baby "Bye-bye little guy" and then places him in a box and drops him in a chute.

When she was on my radio program, Arina Grossu noted how similar that act was to the horrors we have discovered from Philadelphia abortion doctor, Kermit Gosnell. She also talked about the Twitter message from atheist, Richard Dawkins. He said a couple with an unborn child with Down Syndrome should "Abort it and try again. It would be immoral to bring it into the world if you have the choice."

In addition to infanticide, there is a clear reference to euthanasia. When elderly people in this dystopia no longer have any utility, they are "released." This is done with a ceremony before the people of the community. Apparently these death panels decide when it is your time to go.

You can judge the morality of a society by what it does for its weakest members. The book and movie start out describing a utopia, but soon we see how it treats those who are not perfect. Sadly, our world today looks too much like the community in the book and movie.

Tags: INSERT TAGS To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the The Blue View From MO Thanks!

Wednesday, September 17, 2014

Obama ranked 5th Best President!


 
 
 
Subject: Obama ranked 5th Best President!
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Be Blessed,

 

Thanks,

Len Thies

Lrthies@mchsi.com | www.NoSpinBible.com

O: 417-742-4753 | C: 417-522-4480

"Live as if you were to die tomorrow.  Learn as if you were to live forever." – Mahatma Gandhi.

 

Confidentiality Warning: This e-mail is the property of Len Thies. It contains information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this e-mail is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, any dissemination, publication or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. The sender does not accept any responsibility for any loss, disruption or damage to your data or computer system that may occur while using data contained in, or transmitted with, this e-mail. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail, and destroy this communication and all copies thereof, including all attachments. Thank you.

 




This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.


Backgrounder #2955 on Poverty and Inequality
September 15, 2014

The War on Poverty After 50 Years

 
Abstract
In his January 1964 State of the Union address, President Lyndon Johnson proclaimed, “This administration today, here and now, declares unconditional war on poverty in America.” In the 50 years since that time, U.S. taxpayers have spent over $22 trillion on anti-poverty programs. Adjusted for inflation, this spending (which does not include Social Security or Medicare) is three times the cost of all U.S. military wars since the American Revolution. Yet progress against poverty, as measured by the U.S. Census Bureau, has been minimal, and in terms of President Johnson’s main goal of reducing the “causes” rather than the mere “consequences” of poverty, the War on Poverty has failed completely. In fact, a significant portion of the population is now less capable of self-sufficiency than it was when the War on Poverty began.
This week, the U.S. Census Bureau is scheduled to release its annual poverty report. The report will be notable because this year marks the 50th anniversary of the launch of President Lyndon Johnson’s War on Poverty. In his January 1964 State of the Union address, Johnson proclaimed, “This administration today, here and now, declares unconditional war on poverty in America.”[1]
Since that time, U.S. taxpayers have spent over $22 trillion on anti-poverty programs (in constant 2012 dollars). Adjusted for inflation, this spending (which does not include Social Security or Medicare) is three times the cost of all military wars in U.S. history since the American Revolution. Despite this mountain of spending, progress against poverty, at least as measured by the government, has been minimal.
 

The Welfare–Poverty Paradox

This week, the Census Bureau will most likely report that the poverty rate last year was about 14 percent, essentially the same rate as in 1967, three years after the War on Poverty was announced. As Chart 1 shows, according to the Census, there has been no net progress in reducing poverty since the mid to late 1960s. Since that time, the poverty rate has undulated slowly, falling by two to three percentage points during good economic times and rising by a similar amount when the economy slows. Overall, the trajectory of official poverty for the past 45 years has been flat or slightly upward.
The static nature of poverty is especially surprising because (as Chart 1 also shows) poverty fell dramatically during the period before the War on Poverty began. In 1950, the poverty rate was 32.2 percent. By 1965 (the first year during which any War on Poverty programs began to operate), the rate had been cut nearly in half to 17.3 percent.[2]
The unchanging poverty rate for the past 45 years is perplexing because anti-poverty or welfare spending during that period has simply exploded. As Chart 2 shows, means-tested welfare spending has soared since the start of the War on Poverty. In fiscal year 2013, the federal government ran over 80 means-tested welfare programs that provided cash, food, housing, medical care, and targeted social services to poor and low-income Americans.
 
Overall, 100 million individuals—nearly one in three Americans—received benefits from at least one of these programs. Federal and state governments spent $943 billion in 2013 on these programs at an average cost of $9,000 per recipient. (Again, Social Security and Medicare are not included in the totals.)
Today, government spends 16 times more, adjusting for inflation, on means-tested welfare or anti-poverty programs than it did when the War on Poverty started. But as welfare spending soared, the decline in poverty came to a grinding halt. As Chart 2 shows, the more the government spent, the less progress against poverty was made.
How can this paradox be explained? How can government spend $9,000 per recipient and have no apparent impact on poverty? The answer is that it can’t.
The conundrum of massive anti-poverty spending and unchanging poverty rates has a simple explanation. The Census Bureau counts a family as “poor” if its income falls below specific thresholds,[3] but in counting “income,” the Census omits nearly all of government means-tested spending on the poor.[4] In effect, it ignores almost the entire welfare state when it calculates poverty. This neat bureaucratic ploy ensured that welfare programs could grow infinitely while “poverty” remained unchanged.

Living Conditions of the Poor in America[5]

Consumption by Poor Families. Since the Census Bureau dramatically undercounts the actual incomes of the poor, it should be no surprise to find that the U.S. Department of Labor routinely reports that poor families spend $2.40 for every $1.00 of their reported income.[6] If public housing benefits are added to the tally, the ratio of consumption to income rises to $2.60 for every $1.00. In other words, the “income” figures that the Census Bureau uses to calculate poverty dramatically undercount the economic resources available to lower-income households.
Amenities. Because the official Census poverty report undercounts welfare income, it fails to provide meaningful information about the actual living conditions of less affluent Americans. The government’s own data show that the actual living conditions of the more than 45 million people deemed “poor” by the Census Bureau differ greatly from popular conceptions of poverty.[7] Consider these facts taken from various government reports:[8]
  • Eighty percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, at the beginning of the War on Poverty, only about 12 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
  • Nearly three-quarters have a car or truck; 31 percent have two or more cars or trucks.[9]
  • Nearly two-thirds have cable or satellite television.
  • Two-thirds have at least one DVD player, and a quarter have two or more.
  • Half have a personal computer; one in seven has two or more computers.
  • More than half of poor families with children have a video game system such as an Xbox or PlayStation.
  • Forty-three percent have Internet access.
  • Forty percent have a wide-screen plasma or LCD TV.
  • A quarter have a digital video recorder system such as a TIVO.
  • Ninety-two percent of poor households have a microwave.
For decades, the living conditions of the poor have steadily improved. Consumer items that were luxuries or significant purchases for the middle class a few decades ago have become commonplace in poor households. In part, this is caused by a normal downward price trend following the introduction of a new product. Initially, new products tend to be expensive and available only to the affluent. Over time, prices fall sharply, and the product becomes widely prevalent throughout the population, including poor households. This is a general sign of desirable economic progress.
Liberals use the declining relative prices of many amenities to argue that even though poor households have air conditioning, computers, cable TV, and wide-screen TVs, they still suffer from substantial material deprivation in basic needs such as food and housing. Here again, the data tell a different story.
Poverty, Nutrition, and Hunger. Despite impressions to the contrary, most of the poor do not experience undernutrition, hunger, or food shortages.[10] Information on these topics is collected by the household food security survey of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The USDA survey shows that in 2009:
  • Ninety-six percent of poor parents stated that their children were never hungry at any time during the year because they could not afford food.
  • Some 83 percent of poor families reported that they had enough food to eat.
  • Some 82 percent of poor adults reported that they were never hungry at any time in the prior year due to lack of money to buy food.
  • As a group, America’s poor are far from being chronically undernourished. The average consumption of protein, vitamins, and minerals is virtually the same for poor and middle-class children and in most cases is well above recommended norms. Poor children actually consume more meat than do higher-income children and have average protein intakes 100 percent above recommended levels.[11]
  • Most poor children today are, in fact, supernourished and grow up to be, on average, one inch taller and 10 pounds heavier than the GIs who stormed the beaches of Normandy in World War II.[12]
Housing and Poverty. TV newscasts about poverty in America generally depict the poor as homeless or as residing in dilapidated living conditions. While some families do experience such severe conditions, they are far from typical of the population defined as poor by the Census Bureau. The actual housing conditions of poor families are very different.[13]
  • Over the course of a year, only 4 percent of poor persons become temporarily homeless. At a single point in time, one in 70 poor persons is homeless.[14]
  • Only 9.5 percent of the poor live in mobile homes or trailers; 49.5 percent live in separate single-family houses or townhouses, and 40 percent live in apartments.
  • Forty-two percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.
  • Only 7 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.
  • The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Sweden, France, Germany, or the United Kingdom. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)[15]
  • The vast majority of the homes or apartments of the poor are in good repair and without significant defects.
By his own report, the average poor person had sufficient funds to meet all essential needs and was able to obtain medical care for his family throughout the year whenever needed.
Of course, poor Americans do not live in the lap of luxury. The poor clearly struggle to make ends meet, but they are generally struggling to pay for cable TV, air conditioning, and a car, as well as food for the table. The average poor person is far from affluent, but his lifestyle is equally far from the images of stark deprivation purveyed by advocacy groups and the mainstream media. The challenges go much deeper than a lack of material resources.

Was the War on Poverty a Success?

Do the higher living standards of the poor mean that the War on Poverty has been successful? The answer is no, for two reasons. First, the incomes and living standards of less affluent Americans were rising rapidly well before the War on Poverty began. (See Charts 1 and 2.)
Second, and more important, to assess the War on Poverty, we must understand President Johnson’s actual goal when he launched it. The original goal of the War on Poverty was not to prop up living standards artificially through an ever-expanding welfare state. Instead, Johnson declared that his war would strike “at the causes, not just the consequences of poverty.”[16] He added, “Our aim is not only to relieve the symptom of poverty, but to cure it and, above all, to prevent it.”[17]
In other words, President Johnson was not proposing a massive system of ever-increasing welfare benefits, doled out to an ever-enlarging population of beneficiaries. His proclaimed goal was not a massive new system of government handouts but an increase in self-sufficiency: a new generation capable of supporting themselves out of poverty without government handouts.
LBJ actually planned to reduce, not increase, welfare dependence. He declared, “We want to give the forgotten fifth of our people opportunity not doles.”[18] He claimed that his war would enable the nation to make “important reductions” in future welfare spending: The goal of the War on Poverty, he stated, would be “making taxpayers out of taxeaters.”[19] Because he viewed the War on Poverty as a means to increase self-support, Johnson proclaimed that it would be an “investment” that would “return its cost manifold to the entire economy.”

Measuring Self-Sufficiency

How has the War on Poverty fared with respect to President Johnson’s paramount goal of promoting self-sufficiency? What return have the taxpayers reaped from their $22 trillion “investment”? Paradoxically, the answers to these questions are best provided by the Census Bureau’s official poverty statistics.
As noted, Census poverty figures are misleading as a measure of actual living conditions because they exclude nearly all welfare assistance. They do, however, provide a fairly accurate measure of a family’s wages and earnings. This means that the official Census “poverty” figures are, in fact, a good measure of President Johnson’s original goal of promoting “self-sufficiency”: the ability of a family to sustain itself above the poverty level through its own work and investment without reliance on welfare aid.
 
Chart 3 repeats the official Census “poverty” figures from Chart 1 but relabels them more accurately as a “self-sufficiency” index. The story told by the chart is striking.
In the decade and a half before the start of the War on Poverty, low-income Americans experienced dramatic improvements in self-sufficiency. The share of Americans who lacked self-sufficiency was cut nearly in half, falling from 32.2 percent in 1950 to 17.3 percent in 1965.
During the first six years after Johnson announced the War on Poverty (1965 to 1970), self-sufficiency continued to improve steadily. New government programs were initiated. Means-tested welfare spending increased sharply from $57 billion in 1964 to $141 billion (measured in constant 2012 dollars).
Some authors suggest that the continuing decline in official poverty from 1965 to 1970 demonstrates the initial success of the War on Poverty, but over 90 percent of the increased spending during this period was in the form of non-cash benefits that the Census does not count for purposes of measuring poverty.[20] It is therefore impossible for the expansion of means-tested welfare to have directly produced the large decline in official poverty that occurred during this period.
Programs that in theory could have reduced poverty indirectly by raising wages and employment were regarded as largely ineffective and were limited in scope. For example, in the late 1960s, only 300,000 participants per year were enrolled in Job Corps and related training programs.[21]
Thus, it is implausible to suggest that the decline in official poverty between 1965 and 1970 was due substantially to the direct or indirect effects of War on Poverty programs. Rather, official poverty declined and self-sufficiency improved for the same general reason that these improvements occurred before 1965: a steady rise of wages and education levels.
Unfortunately, the situation changed in the early 1970s. The steady improvement in self-sufficiency slowed and then came to a halt. For the next four decades, self-sufficiency has remained stagnant or has slightly worsened.
The big picture is clear: For 20 years, from 1950 to 1970, self-sufficiency (and official poverty) improved dramatically. In the next four decades, there was no progress at all; the self-sufficiency rate remained essentially static. In terms of President Johnson’s main goal of reducing the “causes” rather than the mere “consequences” of poverty, the War on Poverty has failed completely, despite $22 trillion in spending. In fact, a significant portion of the population is now less capable of self-sufficiency than it was when the War on Poverty began.
 
 

What Went Wrong?

The lack of progress in self-sufficiency for the past four decades is stunning. Many factors have contributed to this problem. For example, high school graduation rates, after increasing rapidly throughout the 20th century, largely plateaued after 1970.[22] Broad economic factors also played a role, especially the slowdown in wage growth among low-skilled male workers since 1973. On the other hand, employment and wages among women increased, and this should have led to increased self-sufficiency.[23]
Although President Johnson intended the War on Poverty to increase Americans’ capacity for self-support, exactly the opposite has occurred. The vast expansion of the welfare state has dramatically weakened the capacity for self-sufficiency among many Americans by eroding the work ethic and undermining family structure.
When Johnson launched the War on Poverty, 7 percent of American children were born outside of marriage. Today, the number is over 40 percent. (See Chart 4.) As the welfare state expanded, marriage stagnated and single parenthood soared.
 
As Chart 5 shows, there has been no significant increase in the number of married-couple families with children (both poor and non-poor) in the U.S. since 1965. By contrast, the number of single-parent families with children has skyrocketed by nearly 10 million, rising from 3.3 million such families in 1965 to 13.2 million in 2012. Since single-parent families are roughly four times more likely than married-couple families to lack self-sufficiency (and to be officially poor), this unravelling of family structure has exerted a powerful downward pull against self-sufficiency and substantially boosted the official child poverty rate.
Since the beginning of the War on Poverty, the absolute number of married-couple families with children in official poverty has declined, but as Chart 6 shows, the number of single-parent families in official poverty (or lacking self-sufficiency) has more than tripled, increasing from 1.6 million in 1965 to 4.8 million today. When the War on Poverty began, 36 percent of poor families with children were headed by single parents; today, the figure is 68 percent. [24]
The War on Poverty crippled marriage in low-income communities. As means-tested benefits were expanded, welfare began to serve as a substitute for a husband in the home, eroding marriage among lower-income Americans. In addition, the welfare system actively penalized low-income couples who did marry by eliminating or substantially reducing benefits. As husbands left the home, the need for more welfare to support single mothers increased. The War on Poverty created a destructive feedback loop: Welfare promoted the decline of marriage, which generated the need for more welfare.
Today, unwed childbearing and the resulting growth of single-parent homes is the most important cause of official child poverty.[25] If poor women who give birth outside of marriage were married to the fathers of their children, two-thirds would immediately be lifted out of official poverty and into self-sufficiency.[26]
The welfare state has also reduced self-sufficiency by providing economic rewards to able-bodied adults who do not work or who work comparatively little. The low level of parental work is a major cause of official child poverty and the lack of self-sufficiency. Even in good economic times, the median poor family with children has only 1000 hours of parental work per year. This is the equivalent of one adult working 20 hours per week. If the amount of work performed in poor families with children was increased to the equivalent of one adult working full-time through the year, the poverty rate among these families would drop by two-thirds.[27]
 
 

Conclusion

This lack of progress in building self-sufficiency is due in major part to the welfare system itself. Welfare wages war on social capital, breaking down the habits and norms that lead to self-reliance, especially those of marriage and work. It thereby generates a pattern of increasing intergenerational dependence. The welfare state is self-perpetuating: By undermining productive social norms, welfare creates a need for even greater assistance in the future.
As the War on Poverty passes the half-century mark, it is time to rein in the endless growth in welfare spending and return to LBJ’s original goals. As the economy improves, total means-tested spending should be moved gradually toward pre-recession levels. Able-bodied, non-elderly adult recipients in all federal welfare programs should be required to work, prepare for work, or at least look for a job as a condition of receiving benefits.
Finally—and most important—the anti-marriage penalties should be removed from welfare programs, and long-term steps should be taken to rebuild the family in lower-income communities.
—Robert Rector is a Senior Research Fellow and Rachel Sheffield is a Policy Analyst in the Institute for Family, Community, and Opportunity at The Heritage Foundation.
Show references in this report
[1] Lyndon B. Johnson, “Annual Message to the Congress on the State of the Union,” January 8, 1964, http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=26787 (accessed September 8, 2014).
[2] The poverty figures for 1947 through 1958 are taken from Gordon Fisher, “Estimates of the Poverty Population Under the Current Official Definition for Years Before 1959,” U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, 1986. The figures for 1953 and 1954 were interpolated. Copies of this document will be made available on request from the authors. These estimates are not official government figures.
[3] For example, the poverty income threshold for a family of four including two children in 2013 was $23,624 per year. U.S. Census Bureau, “Preliminary Estimates of Weighted Average Poverty Thresholds for 2013,” http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/threshld/index.html (accessed September 8, 2014).
[4] Typically, only 3 percent of total means-tested spending is counted by the Census as “income” for purposes of deriving the official poverty measure.
[5] See Robert Rector and Rachel Sheffield, “Understanding Poverty in the United States: Surprising Facts About America’s Poor,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 2607, September 13, 2011, http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/09/understanding-poverty-in-the-united-states-surprising-facts-about-americas-poor, and Robert Rector and Rachel Sheffield, “Air Conditioning, Cable TV, and an Xbox: What Is Poverty in the United States Today?” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 2575, July 18, 2011, http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/07/what-is-poverty?ac=1.
[6] Calcuated by the authors from U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Expenditure Survey for 2012, http://www.bls.gov/cex/home.htm#products (accessed September 8, 2014).
[7] The government surveys that provide data on the actual living conditions of poor Americans include the Residential Energy Consumption Survey, What We Eat in America, Food Security, the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, the American Housing Survey, and the Survey of Income and Program Participation. See U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, Residential Energy Consumption Survey, http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/ (accessed June 22, 2011); U.S. Department of Agriculture, What We Eat in America, NHANES 2007–2008, Table 4, http://www.ars.usda.gov/SP2UserFiles/Place/12355000/pdf/0708/Table_4_NIN_POV_07.pdf (accessed June 22, 2011); Mark Nord, “Food Insecurity in Households with Children: Prevalence, Severity, and Household Characteristics,” U.S. Department of Agriculture, September 2009, http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/EIB56/EIB56.pdf (accessed September 7, 2011); U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, “About the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey,” http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes/about_nhanes.htm (accessed September 7, 2011); U.S. Census Bureau, Current Housing Reports, Series H150/11, American Housing Survey for the United States: 2011 (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 2013), http://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/ahs/data/2011/h150-11.html (accessed September 8, 2014); and U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation, 2001 Panel, Wave 8 Topical Module, 2003, http://www.bls.census.gov/sipp_ftp.html#sipp01 (accessed June 27, 2011).
[8] Unless otherwise noted, data on the physical amenities in poor households are calculated from the 2009 Residential Energy Consumption Survey (RECS) conducted by the U.S. Department of Energy, http://www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/data/2009/index.cfm?view=microdata (accessed September 8, 2014).
[9] U.S. Census Bureau, American Housing Survey for the United States: 2011.
[10] The figures on food consumption and hunger were calculated from U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, December 2009 Food Security Supplement. The December supplement data provide the basis for the household food security reports of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
[11] Katherine S. Tippett et al., Food and Nutrient Intakes by Individuals in the United States, 1 Day, 1989–91, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, September 1995, http://www.ars.usda.gov/SP2UserFiles/Place/12355000/pdf/csfii8991_rep_91-2.pdf (accessed September 7, 2011). More recent data are available from the authors upon request.
[12] Bernard D. Karpinos, “Current Height and Weight of Youths of Military Age,” Human Biology, Vol. 33 (1961), pp. 336–364. Recent data on young males in poverty provided by the National Center for Health Statistics of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, based on the second National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey.
[13] Unless otherwise noted, figures on the housing of poor households are taken from U.S. Census Bureau, American Housing Survey for the United States: 2011.
[14] U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Community Planning and Development, The 2009 Annual Homeless Assessment Report to Congress, June 2010, p. 8, http://www.hudhre.info/documents/5thHomelessAssessmentReport.pdf (accessed June 22, 2011).
[15] Kees Dol and Marietta Haffner, Housing Statistics of the European Union 2010, Netherlands Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations, September 2010, p. 51, Table 2.1, http://abonneren.rijksoverheid.nl/media/dirs/436/data/housing_statistics_in_the_european_union_2010.pdf (accessed September 7, 2011), and U.S. Department of Energy, 2005 Residential Energy Consumption Survey, Consumption & Expenditures Tables, Summary Statistics, Table US1, Part 2, http://www.eia.gov/emeu/recs/recs2005/hc2005_tables/c&e/pdf/tableus1part2.pdf (accessed September 7, 2011).
[16] Lyndon B. Johnson, “Proposal for a Nationwide War on the Sources of Poverty,” March 16, 1964, http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1964johnson-warpoverty.html (accessed August 27, 2009).
[17] Johnson, “Annual Message to the Congress on the State of the Union,” January 8, 1964.
[18] Ibid.
[19] President Lyndon Johnson, quoted in David Zaretsky, President Johnson’s War on Poverty: Rhetoric and History (Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 1986), p. 49.
[20] Data available from the authors upon request.
[21] James T. Patterson, America’s Struggle Against Poverty 1900–1994 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1995), p. 128.
[22] U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Digest of Educational Statistics, Table 122, “High school graduates, by sex and control of school: Selected years, 1869–70 through 2021–22,” http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d12/tables/dt12_122.asp (accessed September 8, 2014).
[23] The welfare reform legislation enacted in 1996 had a significant positive effect in decreasing welfare dependence, increasing self-sufficiency, and reducing official poverty among single mothers. After remaining largely static for 35 years, the percentage of single-mother families that lacked self-sufficiency dropped sharply from 42 percent in 1996 to 33 percent in 2000. However, most of these gains have been offset by the erosions of the reform’s work requirements after 2001 and by the weakness of the U.S. economy after 2007. Finally, and most important, the reforms have been overwhelmed by the growth of additional poverty-prone single-parent families since 1996.
[24] U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplements, “Historical Poverty Tables—Families,” Table 4, http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/historical/families.html (accessed September 11, 2014) The poverty rate of single-parent male-headed families between 1959 and 1973 is assumed to equal the 1974 rate of 15 percent. This assumption has no significant effect on the results.
[25] Out-of-wedlock childbearing is not the same thing as teen pregnancy; the overwhelming majority of non-marital births occur to young adult women in their early twenties, not to teenagers in high school.
[26] Robert E. Rector, Kirk A. Johnson, Patrick F. Fagan, and Lauren R. Noyes, “Increasing Marriage Would Dramatically Reduce Child Poverty,” Heritage Foundation Center for Data Analysis Report No. CDA03-06, May 20, 2003, http://www.heritage.org/Research/Family/cda0306.cfm.
[27] Robert E. Rector and Rea S. Hederman, Jr., “The Role of Parental Work in Child Poverty,” Heritage Foundation Center for Data Analysis Report No. CDA03-01, January 29, 2003, http://www.heritage.org/Research/Family/cda-03-01.cfm.

Tags: heritage,poverty,wasted monies,failure,government,johnson,democrats,liberals, To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the The Blue View From MO Thanks!
Is the Constitution Dead?

Today we celebrate the 227th anniversary of the U.S. Constitution and ask the question, “is the Constitution dead?” Has it survived despite the many years of degradation it has suffered or did it succumb long ago?

The other day I was confronted with the idea that perhaps the Constitution is already null and void and has been for some time now based on the many unconstitutional acts of the federal government, some beginning as long as a hundred years ago. I'll be the first to admit that much, perhaps even most of what the federal government does, is not allowed under the Constitution. But does that mean that the Constitution has failed, that it doesn't work, that it is no longer valid, has become irrelevant and that we should quit contending for the founding principles of the American Constitutional republic? Or does it merely mean that we the people have ignorantly and foolishly elected persons who are now subjecting us to an unconstitutional, and therefore alien, form of government?

I believe some people confuse conservatism with Constitutionalism and the conservative movement with the current efforts of Constitutionists. The two tend to be treated as synonymous and lumped together under one title. I admit that some who are called conservatives are Constitutionists, though not all, and Constitutionalism is what conservatism once was, or sought to be. However, Constitutionalism and modern conservatism are quite different entities. I contend that it is conservatism that has expired and lapsed into irrelevance while the principles of Constitutionalism remain ever relevant and worthy of our most valiant efforts to contend for.

Conservatism began as an attempt to "conserve" or "preserve" our Constitutional form of government and its accompanying liberty. Conservatism also came to include endeavors to preserve the traditional Christian morals of our society. Conservatism has been failing for a half century now as everything that it sought to preserve has been continually slipping through the fingers of the Christian-conservative-right. With each defeat, the banner of conservatism moves a little to the left and finds itself planted on a new piece of ground from which it attempts to preserve the new state of affairs. Much of what is being called conservatism today would actually have been fought against by the founders of conservatism. If Barry Goldwater, the acknowledged founder of the conservative movement, were to come back from the dead, he would slap John Boehner and the Republican leaders silly and call them liberal, socialist traitors and enemies of the Constitution. It could easily be argued that conservatism is dead, or at least that the “new conservatism” is irrelevant, useless and not worth spending effort contending for. But what about Constitutionalism?

If I may use an analogy to help us see the matter – let's suppose that there is a small town of good, generally moral people, most of whom attend the town's one church. There is no tavern in town and no vices are publicly practiced. One day a bar opens for business and the town's people start getting drunk, including some of the church goers. The pastor starts a movement to "conserve" the morals of the community and preserve its current state. Over time, more and more people start hanging out at the bar until hardly anyone is left attending church. Then a nightclub with strippers opens up and the town's people start leaving the bar and heading for the nightclub. So the preacher now moves out of his church and takes up residence at the bar where he begins pleading with people to “conserve” the current morals of the community by staying at the bar and not go to the nightclub. Next an opium den opens and... well, you get the picture, the cycle just keeps repeating.

Has the preacher's attempts to "conserve" the morals of the community failed? Quite obviously. However, has the Bible been defeated? Have it's precepts been disproved as irrelevant and no longer worth contending for? Absolutely not! The Bible is still as relevant as the day the bar moved in to town. The Bible still holds the answers to all the troubles of the town's people and is the cure for all the woes for which they seek to become intoxicated enough to be able to cope. The counsel of God's word can still fix every problem they have. The Bible is totally relevant, totally applicable to their situation and its preaching and teaching in the community is needed now more than ever.

The U.S. Constitution, as well as the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights, are to the nation much like the Bible is to the church or to the individual. The Constitution, and the Biblically aligned principles that the founders based it upon, are still relevant, still right and still hold the answers for what ails government and society today. The Constitutional principles have not been defeated nor disproved any more than the Word of God has been defeated or disproved, they simply haven't been practiced in awhile, and that to the detriment of society.

Government may not currently be following the precepts of the Constitution, but the document and the principles upon which it was established are still true, are still sound, are still the law of the land and would still produce liberty, peace and prosperity if observed. Like with the Bible, it is when men are not following sound principles that those principles are in the greatest need of being taught, preached and proclaimed so that a wayward nation can find its way back by following the voice of the American founders crying out to us through our founding documents and through those who are still contending for the principles that they embody.

Constitutionalism has not been defeated nor disproved, it simply hasn't been practiced, but that doesn't mean we should stop contending for it.
 

Tags: conservative,gop,democrat,republican,truth,liberty,right To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the The Blue View From MO Thanks!

Tuesday, September 16, 2014

John Ransom
Record ice in Antarctica is more proof that Obama is a failure. Despite claiming to control the weather with both his genius intellect and the power of his superhuman Nobel prize, it's been apparent he is not succeeding.
And we’ve all noticed it for some time now.
No matter the circumstances, every weather event is blamed on global warming in an attempt to cover up Obama's nefarious plot failure.
Cold temperature? Global warming. Hot temperatures? Global warming? Snow? Global warming. Drought? Global warming. Hurricanes, tornadoes or the lack thereof? Global warming. There was even an attempt by a ditzy news anchor on CNN—is there any other kind on CNN?-- to blame a meteorite on global warming.
It’s gotten so bad that I’m surprised that global warming hasn’t been tied to white men and rape.
Oh that’s right. It has been.
And now in another attempt to explain the unexplainable, to deny what is obvious—that global warming just isn’t happening (at least not how its evangelists would wish)—scientists have come up with a new theory why record ice at Antarctica could be yet ANOTHER weather event where cooling temperatures are an indication of global warming.
“CEO of the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems CRC, Tony Worby,” reports ABCNews in Australia, “said the warming atmosphere is leading to greater sea ice coverage by changing wind patterns.”
The cool part—ha, ha cool part-- is that an old-time actor, one you thought was dead and gone, plays a prominent role in this global warming passion play.
"The extent of sea ice is driven by the winds around Antarctica, and we believe that they're increasing in strength and part of that is around the depletion of ozone," said Worby.
Ah, yes, our old friend the ozone hole-- the last greatest threat to the earth since Mikkos Cassadine targeted Port Charles with his diabolical weather machine in an attempt to keep the ratings going at General Hospital-- is making a comeback.
Yes, the big ozone hole above Antarctica that was supposedly going to melt the entire world-- because it was already too late to save the whales, or the darter snail, or the cheery woodland owl-- is actually warming the world again, while also helping generate record ice right below the hole that’s gonna melt the world in conjunction with global warming that is producing record low temperature and lots and lots of snow.
Right?
Right.
It should be noted that General Hospital, as well as the news report noted above, are written, produced and broadcast by the network ABC.
Coincidence? Or some more evil afoot?
How about both?
Earlier this month ABC news reported that the ozone hole was “Back and Big.”
Five days ago the Associated Press reported that the ozone hole was “recovering,” but yet out of the woods.
Environmental whackos and their friends in the media seem to understand that if you repeat something long enough even a well-worn lie can appear to become the truth.
“It would not be impossible to prove with sufficient repetition and a psychological understanding of the people concerned,” said Hitler’s master of propaganda, Josef Goebbels, “that a square is in fact a circle. They are mere words, and words can be molded until they clothe ideas and disguise.”
That’s one reason why we are willing to suspend our disbelief to watch a show like General Hospital, or Gilligan’s Island or American Idol or NBA basketball.
As the soap opera General Hospital moves into its 50th year, the ozone hole is not far behind in age. Yet despite dire predictions about the demise of mankind due ozone depletion it’s clear that the plot line scientists sold us in the 1970s with regard to ozone was about as credible as those featured on General Hospital.
But as any good TV executive would tell you-- the only thing that matters in TV are the ratings. If the ratings are good, the suspension of disbelief follows as a matter of course.
That’s why the next great threat scientists will tell us about will be…global cooling… as a result of global warming...as a result of the genius of Barack Obama combined with the power of his superhuman Nobel prize. 
Get ready for it.
It'll bear that stamp of authenticity we all look for in science and politics: "As Seen on TV."

Tags: Socialists,stupidity,science,academia,ozone,climate change To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the The Blue View From MO Thanks!

A Visual History: How Much $1 Used To Get You (And How Much It Gets You Now)

Ever since the creation of the Federal Reserve in 1913 Americans have seen the value of their currency dwindle
A Visual History: How Much $1 Used To Get You (And How Much It Gets You Now)
Image Credits: Images Money
by Mac Slavo | SHTFplan.com | September 16, 2014

Ever since the creation of the Federal Reserve in 1913 Americans have seen the value of their currency dwindle.
We know the dollar has lost some 97% of its value since the Fed took over. But it’s hard to actually grasp this destruction of value without some examples.
The infographic below, originally posted at The Burning Platform, is self explanatory. We are being robbed bit by bit, on a daily basis, and there is no end in sight.
onedollar
This is why you should be investing in hard assets like precious metals, food, and productive land now, before your savings are destroyed.
And now, more than ever before, Americans are at risk of losing everything. While Fed-manufactured inflation will continue to erode the value of our earnings, the near-term threat is one of hyperinflation. World leaders like Russia and China are rapidly working to decouple their economies from the dollar. One of these days they’ll pull the trigger and global confidence in the US dollar will be lost.  This will lead to an almost immediate collapse in the value of our currency, making the infographic above look like child’s play.
Are you ready for the day that a loaf of bread costs $10, or a gallon of milk at $20?
It’s coming one way or the other. The only question is will it be a slow degradation of our currency like we’ve seen over the last hundred years, or will it be a waterfall event that happens overnight?
We’re leaning towards the latter.
According to contraration economist John Williams, we are at a  point where the end-game can no longer be reversed. In an interview in June of 2013 Williams claimed that it is quite possible a domestic hyperinflationary environment will begin to evolve by the end of this year:
We’re Beginning to Approach the End Game. 
Nothing is normal: not the economy, not the financial system, not the financial markets and not the political system.  The financial system still remains in the throes and aftershocks of the 2008 panic and near-systemic collapse, and from the ongoing responses to same by the Federal Reserve and federal government.  Further panic is possible andhyperinflation remains inevitable.
At the same time, rapidly deteriorating expectations for domestic political stability reflect widening government scandals, in addition to the dominant global-financial-market concern of there being no viable prospect of those controlling the U.S. government addressing the long-range sovereign-solvency issues of the United States government. 
All these factors, in combination, show the end game to be nearing.
The most visible and vulnerable financial element to suffer early in this crisis likely will be the U.S. dollar in the currency markets.  Heavy dollar selling should evolve into massive dumping of the dollar and dollar-denominated paper assets.
Dollar-based commodity prices, such as oil, should soar, accelerating the pace of domestic inflation.  

Tags: INflation,dollar devaluation,rising costs,costs of living,expenses,democrats,socialism To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the The Blue View From MO Thanks!
 Latest Dispatches From The Front Lines of Global Cooling
------
From the New York Post [1]:

/According to NASA satellites and all ground-based temperature measurements,
global warming ceased in the late 1990s. This when CO2 levels have risen
almost 10 percent since 1997. The post-1997 CO2 emissions represent an
astonishing 30 percent of all human-related emissions since the Industrial
Revolution began. That we've seen no warming contradicts all CO2-based
climate models upon which global-warming concerns are founded./

[IMAGE [2]]

Meanwhile, the sea ice surrounding Antarctica [3] is now covering the largest
area since NASA started recording satellite imagery over the South Pole.

Like clockwork, "climate change" proponents blamed the expanding ice on
non-existent manmade global warming.


[1]
http://nypost.com/2014/09/14/leo-v-science-vanishing-evidence-for-climate-change/
[2]
http://thecitizenpamphleteer.wordpress.com/2014/09/16/latest-dispatches-from-the-front-lines-of-global-cooling/
[3]
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-14/record-coverage-of-antarctic-sea-ice/5742668
John Hawkins
People don't like to talk about America's culture for the same reason that a man who just had a heart attack doesn't want to discuss the double bacon cheeseburger he's eating. He knows what he's doing is killing him, but it's easier not to deal with it. We’re in the same boat.
* We treat success as an accident or a cheat while defending people who make bad decisions, who won't educate themselves or who won't work.
* We've allowed pornography to become so accessible that it's practically universally viewed, even among teenagers.
* We love victims so much that people actually fake hate crimes to claim victim status.
* We celebrate losers and deviants by giving them their own reality shows. Meanwhile, Hollywood regularly portrays businessmen, Christians and soldiers as the worst people on earth.
* More children have died because of Roe v. Wade than were killed during the Holocaust.
* Marriage is falling apart and we’re encouraging that by pushing gay marriage.
* Our universities reward Communists, terrorists and blatant anti-American sentiment with professorships. Those are the last people who should be teaching impressionable young Americans.
* There's a whole grievance industry full of people who make a living claiming to be "offended" by things.
* Religion and morality are denigrated while nihilism and immorality are considered cool.
* Legalism has superseded morality and what's "right" and "wrong" has become secondary to what's "legal" and "illegal."
* We're the greatest, most powerful, most prosperous and most virtuous nation that has ever existed and despite all of that, we obsess over our nations faults instead of our achievements.
* Americans across the spectrum are being encouraged to separate themselves off from the larger culture and nurse grievances that barely would have been given a thought a few decades ago.
Yet, we're told that we shouldn't worry about any of these things because people have always worried about our culture and things have turned out just fine. Even if that's so, have you ever considered the possibility that worrying about the culture and taking steps to keep it from getting out of hand is exactly what once kept it from going to the dogs?
Yes, there was a time when people worried about Elvis provocatively shaking his hips on stage and it's easy to laugh at that, but wouldn't we be better off if that was one of the biggest moral problems we faced as a society today? We don't like to admit the ugly truth; we’re more educated and much less racist than we used to be as a society, but we are also morally inferior to Americans from fifty years ago in almost every other way that matters.
Many people believe Rome fell because of a decline in morals while the Soviet Union disintegrated because they spent so much money trying to keep up with Reagan that they went broke. Well, we have both problems going on simultaneously. Meanwhile, preppers have become legion. Billions of dollars are being held back from the economy because people are saving up in case there's an economic collapse. Businesses are sitting on mountains of cash and looking to move their headquarters overseas. Many educated, informed people believe America is headed towards bankruptcy or runaway inflation not in fifty years, but within the next decade or two. If you're looking for signs that this country is in deep trouble, there are red flags galore waving in your face.
But this isn't just an economic problem, a spending problem or a leadership problem -- although those are all concerns. It's a cultural problem with our morals and what we value as a society on the most fundamental levels.
* In practice, our society focuses almost exclusively on the short term without thinking about the long-term consequences of our actions.
* We have a higher moral standard for the NFL than we do for our own leaders in Washington.
* We have a political party dedicated to the idea taking things from people who've worked for it and giving it to people who haven't.
* We make little effort to assimilate immigrants into our society and instead, encourage them to embrace the culture they fled for the United States.
* We've stopped acting as if we have to pay back the money we borrow.
* We treat the rule of law as optional, depending on who's impacted by it.
* We believe our children can grow up in a moral sewer and still turn out to be fine, upstanding citizens regardless.
We've become so divided, so antagonistic, so morally separated that for the first time in over a century there are people asking hard questions how much we really have in common with other Americans. If you're comparing let's say a conservative from South Carolina to a liberal from California, the honest answer is "not much that matters." Perhaps not even enough to hold a country together over the long haul if one group or the other ever became politically dominant.
There's only one way to change that and it's to address the real sickness at the heart of American culture. That sickness is our newfound reluctance to address the moral health of our society. Over the long haul, we can't thrive and we may not even be able to survive as a divided, degenerate society full of people who reward failure, resent success and live for the moment. Morality matters and if we forget that, our nation is doomed to descend into decadence, decay and perhaps one day, even dissolution.

Tags: terminal illness,sickness,society,conservatism,liberal minds,democrats To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the The Blue View From MO Thanks!