September 2009 Archives

We've all seen the pictures of America's poor.  There is not one of us who hasn't been touched by the photo of homeless child in dirty clothing crying because of supposed hunger pangs.

Our emotional attachment to that child knows no political boundaries.  Sympathy for the poor is not something exclusive to liberals.  

But shouldn't we really be having a discourse on what poverty really is and what really is the cause?  Is it defined strictly by how much you earn, or how much you possess?  And what can or should we do about it?

Americans generally see poor people as destitute.  Those that are devoid of necessary shelter, food or clothing.  But only a small percentage of those deemed poor by the US Census Bureau meet those criteria.  

You may be surprised to know that 97% of the "poor" in America own color TVs, 25% own big screen TVs, 73% own microwave ovens, 63% have cable/satellite service, 76% have air conditioning in their homes, 59% own stereos, 78% own DVDs or VCRs, 55% own 2 or more TVs, 73% own a car and 31% own two or more cars.  43% of all "poor" households actually own their own home.

If you've ever had to wait in line at a grocery store while someone checked out using an EBT card (the new form of food stamps) it's very apparent that the majority of recipients of this government largess is not missing snack time.  It may interest you to know that the federal government places no restrictions on what type of food can be bought with taxpayer provided money.  Ice cream, candy, potato chips, pies, cakes, sodas, and any assortment of the hundreds of junk food items available are eligible to be purchased with the only restriction being alcohol or tobacco items. So another government program designed to help the poor has gone awry.  Instead of helping, it's inflating the obesity epidemic with the poor.

We've allocated untold billions of dollars since the 1960s in a vain attempt to eliminate the scourge of poverty, but still have entrenched pockets of destitution in every major American city.  Why; and will throwing more money at the problem really solve it?

Throwing government money at social problems, no matter how well-intentioned, is not the solution; it IS the problem.  Our benevolent (with our money of course) government has created generations of poor.  Look to the 9th Ward in New Orleans for proof of that.  Decades of government handouts have done nothing to alleviate poverty in that city or any other.  

If we truly want to cure poverty (which I don't believe politicians really want to do, it will only diminish their power) we must create opportunities for quality education and a business climate that will create jobs.  Neither of which is happening in our nation's capital.  Poor children in our nation's capital are stuck in hopelessly failing public schools only to have their one lifeline, a voucher system enabling them to go to private schools where they can excel, taken away from them by the same politicians they keep voting for.  

Let's see what is that pesky definition of stupid?  Oh yeah, that's when you keep doing the same thing over again and expecting a different result.  If you keep voting for liberals and you never climb out of poverty, but you keep voting for liberals, I'd say you qualify for dead-on stupid.

Until we demand better from those who work for us, and until we demand more personal responsibility from those sucking at the breast of big government, poverty will only increase.  More government programs will never alleviate poverty.  They will only exacerbate it.

Pitying the poor will not raise them out of poverty.  It will only entrench them more deeply.

All of us at one time or another, has had to face a bully.  Whether in a school yard, at work or just some loud-mouthed jerk at a Little League ballgame.  Can you remember if he ever backed down by the utterance of a kind word?  Did he stop pushing you around after you gave him you're your lunch money.  I doubt it.  More than likely that bully just came back, time-after-time, his bullying only escalating.  How did you stop it?  Or did you? 

President Obama, in his quest for peace and capitulation, has proposed eliminating all nuclear weapons.  Laudable; maybe; foolish; absolutely.  What kind of message is this going to send to the world's bullies?

I know the peaceniks, "Kumbaya" singers and Kool-Aid drinkers all want the United States to get rid of its nuclear weapons.  And what could be a better cover than to ask everyone to get rid of their stockpiles too.  China and Russia were very quick to lend their support to this idea.  I can only speculate as to their reasons, but I find it hard to believe it's because of altruism.

For those of you too young to remember (or are victims of a sub-standard public education), after World War II, the Soviet Union swallowed up all of Eastern Europe.  Poland, Hungary, Yugoslavia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Kazakstan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Romania, all sovereign nations before the war, were invaded and enslaved by their peace-loving socialist masters in Russia.  Even half of Germany fell under the Soviet sphere of influence, symbolized by the infamous Berlin wall; whose intention was not to keep invaders out, but to keep East Germans from escaping.

At the time, the Soviet military and those of their satellite states (The Warsaw Pact) dwarfed the number of American military personnel and NATO troops defending Western Europe.  The Soviet army could have invaded anytime they wanted.  Why didn't they?  They had us outnumbered and outflanked.  They probably could have been in Paris in less than a month.  So, again, why didn't they?  Do you think their appetite for conquest had been sated?  I highly doubt it.  Especially since Stalin and his successors made it a point to say their goal was communist domination of the world.

There is only one reason why the Soviet Union was held at bay for more than a half-century:  Nuclear weapons.  We had them; we had more of them; we had bigger ones and better ones.  We had more accurate ones and better delivery systems.  And we had already shown that we were willing to use them.  The bully knew we could bloody his nose and backed down. 

As horrendous as these weapons are, they, and they alone, are the reason why there hasn't been a World War III. 

China has more than 2.3 million men in uniform (compared to the U.S. 1.4 million) and, in a country of over a billion people, (that's more than 3 times the population of the United States) would not have a problem of increasing that tenfold. Do you really think we can win a conventional land war against an enemy with an army that large?  And just because they sell us stuffed animals and cheap t-shirts, don't think they are our friends.

In Iran, the mad mullahs are on the verge of getting nuclear weapons while the world buries its head in the sand thinking that the loonies in Teheran can be reasoned with.  The tiny state of Israel, surrounded by enemies praying for its destruction, has been able to keep the wolves at bay because they have a nuclear arsenal. Those peace-loving Muslims in Iran have been threatening to "wipe Israel off the map" for several years now and will soon have the capability to do so.  But as long as Israel can retaliate with 10 megaton bombs, Iran will only continue to bluster and threaten.  The mullahs don't want to be vaporized any more than the Israelis. 

If we really want peace, we can't destroy the only true peacekeepers we have.  We can't put our faith in good will to protect us.  Bullies don't live by The Golden Rule.

I, for one, will put my faith in God, Trident missiles, and the B-2.

I recently sent a letter to the US Senator from Florida, Bill Nelson, expressing my concerns about a national health insurance plan.  You know, I just kind of think that completely re-making the whole health care system to cover 5% of the population makes no sense.  Especially when we cannot afford it.  I think there has to be a better way.  In fact I know there is.

In his reply to me the senator did not have the time or the space to outline all his plans, but one sentence stood out above all the standard political-speak we've become accustomed to hearing.   Those of you who have had dealings with Washington will know that political-speak is the politically correct term for BS; and that doesn't stand for Bachelor of Science.

OK, here we go, it's showtime!  I quote the good senator:  "Further, by eliminating the tax break drugmakers get for TV and other advertising, we would see another $37 billion to pay for health care."

Now I'm not the brightest bulb in the socket, but I did take Economics 101 in college, so let's see if I can make any sense of this.

Companies advertise for one reason and one reason alone; to sell product so that they can realize a profit.  The upside of that profit is the creation of good paying jobs for people who will then spend money in the economy and pay taxes to the government so it can spend those taxes on all sorts of crazy programs; like: $650 million to buy everyone a digital TV converter box.  But I digress.

So think about it.  I know it's difficult and it may make your head hurt, but it will be worth it.  I promise.  Now If the pharmaceutical companies (I prefer the term pharmaceutical; drugmakers sounds like the companies are involved in some nefarious activity.  Gee, do you think that's intentional?  Maybe a kind of Freudian slip?) stop getting a tax break and have to pay $37 billion in taxes to the federal government, are they going to advertise as extensively; and if they don't, what will happen to sales?  The more far-reaching question is:  What happens to their bottom line (dare we use the word profit?)

Figured it out yet?  No, well you're obviously spending too much time watching Dancing With The Stars, so I'll make it easy for you.  The answer is profits take a dive.  When that happens, those little pillmakers reduce their workforce.  You know, FIRE PEOPLE!  The reduced workforce who recently had a job and have a mortgage and car payments and credit card debt and spent money at other businesses that employed other people who have a mortgage and car payments and credit card debt and spent money at other businesses.......phew, I'm running out of breath.  But I think you get the idea.  Profit is NOT an ugly word.  Profit is why we don't live in caves anymore.  Profit is why we have cell phones and pcs; $200 sneakers and Ben & Jerry's ice cream.  

Now I know for the past nine months, all we've heard is how rich people and evil corporations are reaping gargantuan profits.  But when was the last time a company that was losing money hired people to help it keep losing money?  When was the last time a poor person gave anyone a job?  I guess I must have slept through that lecture?

By the way, a good portion of the $37 billion the pharmaceutical companies don't give to the federal government goes to research new drugs to save lives.  Our lives.  Yes even the lives of congressmen and senators. 

At last count it takes roughly $1 billion to bring a new drug to market. Without a profit incentive, what company is going to invest $1 billion?  Would you if you owned the company?

I think Forrest Gump said it best:  "Stupid is as stupid does."  

Hmm, come to think of it, that might make a nice motto hanging in the Capitol Building!

For those of you who voted for "Hope and Change," you might want to view this video.  It was made by a protestor in Reston, Virginia, who displayed a sign with Obama's picture on it.  Police Officer Wesley Cheeks, obviously a supporter of the Messiah, did not approve of the President's likeness and threatened to arrest the protestor and "charge [him] with whatever I want to."

Have I got your attention yet?  When Obamessiah speaks of a "Civilian Defense Corps" do you think just maybe Officer Cheeks and those like him will play a prominent role?  If you don't, then you truly have your head stuck in the sand and your butt held high in the air as an invitation to be.....well, I think you get my drift.


Dark days are coming unless we draw a line in the sand now. We must connect and stay connected with patriots. There are tens of millions of us. Democrats, Republicans and Independents see what's happening and don't like it. We're making our voices heard and we are getting louder everyday. This is not about a political party. It's not about left and right. It's not about liberal or conservative. It's about right and wrong, and this policeman's behavior and attitude are wrong. You don't have to be a conservative to see that. You just have to be honest.