Using Welfare to Buy Elections

“The only time you even see the people is when you look down to see what it is you're stepping on.” — Bonnie Bedelia as Holly McClane in “Die Hard 2” (1990)

As originally conceived in 1964 with LBJ's “Great Society,” welfare programs were promoted as a temporary helping hand to give the downtrodden a leg up. Today, this blatant economic redistribution (read: War on Poverty) has metastasized in a multi-generational government dependence scheme. In essence, entitlement programs such as food stamps are de facto bribes directed mostly at minority groups loyal to Democrats. For progressives it's a simple numbers game: garnering enough votes to keep themselves perpetually in high elective office.

Recall that the bottom 60% of the population pays only 2% of federal income taxes. Therefore, this static underclass has virtually no economic skin the game as they are promised—in exchange for their ballots—more and more “free stuff” paid for by someone else. Vanquished Bolshevik Bernie Sanders' fantasy of “free” public college funded by the much demonized One Percenters comes to mind. In other words, why work when one makes almost as much by not working?

Cynical liberals like Nancy Pelosi (and her fellow travelers like Hillary Clinton) love welfare. To elitist dolts like her, food stamps and unemployment insurance payouts are laughably among “best ways to stimulate the economy.” This fascist millionaire of the political ruling class knows all too well: if you can influence an individual's stomach you can control their vote.

Despite an escalating $19.4 national debt, the cost of welfare is now well over $1 trillion dollars per year. In fact, the use of food stamps has become so common they are the go-to currency in many inner cities. At present, 45 million Americans depend on taxpayers to put food on their tables. Since taking office, Mr. Obama has added 5 million to that number, and 10 million more to the Medicaid rolls.

How is all of this government largesse “paid” for? By further raising economy-killing taxes as well as the debt ceiling (by borrowing, at interest, more money from Communist regimes like China). Hence, the reasons for the widespread economic malaise of the Obama years are laid bare. A booming welfare state and outsourced jobs (due to high corporate taxes and draconian regulations) have resulted in almost eight years of a largely stagnant economy—and 93 million able bodied Americans out of the workforce.

The cherry on the pie of this fiscal wasteland is the surprising revelation that illegal alien recipients are paid approximately $1,000 dollars more in U.S. welfare benefits than American citizens. So, despite this clear economic drain, the unchecked criminality (such as the murder of innocents like American Kate Steinle), the violent drug trade and the ever present danger of radical Islamic terrorism, Hillary Clinton supports an open border policy. Why? Beyond an unquenchable lust for power, the amoral Clintons are all about self-interest via political calculations. To this end, her hope of future amnesty for this underclass of foreign invaders (border jumping squatters and those illegally overstaying visas) forms yet another cultivated voting bloc for her ilk to steal elections by diluting the will of the American people.

Related to welfare as a political tool of manipulation, we've come full circle back to the politician who started it all, Lyndon B. Johnson. At the time, this first modern progressive president said privately, “I’ll have those n*ggers voting Democrat for the next 200 years!” Like LBJ, Hillary Clinton is a disdainful creature (read: Server-gate) who counts on the duped and the poor (whom she cares nothing for) to realize her own longstanding presidential ambitions.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446

http://www.americanthinker.com/author/david_l_hunter/

http://canadafreepress.com/members/74987/DavidLHunter/976

Contrast Cincinnati and Baltimore moms

“Whoever spares the rod hates their children, but the one who loves their children is careful to discipline them” - Proverbs 13:24

Monica Crowley knows the family unit is a microcosm of American society. Her Washington Times column “Surprising heroines who wield authority” commemorates Baltimore's Toya Graham's “moma bear” behavior reining in her wrongdoing son. Imagine if she had been that parent at the Cincinnati zoo. Mindful Mother Graham would have kept her kid safe. No dangerous plummet into the deadly clutches of a gorilla for him.

Let's compare the MSM's biased portrayal of these two mothers. “Zoo” mom's obvious neglect is lamely excused as an innocent, “human” mistake. Yet, Ms. Graham's public swats were demonized as wrongful shaming and child abuse. Rationally, who is the “better” mother here?

All children need a loving family, necessities like a home, and a fully belly. Beyond that, every child needs to learn the boundaries of appropriate and safe behavior. In eras long past, the most terrifying statement made to any errant youth was “wait 'til your father gets home!” That was before LBJ's Great Society. His “welfare” programs continue to reward single motherhood, and the resulting generations out of wedlock births. Now, absentee fathers are often the rule rather than the exception. Therefore, “lost boys” run rampant in rioting cities like Baltimore. Such a chaotic environment is what drew Ms. Graham's boy into the fray.

For an average teen, urban centers like Chicago (with its yearly record-breaking homicides) seem about as safe as that gorilla's lair. Is it any wonder that America in 2016 resembles a real-life “Lord of the Flies?”

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog
http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446
http://www.americanthinker.com/author/david_l_hunter/
http://canadafreepress.com/members/74987/DavidLHunter/976

Democrats Foul Meaning, Foment Rage

“[R]evolutions broke out in city after city... caused still new extravagances of revolutionary zeal, expressed by an elaboration on the methods of seizing power and by unheard-of atrocities in revenge. To fit in with the change of events, words, too, had to change their usual meanings.” - Thucydides, Greek historian (c. 460 – c. 400 BC)

Today's “Democrats” are both lip service experts, and linguistic contortionists. Ironically, despite the donkey mascot, they don't believe in democracy or the pioneering American spirit. That unfortunately ended with JFK's New Frontier optimism, and the subsequent tragedy of his and brother Bobby's assassinations. Recall that Kennedy's Camelot was quickly appropriated and replaced by something unrecognizable, Mr. Johnson's “Great Society.” Mind you, LBJ also still conveniently called himself a “Democrat,” but he was the first modern-day progressive, and his hard leftist policies were a radical departure from Mr. Kennedy's.

What did LBJ do? As any good fascist, he cleverly exploited the memory of his murdered predecessor into a governing mandate for his own, rather than Mr. Kennedy's, policies. After all, how could the American people have realized then the radical differences? (They don't even realize them now!) LBJ promised superficial hope and continuation; a calm voice in calamitous times. Reeling from existential grief, the voters did what they thought to be a reasonable thing: they elected Mr. Kennedy's V. P. Specifically, in 1964, LBJ garnered 61% of the vote: the widest popular margin in American history.

On the level of policy what did LBJ do? For starters, he nearly doubled JFK's government spending to $42 billion, and added 13% to the national debt. (These figures are quaint compared to Mr. Obama's 9 trillion of 19 in total, and counting.) Similarly, Mr. Obama has also expanded government with, for example, his takeover of 1/6 of the economy soon to be known as the Obamacare debacle. Likewise, LBJ had his failed War on Poverty. Related to the latter, what is clear in hindsight 50 years later? Per the 2013 U.S. Census Bureau 14.5 percent of Americans are poor, basically unchanged since 1967. In the interim, 22 trillion has been squandered, and generations of the nuclear family in the black community have been economically and socially decimated. This phenomenon is known as the Democrat's poverty plantation.

Fast forward to today to see the stark parallels between both men. Ironically, under America's first black president, the black community has suffered the most of any segment of our society. Look to the unprecedented, black-on-black murder rate of Mr. Obama's community-organized Chicago. Another telling sign, the black teen unemployment rate hit a staggering 39.3 percent in July 2012. Likewise, in a report for the Center for Economic and Policy Research, economist Dean Baker writes, “The drop in labor force participation was sharpest for African Americans, who saw a decline of 0.3 percentage points to 60.2 percent, the lowest rate since December of 1977.” To this end, Obamacare's restrictive employer mandates have contributed mightily to generally declining hiring practices. Equally astonishing is the fact that better than 90% of black voters choose Mr. Obama despite their unmistakably diminished prospects.

In any case, as with LBJ—and the fresh-faced Mr. Obama—with Kennedy nostalgia, the electorate saw what it wanted to see: a fun house mirror for its own hopes and dreams. In this regard, lacking the specifics of a track record was only a boon to BHO. He was a virtual unknown, totally untested, a political neophyte. He was also a polished, empty suit that symbolized what black people aspired to be. Likewise to white voters, Mr. Obama appeared to be the manifestation and realization of MLK's “Dream.” Once again, understandably, the trusting American public pulled the lever. A mistake made twice to our collective detriment. What America wanted another unifier, ideally perhaps JFK and MLK rolled into one. What we got was the opposite: another big government ideologue, a Johnson style bait-and-switch.

By the totality of his political philosophy, JFK would likely be a left of center mainstream Republican in today's world. He was pro-military, supported economy-stimulating tax cuts, was against deficit spending and was rabidly anti-Communist—and specifically, anti-Castro. In what universe could one imagine JFK going on a bended knee “apology tour” to America's geo-political foes? (To that end, he would have rightfully fired Hillary for her embarrassingly inept, Russian “reset button” stunt). Furthermore, what's the probability, Mr. Kennedy would ever vacation in Cuba or embrace authoritarian Castro in warm friendship? How about that U.S. military Mr. Obama has gutted? Or those Obama hell-freezing-over-first tax cuts? Our current president calls himself a “Democrat,” but he also claims a Christian faith for what's that worth. But, what of an apples to apples comparison of Mr. Obama to true Democrat Mr. Kennedy, or Ben Carson as a typical Christian? What is then seen in the former is a pretender who doesn't know the meaning of these concepts beyond lip service to them.

Obama, Clinton and Sanders are all ruling class elitists, happy to play obscuring word game patty-cake with the MSM. Notice the nebulous and fluid labels they use to define themselves:

“OK, well what’s the difference between a socialist and a Democrat?” Chris Matthews asked again.

“I can tell you what I am, I am a progressive Democrat,” Hillary Clinton responded.

“How is that different than a socialist?” The MSNBC talking head asked a third time.

“I am a progressive Democrat who likes to get things done.”

Well, isn't that a bit like hubby Bill's: “It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is.”? “Democrat-Socialist” indeed! That's about as contrary and nonsensical as Big Brother's title for his Ministry of Peace that, in actuality, makes war. (Incidentally, that's why neither DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz nor front-runner Hillary Clinton can articulate the nonexistent difference). More to the point, when a term like “liberal” loses its sale value (as during the Reagan years) these chameleons—anti-American, big government fascists, one and all—shift to the common usage of a different, positive-sounding buzz word like “progressive.” The fact that this word is very similar to the word “progress” is intentional. Given, as examples, the widespread advancements in medicine and technology who in the 21^st century is not for more of that? The fact that both ideas have nothing whatsoever to do with each other is the point. Language becomes imprecise and overtly hazy. Therefore, a progressive is a good association code word to confuse—and ultimately dupe–uniformed voters. (Millennials, this means you!) Likewise, was Mr. Obama's vacuous hope and change slogan. Or Mr. Obama's ominous fundamental transformation of America. Sound good surface words that have brought wheels-falling-off ruin to America.

Think of a curse word for a donkey and that's the only aspect that has remaining relevance to these would-be “Democrats.” Their ilk only believe in one thing: perpetual top-down rule of an ever-expanding debt-ridden government they control. It's Uncle Sam reconstituted as nanny state wet-nurse. Recall, that economics is freedom. As is peaceful self-expression, and individual choice-making. In the final analysis, are Americans more free or less so after Mr. Obama's almost eight years in office? For a strong indication, the able-bodied 93 million unemployed can check their bank account balances, the rest can check their part-time paycheck stubs.

In no way do progressives/socialists resemble Democrat's roots: “go your own way” Classic Jeffersonian Liberalism. They are, in reality, their opposite number. Specifically, today's “Democrats” are that in name only. Mr. Obama has enjoyed and exploited an unquestioning quasi-religious fanaticism by the propagandist MSM, and his fellow political travelers in government. The state is their God and political power (via faceless, unaccountable bureaucratic government), their catnip. Make no mistake, they are against all traditional American ideals: Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness (via self-determination).

These folks use soft, meaningless euphemisms like “climate change,” and political correctness, as political smoke—sleights of hand—to distract from the abject failures of their policies. Hence, “leadership from behind,” and America's economics, military strength and political power in absolute contraction. Specifically, a corrupt IRS that continues to target conservative groups is just the tip of the ice burg. Politicians like Mr. Obama lie about Obamacare, and globally about his failed record as president. His would-be successor Hillary Clinton lies about her roles in Benghazi, Server-gate and Charity-gate. Added mightily by a sycophantic, water-carrying MSM, they know: say the lie loud enough and long enough and the sludge filters down as “truth” to the voters. Words mean what they say they mean. And, in this chaotic background, Black Lives Matter anarchists openly proclaim disorder and “Pigs in a blanket. Fry ’em like bacon.” Overseas radical Islam similarly chants “Death to America.” Lefties habitually destroy and loot. Contrarily, conservatives and the Tea Party preserve, and protest peacefully. They don't target cops for assassination or burn down American cities like Ferguson and Baltimore. They also don't vote for responsibility-phobic, two-faced politicians to whom truth is a foreign concept. Want more of the faceless, lawless mob mentality we have now? Ignore my honest, unvarnished words. Keep voting for Hillary's caliber of person who promises a dystopian Obama third term.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog
http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446
http://www.americanthinker.com/author/david_l_hunter/
http://canadafreepress.com/members/74987/DavidLHunter/976

Obama's Flint Water Lip Service

After years of the American people (and progressive cronies) drinking the Obama Kool-Aid, it seems only fitting that our modern-day Marie Antoinette president should have to drink from Flint's formerly leaded water supply. (Did the royal taster on Mr. Obama's staff make sure it was filtered before it graced his majesty's lips?) Apparently so, because Mr. Obama gulped it down like the pricey Cristal I imagine is always on tap at the White House when his buddy Jay-Z visits with Beyonce (still undoubtedly wearing her Super Bowl 50 “Black Panther” outfit.) In fact, since Mr. Obama seems to like Flint's water so much perhaps he will authorize his own personal Keystone pipeline to the executive residence in case Jay-Z wants a mixer instead of his own brand, golden-bottled Armand de Brignac champagne.

This careless and coddled snake oil salesman—who habitually (golfs, parties, vacations) with millionaires and billionaires at taxpayer expense—is now pushing water: his 21 century version to impoverished blacks as their slave forebearers were once promised 40 acres and a mule: “I’ve got your back,” Obama laughably claimed, “I will not rest and I’m going to make sure that the leaders at every level of government don’t rest until every drop of water that flows to your homes is safe to drink and safe to cook with and safe to bathe in.” Seriously? When has Mr. Obama ever taken on fellow Democrats for anything? The answer is never.

His better than seven year litany of hollow words are always designed to obscure the repeated fact of incompetence and scandal—of his party and/or his own administration. In this case, Democrats running virtually every level of the city and state of Michigan were responsible for this money-saving scheme. Likewise, the failed oversight by Mr. Obama's EPA, the bureaucratic negligence related to its cover-up. Naturally, the MSM (and Flint residents) singled out the one Republican, Gov. Rick Snyder, for blame. Contrast that to Johnny-come-lately Obama's rock star reception: his do-nothing face time was only met with universal, sycophantic praise. (Exactly when will America finally wake up to Mr. Obama's skin-deep “down with the struggle” rhetoric and empty symbolism? My prediction is also never.)

In actuality, Mr. Obama does little more than loaf around. He, self-described in Politico with “Hawaii laziness,” is finally going to step take charge after almost two full presidential terms? Seriously, what hubris to continue to believe that more of this metaphorical shoe shining will fool all of the people, all of the time. Let me be clear: Mr. Obama isn't interested in the plight of fellow human beings (read: “No Trayvon outcry for Tayshawn”) or environmental safety.

Recall, it's election time for Democrats. After almost eight years that has specifically ruined the prospects of black folks (along with the country), this is Mr. Obama's hat in hand effort to, once again, fleece votes. Indeed, Mr. Obama excels at the superficiality of political theater. He likes the pomp and circumstance of the presidency—the high on the hog living—the shallow surfaces of being an empty suit with a teleprompter. He's just not interested in tough calls, real leadership (think Syrian red lines) or advocating for American interests. Yet, same as fundraising, trolling for votes with a winsome smile and a little water gurgling photo-op for cameras (read: appear to be “doing something”) is right in his wheelhouse. After all, a brief stopover in Flint is a tiny effort to shore up the black vote for November's likely highly contested presidential election. That's what this is really about: a legacy-preserving third term (read: “Obama's 'Hillary' offensive”).

It is not hyperbole that JFK was America's last true Democrat as president. Progressives of today have co-opted the “brand” and actually oppose what Mr. Kennedy stood for. Why draw the line specifically after him? His successor, Lyndon Baines Johnson, reportedly said: “I’ll have those n*ggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years.” (Allegedly, this was confided to two like-minded governors on Air Force One regarding Mr. Johnson's underlying intentions for his “Great Society” programs.) In this regard, 2014 marked the 50^th anniversary of Johnson's War on Poverty in which 22 trillion has been spent without any appreciable improvement to the poverty rate: per the 2013 U.S. Census Bureau 14.5 percent of Americans are poor—the same as in 1967—three years after Johnson pushed through his socialistic programs.

How was this achieved? All fascists use tragedy to compel change both desirous to them and for them. In LBJ's case, he exploited the Kennedy assassination to ensure widespread government dependence (read: the “carrot”) and its inevitable political endgame: the future election of “Democrats.” Correspondingly, Mr. Obama's “corrosive attitude that exists in our politics” is entirely a product of his and Mrs. Clinton's Sal Alinsky style polarization and class warfare (read: the “stick”).  Either method is designed to gin up minority votes for progressives—even though their policies are detrimental to their duped supporters! Therefore, make no mistake: that's the only reason Flint “counts” to politicians of their ilk—as election day propaganda.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog
http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446
http://www.americanthinker.com/author/david_l_hunter/
http://canadafreepress.com/members/74987/DavidLHunter/976

Feeding at Democrat’s poverty plantation

Controlling a citizen’s belly is an insidious mechanism by which to subtly coerce—and consistently predict—that person’s vote.  That’s why Democrats use it (and why Mitt Romney failed in his 2012 White House bid despite correctly enumerating the objective facts related to Mr. Obama’s multitude of well-known domestic and international failures).  For the 6 plus years of the Obama presidency, his job-killing, anti-Capitalist—tax, spend, redistribute; repeat—fiscal policies have keep key voting demographics—people of color, the poor, the young and the generally alienated (the Occupy movement)—on the Democrat’s economic plantation.  Specifically, under Obama, 93 million willing and able Americans cannot find full time work.  Similarly, 18.2 million more people are currently on food stamps since January 2008.  Moreover, per 2013 official poverty statistics, 45.3 million people are consistently living at or below the poverty line or 14.5 percent (compared to 36.5 million people or 19 percent in 1964 which began Democrat President Johnson’s Great Society and costly—and largely failed—welfare programs and “War on Poverty.”)  That’s 1 trillion (1,000 billion and counting) spent resulting in 46.2 million in poverty per 2011 figures: as a percentage of the populations, 18.8 and 14.7 respectively, the rate of overall improvement of 4.1 percent isn’t exactly huge progress given the enormous expenditure.

Despite all factual evidence to the contrary, Obama’s big government, progressive economic policies have repeatedly double-downed on historical failures most tellingly with his own failed 840 billion stimulus: money funneled to pro-Democrat unions that, for example, took over GM; bankrupt companies like Solyndra run by political cronies or wasted on seemingly imaginary, “non-shovel-ready” jobs.  Examples all of Democrat’s Orwellian policies that articulate a noble intention, but achieve its “real world” opposite.  At these all too frequent moments, Democrats shrug their shoulders, make a clever quip (“Osama bin Laden is dead and General Motors is alive”) and quickly change the subject from continuing deficit spending and an ever-mounting 19 trillion dollar debt.

50 years on, Johnson’s ironically named Great Society policies (like Obama’s  Affordable Care Act—which is anything but—and has pulled the financial guts out of America’s healthcare system) have destroyed the basis of the nation—the family unit—especially in minority communities. This package of initially well-intentioned government programs designed as a temporary stop-gap measure has instead subsidized and raised whole generations of illegitimate children in broken or single-parent homes with little or no male influence.  In point of fact, a father in the home virtually disqualifies a woman from collecting her government assistance.  In this way, a federal program designed to “help” actually poisons society’s lifeblood—the heterosexual, two parent household—by encouraging men to abandon their children.  Since the onset of these Democratic policies in the mid-1960s, illegitimacy nationwide stood at 7.7 percent; for Afro-Americans 25%.  Today, for comparison, out-of-wedlock births for blacks are over 72 percent; Hispanics over 50 percent and whites (from 3 percent in 1960) to 36 percent at present.  From such unstructured homes comes a similarly chaotic culture.

In the same vein—for better or worse—there is no longer a social stigma related to teenage pregnancy or illegitimate births.  More importantly, there are no dire economic consequences for the unwise decision to have a child without the advantages of a stable and prosperous home.  This path tends to lead to poverty and similarly poor life choices reflective of the mother’s example.  In a very real way, these inherent life limitations cause the school system to become a pipeline to criminality and jail.  For instance, 72 percent of adolescent murders indicate they grew up in fatherless homes.  This clear sociological trend, out of Democratic political correctness, is ignored by policymakers who favor superficial non-fixes like dumping more money into already failing public school systems.  Unfortunately, no amount of money can impart a healthy value system, responsible decision-making or a work ethic.  That duty, for good reason, should always be the purview of mature parents rather than ill-suited nanny state institutions.

On a related issue, despite feminists’ unrealistic super-woman pretenses, an unstable or nonexistent relationship with a father or father-figure deeply wounds a boy’s psyche.  When women rule the roost in the absence of a man, boys find destructive male role models in gangs of their lawless, also fatherless peers.  This dynamic further explains 2013 FBI crime statistics which indicate that black-on-black murder accounts for 90% of deaths in the Afro-American community.  Therefore, Democratic leaders, like Mr. Obama, race-bait and foster chaos when promoting the wrongheaded delusion that white people in general—and white police in specific—act “stupidly” and are the guilty party.  So, wrongly demonized law enforcement personnel who have a difficult job under typical circumstances, have the added threat of becoming the target for generalized rage.  Under this political microscope—coupled with greater risk to life and limb—is it not understandable that they would be reticent and thereby less effective?  Consequently, violent protests like those in Ferguson, MO and Baltimore, MD become more and more likely.  Indeed, economically depressed, violence-ridden, Democrat-controlled urban cities like Chicago, Cleveland and Detroit are now societal powder kegs: one interracial incident away from the abyss.  The thin blue line is fraying.

Abetted by the water-carrying mainstream media, these societal truths have been successfully diminished, twisted or obscured by the propaganda of divisive Democratic politics: mostly blaming the “haves,” whitey or “the other guy” (historically “rich” Republicans—and the most recent fiction—“racist” cops.)

The nefarious political end game: Obama’s perpetual campaign of lies, lip-service to real cultural problems and vague, pretty-word speechifying supported by little action (or the wrong action). Its underlying purpose: to keep the rest of us stirred up and distracted by trivialities, enabling them—an incompetent Democrat elitist in-crowd (beholden only to the Party and their allies)—to stay in power.  This is achieved by keeping the country in a constant state of distress; by constant fear-mongering and intentionally dividing the country along its societal fault lines of class, race, gender and sexual orientation.

Despite their liberal friends in mass media and their strangely rosy accounts of the state of the union (and politically correct spin which stems the flow of independent thought and dissention), Democrats are fundamentally vote-panderers: not truly advocating for the “common man,” only for themselves.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog
http://www.americanthinker.com/author/david_l_hunter/
http://canadafreepress.com/members/74987/DavidLHunter/976