With Halloween around the corner, Target is getting all sorts of attention for its costumes, decorations, and candies. Yet the eeriest part of Target’s Halloween offerings are not its masks or bats, but the fact that it still allows men into women’s changing rooms.
It’s up to 2ndVote shoppers to make sure they keep their kids safe and have a great time on the scariest night of the year. 2ndVote recommends the following companies which don’t put politics ahead of customers:
Party City, Family Dollar, and Dollar Treeare all exactly neutral on 2ndVote’s issues. They take a stand for serving customers instead of left-wing politics. As more and more corporations use their customers’ money for political activity which is against America’s values and traditions, 2ndVote shoppers should make sure these companies feel appreciated.
Of course, any Halloween retail recommendations can’t leave out Hobby Lobby. This amazing company is hugely popular already, and especially so since it defeated against the Obama administration’s abortifacient/contraception/sterilization mandate. Shopping here lets them know their fight over four years ago is still appreciated.
As Halloween approaches, be sure to shop #AnywhereButTarget to let them know that you haven’t forgotten about their dangerous policies. Your kids’ costumes should be the scariest part of Halloween.
EDITORS NOTE: This column with images is republished with permission.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/ABT_Halloween-1320x742-e1540032489634.jpg3606402ndvote .comhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png2ndvote .com2018-10-20 06:49:542018-10-20 06:50:24Shopping for Halloween Costumes and Supplies? Here Are Some Great Options
My fellow NRA members, we stand at the edge of the precipice of one of the most important elections of our lives. That is the reality we face, and we face it just days from now.
All the freedoms we hold dear are at stake in this election. The enemies of our freedom are highly organized and abundantly funded, thanks to a group of super-rich political elites hell-bent on “buying” this election to serve their own agenda.
This self-serving cabal of billionaires and their pet politicians have conspired to permanently transform America into a socialist state.They tried their best to win the White House in 2016, and they’ve done everything possible to undo that election ever since.
Their goal is a clear and present danger! They plan to seize power in Washington by capturing the House of Representatives and U.S. Senate. Then they’ll crush the NRA, take the White House two years from now and repeal the Second Amendment. It is an all-out attack against us and our freedom, not with bombs and bullets, but with billions of dollars buying ballots.
You know their names: George Soros, Michael Bloomberg and Tom Steyer—and their lap dog, N.Y. Gov. Andrew Cuomo. He’s the genius who recently claimed, “We’re not going to make America great again; it was never that great.”
When he made that shocking assertion, I was at the American Cemetery in Normandy, France, with a group of NRA members, Freedom Alliance supporters and combat-wounded heroes from our current war against radical Islamist terror. We were stunned.
More stunning still: Not one of the anti-freedom cabal members distanced themselves from Cuomo’s pathetic rejection of American values. Apparently, acknowledging America’s greatness doesn’t serve their agenda.
That helps explain why Soros has pumped tens of millions into far-left political candidates and causes, why Bloomberg has vowed to spend $80 million in this election and why Steyer says he’s spending at least $110 million—all to plant Democrat-Socialists throughout our government and turn America into a gun-free socialist utopia.
Only the members of the NRA, and our country’s 100 million gun owners, stand in their way. We are the only patriots—proven by history—strong enough, tough enough and dedicated enough to defeat the big-spending liars the one and only way possible—with our votes!
On Nov. 6 every one of us must turn out and vote. And every one of us must get someone else out to vote, too. No one can sit this election out. The stakes are too high. Every vote is needed.
As law-abiding gun owners and Second Amendment advocates, you know the battlefield in this election. You helped win this fight two years ago, and you know our freedom cannot afford to let up this year.
Two years ago, NRA members helped elect one of the most openly pro-Second Amendment presidents in history. During the past two years, President Donald Trump has demonstrated his strong commitment to protecting our firearms freedom. He has fought back efforts to restrict our rights and nominated not one, but two, pro-freedom judges to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court.
The president’s support for our freedom has driven our opponents and the so-called “mainstream” media nuts. They’ve protested, ranted and raved—and they’ve organized like never before to take over the U.S. House and Senate. If they win the House, they will spend the next two years trying to impeach the president and seize the White House in 2020.
“WE THE PEOPLE”—not wealthy oligarchs intent on ruling us and stripping away the freedoms we hold dear—are supposed to govern America.
The battle lines are clear and the fight is joined. Their last-minute smear against Judge Brett Kavanaugh in an attempt to block his confirmation is just one more indication of their tactics.
You, and I mean YOU, are the tip of the spear in this fight to preserve our liberties. You are admired, respected and trusted among your peers and colleagues. Use that credibility to encourage your friends, family, neighbors and co-workers—to spread the word and vote for candidates who support the Second Amendment on Nov. 6. A list of NRA-endorsed candidates can be found at nrapvf.org/grades.
Every vote by you and other Americans like you can make the difference in preserving our freedom and saving our nation.
Please stand with me in making that difference. Do everything you can to help us win this election battle. VOTE!
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/oliver-north-2-e1540030718540.jpg360640NRA Institute for Legislative Actionhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngNRA Institute for Legislative Action2018-10-20 06:19:102018-10-20 17:11:23Your Vote Outweighs Their Millions: Make Your Voice Heard Nov. 6
This week, Gallup released the results of a poll which included a finding that should surprise no one: Americans oppose a ban on AR-15s and similar semiautomatic firearms by robust a margin of 17%. Meanwhile, current support for such a ban is 7% lower than the historical trend dating back to 1996, when Gallup first began polling on the issue. Americans, in other words, appear not to have been swayed by the intense media editorializing, celebrity pontificating, and youthful activism of the past year aimed at prohibiting what are by all accounts the most popular types of rifles in the country.
Of course, even in America, you could probably find people who would claim to support a ban on apple pie. It’s not very nutritious, they might say. It’s regressive, others might insist. Americans, after all, have the right to their opinions, even the unpopular ones.
When it comes to guns, the minority opinion is strongest among people who identify as Democrats. Gallup’s latest poll shows 56% of Democrats would support a ban on semiautomatic rifles, 16% above the national average. That is more than twice the percentage of Republicans (25%) who responded the same way. But even among Democrats, support for a semiauto ban has fallen 7 points since this time last year, notwithstanding the fact that some pundits were predicting that 2018 would finally be the year when banning highly popular guns would somehow become a winning political issue.
So what has all the “game-changing” post-Parkland grandstanding accomplished in the last eight months?
When it comes to banning guns, apparently nothing.
And it’s not just us who think so.
No one individual has shoveled more bad money into the gun control cause than billionaire Michael Bloomberg. In fact his insistence on burning huge sums of money on the issue for minimal returns almost makes you wonder how he ever got so rich in the first place.
But even he seems to understand the reality of the current situation.
According to an article in the Washington Times, Everytown for Gun Safety – the umbrella group for Bloomberg’s gun control activism – has actually shifted its midterm election spending into “ads covering abortion, health care and the Republican tax bill – but nary a mention of assault rifles … . “
Commenting for the article, gun control advocate Adam Winkler mused, “Perhaps the gun issue has waned a bit in the absence of highly publicized mass shootings in the past few months.”
And that, of course, is the irony of the gun ban movement: it needs the very events it claims to want to prevent for anyone to pay attention to it.
Even then, however, that attention and intensity typically prove to be short-lived.
Hyping other issues, of course, does not actually signal a retreat by Everytown from its gun control agenda. Rather, it’s a recognition that gun controllers will have to buy votes and politicians by other means to force their prohibitionist views downward on the American people, rather than using those views to inspire people to support their candidates in the first place.
In other words, it’s pretty much the opposite of a true grassroots approach.
Take, for example, Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO), who was embarrassed this week by the release of audio recordings catching her and her staffers admitting that they conceal or downplay her true positions on issues like gun control in order to mislead voters on the positions she will take once elected.
All this is exactly why NRA-ILA – a true grassroots organization – is dedicated to ensuring that voters know exactly what they’re getting when it comes to the Second Amendment views of political candidates.
You might even say we try to make it as easy as pie … apple pie, of course.
EDITORS NOTE: This column with all images is republished with permission.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/woman-ar15-rifle-e1540030203777.jpg360640NRA Institute for Legislative Actionhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngNRA Institute for Legislative Action2018-10-20 06:12:012018-10-20 06:12:01Poll: Most Americans Oppose Ban on “America’s Rifle”
“Seattle was supposed to be this shining beacon of what the possibilities were for your life, raising your kids, your family… there’s a lot going on here that’s being actively ignored. By the politicians, even the people, almost kind of a desire to just ignore a very blatant but then yet allusive reality that is a heroin epidemic disguising itself as a homeless epidemic.”
Colion Noir shines a light on the heroin epidemic disguising itself as a homelessness problem, that is plaguing Seattle, while the politicians refuse to even acknowledge the issue and instead scapegoat gun owners and diminish the rights of the law-abiding. This is the true story of Seattle and its Utopian lie.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/colion-noir-1.jpg338600NRA Institute for Legislative Actionhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngNRA Institute for Legislative Action2018-10-19 16:28:112021-07-16 17:56:10JUST RELEASED: Colion Noir Exposes Seattle’s Heroin Epidemic [Video]
WASHINGTON (ChurchMilitant.com) – The federal government has issued subpoenas to multiple Pennsylvania dioceses in a criminal probe into sex abuse cover-up. The subpoenas were served last week, but news of the investigation only broke Thursday.
So far, seven out of eight Pennsylvania dioceses — Erie, Philadelphia, Harrisburg, Allentown, Scranton, Pittsburgh and Greensburg — have confirmed they have received subpoenas, some stating they will cooperate with the investigation. Two Eastern Catholic dioceses are also being investigated: the Byzantine Archeparchy of Pittsburgh and the Ukrainian Catholic Archeparhcy of Philadelphia.
The investigation is being spearheaded by U.S. Attorney General William McSwain, who is asking clergy to testify before a grand jury in Philadelphia with regard to possible federal crimes. Bishops are being asked to turn over documents stored in their secret archives, which contain information about clergy misconduct including sex abuse. Bishops are also being asked to hand over evidence of: priests transporting children across state lines for illegal purposes, priests sending or receiving sexual imagery on their phones or computers, clergy being told not to contact law enforcement, predator priests being reassigned; or money being used for illegal purposes.
Mitchell Garabedian, the famous Boston lawyer who helped expose the sex abuse scandal in 2002, expressed surprise by the subpoeans.
“This is the first time I have ever heard of a federal investigation into child sexual abuse in a Catholic diocese or church,” he said. “This is a monumental moment for clergy sexual victims everywhere.”
After Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro published the bombshell grand jury report in mid-August, Shapiro explained that he had received phone calls from the Department of Justice.
In an interview with The New York Times, Shapiro was asked about the possibility of a federal probe into sex abuse cover-up in the Church. Shapiro said, “I have spoken to a representative of the Department of Justice. Beyond that, I do not think it would be prudent for me to comment.”
He continued:
I have heard from several attorneys general of both parties, from really across the country, trying to understand how we conducted our investigation, asking in some cases general — and in some cases very specific — questions about either the broad structure of an investigation, or a specific priest who might now be within their state.
Church Militant in previous weeks had also confirmed with government sources that the Department of Justice was seriously contemplating a RICO investigation into the Church.
RICO is a federal law created in 1970 to combat organized crime. It enables prosecutors to go after a criminal organization, rather than simply individual members connected to it.
An online poll taken by Church Militant found 88 percent of Catholics wanted decisive action by the federal government, answering “yes” to the question whether the U.S. government should launch an investigation to see if Church leaders have violated RICO statutes in covering up and transporting sexually predatory priest for decades.
The diocese issued a statement Thursday confirming the probe.
Several months ago, we received a call from the local U.S. Attorney’s office with a request to review documents. A subpoena was provided and after some discussion, an agreement was reached to produce documents. We have heard nothing since early June. As far as we know, our response has nothing to do with the current Pennsylvania investigation that has just begun.
Church Militant has published a series of investigative reports on the Buffalo diocese involving current Bishop Richard Malone, accused of grossly underreporting the number of accused priests (he publicly claimed his diocese had 42 accused priests when the number was more than twice that) as well as placing notorious abuser Fr. Dennis Riter, accused of forcing a six-year-old into oral sex, back into active ministry.
Malone is also implicated in the possible murder of whistleblower priest Fr. Joseph Moreno, found dead in his rectory in 2012 only days before he was scheduled to visit the papal nuncio with a file exposing homosexual abuse and corruption in the diocese. A number of irregularities at the crime scene — including two bullet wounds to the back of his head, lack of gun powder residue or blood spatter, the near-impossibility of shooting himself with his left hand, which suffered irreparable nerve damage, video footage showing three black-hooded men running from the rectory, and items broken into or missing from his rectory — throw into serious doubt the official story that Moreno committed suicide.
*10/18/2018: This article was updated with new information about dioceses under investigation.
EDITORS NOTE: This column with images was republished with permission.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/doj-logo-e1539960621774.jpg356640Church Militanthttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngChurch Militant2018-10-19 10:50:432018-10-19 10:50:43Federal Government Launches Criminal Probe into Catholic Church in Pennsylvania
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., spoke to The Daily Signal this week about Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh and the left’s embrace of mob rule. He also addressed the disappearance of Saudi writer Jamal Khashoggi and Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s DNA test results. An edited transcript of the interview is below. Full audio of the interview is available on The Daily Signal Podcast.
Bluey: You are here at The Heritage Foundation’s President’s Club meeting to talk about Justice [Brett] Kavanaugh. During the Judiciary Committee hearings, you made some passionate remarks when he was defending himself. Many people felt he wasn’t afforded due process. He was presumed guilty. What prompted you to speak so passionately?
Lindsey Graham: He was being humiliated. I voted for [Sonia] Sotomayor and [Elena] Kagan because I thought they were qualified. It used to be that way. [Former Sen.] Strom Thurmond voted for [Ruth Bader] Ginsburg. [Former Sen.] Fritz Hollings voted for [Antonin] Scalia. That’s the way it used to be, so obviously things have changed now.
What got me going so much is that I’ve known Brett for 20 years. We’re not close friends, but we’re friendly. I worked with him in the Bush White House. He’s the cream of the crop judicially. You want to reward President Trump when he makes a good decision. He could not have chosen better, and what I saw was an effort to humiliate a guy who didn’t deserve it. I can’t imagine me doing that to Sotomayor and Kagan.
What got me the most was, “If you’re really innocent, turn to Don McGahn and ask to continue the FBI investigation of your life, and keep ruining your own family.” Dr. [Christine Blasey] Ford was listened to respectfully. I think something happened to her, but I don’t think Kavanaugh had anything to do with it. It was just an effort to destroy a good man for political purposes, and I hope it backfires on them.
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., speaks at the President’s Club gathering hosted by The Heritage Foundation on Oct. 16. (Photo: Erin Granzow for The Daily Signal)
Bluey: It’s one of those situations where, as you’ve noted, you’ve supported President Obama’s nominees in the past. You even had Ruth Bader Ginsburg lamenting the state of the confirmation process for Supreme Court justices. Where do we go from here? Because obviously you have—
Graham: Good question.
Bluey: … I think 118 vacancies on federal courts.
Graham: Yeah, good question.
Bluey: Are you going to be able to confirm these nominees?
Graham: Well, Mitch McConnell has done a fantastic job. We’ve done a lot with 51 votes. We got one Democratic vote for Judge Kavanaugh, just a handful for Justice [Neil] Gorsuch. The bottom line is, if this is not the bottom, I’d hate to see it. I hope this blows up in their face politically. These red state Democrats had to choose between the mob and decency. I think they’re in trouble, so I hope we have far more than 51.
These red state Democrats had to choose between the mob and decency.
There may be more vacancies coming up sooner rather than later. Only God knows. Justice [Clarence] Thomas is a great guy. He’s in his 70s. I don’t know what his plans are, but I know this, President Trump has chosen two highly qualified nominees that are going to change the court over time, and we don’t want to run good people off from being judges.
Here’s the question for you and anybody else, after what you saw, would you want to be a judge?
Bluey: Well, you posed that question, I believe, during the committee hearing.
Graham: Yeah.
Bluey: You said if Republicans voted against Justice Kavanaugh—
Graham: You’re legitimizing a complete character assassination.
Bluey: And you wouldn’t have other people who wouldn’t want to serve in public or step up into that situation.
Graham: No. 1, you’re rewarding them. Just put the shoe on the other foot. Let’s say this is a male Democratic nominee, and someone like Dr. Ford came to South Carolina and gave me information about a 36-year-old allegation. I withheld it from the committee, never confronted the nominee with it. I recommended a conservative lawyer who never told the woman that the Democrats would be willing to come to South Carolina to avoid having to come to Washington, and somebody on my staff leaked her information and betrayed her request to be anonymous.
There’s two things I learned here: how in the tank the media really is for the liberal causes, and how far the left will go.
We’d be killed if somebody on our side said, “We’re only doing this to hold open the seat so that we can get back the Senate and maybe a Republican can fill this seat.” If the shoe were on the other foot, the media would be going nuts. There’s two things I learned here: how in the tank the media really is for the liberal causes, and how far the left will go. I hope it backfires.
President Donald Trump looks on as Anthony M. Kennedy, retired Supreme Court justice, swears in Judge Brett Kavanaugh to be the Supreme Court’s 114th justice on Oct. 8. Kavanaugh is joined by his wife Ashley, holding the Bible, and their daughters Liza and Margaret. (Photo: Joyce N. Boghosian/The White House)
Bluey: Now, we’ve also seen quite an enthusiasm among Republicans—
Graham: You’ve got that right.
Bluey: … now and conservatives because I think of exactly what you’re describing. What have you seen back in your home state of South Carolina?
Graham: Unbelievable. I can’t walk 5 feet at home. I mean, I get some criticism, but Republican women are very energized. Dr. Ford, I think something did happen, but you have to corroborate an accusation. The accusation can’t be the proof itself. Really, there was nothing there. Everything that Dr. Ford said nobody could corroborate.
Susan Collins did a fantastic job of explaining why a rational person would vote for Judge Kavanaugh. We’re all united because of what they did to Brett Kavanaugh.
The bottom line is that Judge Kavanaugh has led an exemplary life. Everything goes against these accusations. The Avenatti claim was just the dam breaking, but the bottom line is, the response back home has been incredible.
If you had made a bid that somebody would come up with a plan to get Sean Hannity to raise money for [Sen.] Susan Collins on the radio, nobody could have thought of this. Susan Collins did a fantastic job of explaining why a rational person would vote for Judge Kavanaugh. This has taken libertarians, vegetarians, Trump Republicans, Bush Republicans. We’re all united because of what they did to Brett Kavanaugh, and this is a good time for the Republican Party.
Bluey: At the same time you’re seeing a lot of enthusiasm and support, you also saw [Sen.] Jeff Flake confronted in an elevator, Susan Collins being called a rape apologist, and terrible things happening to your colleagues.
Graham: It’s just awful.
Bluey: How are they taking it personally and handling it?
Graham: Susan Collins is tough as nails. She methodically went through the Democratic reaction to the nomination. They were against Kavanaugh before they even knew who he was. She went through his history of being a judge, how mainstream he is, the allegations. I thought she handled herself beautifully.
What’s on the ballot in 2018 is an attitude. Who are we as a country? Do we really believe in the rule of law, or are we just so angry that mob rule will take over the rule of law?
Jeff Flake wanted to know more, and we worked as a team to have a supplemental, the seventh investigation that confirmed or that helped Kavanaugh.
I appreciate Jeff and I appreciate Susan for taking their jobs seriously. We gave them the space they needed to get to yes, and the bottom line is, I’ve been here for over 20 years and I’ve never seen anything like that.
The choice now is not about an issue. It’s about an attitude. What’s on the ballot in 2018 is an attitude. Who are we as a country? Do we really believe in the rule of law, or are we just so angry that mob rule will take over the rule of law? That’s what’s on the ballot.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., has overseen the confirmation of 84 federal judges under President Donald Trump. (Photo: Erin Granzow for The Daily Signal)
Bluey: As a member of the Judiciary Committee, you know the Senate’s role of advice and consent very well. You have confirmed 84 of President Trump’s judicial nominees. 20-some circuit court nominees, including two Supreme Court justices.
Graham: Yeah. Historic.
Bluey: How significant is that for our federal courts?
Graham: Generational change. Senator [Chuck] Grassley has done a marvelous job. He’s not a lawyer, but he’s fair-minded. I think he’s tough but fair, and I think that came through. Mitch McConnell has been strategic in his thinking, and I am really proud of our 51-seat Republican majority. Many times, it was just 50. We’ve done a lot.
Harry Reid made this possible. He’s the one that changed the rules. I was in the Gang of 14 when they filibustered all the Bush nominees to stop filibustering judges unless there’s an extraordinary circumstance.
The Kavanaugh effect is real. There was this election before Kavanaugh, and there’s the election after Kavanaugh.
The Senate used to do this. Most Supreme Court nominees were voted on without a hearing. Things have changed. Bork started it, and it’s just gotten worse. The bottom line, I got a call from Senator [Chuck] Schumer the night before they changed the rules in 2013. I said, “You’ll regret this, because it’s Harry Reid’s desire to pack the circuit court that led to this.”
I just hope we don’t run good people away from serving. I hope we get north of 55 senators. The Kavanaugh effect is real. There was this election before Kavanaugh, and there’s the election after Kavanaugh.
Bluey: I want to ask you about two other issues. The first is Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi. You’ve been outspoken on this. Where do we stand right now, and what are you hoping to do in the Senate?
Graham: Well, I’m hoping to make them pay a price. I’ve been the leading advocate for this relationship. I was on the floor making sure we didn’t stop arms sales to fight Iran’s proxies in Yemen. I’ve been on the floor to make sure that the 9/11 lawsuits wouldn’t taint the relationship. I have supported the Saudi partnership. I’ve never felt so betrayed.
MBS [Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman] is 33 years old, and he’s a wrecking ball. They kidnapped the Lebanese prime minister for a while. They imposed an embargo on Qatar overnight without talking to us. He talks about a vision of 2030, then he throws everybody in jail he doesn’t like.
I am convinced that this happened at the direction of the Saudi government, that teams of assassins were sent to the consulate. Every norm that we believe in, which is freedom of expression, journalism, free speech, an independent press, extrajudicial killings, all that was ignored. It shows contempt for us as a partner. President Trump may not see it this way, but it shows a lot of disrespect to him. Name one president that’s been better to Saudi Arabia.
To hatch this plot, and I am a lawyer, I believe in the rule of law, but all the corroboration is there if you want to see it, the way that MBS was behaving before, these people showing up right before the event, luring the guy in for a week. He walks in, and never comes out. They lie about what happened the first time around. Yeah, I’m really convinced that this was an extrajudicial killing of a dissident. We deal with bad people all the time, but when you put it in our face like this, I hope we respond.
Bluey: We’ll be following it closely. Finally, I want to ask you, your colleague from Massachusetts has come out with her DNA results. You have said yourself that you’re willing to take—
Graham: I’m not so sure I would have done that.
Bluey: Are you going to take a DNA test?
Graham: I am taking one. I’ve been told, and I don’t know if it’s true or not, that my grandmother was part Cherokee Indian. I’m going to find out. The bottom line here is that I’ve traveled with Elizabeth Warren. She can be very gracious. I don’t like her political philosophy domestically. She’s visited the troops during the holidays. I appreciate that.
But if the shoe were on the other foot, again, if a conservative had been doing this, saying that, “I’m a member of an Indian tribe,” and academia was selling this, we’d be getting killed. We’ll have a little fun with this. This is politics. I don’t mean to be mean-spirited, but I can tell you this, if you’re less than 1/10th of 1 percent of anything, you need to be careful about what you say.
Bluey: Senator Graham, thanks so much for speaking to The Daily Signal.
Rob Bluey is editor-in-chief of The Daily Signal, the multimedia news organization of The Heritage Foundation. Send an email to Rob. Twitter: @RobertBluey.
The Daily Signal depends on the support of readers like you. Donate now
EDITORS NOTE: This column with video and images is republished with permission. The featured image is of police standing by as demonstrators protest against Brett Kavanaugh outside of Sen. Susan Collins’ Capitol Hill office. (Photo: Kevin Dietsch/UPI/Newscom)
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/181018_MobRule-1250x650-e1539959601383.jpg362640The Daily Signalhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Daily Signal2018-10-19 10:34:032018-10-19 10:35:15Mob Rule or the Rule of Law? Lindsey Graham Says America’s Future Is at Stake
This week, The Daily Signal presents a special edition of “On the Street.” We traveled to Lebanon, Ohio, to attend a rally featuring President Donald Trump. While we were there, we talked with everyday Americans about the issues that matter and which of Trump’s accomplishments are most important to them.
“I like how he shows his faith,” one attendee told us. “I haven’t seen that in a leader in a very long time, but I love how he shows his faith and his love for God and his love for country.”
“He’s doing what he said he was going to do,” another supporter said. “Regardless, he’s trying to drain the swamp and that’s important. One thing he did, probably by getting elected, he showed us just how corrupt Washington was. I don’t think we knew that.”
We took our cameras “On the Street” to the Trump rally to find out this and more. Watch the whole video above.
The Daily Signal depends on the support of readers like you. Donate now
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/TRUMP-RALLY-e1539944066759.jpg374640The Daily Signalhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Daily Signal2018-10-19 06:15:172018-10-19 06:16:35On the Street: We Went to a Trump Rally. Here Are the Stories No One Tells.
Today, the Governor issued Executive Order 18-283 which gives Supervisors of Elections in Bay, Calhoun, Franklin, Gadsden, Gulf, Jackson, Liberty, and Washington counties the authority to extend and enhance voting options based on needs and challenges they have identified, including:
Locally-elected supervisors of elections in the impacted counties are now able to extend the amount of days of early voting, designate additional early voting locations and expedite the delivery and acceptance of vote-by-mail ballots. Each of these locally-elected supervisors of elections have reported significant obstacles created by Hurricane Michael preventing them from administering an election without these accommodations. These obstacles include, but are not limited to, damage to polling locations, extended telecommunications service disruptions, and large percentages of the counties’ population without power. Supervisors of Elections have not reported any damage to voting machines and all election-related equipment, including ballots, are secure.
The locally-elected Supervisors of Elections in the eight affected counties will be able to determine if additional early voting sites and days are necessary. The early voting period in the affected counties can begin as early as Monday, October 22, 2018, and can extend through election day November 6, 2018.
The Executive Order extends the registration date for poll watchers to noon on October 26, 2018.
Executive Order 18-283 directs Secretary Detzner to coordinate with each supervisor of elections in Florida to ensure that Florida National Guard troops, first responders, law enforcement, volunteers, and utility power restoration workers engaged in the recovery efforts in the Panhandle and anyone who evacuated from the storm can cast a ballot.
The restriction on vote-by-mail ballots being forwarded to a different address has been waived. This will help displaced voters to cast a ballot. The Executive Order also waives provisions so voters in the affected counties can more easily obtain vote-by-mail ballots.
Republican Party of Florida Chairman Blaise Ingoglia issued the following statement today on Governor Rick Scott’s Executive Order to extend and enhance voting options in counties impacted by Hurricane Michael.
“We applaud Governor Scott’s Administration on an Executive Order that embraces a thoughtful, comprehensive and targeted solution. It is of the upmost importance that while we are rebuilding communities in the Panhandle, we are also allowing sufficient access to the polls this election cycle. The RPOF commends Gov. Scott and his Administration for enhancing voting options during this trying time, and for enacting an order that empowers more local input,” said RPOF Chairman Blaise Ingoglia.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/rick-scott-e1524519003369.png375634Dr. Rich Swierhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Rich Swier2018-10-18 18:14:182018-10-19 10:25:18Governor Scott Extends & Enhances Midterm Election Ballots in areas affected by Hurricane Michael
Unmarried couples are having roughly 40 percent of all births in the U.S., marking a trend that may be detrimental to the upbringing of those children.
“Compared to children of married parents, those with cohabiting parents are more likely to experience the breakup of their families, be exposed to ‘complex’ family forms, live in poverty, suffer abuse, and have negative psychological and educational outcomes,” according to the Institute for Family Studies (IFS).
Roughly 14 million American adults cohabited in 2007, and that number rose to 18 million in 2016, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Half of cohabiting couples in the U.S. are younger than 35, according to Bloomberg Quint. Cohabitation has increased about 2,000 percent since 1960, according to the American Enterprise Institute.
Two-thirds of U.S. adults said increasing numbers of single women raising children by themselves was bad for society, according to a 2015 Pew Research Center survey. Nearly 50 percent of those surveyed also said greater numbers of unmarried couples raising children is not good for society, according to Pew.
Children with single parents have the highest rates of poverty followed by children living with unmarried, cohabiting parents, the IFS reported.
Between 2006 and 2010, 23 percent of births to married women were unintended while 51 percent of births to unmarried cohabiting women were unintended. That number rose to 67 percent for unmarried women not cohabiting.
Over 40 percent of married mothers and fathers have a bachelor’s degree, according to a March 2016 U.S. Census Current Population Survey. Only 8 to 10 percent of cohabiting mothers and fathers with one or more biological child have a bachelor’s degree.
Married parents are on average older, better educated, and earn more money than their unmarried cohabiting peers. Some scholars have suggested awarding tax bonuses of upwards of $4,000 per child in order to incentivize people to marry before having children.
Since 1990, marriage rates have also continued to decrease, while those that do marry are delaying.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/child-1111818_640.jpg426640The Daily Callerhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Daily Caller2018-10-18 17:48:202019-03-06 18:55:48Nearly Half Of American Children Don’t Have Married Parents. Here’s Why It Matters.
If you ever wondered what would happen when you put Kanye West and Donald Trump in the Oval Office together, last week undoubtedly gave you an indication. Their meeting was one of the most colorful displays of contrasting styles, differing perspectives, and looseness of association in recent memory — ending with a flamboyant hug behind the Resolute Desk, sealed with Kanye’s proclamation of, “I love this guy!”
Predictably, Kanye’s hug was the talk of the nation, and it wasn’t all positive.
CNN’s Don Lemon saw it as a moment when Kanye West was exploited and used by a white president. And the African American rapper, T.I., lashed out at West, exclaiming via social media, “This is the most repulsive, disgraceful, embarrassing act of desperation & auctioning off of one’s soul to gain power I’ve ever seen. . . I feel compelled to slap the f***k outta you bro for the people!”
This abusive relationship between independent black men and the Democratic Party left has a long history.
Things were not good between Richard Nixon and the African-American community back in 1971. First, he was a Republican, and the Democrats had just passed the Civil Rights Act that had been originally pushed by Republicans. The view of the Republican Party as the Grand Ol’ Civil Rights Party was abandoned as African-Americans flocked to Lyndon B. Johnson and his War on Poverty.
What’s worse, Nixon was an awkward, white man. He had no spunk and had this awful tendency to accumulate sweat above his upper lip. His performance in front of the camera was so bad that a decade earlier, during his debate with John F. Kennedy, those who heard the event on radio called him the clear winner while those who saw it on television almost universally sided with Kennedy.
Also, African-Americans were not impressed with Nixon’s first term as President. For starters, he had nominated two Southern judges to the Supreme Court, neither of whom was confirmed by the Senate. Second, unlike Lyndon B. Johnson with his Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Robert C. Weaver, Nixon did not appoint any African-Americans to his cabinet.
And then there was the issue of the growing welfare state and Nixon’s intent of cutting programs initiated by Johnson. In fact, in 1971, the animus towards Nixon was so intense that the Congressional Black Caucus boycotted his State of the Union address.
Nixon recognized he needed an ally from the black community. He had been seen a few times with James Brown, but Brown was not a politically active individual.
Sammy Davis Junior, on the other hand, was a “Cool Cat.” He was an African-American Jew and flaunted it. He had one fake eye and was proud of it. And he was the sole black member of the famously infamous Rat Pack!
Besides, Sammy Davis, Jr. was The Candy Man! Who could ever dislike the man that could take the sunrise and sprinkle it with dew; and cover it with chocolate and a miracle or two?
Astutely, Nixon asked Davis to be on his National Advisory Council on Economic Opportunity. Davis, of course, was thrilled at the prospect. From his standpoint, he was being tasked to serve on a Committee by the President of the United States! What greater honor could there be for any American, particularly an African-American Jew! Davis gladly met with the President at the White House to accept his position, a photo op for both men.
Then Nixon asked Davis to appear in Vietnam before the troops, which he did, and then came to the White House to report to the President. Another photo op.
Next thing he knew Sammy Davis, Jr. was appearing at Republican fundraisers, and singing!
So, in the 1972, it was natural for Davis to be asked to participate in the Republican National Convention in Miami Beach. Davis enthusiastically accepted and that’s how he found himself on stage before the Republican Youth Rally at the Playboy Hotel in Miami as the President of the United States arrived in the middle of his performance!
Seeing Nixon walk on stage, Davis was naturally overwhelmed. He stopped, warmly introduced Nixon, and then, in the joy of the moment, gave the President a welcoming, warm, sideways hug!
Immediately, the cameras blazed, inscribing in black and white one of the 20th century’s most impactful, interracial photographic moments. The picture, angled from the men’s front-right, captured a stooped over Sammy Davis, Jr. with his left arm around the President and his right hand gripping Nixon’s right forearm. The smiles on the two men’s faces were genuine and beaming even though their poses — Davis’s ever cool and Nixon’s ever stiff — bespoke their differences.
Although the moment was genuine, the reaction from the left was vicious. The hatred towards Sammy Davis, Jr. was palpable as African-Americans from all over the nation condemned him for so praising the President. He was accused of being used and manipulated by white people.
In short, the left, despicably, turned Sammy Davis, Jr. into a traitor to his race. Sounds pretty familiar.
Recognizing the vitriol, Davis’s PR team went on offense. Sy Marsh, Davis’s PR director, immediately reached out to one of the stalwarts of the Civil Rights movement and one of the most respected African-American leaders in the country at the time: Jesse Jackson. Remember, Jackson was at the balcony of the Lorraine Motel when Martin Luther King was brutally shot. The cameras would capture him as one of the men standing next to a dying King desperately pointing in the direction of the gunshots.
Of course Jackson could salvage Davis’s image! Or at least Marsh thought.
At the time, Jackson was involved in an organization he developed, People United to Save Humanity (PUSH), and if Davis could bring $15,000.00 to the upcoming PUSH fundraiser in Chicago, Jackson would be happy to have Davis join him on stage.
Marsh quickly scrounged up the money from the people who recurrently bailed Sammy Davis, Jr. from financial peril stemming from his drinking and drug use; the casino owners. The payment arranged, Davis showed up as planned, and here is how Wil Haygood, author of a 2003 Washington Post article named the “The Hug” describes it:
And there [Davis] stood, preparing to join Jackson on that Chicago stage and navigate the swinging bridge of black-white relations that defined the ’60s. “Sammy walks out,” recalls Marsh, “and they booed him. Sammy is in a state of shock.” Davis swung his head from side to side of the building, looking for the anger, the source of the boos. “It struck me as with physical force, knocking the wind out of me,” Davis would recall. “It grew louder.” Jackson seemed momentarily startled. He quickly flung his muscular arm around Davis. Jackson’s ferocious embrace was so full of on-the-spot love it seemed to weaken Davis. He seemed to be shrinking inside his denim jacket. The boos and catcalls rained on.
“Brothers,” Jackson said, waving his arm for quiet, “if it wasn’t for people like Sammy Davis, you wouldn’t be here, we wouldn’t have PUSH today. Now, I expected some foolish people were going to react like this because the man hugged the president of the United States. So what? Look at what this gigantic little man has committed himself to over all these years.”
As the boos erupted anew, Jackson realized he had underestimated the anger. Davis’s body began twisting. He wanted to bolt. Jackson could feel his angst, and only held Davis tighter. Then he asked Davis to sing something, and suggested “I’ve Gotta Be Me.” Given the circumstances, it was a request both funny and meaningful — and perhaps Freudian. Davis had no time to ponder the meaning; he simply began singing. Words caught in his throat; there was snickering. Marsh felt terrible. “Sammy sang a song, came off, said, ‘. . . They don’t want me. I don’t want them.’ He got blind drunk that night, and cried.
What happened to Sammy Davis, Jr. is emblematic of the bullying tactics so characteristically employed by the left against anyone who dares to disagree with its position or who strolls outside of the confines of its stable. Sammy Davis, Jr. dared to venture outside of his predefined confines, and he paid for it dearly. Forever after, he was called a whitey, and he was never acknowledged as the incredible credit he was to his race and to his country despite his many personality flaws.
Now, 46 years later, Kanye West stands at the threshold of the same precipice. Hopefully, his treatment will be a lot gentler, but as we’re witnessing from the conduct of the new left bullies like Don Lemon and T.I., probably not.
(The author acknowledges Wil Haygood, “The Hug” The Washington Post, Sept. 14, 2003, from which much of the factual content is obtained.)
RELATED VIDEO: The Redemption of Kanye.
EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Revolutionary Act. The featured photo is of Sammy Davis Jr. famously embracing Richard Nixon at the 1972 convention GOP Convention in Miami, FL. | AP Photo.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/sammy-davis-jr.-hugs-richard-nixon.jpg328605Dr. Julio Gonzalezhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Julio Gonzalez2018-10-18 13:24:582018-10-18 20:13:22Sammy Davis, Jr. — Like Kanye — Was Viciously Attacked For Hugging A GOP President
This week, Trevor Loudon presents Part One of a series exposing the radical ties of Florida Gubernatorial candidate Andrew Gillum. Gillum, the current mayor of Tallahassee, Florida, has a long history with hard-core socialist activists.
Andrew Gillum is a threat to national security.
WATCH THE VIDEO BELOW!!
In 2016, New Zealand author and film-maker Trevor Loudon released his full-length documentary The Enemies Within, which exposed a shocking number of United States Senators and members of Congress who pose a security risk to America. These elected officials were all tied to hostile foreign powers, anti-American Marxist groups or fronts for the pro-terrorist Muslim Brotherhood.
Please embed these videos on your blog, tweet them to your followers, post them to Facebook, or personally email them to friends, relatives and colleagues. Every American voter needs to see these videos. If more Americans understand how badly they are being betrayed by their own elected representatives, they can help “drain the swamp” themselves, directly through the ballot box.
EDITORS NOTE: This column with photos and video is republished with permission.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/desantis-gillum.jpg360640Center For Security Policyhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngCenter For Security Policy2018-10-18 09:52:302018-10-19 06:23:14#EnemiesWithin: Trevor Loudon Releases Mini-Documentary on Florida’s Andrew Gillum [Video]
Robert Zimmer, president of the University of Chicago, defended his school’s approach to free speech to the City Club of Cleveland.
He bashed those whom he says inhibit speech out of “self-righteous, moral, or political indignation, an agenda driven by such moral or political views, and comfort.”
The University of Chicago president defended his school’s commitment to free speech in an address to the City Club of Cleveland.
University of Chicago President Robert Zimmer said during a speech on Oct. 3 that “challenging one’s assumptions inevitably creates discomfort, but a discomfort that is necessary for growth, understanding, and achievement.” Zimmer continued by describing what he believed to be three contributing causes of a decreased commitment to freedom of expression across U.S. universities.
“Privileging feelings, to the extent that a child feels they are always entitled to feel good and comfortable, and that the world should be organized around this, is not helpful in this regard.” Tweet This
“Some people are trying to keep certain views unexpressed out of self-righteous, moral, or political indignation, an agenda driven by such moral or political views, and comfort, arrogating to themselves and those they agree with the right of speech, while denying it to others,” Zimmer said, outlining the first cause.
The second contributing cause, according to Zimmer, is that universities are suppressing free speech in the name of fighting against the exclusion of historically marginalized groups. He makes the case that freedom of expression is necessary for fostering an environment of inclusion.
Zimmer cited “the privileging of feelings” as a third cause: “Privileging feelings, to the extent that a child feels they are always entitled to feel good and comfortable, and that the world should be organized around this, is not helpful in this regard. And what we are seeing in some cases within high schools and universities is an expectation, and then demands, for such privileging, and then the inappropriate acquiescence to such demands.”
The University of Chicago president concluded his speech by stating that “creating a sanctuary for comfort is not fulfilling our responsibility. It is only through an environment of intellectual challenge and the free expression and open discourse that provides this challenge, that we are fulfilling our obligations to students, their future, and the future of our society.”
The University of Chicago has been known for its embrace of freedom of speech. It released a policy report in 2015, known as the “Chicago Statement,” which expressed the school’s commitment to the ideal. Since then, at least 35 schools have adopted the same policy, according to the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE).
“In a word, the University’s fundamental commitment is to the principle that debate or deliberation may not be suppressed because the ideas put forth are thought by some or even by most members of the University community to be offensive, unwise, immoral, or wrong-headed,” the Chicago Statement reads, in part.
Kenny Nelson is an Intern and Campus Correspondent, and reports on liberal bias and abuse for Campus Reform. He attends Colorado State University, where he co-founded the Battering Ram, a student-run newspaper. Follow the author of this article on Twitter: @knelson1776
Looking for the right apartment can be very stressful. If you make the wrong decision, you can be in it for the long run. That’s why seeking advice from other people can give you the best ideas on what are the essential tips when choosing the right apartment.
The primary concern people always think of is paying the bills. That’s why you should be very careful when choosing the right apartment so that you can save up money and also balance your expenses. There are a lot of types of apartments you can choose from but see to it as well that the one you want is worth it. Here’s a list of different types of apartments.
Studio Type
A studio type apartment commonly consists of a single room and bathroom. Apartments like these are usually rented by people who are alone or for those people who don’t want large spaces.
Cleaning is one of the reasons why other people prefer this type of apartment. Cleaning in apartments like these can be very easy because it’s a lot smaller compared to other types of apartments. Also, organizing items and other things in your apartment are much more comfortable because the place is not that huge.
Alcove Studio Or L shaped Studio
This type of apartment is relatively the same as the studio type. The only difference is, the alcove studio apartment has an L partition which can be customized in making a bedroom. Apartments like these are a lot bigger than the usual studio type.
Alcove studio type apartments are much better than studio types because the bedroom and dining room can now be separated compared to the usual studio type apartments. You now have enough space to place furniture and other stuff.
Convertible Studio
A convertible studio apartment is much spacious because you can have a bedroom built which separates it from the dining room and kitchen. Some people are looking for apartments that have already a single bedroom. For those who can’t afford them, this can be the alternative. It’s much cheaper than the ones with the has bedrooms already in it.
Convertible (Flex)
This type of apartment is also the same as the ordinary convertible apartment. The only difference is, this has a much bigger space because you can convert areas in the house such the dining room into a two bedroom unit even into a three bedroom unit but it will always depend on the floor plan.
Asking the owner of the apartment for permission before putting up a drywall may help because some owners won’t approve of having a drywall installed in their property. Apartments like these can be converted into many ways as long as you consider the floor plan first before proceeding with the idea.
Loft Apartment
Buildings such as storage facilities and industrial buildings are the ones being renovated to form apartment units such as the lofts. This type of apartment has ample space in it and has a high ceiling. You can maximize the place by putting a different kind of furniture in it.
Lofts are usually located in commercial buildings. Some lofts are quite expensive. Just try asking different owners to compare the prices before deciding in settling in. You can even search the web for sites such as www.yournextplace.ca or other reliable sources for more information about this matter.
Furnished Apartment
If you’re looking for a place that has furniture already in it, then this is the one for you. If you don’t have any pieces of furniture yet, then this type of apartment can provide the basic kinds of furniture and household you need in the house.
This can be quite expensive but if you have the budget for it, then renting this kind of apartment won’t be a problem. Apartments like these are usually for a short term only, because people would rather buy their own house and furniture than rent this type of apartment because of the rate of the lease.
Takeaway
Deciding on what is the best place to stay can be a struggle. Comparing the prices and the accessibility of the area can help you with the decision process. It shouldn’t’ be just about the comfortability; you should also check the safety of the place.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/pexels-photo-323705-e1539864727848.jpeg368640Leslie Wymanhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngLeslie Wyman2018-10-18 08:12:432018-10-18 08:12:56Profitable Choices: Knowing The Different Types Of Apartments
Andrew Gillum is listed as a 2012 alum of the George Soros funded Rockwood Leadership Institute. On the Rockwood website he is listed as “Andrew Gillum, Director, Youth Leadership Programs, People for the American Way.”
The Rockwood Leadership institute under “Who We Are” states that it:
[H]as provided thousands of social change leaders across the globe with tools and skills to help change themselves, their communities, and the world.
Florida gubernatorial candidate Andrew Gillum graduated from an Oakland, California-based training school for progressive revolutionaries that has spawned a list of activists who have gone on to become the who’s who of the far-left leadership world, with many taking senior positions at organizations financed by billionaire George Soros.
In scores of cases, graduates of the Rockwood Leadership Institute founded or directed notorious Soros-financed activist groups, such as Black Lives Matter, Media Matters for America, MoveOn.org and the Tides Foundation, one of the nation’s largest funders of progressive groups.
Soros’s own Open Society Foundations sent top staff to Rockwood for training. Notorious radicals Van Jones and Linda Sarsour are among the many famous names listed as alums.
In early 2000, he helped organize a large “March on Tallahassee” to protest Governor Jeb Bush’s 1999 executive order abolishing affirmative action in state university admissions and state contracting. To reward Gillum’s activism vis-a-vis this and other matters, the Center for Policy Alternatives recognized him as the nation’s top student leader in 2001.
In 2002, Gillum became the Florida Field Organizer with the People For the American Way Foundation (PFAWF), spearheading its “Arrive With 5” initiative — a voter-mobilization campaign whereby young people pledged to bring five additional voters with them to the polls on Election Day.
In March 2003 the Florida Democratic Party recruited Gillum to serve as its interim Political Director, but just nine months later he returned to his previous position with PFAWF.
Opposes Patriot Act and other anti-terrorism measures
Opposes the allegedly growing influence of the “religious right”
During his 2018 gubernatorial campaign, Gillum released a video demanding that President Donald Trump be impeached because he had “obstructed justice” by firing former FBI Director James Comey.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/rockwood-leadership-institute.jpg360640Dr. Rich Swierhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Rich Swier2018-10-17 18:34:382018-10-17 18:38:05Andrew Gillum a graduate of Soros’ ‘School for Revolutionaries’ the Rockwood Leadership Institute
One of the more elementary observations about economics is that a nation’s prosperity is determined in part by the quantity and quality of labor and capital. These “factors of production” are combined to generate national income.
I frequently grouse that punitive tax policies discourage capital. There’s less incentive to invest, after all, if the government imposes extra layers of tax on income that is saved and invested.
Bad tax laws also discourage labor. High marginal tax rates penalize people for being productive, and this can be especially counterproductive for entrepreneurship and innovation.
Still, we shouldn’t overlook how government discourages low-income people from being productively employed. But the problem is more on the spending side of the fiscal equation.
The Welfare State’s Effect on the Poor
In Thursday’s Wall Street Journal, John Early and Phil Gramm share some depressing numbers about growing dependency in the United States:
During the 20 years before the War on Poverty was funded, the portion of the nation living in poverty had dropped to 14.7% from 32.1%. Since 1966, the first year with a significant increase in antipoverty spending, the poverty rate reported by the Census Bureau has been virtually unchanged…Transfers targeted to low-income families increased in real dollars from an average of $3,070 per person in 1965 to $34,093 in 2016…Transfers now constitute 84.2% of the disposable income of the poorest quintile of American households and 57.8% of the disposable income of lower-middle-income households. These payments also make up 27.5% of America’s total disposable income.
This massive expansion of redistribution has negatively impacted incentives to work:
The stated goal of the War on Poverty is not just to raise living standards but also to make America’s poor more self-sufficient and to bring them into the mainstream of the economy. In that effort the war has been an abject failure, increasing dependency and largely severing the bottom fifth of earners from the rewards and responsibilities of work…The expanding availability of antipoverty transfers has devastated the work effort of poor and lower-middle income families. By 1975 the lowest-earning fifth of families had 24.8% more families with a prime-work age head and no one working than did their middle-income peers. By 2015 this differential had risen to 37.1%…The War on Poverty has increased dependency and failed in its primary effort to bring poor people into the mainstream of America’s economy and communal life. Government programs replaced deprivation with idleness, stifling human flourishing. It happened just as President Franklin Roosevelt said it would: “The lessons of history,” he said in 1935, “show conclusively that continued dependency upon relief induces a spiritual and moral disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fiber.”
In another WSJ column on the same topic, Peter Cove reached a similar conclusion:
America doesn’t have a worker shortage; it has a work shortage. The unemployment rate is at a 15-year low, but only 55% of Americans adults 18 to 64 have full-time jobs. Nearly 95 million people have removed themselves entirely from the job market. According to demographer Nicholas Eberstadt, the labor-force participation rate for men 25 to 54 is lower now than it was at the end of the Great Depression. The welfare state is largely to blame… insisting on work in exchange for social benefits would succeed in reducing dependency. We have the data: Within 10 years of the 1996 reform, the number of Americans in the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program fell 60%. But no reform is permanent. Under President Obama, federal poverty programs ballooned.
Edward Glaeser produced a similar indictment in an article for City Journal:
In 1967, 95 percent of “prime-age” men between the ages of 25 and 54 worked. During the Great Recession, though, the share of jobless prime-age males rose above 20 percent. Even today, long after the recession officially ended, more than 15 percent of such men aren’t working… The rise of joblessness—especially among men—is the great American domestic crisis of the twenty-first century. It is a crisis of spirit more than of resources… Proposed solutions that focus solely on providing material benefits are a false path. Well-meaning social policies—from longer unemployment insurance to more generous disability diagnoses to higher minimum wages—have only worsened the problem; the futility of joblessness won’t be solved with a welfare check… various programs make joblessness more bearable, at least materially; they also reduce the incentives to find work… The past decade or so has seen a resurgent progressive focus on inequality—and little concern among progressives about the downsides of discouraging work… The decision to prioritize equality over employment is particularly puzzling, given that social scientists have repeatedly found that unemployment is the greater evil.
Encouraging Dependency
Why work, though, when the government pays you not to work?
Writing for Forbes, Professor Jeffrey Dorfman echoed these findings:
…our current welfare system fails to prepare people to take care of themselves, makes poor people more financially fragile, and creates incentives to remain on welfare forever… The first failure of government welfare programs is to favor help with current consumption while placing almost no emphasis on job training or anything else that might allow today’s poor people to become self-sufficient in the future… It is the classic story of giving a man a fish or teaching him how to fish. Government welfare programs hand out lots of fish but never seem to teach people how to fish for themselves. The problem is not a lack of job training programs, but rather the fact that the job training programs fail to help people… The third flaw in the government welfare system is the way that benefits phase out as a recipient’s income increases… a poor family trying to escape poverty pays an effective marginal tax rate that is considerably higher than a middle class family and higher than or roughly equal to the marginal tax rate of a family in the top one percent.
Professor Lee Ohanian of the Hoover Institution reinforces the point that the welfare state provides lots of money in ways that stifle personal initiative:
Inequality is not an issue that policy should address… Society, however, should care about creating economic opportunities for the lowest earners… a family of four at the poverty level has about $22,300 per year of pre-tax income. Consumption for that same family of four on average, however, is about $44,000 per year, which means that their consumption level is about twice as high as their income… We’re certainly providing many more resources to low-earning families today. But on the other hand, we have policies in place that either limit economic opportunities for low earners or distort the incentives for those earners to achieve prosperity.
I’ve been citing lots of articles, which might be tedious, so let’s take a break with a video about the welfare state from the American Enterprise Institute.
And if you like videos, here’s my favorite video about the adverse effects of the welfare state.
Even (Some) Leftists Acknowledge the Problem
By the way, it isn’t just libertarians and conservatives who recognize the problem.
Coming from a left-of-center perspective, Catherine Rampell explains in the Washington Post how welfare programs discourage work:
…today’s social safety net discourages poor people from working, or at least from earning more money… you might qualify for some welfare programs, such as food stamps, housing vouchers, child-care subsidies and Medicaid. But if you get a promotion, or longer hours, or a second job, or otherwise start making more, these benefits will start to evaporate—and sometimes quite abruptly. You can think about this loss of benefits as a kind of extra tax on low-income people… Americans at or just above the poverty line typically face marginal tax rates of 34 percent. That is, for every additional dollar they earn, they keep only 66 cents… One in 10 families with earnings close to the poverty line faces a marginal tax rate of at least 65 percent, the CBO found… You don’t need to be a hardcore conservative to see how this system might make working longer hours, or getting a better job, less attractive than it might otherwise be.
To understand what this means, the Illinois Policy Institute calculated how poor people in the state are trapped in dependency:
The potential sum of welfare benefits can reach $47,894 annually for single-parent households and $41,237 for two-parent households. Welfare benefits will be available to some households earning as much as $74,880 annually… A single mom has the most resources available to her family when she works full time at a wage of $8.25 to $12 an hour. Disturbingly, taking a pay increase to $18 an hour can leave her with about one-third fewer total resources (net income and government benefits). In order to make work “pay” again, she would need an hourly wage of $38 to mitigate the impact of lost benefits and higher taxes.
Agreeing that there’s a problem does not imply agreement about a solution.
Folks on the left think the solution to high implicit tax rates (i.e., the dependency trap) is to make benefits more widely available. In other words, don’t reduce handouts as income increases.
The other alternative is to make benefits less generous, which will simultaneously reduce implicit tax rates and encourage more work.
I’m sympathetic to the latter approach, but my view is that welfare programs should be designed and financed by state and local governments. We’re far more likely to see innovation as policymakers in different areas experiment with the best ways of preventing serious deprivation while also encouraging self-sufficiency.
I think we’ll find out that benefits should be lower, but maybe we’ll learn in certain cases that benefits should be expanded. But we won’t learn anything so long as there is a one-size-fits-all approach from Washington.
Let’s close with a political observation. A columnist for the New York Timesis frustrated that many low-income voters are supporting Republicans because they see how their neighbors are being harmed by dependency:
Parts of the country that depend on the safety-net programs supported by Democrats are increasingly voting for Republicans who favor shredding that net… The people in these communities who are voting Republican in larger proportions are those who are a notch or two up the economic ladder—the sheriff’s deputy, the teacher, the highway worker, the motel clerk, the gas station owner and the coal miner. And their growing allegiance to the Republicans is, in part, a reaction against what they perceive, among those below them on the economic ladder, as a growing dependency on the safety net, the most visible manifestation of downward mobility in their declining towns… I’ve heard variations on this theme all over the country: people railing against the guy across the street who is collecting disability payments but is well enough to go fishing, the families using their food assistance to indulge in steaks.
It’s not my role to pontificate about politics, so I won’t address that part of the column. But I will say that I’ve also found that hostility to welfare is strongest among those who have first-hand knowledge of how dependency hurts people.
P.S. If you want evidence for why Washington should get out of the business of income redistribution, check out this visual depiction of the welfare state:
Daniel J. Mitchell is a Washington-based economist who specializes in fiscal policy, particularly tax reform, international tax competition, and the economic burden of government spending. He also serves on the editorial board of the Cayman Financial Review.
EDITORS NOTE: This column with videos and images is republished with permission.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/johnson-e1539727528870.jpg385640Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngFoundation for Economic Education (FEE)2018-10-16 18:08:312018-10-16 18:10:31Poverty in the U.S. Was Plummeting—Until Lyndon Johnson Declared War On It [+Videos]
