Abolish Welfare On The Federal Level

All poverty is local. Poverty consists of poor people, not statistics. There is no single body of the poor. They are individuals and families. Therefore, the Federal Government should not be allowed to address the issue of poverty because it is too far removed from local issues. The Federal government is impersonal, and thus incapable of compassion. Although it is run by people, those people are far removed from poverty. In fact, too many politicians end up far richer after being in government than most people who actually work for a living. This is evident in the inordinately generous pensions they award themselves and the extraordinary benefits and perquisites that often attend them for the rest of their lives.

The Federal government cannot be compassionate because governments are not people, per se. They are gigantic machines driven by people with agendas. And make no mistake about it; ALL politicians and bureaucrats have agendas. Their agendas are different. Bureaucrats merely want to keep their jobs and benefits. Politicians want power and all the perquisites that go with it. They make policy largely based on self-interest, the perpetuation of their jobs and their continued empowerment. In preference, those who run the Federal government would easily and gladly forsake American people, whom they purport to represent, rather than yield power. In a 2013 article appearing in American Thinker, author Lawrence Sellin put it succinctly:

The federal government has become such a system, an entity unto itself operating outside of Constitutional constraints and unaccountable to the American people.

The United States is now controlled by a Democratic and Republican ruling class that transcends government and sees itself as distinct from the rest of society and as the only element that may act on its behalf. The ruling class considers those who resist it as having no moral or intellectual right, and, only reluctantly, any civil right to do so.

The Federal Welfare program is one of the most bloated means by which politicians perpetuate their hold on certain voting blocs.

Federalizing poverty as a political issue began with Lyndon Baines Johnson’s “War on Poverty,” which started the most massive vote-buying scheme among the group that LBJ and other Democrats thought was most susceptible to handouts: black Americans. On the surface, Johnson’s intentions may have seemed logical and compassionate, claiming that to lift black Americans out of poverty would take special efforts beyond their capability at the time. In a 1964 speech, he said: “You do not take a person who, for years, has been hobbled by chains and liberate him, bring him up to the starting line in a race and then say, ‘you are free to compete with all the others.’”

Johnson’s real sentiments, however, were not so compassionate. In his own words, quoted in a biography of Johnson by Ronald Kessler, Johnson said: “These Negroes, they’re getting pretty uppity these days and that’s a problem for us since they’ve got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we’ve got to do something about this, we’ve got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference…” Presumably, through welfare dependency, he claimed: “I’ll have them niggers voting Democratic the next two hundred years.” While the authenticity of these quotes is argued, the sentiment expressed in them in inarguable. Before Johnson’s presidency, black Americans were largely Republican. After Johnson, they have voted consistently for Democrats by large margins.

Notwithstanding the demeaning nature of the Democrats’ attitudes toward black voters, welfare among black people is pervasive. The black family has been destabilized with an out-of-wedlock birth rate reaching 73%, triple pre-1963 levels. Aid to Families with Dependent Children—in other words, mothers without husband providers, has discouraged marriage because AFDC is less likely to be awarded to families with two parents in which the father is the breadwinner. As a result, fatherless homes leave children, especially boys, without strong male guidance to keep them from criminal behavior rampant in ghettos. In 2010, blacks (approximately 13% of the U.S. population) accounted for 48.7% of all arrests for homicide, 31.8% of arrests for forcible rape, 33.5% of arrests for aggravated assault, and 55% of arrests for robbery. Also as of 2010, the black poverty rate was 27.4%, meaning that 11.5 million blacks in the U.S. continued to live in poverty despite generational welfare. By comparison, children raised in two-parent homes are far more likely to stay in school and to live better lives as adults. These statistics alone should be enough to convince anyone that Federal welfare has had a devastating effect on black Americans.

Welfare is not exclusive to black Americans. In fact, more non-black Americans receive welfare than blacks. However, in places like Baltimore, where the black population outnumbers non-blacks and where liberal Democrats have controlled the political landscape, the social situation in densely black neighborhoods is dire. Dependent citizens are reliable voters to the class that feeds their dependency, but unreliable in embracing any changes that would better the economy, reduce crime and improve other vital social conditions. I live in Baltimore and can tell you that if one wants to see the concrete results of generational welfare, one only needs to take a ride through one of these neighborhoods. The effects are undeniable.

If welfare is honestly intended as a leg up, it should be local, short-term and tied to a work training plan. If the damage is to be repaired and poverty truly reversed, it should be abolished on the federal level and returned to local control.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Hillary Caught On Camera Doing Something That Destroys Her Message From Just HOURS Before

Hillary Clinton is receiving some heat for her use of a lavish corporate jet immediately after making a speech about the need to take drastic measures to address man-made climate change.

The 2016 presidential candidate, after her speech in Iowa, boarded a plane bound for New Hampshire, which was caught on video by the conservative PAC America Rising.

The Daily Mail reports that the French-made corporate jet she used, the “Dassault model Falcon 900B, burns 347 gallons of fuel per hour,” adding: “The Trump-esque transportation costs $5,850 per hour to rent, according to the website of Executive Fliteways, the company that owns it.”

In her Monday speech and in a video released by the campaign, Clinton urged the taking of immediate action to address the supposed global menace. In her video, she says: “You don’t have to be a scientist to take on this urgent challenge that threatens us all. You just have to be willing to act.”

When the campaign was questioned about its double standard of urging Americans to act to address the ‘urgent challenge’ and Clinton’s use of a corporate jet that releases more carbon emissions into air in a single flight than most Americans burn in an entire year, an aide responded on Tuesday: “The campaign will be carbon neutral. We’ll be offsetting the carbon footprint of the campaign and that includes travel.”

“The most common way to achieve carbon neutrality is by buying voluntary carbon offsets that make up for things like private air travel and driving. There are other ways to reach carbon neutrality, they include planting trees, counting clean commuting and making changes in an office environment, but those are far less common,” according to CNN.

Clinton states in her climate video that “It’s hard to believe that people running for president refuse to believe the settled science of climate change,” as quotes attributed to GOP hopefuls fill the screen, including Jeb Bush stating “I’m a skeptic. I’m not a scientist.” Ted Cruz is quoted saying “There’s been no warning whatsoever,” while Donald Trump simply labels it a “Hoax.”

Clinton’s plan calls for uping America’s use of renewable energy from its current level of 7 percent to 33 percent by 2027. President Obama has set a goal of 20 percent by 2030. To achieve her higher benchmark, Clinton wants to grow the nation’s current amount of solar panels in the United States by 7 times to reach a half a billion by 2020, the New York Times reports.

Scientists differ on whether the climate is warming and, if it is, what effect man may be having. Many have noted there has been a 17-year “pause” since 1998 in the rise of global temperatures documented over the last century, which raises doubts whether human activity is the primary cause of any change.

There is no doubt for Clinton, however. In her climate video, the candidate says: “I’m just a grandmother with two eyes and a brain and I know what’s happening in the world is going to have a big effect on my daughter and especially on my granddaughter.”

“The reality of climate change is unforgiving no matter what the deniers say,” according to Clinton.

When questioned about her view on completing the Keystone XL oil pipeline in New Hampshire Tuesday, the former secretary of state refused to take a position. The pipeline is opposed by many environmental groups, but popular with labor unions, whose support Clinton will likely want to secure.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Woman Who Exposed Clinton-Lewinsky Affair Just Made A HUGE Move Hillary Will Absolutely Hate

It would seem that, for Hillary and Bill and the Democrats who want another Clinton in the Oval Office, the chickens are coming home to roost…and quite possibly creating a messy panic in the coop.

Just one day after Western Journalism told you about the new scandal-hunting website launched by Kathleen Willey — who famously claimed the former president sexually assaulted her in the White House — another key figure from the Clintons’ questionable past has leveled her own scathing charges against Hillary.

In a Daily Mail exclusive, the British newspaper reveals that the woman who outed Monica Lewinsky for her affair with President Clinton is now on the warpath against Hillary. Citing the then-first lady as a “destroyer” who ruthlessly attacked and ruined the reputations of many women linked sexually to her husband, Linda Tripp is quoted in the Daily Mail as saying that Hillary Clinton “must never become president” because she’s a devious and manipulative liar.

Because, according to Linda Tripp, it was Hillary who manipulated and stage managed the story [of the Lewinsky affair], converting herself from a lackluster First Lady with unimpressive approval ratings to admirable First Victim – the blindsided wife standing by her man.

She made him forgivable. She ‘orchestrated the cover up’ and she made damn sure that she moved on. Nothing, and no-one, was going to stand in her way.

Now 65 years old, Tripp has chosen to break her ten-year silence as Hillary seems all but destined to become the Democrat nominee for president in 2016. Once a White House aide with an office right next to Mrs. Clinton’s West Wing power center, Tripp tells the Daily Mail that Hillary is “unscrupulous,” “deceitful,” and “inherently dishonorable.”

She describes Hillary as the true ‘ruler’ of the White House through her husband’s administration; tells how she watched Hillary ‘blatantly lie’ to the American people; describes her as utterly ‘ruthless’ in her pursuit of power; and voices her belief that Hillary must never gain the presidency – the position that has always been her goal and to which she has always believed herself entitled.

Regarding the current emailgate scandal that continues to plague Hillary from her time as secretary of state, Linda Tripp says the former chief diplomat is pursuing a familiar strategy in trying to get past the controversy surrounding her use of a private email account maintained on a personal server.

Her modus operandi was, and continues to be, Tripp explained: ‘I will do what I want and then when I’m questioned I will say, “oops,” or “bureaucratic snafu”, and then after a couple of months her refrain will be, “this is old news, it’s been investigated, I did nothing wrong, let’s move on, it’s time to address the issues facing the middle class of America.”

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Democrats Excuse And Rally Behind Planned Parenthood’s Selling Of Baby Parts…

The recent videos exposing Planned Parenthood should be cause for alarm for any decent human being. Evil is as evil does.

For the Democrat Party, it’s cause to circle the wagons.

Hillary Clinton of course hasn’t commented. The Department of Health and Human Services is rejecting FOIA requests, because they claim it isn’t newsworthy.

I guess at least some Democrats are calling for an investigation.

Oh, wait…they don’t want to investigate Planned Parenthood harvesting organs for a profit. They want to investigate the organization that exposed them. Pieces of human feces they are.

“This elaborate scheme raises serious questions about whether any federal or state laws were violated in securing the LLC or the personal identification that were part of its execution,” the Democrats wrote to Attorney General Loretta Lynch.

The members also raised questions about “possible coordination between the Center for Medical Progress and members of Congress who knew about the first video weeks in advance of its release.”

Hey, remember when Barack Obama said his government doesn’t really target political opponents? This next part is good…

Additionally, the Democrats said the secretly recorded video may be illegal under California law, as it was filmed without the consent of the Planned Parenthood doctor.

If they got their consent…it wouldn’t have been an exposé. Matter of fact, allow me to reference my dictionary.

Exposé: a report of the facts about something, especially a journalistic report that reveals something scandalous.

Sexist, dictionary-writing bastards.

Democrats are bought and paid for by the Big Abortion lobby. This proves it beyond all shadow of a doubt. Planned Parenthood could be straight up holding satanic ritual killings, and Democrats would defend them–claiming that you hate women for opposing satanic ritual killings.

Pieces of human feces they are.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Watch: MSNBC Host Admits Something Stunning About Hillary That Must Have Been Painful

In a discussion of Democrat presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s ongoing email-related scandal, MSNBC host Andrea Mitchell acknowledged that Republicans have good reason to be skeptical.

Clinton has faced mounting criticism for her use of a private email server in discussing official State Department business during her stint as secretary of state.

“Look,” Mitchell said during a recent appearance on Morning Joe, “you have two inspectors general, and they are referring this to the Justice Department. Now, you can try to confuse it – and there’s been a lot of misdirection, there’s been inaccurate reporting.”

She explained that, contrary to some recent reports, the IGs action did not constitute a “criminal referral,” though it could rise to that level.

“What they are suggesting,” she continued, is that four of the 40 randomly selected emails “had classified information.”

Mitchell clarified that this information was not classified after the fact but was instead marked as “secret, which is a level of classification, at the time.”

As for Clinton’s motivation in maintaining a private email system, Mitchell said she could only speculate and offer the analysis of some experts with whom she recently discussed the matter.

“I was at a security conference speaking to intelligence officials on each side,” she concluded, adding that “nobody can give an explanation for why a cabinet secretary would have a private email system other than to thwart inquiries” and Freedom of Information Act requests.

Should Hillary Clinton be forced to account for her actions as secretary of state? Share your thoughts in the comments section below.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth