Progressive Policies Are Making America Black and Blue

“You know what encourages this [Milwaukee riots]? The growth of the welfare state. These are underclass behaviors. Seventy percent of the kids born in Milwaukee are born without an engaged father in their life. So I look at the progressive policies that have marginalized black dads. They push them to the side and say ‘you’re not needed.’ Uncle Sam is going to be the dad, he’s going to provide for the kids, he’s going to feed the kids. Uncle Sam has been a horrible father. Uncle Sam does not love these kids. He might keep a little food in their mouths and that is about it. But we all know the importance of an intact family, what it can do to shape the behavior of kids.” – Milwaukee Sheriff David Clarke

Sheriff Clarke, who is African-American, is speaking directly to the abject failure of Lyndon Baines Johnson's wasted 22 trillion on the “War on Poverty.” Of its damaging consequences, he adds:

“These progressive policies have hit the black community like a nuclear blast and until we reverse this government dependency, that’s what creates all of this [rioting] and it encourages it by the way, along with some questionable lifestyle choices.”

50 years on, LBJ's ironically named Great Society policies have destroyed the basis of the nation—the family unit—especially in minority communities. By insidious progressive design, a father in the home virtually disqualifies a mother from collecting government assistance. In this way, federal programs promoted to “help” actually poison society’s lifeblood—the heterosexual, two parent household—by encouraging men to abandon their children. In actuality, these “helpful” measures have subsidized and spawned whole generations of illegitimate children in broken, impoverished single-parent homes with little or no male influence.

Since the onset of these Democratic policies in the mid-1960s, illegitimacy nationwide stood at 7.7 percent; for Afro-Americans 25%. Today, by 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. So, in essence, the State via broken homes and a failed, progressive public school system “raise” children, badly. Given the subsistence living—and the lack of moral guidance—is it any wonder that many fall through the cracks into wrongdoing and the criminal justice system? Thus the liberal snare of a 'school-to-prison pipeline' in which anyone else (read: whitey) is blamed, and individual responsibility for poor choices is never acknowledged. This is precisely why Sheriff Clarke advocates soul-searching reflection:

“Until the black community does a self-evaluation and until they begin to self-criticize about some of the lifestyle choices they are making, this [bad] stuff is going to continue to fester.”

From decades of despair comes this generation of acting out disaffected youths with no stake in the American Dream. So, this faceless, lawless mob populates today's Black Lives Matter movement. For them, everything is “burn, baby, burn”: in Ferguson, MO; Baltimore, MD and most recently in Milwaukee, WI.  For example, one will not find them assisting residents in catastrophically flooded Baton Rogue.  An outspoken voice speaking Mr. Clarke's unvarnished truth is Charlene Realegeno-Molina who said:

“What is BLM doing for Louisiana? Y'all are good at getting together to protest, well why haven't y'all gotten together to help out? I guess BLM only when convenient.”

Despite their Orwellian name, immoral Black Lives Matter doesn't care about life (of any shade, black or blue). America remains a vulcanized melting pot, where cultural differences in modern times have been respected under the color-blind righteousness of law. American society either rises on the basis of MLK's advocacy of individual character, or falls under the jackbooted heel of anarchist, mob violence.

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

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' true-life lemonade failure

In February, when “D.C. government's dysfunctional lemonade stand,” was published in “Canada Free Press,” it was intended as something written in metaphor. Today, it turns out not to be that, but a concept both factual and prescient.

As a political stunt, D.C. politicians decided to set up a lemonade stand to highlight Equal Pay Day, the annual reminder of the gender pay-gap in which women, on average, are paid less than men. Yet, this was not done to rightfully protest, as examples, Mr. Obama or Mrs. Clinton's track records on the subject. Specifically, unchanged over almost two full Obama presidential terms, pay for female staffers is 13 percent less than their male counterparts. Meanwhile, “feminist icon” Hillary is no better: only 72 cents was paid to women in her Senate office. As with everything these two do—beyond law (read: Obama's executive orders), precedent (read: Hillary's Server-gate) or even Constitutional prohibitions (read: Obama's pen and phone), both, as usual, get a complete pass.

Speaking of a pass, D.C. politicians didn't even bother to get one when they illegally set up shop at the Capitol Hill South Metro Station for their one-day lemonade venture. Like these folks incompetently run the country, there were a host of problems right out of the gate. As likely capitalism-phobic, the Democrats were completely unaware that a charity, Amateur Athletic Union, was already lawfully selling (heavenly) Kripsy Kreme donuts on the very same spot. (Game over!) Even the weather they habitually publicly renounce conspired against them: who wants lemonade on a cool, April showers rush-hour morning commute? To make matters worse, due to the lack of authorization, the station manager called transit police.

Ah, if only that contentious conversation between lawmakers and law enforcement had taken place! Given D.C.'s generally lackadaisical response time for emergency personnel, the ten women from the DNC had already abandoned post for the standard-priced fare of the more hospitable Peet's Coffee. While there, did they demand a discount based upon their gender? No, but that would have made their intended political statement. Yet, as the police apparently never caught up these female scalawags, I assume they gratefully paid the whole tab for their warming beverages.

The point of their badly-run lemonade stand was to highlight a gender-based economic discrepancy. These politicians intended on charging a woman 79 cents (reflecting the average women's wage) versus charging a man a dollar (his average wage). Displaying a juvenile hand-colored sign: “Lemonade. Boys $1.00, Girs (scandalously misspelled with no “l”) 79 cents. Another glaring flaw, their business plan: no permit means no right to sell. That means only accepting a “suggested donation.” Of course, this actuality defeats the entire purpose of the exercise in the first place. As a parallel to their similarly incompetent governance, both leave a bad taste in the mouth (read: the failed Obama Administration) and an empty wallet (read: the escalating 19 trillion debt).

Regardless of their stated “agenda,” what does this stunt really say about the character of those who set it up (read: the government's bureaucratic take over of one-sixth of the economy known as Obamacare)? For starters, earning a hefty salary of $174,000, don't these supposed adults have more productive ways to spend time representing the interests of their constituents? Second, either these lawmakers were too disorganized—or worse, completely blasé—regarding the requirement to get a permit. (Apparently, for them, permits—like rules—are only for the rest of us, the “little people.”) Third, as this situation conclusively demonstrates, Democrats are not concerned with solving concrete problems, they are interested in political polarization. In this case, “serving” bogus 'war on women' propaganda.

Same as Mr. Obama, his lemon-pushing compatriots “lead from behind”—assuming they lead at all. Their focus is wrongly on these non-issues rather than legitimate ones like 93 million able-bodied Americans out of the workforce. They “hawk lemonade” politically too in the form of self-serving pandering under the guise of relief (read: government dependence, multi-generational social welfare programs). Yet, this subsistence living is precisely like the sour drink they peddle on Equal Pay Day: it does not refresh (as upward mobility capitalism does), it just keeps the masses alienated and angry at their fellow citizens—and not incidentally—voting Democrat. Therefore, these elitists stay perpetually in power despite abject failures—and same as Mr. Obama—live high on the hog while doing so.

In the same vein as Equal Pay Day is the good-sounding push for a $15 dollar minimum wage. As with these politician's failed lemonade stand, it promises superficial “sweets” in the form of a wage increase. However, McDonald's can only charge so much for a hamburger (the amount a typical customer will spend) and that figure directly determines how much any given employee can be paid. Therefore, for any company to remain viable, economics—not artificial government mandates—must determine wages. In other words, the “bottom line,” or costs, must be respected as well as the interests of investors. Therefore, the government purveyors who push this “lemonade” are completely obvious—and/or just don't care—that the policy they advocate will actually have the opposite effect and price existing (and future) employees out of the marketplace.

Why should this matter to them? The establishments of both parties habitually run the federal government “red” on money borrowed from countries like China, at interest. When this gargantuan, nation-crushing bill finally comes due to future American generations, they all know they will likely be long gone. (Do-nothing Republicans versus wrongdoing Democrats: some choice!) Yet, let me be clear: as no respecters of America, Democrats are far worse. As an apt analogy to their intentionally divisive style of politics (that keep these responsibility-phobic, finger-pointing progressives in office), the “problem” is never with them, it is always to be found “elsewhere.”

In the final analysis, how is this obtuse disconnect from reality different from these progressives' Chicken Little mindset to the hypothetical “danger” of changing weather patterns versus the real-life life and limb threat of radical Islamic terrorism (recently seen in Belgium and Paris)? What is obvious is these educated and highly-paid people can't even run a child's lemonade stand properly or efficiently. Is it any wonder that these insulated powerbrokers have run the country into the ground? By any mathematical measure, the Obama Administration—aided greatly by a capitulating Paul Ryan-John Boehner Congress—has wrecked the joint like a monster traffic pile-up. Further, so out of touch are they from the American Way, Democrats are contemplating nominating an outspoken Socialist, Bernie Sanders, for U.S. president. Indeed, when a Maoist ornament winds up on the White House Christmas tree, these people don't know what country they are actually living in. Beyond that, they can't even doing the small things correctly.

Not even a single day of successfully turning lemons into lemonade. No doubt a natural consequence of years of Democrats mindlessly drinking the Obama Kool-Aid.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446

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

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

W-a-l-m-a-r-t does not spell welfare

Apparently the liberal MSM and politicians confuse the name Walmart with the concept of welfare. The first is a publicly-traded retailer with stockholders that expect the company to remain profitable. The second is a government-sponsored entitlement program for the needy. The two are examples of entirely different economic animals: the first provides purpose, the semblance of independence and potential upward mobility, the second guarantees Socialistic stagnation and the status quo.

In 2013, the D.C. minimum hourly wage was $8.25. At the time, the city council tried to shakedown the world's largest company (in 2014, by revenue as well as the biggest private employer) with the "Large Retailer Accountability Act." The bill targeted only non-union retailers with stores in the district larger than 75,000 feet and with corporate sales of $1 billion plus. When Walmart balked and almost bolted, the bill was rejected by then-Mayor Vincent Gray. It would have required them (and a limited number of other companies unique for their size such as Target, Home Depot and Macy's) to pay employees a 50 percent premium over the city’s minimum wage or $12.50.

Although mandated wage hikes sound good in theory, in the real world of economics that politicians wholly disregard, they are job-killers. These district-running Democrats grouse about low-wage jobs and a “living wage” in order to perpetually keep their voter bases stirred up ensuring their own re-elections. This is their draconian justification to use the heavy hands of government to throw destructive monkey wrenches (these arbitrary, Orwellian regulations) that, in practice, promote more unemployment under the guise of promising its opposite. In this, they completely ignore the history that such positions were designed as “starter” jobs: to give the young their first employment experiences. They were never intended to be the stuff of careers—or the economic basis upon which to raise a family.

Independent of the above situation, Walmart did initiate paying its hourly employees more, a $9.00 per hour wage in April of 2015.  (Reported Wednesday: a scheduled, second round of pay increases to $10.00 will begin next month.)  Perhaps a questionable business decision given the fact that employee wage increases have directly led to diminished profits; by October the stock had dropped 10%. This logically has caused an economic contraction, compelling Walmart to downsize worldwide including 154 stores in the U.S.—among them two in D.C. This actuality has current D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser “blood mad” because of the five stores promised—on a handshake—only three were built apparently in the better areas of town. The two slated for poorer regions have been abandoned.

Politician Bowser can stew and take it personally, but it is only business. Unlike government which never has a bottom line—and seems not to care one whit for economic consequences (read: 19 trillion in U.S. deficit spending and counting)—such is not the case for any business or any rational person managing a household budget. Yet, liberals' knee-jerk reaction is always the same: the politics of victimization. In this case, demonize the “evil” capitalist entity, publicly proclaim it a “racist” enterprise which “scammed” D.C.'s poor out of an economic oasis in a dilapidated urban sprawl. A circumstance the MSM neglects to mention, caused by Democrats' anti-capitalist policies and gross mismanagement of many of America's prominent cities.

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

Outrage! Feds Cut EBT Benefits by $44.00 a month

Does the Washington Post ever factor in any degree of personal responsibility in any of its stories or philosophically is everyone just automatically a victim? 

While difficult economic times, failing health and a product of multigenerational welfare are mitigating factors, the subject of Mr. Saslow's extensive piece, Raphael Richmond, chose not to pursue higher education or a professional career, chose to lay down with no less than five deadbeat baby daddies and produce six children.  She appears to have enough discretionary funds to beautify herself and support a cigarette habit at seven dollars a pack in DC.  Per Mr. Saslow's extensive profile, Ms. Richmond is provided with a housing voucher to a four bedroom domicile (at $139.00 per month); she has access to what I assume to be a free cell phone; she receives free medical care at a southeast Washington health clinic and periodic ER visits which I assume she does not pay for; and food stamps for herself, her adult daughter and soon to be adult son.  Ms. Richmond even has access to a free computer and scanner but somehow a subway ride and four bus transfers equal an insurmountable journey.  And the Post devotes three pages worth hundreds of thousands of dollars in column space to detail this woman's supposed plight and the underlying reason for this article is the fact that her EBT benefits have been reduced by a grand total of $44.00 dollars a month.  I put it to Mr. Saslow, hasn't the American taxpayer done enough for this woman given her life choices and how else does a society reduce a 17 trillion dollar debt unless cuts are made somewhere?

Re:  'December 7th & December 8th' (Eli Saslow, Front Page, Washington Post)

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