LBJ WAS AN ACTUAL NITWIT

15 comments

Posted on 28th January 2013 by Administrator in Economy |Politics |Social Issues

, , , ,

Did any U.S. President do more damage to the country in the space of five years than LBJ? He killed 50,000 American boys with his useless war in Vietnam. His Great Society War on Poverty programs have bankrupted the country and enslaved the poor in deeper poverty and dependence. Reading his words in the article below convinces me this idiot had an IQ below 90. His reasoning is on the level with a 3rd grader. The American people deserve everything we get when we elect people like LBJ, Bush and Obama.

Overreliance on entitlements harms U.S.

Sunday, January 27,2013

 

Journalist Bill Moyers, who worked as an assistant to President Lyndon Johnson, shared memories in a column last year about how his old boss thought about our entitlement programs.

It was under Johnson, who championed the “Great Society” in the 1960s, that a good portion of the runaway government spending we are trying to get under control today originated.

Johnson signed into law Medicare, Medicaid, the War on Poverty programs, and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

Moyers recounted that for Johnson, Social Security and Medicare “were about a lot more than economics.”

He recalls a time when the Johnson administration was supporting retroactive increases in Social Security payments. Moyers said he argued for the increases as economic stimulus. But Johnson called him and said:

“My inclination would be … that it ought be retroactive as far back as you can get it … because none of them ever get enough. That they are entitled to it. That’s an obligation of ours. It’s just like your mother writing you and saying she wants $20, and I always sent mine $100 when she did. I always did it because I thought she was entitled to it. … We do know that it affects the economy. But that’s not the basis to go to the Hill, or the justification. We’ve got to say that by God you can’t treat grandma this way. She’s entitled to it and we promised it to her.”

I don’t think we could have a clearer picture of Johnson’s muddled thinking about his job and the role of government, which contributed so much to the problems we have today.

Johnson’s words sound so wonderfully compassionate. But let’s get things in perspective.

He saw no difference in his relationship and responsibilities toward his own mother, and sending her his own money, and his responsibilities as president of the United States and the relationship of government to citizens.

There is a world of difference between the appropriate responsibility of parents toward their children and children toward their parents, and politicians deciding on how to spend someone else’s money for someone else’s children, parents or grandparents.

Johnson didn’t seem to grasp, or care, about the fact that family and government are two entirely different social institutions that serve very different purposes.

So the Johnson administration years marked not just the beginning of many huge government programs that we can’t pay for today, but they also marked a major cultural change where government began displacing family and personal responsibility.

It is no accident that as the American welfare state grew, the American family collapsed.

In 1960, 72 percent of American adults were married. By 2010, this was down to 51 percent.

The change is most pronounced among two of today’s largest Democratic Party constituencies: youths and blacks. In 1960, 45 percent of Americans between the ages of 18 and 24 were married compared to 9 percent today. In 1960, 61 percent of black adults were married, compared to 31 percent today.

Means testing, targeted tax increases on the wealthy, raising the retirement age — all proposed ways to keep Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid going as they are — all simply grow the American welfare state, increase dependence of working Americans on government and other taxpayers, and displace family and traditional values with socialism.

This is why Democratic leaders are not stressed out by the entitlements crisis facing us. More socialism in America is what they want.

They are not bothered that slow growth and high unemployment go hand in hand with this socialism.

Republicans won’t succeed as an opposition party if they keep tiptoeing around the fact that facing America today is a crisis of vision and values.

They need to stop selling the alternative to welfare as unpleasantness and spending cuts. They need to start selling that restored prosperity will only come with a rebirth of American freedom and the values that go with it.

Star Parker is an author and president of CURE, Center for Urban Renewal and Education. She can be reached at www.urbancure.org.

THE WAR ON PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY

64 comments

Posted on 27th November 2012 by Administrator in Economy |Politics |Social Issues

, , ,

Ignorance is a choice. Having unprotected sex is a choice. Dropping out of high school is a choice. Not getting married is a choice. Our culture has been in downward spiral since the mid 1960s. Is it just a coincidence that the War on Poverty programs began simultaneously with this downward spiral? As a country we decided anything goes. No one was responsible for their actions. The government would create a program to solve every problem created by people not taking responsibility for their lives and accepting the consequences of their bad choices. You get more of what you incentivize. Below is a picture of what government policies and an ignorant population can accomplish.

Marriage Drops the Probability of Child Poverty by 82 Percent

Death of Marriage in the U.S., 1929-2008

Unwed Birth Rates Vary Strongly by Race

71 Percent of Poor Families With Children Are Not Married

Less-Educated Women Are More Likely to Give Birth Outside of Marriage

 

LOVE & MARRIAGE

63 comments

Posted on 26th November 2012 by Administrator in Economy |Politics |Social Issues

, ,

Star Parker is a little bent out of shape over same sex marriage becoming law in 4 states. I’m not upset about same sex marriage. The real problem is what she describes later in the article. In 1960, 72% of adults were married. Today, that number is 51%. The percentage of children born out of wedlock is now 41%. The breakdown by race is even more telling: 29% of white children are born to unmarried women, 53% of Latinos and 73% of black children. These statistics tell the true story of poverty, lack of educational achievement, and the degradation of our society. Children raised by two parents have a much greater chance of success in life. Fatherless households are destined to create ignorant, uneducated, parasites on society who will follow the same path of dependency and poverty taught to them by those who brought them into the world. Government policies encourage and reward the very behavior that is destroying our country. Tough love and forcing the ignorant to become self reliant is the only way out.

Redefining marriage a sign of a lost society

Sunday, November 25,2012

One significant development in the recent election was that voters in four states approved same-sex marriage initiatives. Until now, all previous state referendums to approve same-sex marriage — 32 of them — failed.

The Wall Street Journal editorial page — where conservatives usually turn to for intellectual capital — saw this as cause for celebration.

According to the Journal, marriage definition should come from voters, not from court orders. Americans, they argue, have “shown themselves more than capable of changing their views on gay marriage the democratic way.”

In other words, our definition of marriage should follow process, not principle. Let voters decide.

“As views on gay marriage change, and a growing number of Americans support it, politics will follow. This is how it’s supposed to work.”

I’d guess if I asked the Wall Street Journal editors if the U.S. Constitution should be viewed as a “living document” — if our understanding of its words and what they mean should be open to change to reflect attitudes of the moment — they would say “no.”

Liberals think the Constitution should be re-engineered every few years like an iPad.

So it is not surprising when liberals, for whom tradition is meaningless, trash once-sacred institutions in favor of impulses of the moment.

But it does surprise me when those whose politics are supposedly right of center, who view America’s founding documents as sacrosanct and give the highest priority to preserving their integrity, are cavalier regarding the integrity of an institution thousands of years older than our Constitution.

But it’s a point of view not uncommon.

In the 1850s, Stephen Douglas proposed solving the dilemma of whether slavery should be permitted in new states by suggesting that they should just vote. What could be more American than submitting the question of slavery to the democratic process of each state?

To this Abraham Lincoln observed: “God did not place good and evil before man telling him to make his choice. On the contrary, he did tell him there was one tree, of the fruit of which he should not eat, upon pain of certain death. … I should scarcely wish so strong a prohibition against slavery in Nebraska.”

Lincoln’s rejoinder to the idea of “popular sovereignty” — that states should vote to determine if slavery would be legal — was that there are core truths — truths that define right and wrong, good and evil — that precede the democratic process.

To reject this premise is to buy into moral chaos. Which is what we are approaching today.

The claim that somehow it is a sign of a healthy, free society that by way of the vote we can rewrite our language, our dictionary, our oldest, time-tested traditions is a sign of how lost we are.

Same-sex marriage advocates argue that their efforts will save the embattled institution of marriage. But this takes a symptom of the disease and calls it a cure.

As American society has become more self-centered and materialistic, family and marriage have been imploding.

According to the Pew Research Center, 72 percent of American adults were married in 1960. This dropped to 51 percent in 2011.

Marriage and family form the pillar of any healthy society. Marriage is the institution through which children are born and raised and through which time-tested truths and values are transmitted from one generation to the next.

To deal with the crisis of the collapse of family and marriage by redefining what they are is the sign of a society losing its way.

Fortunately, America is still a free country. Individuals can make their own choices about how they choose to live.

But taking personal choices to deviate from our social standards of right and wrong, true and false, and decide to change those truths and standards, so that nothing is any longer considered deviant, is a bridge to nowhere.

Star Parker is an author and president of CURE, Center for Urban Renewal and Education. Contact her at www.urbancure.org.

A MINORITY SUCCESS STORY

11 comments

Posted on 28th October 2012 by Administrator in Economy |Politics |Social Issues

, , , ,

In a shocking development, it seems a minority class has achieved tremendous educational and economic success through the unusual unheard of method of having parents that get married before having children, staying married, working really really hard, instilling that work ethic in their children, demanding that their children take their education seriously, not getting trapped in self pity when life isn’t fair, not becoming dependent on the state for their subsistence, and always thinking about the future of their kids.

Did I lump an entire minority cohort into one assessment of a cultural phenomenon? How dare I. We all know there must be a lazy good for nothing Asian out there somewhere. Maybe Colma can enlighten us as to why Asians are off the charts on educational scores and household income. Maybe the facts and figures are made up. Maybe all those Asians walking around my campus and overwhelming the library studying are just part of a vast conspiracy. We could never attribute their success to their own efforts and culture of hard work and understanding the importance of education. 

Rise of the Tiger Nation

By LEE SIEGEL

[image] The Image WorksNew U.S. citizens take their oaths in Poughkeepsie, N.Y

Last March, an interviewer archly asked President Barack Obama whether he was aware that he had been “surpassed” by basketball phenomenon Jeremy Lin “as the most famous Harvard graduate.” The question was misformulated. If there was any surpassing going on, it was that Mr. Lin had become, briefly, more famous than Mr. Obama as the country’s most exemplary figure from a hitherto marginalized minority.

Asian-Americans are now the country’s best-educated, highest-earning and fastest-growing racial group. They share with American Jews both the distinction and the occasional burden of immigrant success. WSJ’s Stu Woo talks to author Lee Siegel.

Mr. Lin’s triumph on the basketball court is a living metaphor for the social group he comes from. No one would dispute the opening paragraph of the Pew Research Center’s massive study of Asian-Americans, released over the summer: “Asian-Americans are the highest-income, best-educated and fastest-growing racial group in the United States. They are more satisfied than the general public with their lives, finances and the direction of the country, and they place more value than other Americans do on marriage, parenthood, hard work and career success.” Or as Mr. Lin put it in a video of congratulation he made last spring for the overwhelmingly Asian-American graduates of New York City’s famed Stuyvesant High School: “Never let anyone tell you what you can’t do.”

[image] Mark Peterson/ReduxFormer Washington DC school chancellor Michelle Rhee.

69%

Percentage of Asian-Americans who believe that hard work leads to success, versus 58% of the general public

Source: Pew Research Center

Mr. Lin might well have been thinking of a troubling backhanded homage to Asian-American success. Once upon a time, threatened elites at Ivy League schools like Harvard and Yale secretly established a quota—known as the “numerus clausus”—for the number of Jews allowed through their exclusive gates. Today, some of these schools stand accused of discrimination against Asian-American students who, according to recent studies, must score higher than whites on standardized tests to win a golden ticket of admission. It seems that, despite their very different histories in this country, Asian-Americans now share with American Jews both the distinction and the occasional burden of phenomenal immigrant success.

Asian-Americans have become the immigrant group that most embodies the American promise of success driven by will and resolve. When, six years ago, the Korean-American management consultant Yul Kwon won the 13th season of “Survivor,” it must have been a social scientist’s dream come true. The show’s producers had separated that season’s contestants into ethnically and racially divided groups: white, black, Hispanic and Asian-American. Never mind the sorry lack of taste. The crude segregation also served as an illumination, bringing to the surface America’s eternal subterranean scrimmage between newly arrived tribes. Mr. Kwon’s victory made abstract social trends vividly concrete. Not only had Asian-Americans gone beyond Hispanics as the most populous group of new American immigrants. They had risen to the top in the pursuit of the American dream.

For the purposes of demographic studies, Asian-Americans are defined as Chinese, Filipino, Indian, Vietnamese, Korean and Japanese, with the Chinese being the largest group and the Japanese the smallest. The Pew study is rich with statistics: The Indians and Filipinos lead Asian-Americans in household wealth, Asian-Americans vote mostly liberal, the Japanese and Filipinos are most likely to marry outside their group, more Chinese-Americans than any other Asian-American group say they are doing better materially than their parents were at a similar age.

And Asian-Americans increased their numbers faster than any other race between 2000 and 2010, growing by 46%. From 1980 to 2010, the Asian-American population quadrupled, with Chinese-Americans becoming by far the largest group. Tom Buchanan, F. Scott Fitzgerald’s racist bully in “The Great Gatsby,” would have plotzed (as my Russian-Jewish relatives might have said). At one point in the novel, Buchanan expresses his alarm over the “yellow peril”: “The idea is if we don’t look out the white race will be—will be utterly submerged.”

Although the fictional character’s fears might strike us as alien and repellent today, it is not just a blessing but also historically peculiar that more Americans don’t feel the same way, especially given Asian-Americans’ breathtaking success. America has always been a place where rapid assimilation of strangers was accompanied by brutal opposition to same.

image

To be sure, beginning with the large waves of Asian-American immigration in the latter half of the 19th century, the mostly unskilled Asians who worked the farms and mines and built the railroads met violent, sometimes lethal prejudice. Such hostility was officially sanctioned by legislation banning, at different times, Chinese women, all immigrants from China, and then, in 1924, immigrants from any Asian country, period. The internment of Japanese-Americans after Pearl Harbor is unique in American history—no other immigrant group has ever been imprisoned on American soil en masse because of ethnic guilt-by-association. But since 1965, when the Immigration and Nationality Act opened the doors to immigrants from Asia, their assimilation into American life has proceeded without the turbulence often faced by other groups.

image
Corbis
 
Contrast the Asian-American saga with that of American Jews, the immigrant group most like them in terms of accomplishment and stability. Central and Eastern European Jews also began coming to America in the late 19th century, but because they didn’t incite the ferocious racial hatred that Asian-Americans first confronted, they established themselves more quickly. At the same time, since they were less culturally reticent and more socially ambitious than Asian-Americans, Jewish immigrants also faced more egregious obstacles to mobility than Asian-Americans did when America once again allowed them in.

By the 1930s, when the only Asian presence in American movies was Charlie Chan, Jews had invented Hollywood out of whole cloth. Back in New York, Jews began redefining stagecraft and acting with the founding of the Group Theater in 1931. Though barred early on from elective office by the Irish, who for a long time had a monopoly on the insurgent ethnic side of mainstream American politics, Jews had already reached the highest political echelons as close advisers to President Wilson. In the 1930s, they were the core of President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s so-called brain trust, his inner circle of wise men. By the end of World War II, Jews had achieved prominence in just about every realm of American life.

Yet furtive prohibitions against Jews, as well as entrenched anti-Semitic attitudes, thrived even after the Holocaust, though that unprecedented atrocity had the effect of eventually ending the Ivy League quotas on Jewish admissions. What socially ambitious Jews aspired to were the Elysian fields of WASP bastions such as rarefied country clubs, exclusive professional clubs, white-shoe law firms, prestigious foundations and the like, and these were the very institutions that resisted them the most intensely. As late as 1975, Saul Bellow could complain to an interviewer that “a few years ago it was fashionable to describe Roth, Malamud and me as the Hart, Schaffner and Marx of writing. The Protestant majority thought it had lost its grip, so the ghetto walls went up around us.”

As it happened, 1975 was one year before Bellow was awarded the Nobel Prize, after winning the Pulitzer once and the National Book Award twice. Contrary to Bellow’s somewhat delighted fantasy of persecution, the ghetto walls had come down around Jewish cultural figures decades before. The perception of anti-Semitism often exceeded its reality because, after the Holocaust, any expression of hostility toward Jews got amplified from muted social ugliness into loud moral crime. But there was another factor at work. Having attained prominence and social power, Jews could be disproportionately vociferous and visible in their complaints about rejection and exclusion.

6-in-10

Asian-Americans say American parents put too little pressure on their children to succeed in school

Source: Pew Research Center

Along with their outsider theological status—something not shared by Asians, many of whom are practicing Christians—one reason that anti-Semitism persisted even as Jews ascended in American life was that Jews were frequently in the vanguard of American social and political dissent, from the anarchist Emma Goldman to Yippie Abbie Hoffman and beyond. Not only that, but many of the architects of America’s archenemy, Soviet Communism, had been Jews. As the WASP establishment lost ground to Jewish newcomers, the words “communist” and “Jew” often became synonymous. The association of Hollywood with lax morality, and of Jews with Hollywood, heightened a kind of low-grade hum of anti-Jewish feeling, even as it proved the general acceptance of the Jewish sentiments and sensibility that permeated American entertainment.

Asian-Americans have followed the opposite trajectory from Jewish-Americans. Toxic racism and then prohibitions against immigration prevented them from rising in American society for nearly a century. And then they did so with unique alacrity. Jewish immigrants, whether in the 19th century, in the 1930s as refugees from Hitler or in the 1980s as refugees from the Soviet Union, came here for the most part without a penny to their name. Today, Asian-Americans arrive in America more highly educated, and more prosperous, than any other immigrant group.

Asian-Americans have tended to avoid realms of activity, like politics and entertainment, where what might otherwise be considered the liability of transparent emotion—or the easiness of faking emotion—is a natural asset. Asian cultural prohibitions against public emoting play a role in these choices. There are, of course, numerous Asian-American culture figures and a handful of Asian-American national politicians. But physiognomies whose expressiveness is often lost on Western eyes and a deeply ingrained modesty have, relatively speaking, kept most Asian-American groups away from the public glare and thus out of the cross hairs of American bias and hatred. Insofar as they do play public roles, Asian-Americans are more likely to do pro bono work as lawyers, or to serve in public clinics as doctors, than to appear behind a podium at a political debate or to flicker on the silver screen.

Yet the astounding success of Asian-Americans raises the dark question of how long they will be able to resist attracting the furies of fear and envy, especially during times of economic stress, or of economic and political conflict with countries like China, where the preponderance of Asian-Americans still come from. If China does one day become an explicit antagonist, it seems likely that the anxiety among Chinese-Americans will be even more intense than that of American Jews every time the allegiances of the American-Jewish lobby are questioned.

Some of the more vehement attacks on Amy Chua’s deliberately provocative 2011 memoir of child rearing, “Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother,” were perhaps fueled by resentment of Asian-American ascendancy, especially in the context of raising “perfect” children. Confession: I was one of the book’s more vocal detractors. Was I, a Jewish-American writer, driven to pique, in part, by a member of a group that threatens Jewish-American cultural domination, just as American Jews once threatened the WASP mandarinate? Well, maybe.

The subtle vying for success in various realms of American life between Asian-Americans and American Jews makes one wonder what mores and tastes will look like when Asian-Americans begin to exert their own influence over the culture. Will the verbal brio and intellectual bent of Jews, their edgy irony and frank super-competitiveness give way to Asian discretion, deference to the community, and gifts for less verbal pursuits like music, science and math? Will things become, as they once were under WASP hegemony, quieter?

Not if the mercurial nature of culture has anything to do with it. Think of the wild Korean-American comedian Margaret Cho, who belongs on the same family tree of comic art as the wild Jewish-American comedian Sarah Silverman. Jeremy Lin himself, in his video for the class of 2012 at Stuyvesant, included an antic rap song performed with an Asian-American friend. And the speaker who addressed the high school’s graduates in person last June was the 32-year-old Chinese-American actor Telly Leung, a star of the hit TV series “Glee.”

Mr. Leung spoke for over 20 minutes, joking, shouting, making ironic quips, teasing and provoking. At one point, he boasted that he had overthrown his parents’ middle-class expectations of stability and security and made them redefine their idea of the American dream. He sounded, dare I say it, like a certain type of Jew. Which is another way of saying that he sounded like everyone who comes to America from somewhere else and ends up exemplifying, anew, a native irreverence and vitality that is as old as the American hills.

CHICK-FIL-A APPRECIATION DAY

15 comments

Posted on 1st August 2012 by Administrator in Economy |Politics |Social Issues

, , ,

Looks like the liberal do-gooder intimidation tactics have backfired in a huge way. Chick-fil-A is probably going to have the biggest sales day in the history of their company today. Looks like the 1st Amendment wins again. Rahm must be so sad. Maybe he can focus on the 15 murders that will occur in his fine city today.

 

chickfila-appreciation-day.jpg

Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day gets tea party support in Northridge

A local tea party group flocked to a Northridge Chick-fil-A Wednesday morning as part of “Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day,” a nationwide effort to show support for the fast-food chain recently criticized over its chief executive’s comments on gay marriage.

More than a dozen people stood outside the Northridge Chick-fil-A on Wednesday morning, waving American flags and holding signs that read, “Free to speak, to build, to boycott.” The event was organized by the San Fernando Valley Patriots, a local arm of the tea party.

“That man — just like you or I — has a right to say, ‘This is what I believe’ and not be punished for it,” Karen Kenney, of the San Fernando Valley Patriots, told KTLA.

The Northridge restaurant declined to comment, and referred questions to the company’s corporate office.

Kenney was referencing comments made by Chick-fil-A’s Dan Cathy in a recent interview with the Baptist Press, where the chief executive said that although he doesn’t consider Chick-fil-A a “Christian business,” he does operate on “biblical principles.”

That means, he said, that Cathy — and his company — oppose gay marriage. “Guilty as charged,” he said.

“We are very much supportive of the family — the biblical definition of the family unit,” Cathy continued. “We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that.”

The comments sparked criticism nationwide — including a demonstration at a Laguna Hills Chick-fil-A — as many pledged to boycott the restaurant chain. In response, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee declared Wednesday “Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day,” calling on people to eat at the Christian-run restaurant to show support.

Last week, the owner of the Chick-fil-A on Sunset Boulevard circulated a letter on the restaurant’s Facebook page stating his plans to run his business apolitically. Jeremiah Cillpam’s restaurant straddles two of the area’s largest LGBT populations in Hollywood and West Hollywood.

“We strive to ensure that every guest receives amazing food and service regardless of belief, race, creed, sexual orientation or gender,” Cillpam wrote.

According to KTLA, supporters of gay marriage planned to go to the Hollywood restaurant Wednesday afternoon. A woman who answered the phone that morning said so far, things were “business as usual.”