1. Our forefathers acknowledged our creator God in the Declaration of Independence, but we are forbidden to acknowledge him in our public schools.
2.Our entertainment industry glamorizes sexuality yet is held unaccountable despite the rising rate of out-of-wedlock teenage pregnancies.
3. Moral relativism continues to reign in our public schools even though a nation reaps the results of such relativism with unprecedented greed on Wall Street.
4. 39.8 million people live below the poverty line in America -- over 14.1 million of them are children -- yet close to 100 billion pounds of food is wasted each year.
5. There have been over 50 million abortions since Roe vs. Wade became the law of the land with the vast majority being for no other reason than simple birth control.
6. Darwinism is taught as fact while Creationism is excluded from the American classroom.
7. More Christians were killed for their faith in the 20th century than in the entire history of Christianity.
8. A cross erected in 1934, at a WWI memorial site in the Mojave Desert, is currently at the center of a debate over whether or not its presence violates the Constitution.
9. The Ten Commandments have been taken from our court houses.
10. The community of faith is, in large measure, quiet and complacent.
It has been said that all that is needed for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing. Ultimately we will be judged not by our titles or bank accounts but by something far more sacred. Future generations hang in the balance. Whether we speak out or remain silent, act or step back will create the inheritance we bequeath
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
New Nixon in the White House
GOP senator says Obama showing Nixonian tendencies
By BEN EVANS (AP) – 3 hours ago
WASHINGTON — The third-ranking Senate Republican said Wednesday the Obama administration appears to be launching a Richard Nixon-like political strategy of making an "enemies list" of people who disagree with the president.
Sen. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, who once worked in President Nixon's administration, warned the White House that such a "street brawl" approach of attacking political opponents "can get you in a lot of trouble."
Alexander offered no evidence that Obama is developing an actual list, as Nixon famously created for his opponents. But, he said, "I have an uneasy feeling only 10 months into this new administration that we're beginning to see the symptoms of this same kind of animus developing."
"It's a mistake for the president of the United States," he said. "Let's not start calling people out and compiling an enemies list."
White House spokeswoman Gannet Tseggai responded that it's Republicans who "seem to be formulating lists of people and policies to oppose" while the president "is focused on tackling the list of critical priorities that Washington has ignored for too long."
The president "remains committed to working with Republicans to include their best ideas, even if he doesn't get their support," Tseggai said.
Alexander's criticism, which echoed weekend remarks from Karl Rove, the former adviser to President George W. Bush and a Fox News contributor, comes amid an unusual public feud between Fox News and the White House. Alexander also cited widening disputes between the administration and business groups such as the insurance industry, Wall Street banks and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
Several top administration officials have sharply criticized Fox News in recent days, saying the cable television channel acts like a wing of the Republican Party and shouldn't be viewed as a legitimate news organization.
The president bypassed "Fox News Sunday" during a string of appearances on news shows recently, and Fox News officials have said the White House threatened a boycott. The White House has denied that and says it will book administration officials on Fox News shows.
The administration also has taken on the Chamber of Commerce, for example, suggesting the group is out of touch with the business community on health care, climate change and other issues.
By BEN EVANS (AP) – 3 hours ago
WASHINGTON — The third-ranking Senate Republican said Wednesday the Obama administration appears to be launching a Richard Nixon-like political strategy of making an "enemies list" of people who disagree with the president.
Sen. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, who once worked in President Nixon's administration, warned the White House that such a "street brawl" approach of attacking political opponents "can get you in a lot of trouble."
Alexander offered no evidence that Obama is developing an actual list, as Nixon famously created for his opponents. But, he said, "I have an uneasy feeling only 10 months into this new administration that we're beginning to see the symptoms of this same kind of animus developing."
"It's a mistake for the president of the United States," he said. "Let's not start calling people out and compiling an enemies list."
White House spokeswoman Gannet Tseggai responded that it's Republicans who "seem to be formulating lists of people and policies to oppose" while the president "is focused on tackling the list of critical priorities that Washington has ignored for too long."
The president "remains committed to working with Republicans to include their best ideas, even if he doesn't get their support," Tseggai said.
Alexander's criticism, which echoed weekend remarks from Karl Rove, the former adviser to President George W. Bush and a Fox News contributor, comes amid an unusual public feud between Fox News and the White House. Alexander also cited widening disputes between the administration and business groups such as the insurance industry, Wall Street banks and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
Several top administration officials have sharply criticized Fox News in recent days, saying the cable television channel acts like a wing of the Republican Party and shouldn't be viewed as a legitimate news organization.
The president bypassed "Fox News Sunday" during a string of appearances on news shows recently, and Fox News officials have said the White House threatened a boycott. The White House has denied that and says it will book administration officials on Fox News shows.
The administration also has taken on the Chamber of Commerce, for example, suggesting the group is out of touch with the business community on health care, climate change and other issues.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
The Rest of the story
> HOW IT REALLY
> HAPPENED AND WHO DID
> IT ! ! !
> !
>
>
> It is mandatory that
> each and
> every one of us learn who committed
> the acts that created the
> mess we
> are currently in.
> 1977: Pres. Jimmy
> Carter signs into Law
> the
> Community Reinvestment Act the foundation and
> cornerstone for the
> impending disaster.. The law pressured
> financial institutions to
> extend home loans to those who would otherwise
> not
> qualify.
> The publicized
> premise: Home
> ownership would improve poor and crime-ridden
> communities and
> neighborhoods in terms of crime, investment,
> jobs,
> etc.
> The Results:
> Statistics bear out that it did not
> help.
> How did the
> government get
> so deeply involved in the housing
> market?
> Answer: Bill
> Clinton wanted it that
>
> way.
> 1992: Republican
> representative Jim Leach (IO) warned of the
> danger that Fannie and
> Freddie were changing from being agencies of
> the public at large to
> money machines for the principals and the
> stock-holding
> few.
> 1993: Clinton extensively
> rewrote
> Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's rules turning
> the quasi-private
> mortgage-funding firms into semi-nationalized
> monopolies dispensing
> cash and loans to large Democratic voting
> blocks and handing favors,
> jobs and contributions to political
> allies. This potent mix
> led inevitably to corruption and now the
> collapse of Freddie and
> Fannie.
> 1994: Despite
> warnings, Clinton unveiled his
> National
> Home-Ownership Strategy, which broadened the
> CRA in ways congress
> never intended.
> 1995: Congress, about to change
> from
> a Democrat majority to
> Republican. Clinton orders Robert
> Rubin's Treasury Dept
> to
> rewrite the rules. Robt. Rubin's
> Treasury reworked rules,
> forcing banks to satisfy quotas for sub-prime
> and minority loans to
> get a satisfactory CRA rating. The rating
> was key to expansion
> or mergers for banks. Loans began to be
> made on the basis of
> race and little else.
> 1997 -
> 1999: Clinton, bypassing
> Republicans in
> Congress,
> enlisted Andrew
> Cuomo,
> then Secretary of Housing and Urban Dev
> elopement, allowing Freddie
> and Fannie to get into the sub-prime market in
> a BIG way. Led
> by Rep. Barney Frank and
> Sen. Chris
> Dodd, congress doubled
> down on the
> risk by easing capital limits and allowing them
> to hold just 2.5% of
> capital to back their investments vs. 10% for
> banks. Since
> they could borrow at lower rates than banks
> their enterprises
> boomed.
> With incentives in
> place,
> banks poured billions in loans into poor
> communities, often "no
> doc", "no income",
> "no assets", requiring no money down,
> no verification of income, no nothing .
> Worse still was the
> cronyism: Fannie and Freddie became home
> to out-of
>
> work-politicians, mostly Clinton Democrats. 384
> politicians got
> big campaign donations from Fannie and
> Freddie. Over $200
> million had been spent on lobbying and
> political activities.
> During the 1990's Fannie and Freddie
> enjoyed a subsidy of as much as
> $182 Billion, most of it going to principals
> and shareholders, not
> poor borrowers as
> claimed.
> Did it work?
> Minorities made up 49% of the 12.5 million new
> homeowners but many
> of those loans have gone bad and the minority
> home ownership rates
> are shrinking fast.
> 1999: New Treasury
> Secretary, Lawrence Summers, became alarmed at
> Fannie and Freddie's
> excesses. Congress held hearings the
> ensuing year but nothing
> was done because Fannie and Freddie had donated
> millions to key
> congressmen and radical groups, ensuring no
> meaningful changes would
> take place. "We manage our political
> risk with the same
> intensity that we manage our credit and
> interest rate risks," Fannie
> CEO Franklin Raines, a
> former Clinton official and current
> Barack
> Obama advisor, bragged to
> investors in
> 1999.
> 2000:
> Secretary
> Summers sent Undersecretary Gary Gensler to
> Congress seeking an end
> to the "special status".
> Democrats raised a ruckus as did
> Fannie and Freddie, headed by politically
> connected CEO's who knew
> how to reward and punish. "We think
> that the statements
> evidence a contempt for the nation's
> housing and mortgage markets"
> Freddie spokesperson Sharon McHale said.
> It was the last
> chance during the Clinton era for
> reform.
> 2001:
> Republicans try repeatedly to bring fiscal
> sanity to Fannie and
> Freddie but Democratsblocked any attempt at
> reform;
> especially Rep. Barney Frank and
> Sen. Chris
> Dodd who now run key
> banking
> committees and were huge beneficiaries of
> campaign contributions
> from the mortgage
> giants.
> 2003: Bush proposes
> what
> the NY Times called "the most significant
> regulatory overhaul in the
> housing finance industry since the savings and
> loan crisis a decade
> ago". Even after discovering a
> scheme by Fannie and Freddie to
> overstate earnings by $10.6 billion to boost
> their bonuses, the
> Democrats killed
> reform.
> 2005: Then Fed
> chairman
> Alan Greenspan warns Congress: "We
> are placing the total
> financial system at substantial
> risk". Sen. McCain, with two
> others, sponsored a Fannie/Freddie reform bill
> and said, "If
> congress does not act, American taxpayers will
> continue to be
> exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae
> and Freddie Mac pose to
> the housing market, the overall financial
> system and the economy as
> a
> whole". Sen. Harry
> Reid accused the
> GOP of
> trying to "cripple the ability of Fannie
> and Freddie to carry out
> their mission of expanding home
> ownership" The bill went
> nowhere.
> 2007: By now Fannie
> and
> Freddie own or guarantee over HALF of the $12
> trillion US mortgage
> market. The mortgage giants, whose
> executive suites were
> top-heavy with former Democratic officials, had
> been working with
> Wall St. to repackage the bad loans and sell
> them to
> investors. As the housing market fell in
> '07, subprime
> mortgage portfolios suffered major
> losses. The crisis was
> on, though it was 15 years in the
> making.
> 2008: McCain has
> repeatedly
> called for reforming the behemoths, and
> Bush urged reform 17
> times. Still the media have repeated
> Democrats' talking points
> about this being a "Republican"
> disaster. A few Republicans
> are complicit
> but Fannie and Freddie were
> created
> by Democrats, regulated by Democrats, largely
> run by Democrats and
> protected by
> Democrats. That's
> why taxpayers
> are now being asked for $700
> billion!!
> If you doubt any of this,
> just
> click the links below and listen to your
> lawmakers' own words.
> Decide for yourself.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68D9XrqyrWo&feature=related #
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pIgqfM5C8lY#
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9j=
>
>
> uJr8CSY4&feature=related #
> Postscript:
> ACORN is
> one of the principlal beneficiaries of Fannie/
> Freddie's slush
> funds. They are currently under
> indictment or investigation in
> many states. Barack Obama served as their
> legal counsel,
> defending their activities for several
> years. Last year the
> democratic congress gave ACORN $500 million and
> attempted to sneak
> in $20 BILLION (Yes BILLION) into the first
> version of the bailout.
> That's why Republicans voted
> no.
>
> HAPPENED AND WHO DID
> IT ! ! !
> !
>
>
> It is mandatory that
> each and
> every one of us learn who committed
> the acts that created the
> mess we
> are currently in.
> 1977: Pres. Jimmy
> Carter signs into Law
> the
> Community Reinvestment Act the foundation and
> cornerstone for the
> impending disaster.. The law pressured
> financial institutions to
> extend home loans to those who would otherwise
> not
> qualify.
> The publicized
> premise: Home
> ownership would improve poor and crime-ridden
> communities and
> neighborhoods in terms of crime, investment,
> jobs,
> etc.
> The Results:
> Statistics bear out that it did not
> help.
> How did the
> government get
> so deeply involved in the housing
> market?
> Answer: Bill
> Clinton wanted it that
>
> way.
> 1992: Republican
> representative Jim Leach (IO) warned of the
> danger that Fannie and
> Freddie were changing from being agencies of
> the public at large to
> money machines for the principals and the
> stock-holding
> few.
> 1993: Clinton extensively
> rewrote
> Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's rules turning
> the quasi-private
> mortgage-funding firms into semi-nationalized
> monopolies dispensing
> cash and loans to large Democratic voting
> blocks and handing favors,
> jobs and contributions to political
> allies. This potent mix
> led inevitably to corruption and now the
> collapse of Freddie and
> Fannie.
> 1994: Despite
> warnings, Clinton unveiled his
> National
> Home-Ownership Strategy, which broadened the
> CRA in ways congress
> never intended.
> 1995: Congress, about to change
> from
> a Democrat majority to
> Republican. Clinton orders Robert
> Rubin's Treasury Dept
> to
> rewrite the rules. Robt. Rubin's
> Treasury reworked rules,
> forcing banks to satisfy quotas for sub-prime
> and minority loans to
> get a satisfactory CRA rating. The rating
> was key to expansion
> or mergers for banks. Loans began to be
> made on the basis of
> race and little else.
> 1997 -
> 1999: Clinton, bypassing
> Republicans in
> Congress,
> enlisted Andrew
> Cuomo,
> then Secretary of Housing and Urban Dev
> elopement, allowing Freddie
> and Fannie to get into the sub-prime market in
> a BIG way. Led
> by Rep. Barney Frank and
> Sen. Chris
> Dodd, congress doubled
> down on the
> risk by easing capital limits and allowing them
> to hold just 2.5% of
> capital to back their investments vs. 10% for
> banks. Since
> they could borrow at lower rates than banks
> their enterprises
> boomed.
> With incentives in
> place,
> banks poured billions in loans into poor
> communities, often "no
> doc", "no income",
> "no assets", requiring no money down,
> no verification of income, no nothing .
> Worse still was the
> cronyism: Fannie and Freddie became home
> to out-of
>
> work-politicians, mostly Clinton Democrats. 384
> politicians got
> big campaign donations from Fannie and
> Freddie. Over $200
> million had been spent on lobbying and
> political activities.
> During the 1990's Fannie and Freddie
> enjoyed a subsidy of as much as
> $182 Billion, most of it going to principals
> and shareholders, not
> poor borrowers as
> claimed.
> Did it work?
> Minorities made up 49% of the 12.5 million new
> homeowners but many
> of those loans have gone bad and the minority
> home ownership rates
> are shrinking fast.
> 1999: New Treasury
> Secretary, Lawrence Summers, became alarmed at
> Fannie and Freddie's
> excesses. Congress held hearings the
> ensuing year but nothing
> was done because Fannie and Freddie had donated
> millions to key
> congressmen and radical groups, ensuring no
> meaningful changes would
> take place. "We manage our political
> risk with the same
> intensity that we manage our credit and
> interest rate risks," Fannie
> CEO Franklin Raines, a
> former Clinton official and current
> Barack
> Obama advisor, bragged to
> investors in
> 1999.
> 2000:
> Secretary
> Summers sent Undersecretary Gary Gensler to
> Congress seeking an end
> to the "special status".
> Democrats raised a ruckus as did
> Fannie and Freddie, headed by politically
> connected CEO's who knew
> how to reward and punish. "We think
> that the statements
> evidence a contempt for the nation's
> housing and mortgage markets"
> Freddie spokesperson Sharon McHale said.
> It was the last
> chance during the Clinton era for
> reform.
> 2001:
> Republicans try repeatedly to bring fiscal
> sanity to Fannie and
> Freddie but Democratsblocked any attempt at
> reform;
> especially Rep. Barney Frank and
> Sen. Chris
> Dodd who now run key
> banking
> committees and were huge beneficiaries of
> campaign contributions
> from the mortgage
> giants.
> 2003: Bush proposes
> what
> the NY Times called "the most significant
> regulatory overhaul in the
> housing finance industry since the savings and
> loan crisis a decade
> ago". Even after discovering a
> scheme by Fannie and Freddie to
> overstate earnings by $10.6 billion to boost
> their bonuses, the
> Democrats killed
> reform.
> 2005: Then Fed
> chairman
> Alan Greenspan warns Congress: "We
> are placing the total
> financial system at substantial
> risk". Sen. McCain, with two
> others, sponsored a Fannie/Freddie reform bill
> and said, "If
> congress does not act, American taxpayers will
> continue to be
> exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae
> and Freddie Mac pose to
> the housing market, the overall financial
> system and the economy as
> a
> whole". Sen. Harry
> Reid accused the
> GOP of
> trying to "cripple the ability of Fannie
> and Freddie to carry out
> their mission of expanding home
> ownership" The bill went
> nowhere.
> 2007: By now Fannie
> and
> Freddie own or guarantee over HALF of the $12
> trillion US mortgage
> market. The mortgage giants, whose
> executive suites were
> top-heavy with former Democratic officials, had
> been working with
> Wall St. to repackage the bad loans and sell
> them to
> investors. As the housing market fell in
> '07, subprime
> mortgage portfolios suffered major
> losses. The crisis was
> on, though it was 15 years in the
> making.
> 2008: McCain has
> repeatedly
> called for reforming the behemoths, and
> Bush urged reform 17
> times. Still the media have repeated
> Democrats' talking points
> about this being a "Republican"
> disaster. A few Republicans
> are complicit
> but Fannie and Freddie were
> created
> by Democrats, regulated by Democrats, largely
> run by Democrats and
> protected by
> Democrats. That's
> why taxpayers
> are now being asked for $700
> billion!!
> If you doubt any of this,
> just
> click the links below and listen to your
> lawmakers' own words.
> Decide for yourself.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68D9XrqyrWo&feature=related #
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pIgqfM5C8lY#
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9j=
>
>
> uJr8CSY4&feature=related #
> Postscript:
> ACORN is
> one of the principlal beneficiaries of Fannie/
> Freddie's slush
> funds. They are currently under
> indictment or investigation in
> many states. Barack Obama served as their
> legal counsel,
> defending their activities for several
> years. Last year the
> democratic congress gave ACORN $500 million and
> attempted to sneak
> in $20 BILLION (Yes BILLION) into the first
> version of the bailout.
> That's why Republicans voted
> no.
>
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Your Kidding me, right?
For only the third time in history a sitting president of the United States has been awarded the Nobel Peace Price but unlike presidents Woodrow Wilson and Teddy Roosevelt, Barack Obama was nominated for the award less than two weeks after he took office and that is our headline tonight, "The 12 Days of Barack Obama."
Now according to the Nobel Foundation the president won the prize, for his quote, "his efforts to strengthen international diplomacy." But what exactly were those extraordinary efforts?
Well, here are just a few highlights from the first 12 days in office. On day one, after taking the oath it was time to take in the traditional Inauguration Day Parade, followed by several not-so-extraordinary black tie parties with his supporters.
Now jump to day three when the president vowed to close Gitmo within a year, a promise the administration now acknowledges will likely be broken. Then there's day four when he reversed a Bush administration executive order to bar U.S. money going to foreign groups that perform abortions.
Well, that's diplomatic. And on his first Sunday in office, well, the president skipped church. At that time he was still looking for a replacement for his old pal Jeremiah Wright. And then on the 12th day Obama once again skipped church and hosted a Super Bowl bash at the White House.
So there you have it. The fast track to winning the Nobel Peace Prize.
Now according to the Nobel Foundation the president won the prize, for his quote, "his efforts to strengthen international diplomacy." But what exactly were those extraordinary efforts?
Well, here are just a few highlights from the first 12 days in office. On day one, after taking the oath it was time to take in the traditional Inauguration Day Parade, followed by several not-so-extraordinary black tie parties with his supporters.
Now jump to day three when the president vowed to close Gitmo within a year, a promise the administration now acknowledges will likely be broken. Then there's day four when he reversed a Bush administration executive order to bar U.S. money going to foreign groups that perform abortions.
Well, that's diplomatic. And on his first Sunday in office, well, the president skipped church. At that time he was still looking for a replacement for his old pal Jeremiah Wright. And then on the 12th day Obama once again skipped church and hosted a Super Bowl bash at the White House.
So there you have it. The fast track to winning the Nobel Peace Prize.
Saturday, October 10, 2009
Even The Far Left is scratching their head
This article is from a far left Chicago reporter.
BY NEIL STEINBERG Sun-Times Columnist
Opening shot
'Oh no." It slipped out as I gazed upon the news -- Barack Obama has won the Nobel Peace Prize.
A strange reaction, since I like the guy, generally, voted for him, think he's doing an OK job in the face of strong, sometimes crazy opposition.
But I'm not a foaming devotee, not the false stereotype those who hate him like to conjure up to give themselves something to sneer at. Obama's too political for my liking, too cautious, deferential to his party, timid on gay rights.
But he's trying, and his job just got harder with this goofy prize. Not just because the Nobel Peace Prize will churn up his foes like piranhas in bloody water. Anything involving him sets them off.
But here they have a point -- the Nobel Peace Prize is tainted fruit. The Swedes give out the real Nobels -- in chemistry, in physics. The Peace Prize is given out by the Norwegians, and they are famous for doing a botch job. Three names: Henry Kissinger, Yasser Arafat, Jimmy Carter.
Which leads to the obvious question: "Where has Obama brought peace in nine months in office?" The award cites "his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples." That speech in Cairo? A masterful job, but worth the Nobel Peace Prize?
If he's indeed going to eventually accomplish something in the area of peace -- and I hope he might -- then they should have saved it. What happens if he actually brokers peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians? Will they give him the Mega Nobel Peace Prize? Nobody wants an honor they didn't deserve, and I would think that being elected president of the United States is honor aplenty for one year. This is just premature, at best, and weird at worst
BY NEIL STEINBERG Sun-Times Columnist
Opening shot
'Oh no." It slipped out as I gazed upon the news -- Barack Obama has won the Nobel Peace Prize.
A strange reaction, since I like the guy, generally, voted for him, think he's doing an OK job in the face of strong, sometimes crazy opposition.
But I'm not a foaming devotee, not the false stereotype those who hate him like to conjure up to give themselves something to sneer at. Obama's too political for my liking, too cautious, deferential to his party, timid on gay rights.
But he's trying, and his job just got harder with this goofy prize. Not just because the Nobel Peace Prize will churn up his foes like piranhas in bloody water. Anything involving him sets them off.
But here they have a point -- the Nobel Peace Prize is tainted fruit. The Swedes give out the real Nobels -- in chemistry, in physics. The Peace Prize is given out by the Norwegians, and they are famous for doing a botch job. Three names: Henry Kissinger, Yasser Arafat, Jimmy Carter.
Which leads to the obvious question: "Where has Obama brought peace in nine months in office?" The award cites "his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples." That speech in Cairo? A masterful job, but worth the Nobel Peace Prize?
If he's indeed going to eventually accomplish something in the area of peace -- and I hope he might -- then they should have saved it. What happens if he actually brokers peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians? Will they give him the Mega Nobel Peace Prize? Nobody wants an honor they didn't deserve, and I would think that being elected president of the United States is honor aplenty for one year. This is just premature, at best, and weird at worst
Friday, October 9, 2009
It's the "Mumfest"
Don't wait till next year. This will be the biggest and best Mumfest yet. Don't believe me, check out all the wonderful happenings at http://www.mumfest.net/.
Steve Tyson
www.newbern-nc.info
Steve Tyson
www.newbern-nc.info
Saturday, October 3, 2009
The Truth shall set you Free
Back on Uncle Sam's plantation Star Parker - Syndicated ColumnistSix years ago I wrote a book called Uncle Sam's Plantation. I wrote the book to tell my own story of what I saw living inside the welfare state and my own transformation out of it.I said in that book that indeed there are two Americas -- a poor America on socialism and a wealthy America on capitalism. I talked about government programs like Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training (JOBS), Emergency Assistance to Needy Families with Children (EANF), Section 8 Housing, and Food Stamps.A vast sea of perhaps well-intentioned government programs, all initially set into motion in the 1960s by Democrats, that were going to lift the nation's poor out of poverty.A benevolent Uncle Sam welcomed mostly poor black Americans onto the government plantation.. Those who accepted the invitation switched mindsets from "How do I take care of myself?" to "What do I have to do to stay on the plantation?"Instead of solving economic problems, government welfare socialism created monstrous moral and spiritual problems -- the kind of problems that are inevitable when individuals turn responsibility for their lives over to others.The legacy of American socialism is our blighted inner cities, dysfunctional inner city schools, and broken black families.Through God's grace, I found my way out. It was then that I understood what freedom meant and how great this country is.I had the privilege of working on welfare reform in 1996, which was passed by a Republican controlled Congress.I thought we were on the road to moving socialism out of our poor black communities and replacing it with wealth-producing American capitalism.But, incredibly, we are now going in the opposite direction.Instead of poor America on socialism becoming more like rich American on capitalism, rich America on capitalism is becoming like poor America on socialism.Uncle Sam has welcomed our banks onto the plantation and they have said, "Thank you, Suh."Now, instead of thinking about what creative things need to be done to serve customers, they are thinking about what they have to tell Massah in order to get their cash.There is some kind of irony that this is all happening under our first black president on the 200th anniversary of the birthday of Abraham Lincoln.Worse, socialism seems to be the element of our new young president. And maybe even more troubling, our corporate executives seem happy to move onto the plantation.In an op-Ed on the opinion page of the Washington Post, Mr. Obama is clear that the goal of his trillion dollar spending plan is much more than short term economic stimulus."This plan is more than a prescription for short-term spending -- it's a strategy for America 's long-term growth and opportunity in areas such as renewable energy, healthcare, and education."Perhaps more incredibly, Obama seems to think that government taking over an economy is a new idea. Or that massive growth in government can take place "with unprecedented transparency and accountability."Yes, sir, we heard it from Jimmy Carter when he created the Department of Energy, the Synfuels Corporation, and the Department of Education.Or how about the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 -- The War on Poverty -- which President Johnson said "...does not merely expand old programs or improve what is already being done. It charts a new course. It strikes at the causes, not just the consequences of poverty."Trillions of dollars later, black poverty is the same. But black families are not, with triple the incidence of single-parent homes and out-of-wedlock births.It's not complicated. Americans can accept Barack Obama's invitation to move onto the plantation. Or they can choose personal responsibility and freedom.Does anyone really need to think about what the choice should be?"The trouble with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money."
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)