Showing posts with label star parker. Show all posts
Showing posts with label star parker. Show all posts

Friday, September 4, 2020

Bigotry of the Welfare State

Image (c) Depositphotos.com
                               This article is an excerpt from Godvernment: Government as God 

Tom Sheppard
9/4/2020

The False Security of The Welfare State

Consider the welfare reform, passed in 1996.  The debate surrounding that legislation turned on a series of moral propositions: that

·        Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) had created a culture of poverty;

·        that it rewarded indolence,

·        fostered dependence, and

·        encouraged broken families.

The argument in favor of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) was, in turn, framed in terms of the moral norms of equality, reciprocity, personal accountability, and the inherent dignity of work.

It is undeniable that the law has brought federal policy more in line with those deeply held American values.  As a result of the new law, many former welfare recipients have morphed into the working poor, and there are early signs that this change has left most Americans less prone to stigmatize them, and more disposed to assisting them through both governmental and nongovernmental outlets.

PRWORA was set to expire in 2002.  While some provisions have been extended as far as 2012, many key provisions have lapsed.  Since then, the welfare state has once again resumed its meteoric growth, most notably with the introduction of the disastrous and ironically named Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, and President Obama’s massive expansion of eligibility for food stamps.

This kind of wholesale government dole hasn’t been seen since Roman politicians handed out free food and tickets to the Coliseum in order to gain votes and distract voters from the real issues of the day.  The end result of that welfare program was the rise of the Roman Emperor and the dissolution of the Roman Republic.  After that time, Romans were no longer ruled by laws they enacted through an elected assembly.  Instead, they were ruled by the whims of a self-proclaimed monarch who brought all the branches of government directly into his own hands, where he could rule without regard to the will of the people, collectively or individually.

Image (c) Lenschanger and Depositphotos.com

Life on the Plantation Today

            Entrepreneur, author, and social critic Star Parker refers to the U.S. welfare program as Uncle Sam’s Plantation, and she maintains that it has effectively re-enslaved a significant portion of the black population in this country by making them dependent on government handouts.

What do you think of when your read that phrase: "Uncle Sam's Plantation?"  I get this image of Uncle Sam sitting on a horse in the midst of a field of cotton, cracking a whip over a bunch of poorly clothed black slaves, bent over working in the hot sun.

For me, that conjured image is offensive in a lot of ways.

First, Uncle Sam is supposed to be an image representing justice, the rule of law, opportunity, and the greatness of the United States of America.  To imagine that image overseeing a slave state is both disturbing and slanderous to the character the image should represent.

Second, slavery—regardless of who is enslavedis a profound insult to the inherent divinity of humanity.  Children of God were not brought into this world to be owned like property, pushed to work by cruelty, and robbed of both their dignity and the fruits of their labor because of accidents of birth or the abuse of power.

Because of that appallingly offensive mental image that was conjured by the title, I was very reluctant to invest my time and money in reading Star Parker's book, Uncle Sam's Plantation: How Big Government Enslaves America's Poor and What We Can Do About It.  Knowing that the author is a black woman, and seeing the title, I was pre-disposed to dismiss it as an anti-American rant aimed at heaping guilt on whites for the misdeeds of generations long gone. 

I couldn't have been more wrong.

Star Parker is no apologist, nor is she approaching her topic from a victim mentality.  In fact, her life stands as a beacon of hope for poor, for single mothers, for ghetto-denizens, for drug abusers, and for welfare recipients.

Just a few paragraphs into the book, she makes it clear that this is not an apology for principles that America has championed.  The following excerpt gives a hint of what is to come: 

One of nine children, my mother learned as a “young’ un” that, more than anything else, poverty is a state of mind.  Her father showed her by example how to live free.  “Buy property and a gun” was his edict.  His faith and convictions told him free men have a right to own property and to protect it.

Ms. Parker hit right away on two fundamental issues that are needed for people to be truly free—property rights and the ability to preserve those property rights, by individual force, if necessary (AKA gun ownership rights). 

This early acknowledgement is a true indicator that Ms. Parker is neither a progressive/socialist/liberal, nor is she going to earn any points with the anti-gun lobby.

A short while later in the book, she reveals that she is not some soft-headed zealot—rather that she is taking a fact-based approach. 

"...in 2001, welfare spending in America exceeded $400 billion.  That is a whopping 14 percent of the federal budget.  That’s more than a billion tax dollars per day being spent on various poverty programs, yet Rector’s data shows that less than twenty cents of each dollar actually gets into the hands of the people society is trying to help."

While her affinity for citing facts is heartening, the facts she cites are hugely disruptive to the crowd that pushes the notion that government should be in the business of charity.  "... less than twenty cents of each dollar actually gets into the hands of the people society is trying to help." 

If your favorite charity publicized that 80 cents of every dollar you give goes into overhead, you would likely drop that charity and try to find one where less than 40 cents of each dollar contributed went to overhead.  However, with government, cost-effectiveness and the overhead expense ratio tend to get swept under the rug and taken out of consideration. Parker continues: 

"Despite growing evidence to the contrary, organizations such as the Center for Urban Policy Research continue to claim that racism, sexism, and capitalism are fundamentally responsible for the problems of the poor, but if true solutions are developed, these organizations could be obsolete.  Actually solve those problems, and half of the liberal campaign platform evaporates.  Self-interest will always be the driving force behind the machinery of politics. We need to admit that and move on."

 Wow!  "Self-interest will always be the driving force behind...politics."  Her unapologetic assault on the hypocrisy inherent in liberal politics is refreshing and clarifying.  The reality that if liberals implemented policies that resolved the causes of poverty they would be out of a job tears off the mask and reveals that liberal politics actually have the aim of preserving their political base—in other words, liberals want to be sure that we have lots of poor people around to vote for them.  If the poor actually rise out of poverty, they tend to walk away from supporting liberals.

So, when you see a wealthy capitalist like George Soros, Oprah Winfrey, or Warren Buffett espousing liberal politics, look closely and critically, and follow the money.  What do these folks have to gain from supporting liberal politicians?  The simple answer is that they create barriers to prevent others from rising to the level of wealth that they have obtained.  They are not interested in helping the poor.  They are interested in preserving the poor, and keeping them in their place.  That way, they have cheap labor and a ready pool of uncritical, unthinking voters.

Parker also isn't afraid to attack the phony altruism that liberals use to wrap up their oppressive and poverty sustaining policies: 

"The economically challenged are also the ones most negatively affected when the government involves itself in the affairs of business owners and their employees with legislation like minimum wage.  Mandates for a “livable wage” make great sound bites on the evening news, but the reality is that most new laws passed to regulate the business community to protect the economically challenged end up narrowing their opportunities to advance."

 "... most new laws...end up narrowing their opportunities to advance."  Again, this kind of attack on using altruistic sound bites to mask the real impact of legislation is enlightening.  It shows how liberals have mastered the use of emotion to overcome reason and true self-interest in their voting base of poor voters.

The frightening reality is that if the poor of this country would rationally examine the facts, they would run headlong toward the support of principles and proponents of Constitutional conservatism.  The Democrats, and to a lesser degree, the Republicans, would find themselves out in the cold as voters flocked to support politicians who implemented massive tax repeals and tax simplification, as well as promoting capitalism and free enterprise, both in the U.S. and abroad.  The result would be what happened when Ronald Reagan did exactly that, historically low unemployment and long-term sustained (and sustainable) increases in the standard of living for everyone, rich and "poor."  In other words, the poor would be much less poor and have much better lives, regardless of what happened to the wealthy.  The whole "soak the rich" class warfare ploys are just moves to destroy the rich—not to help the poor. 

"The only true beneficiary of minimum wage laws is the government, which collects more sales tax on the higher prices.  Higher prices mean higher taxes, and the struggling poor cannot understand why, although government demanded they get a raise, they have no more money left over than before.  It gets worse."

Note the points that her conversion to Christianity led her to the conclusion that she couldn't remain on welfare and be a good Christian.

Emphasize her points that the welfare system today combines euthanasia and slavery into one neat package.

Conclusions

Once you understand the circumstances, behavioral patterns, and choices of today’s poor, you will agree that the battle we face is so complex that it cannot be solved with one-size-fits-all government handouts to individuals or to organizations.

It also becomes evident that government, with its built-in disincentives to curing societal ills and its focus on attempting to manage the circumstances of the poor instead of helping them to help themselves, is the worst possible vehicle for attempting to solve the problems of poverty.

Government should get entirely out of the business of charity.  Helping the poor can be done most effectively by organizations that teach the poor how to help themselves and become self-sufficient, while giving them a helping hand to save themselves physically until they can stand on their own and become contributing members of society.


Food for thought!

See Tom's political views on Facebook at: https://www.facebook.com/TomSheppardPoliticalViews/ 
Follow Tom on Twitter: @ThomasKSheppard 

Tom Sheppard is a business consultant and coach to small business owners and individuals. He is a recognized author with dozens of titles in business and fiction to his credit. One of his endeavors is to help those who want to see their own book in print. He does this through his trademarked Book Whispering Process (TM). 

The author is not an official spokesperson for any organization or person mentioned herein. 

(c) Copyright 2020 A+ Results LLC. All Rights Reserved. 

Your comments are welcome. Please observe some ground rules. No profanity, vulgarity, or personal attacks. Profanity, vulgarity and personal attacks not only betray a lack of vocabulary and imagination, they also are the hallmarks of bigotry, and bigotry is the hallmark of someone who is fundamentally insecure in their views. Facts are always welcome.

If you believe Government is NOT the answer to all our problems, you will want to read
 Godvernment: Government as God
Click on the image below to buy your copy today

Godvernment is available in both paperback and ebook format through Amazon.

Wednesday, March 28, 2018

Lessons in the Virtues of Traditional Morality from Communist China?

Tom Sheppard
3/28/2018

In today's Wall Street Journal Opinion Page is an article by Wendy Wang, titled The Sequence is the Secret to Success.

In her article she cites studies in the US and experience in China that pretty authoritatively demonstrate that the formula for rising out of poverty is to go to school, work, get married and then have children, in that order.

The sitcom Murphy Brown glorified the notion of having children out of wedlock, and Dan Quayle foundered on the reef when he, correctly, pointed out that single parenthood is actually a formula for poverty.  The media wouldn't tolerate that story however, and facts notwithstanding, pilloried Quayle for his on-point observations.

Here are a few of Wendy's most powerful facts:

  • Among childless and unmarried millenials 28 to 34 who followed the education and work steps, the poverty rate was 8%.
Murphy Brown was a fictional character.  The sitcom writers didn't have to let reality influence the posh lifestyle this single mother enjoyed.  The reality for the overwhelming majority of single parents is constant financial struggle on the edge of poverty and homelessness.

In contrast with those who assert that society and racism hold the keys that keep the poor imprisoned in poverty, Ms. Wang shows that behaviors and choices open the doors out of poverty.

  • Among young adults who grew up in low-income families, those who followed all three steps had a poverty rate of only 6%, compared with 35% for their peers who missed one or more steps.
  • Eighty percent of those with lower-income backgrounds made it into middle- or upper-income brackets when they followed all three steps, versus only 44% for those who missed one or more steps.

SURPRISE! Following the same old-fashioned notions that were accepted for centuries in the US works to lift people out of poverty, even in the face of those who claim 'the American Dream' is dead.

  • Brookings scholars Ron Haskins and Isabel Sawhill call it the "success sequence": getting at least a high-school diploma, working, and then marrying before having children--again, in that order. ... Following the success sequence is associated with a much lower chance of being poor and much better odds of realizing the American Dream.

One of my personal heroes, Star Parker, has been preaching the solution of personal choice instead of government programs as the path out of poverty for years now.  Her approach flies in the face of the likes of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, who never met a government handout they didn't like.  If you are tired of reading the race baiters preach white-guilt, government programs, and income redistribution, you will enjoy her book, Uncle Sam's Plantation: How Big Government Enslaves America's Poor and What We Can Do About It.

Tom Sheppard is a business consultant and coach to small business owners and individuals. He is a recognized author with dozens of titles in business and fiction to his credit. One of his endeavors is to help those who want to see their own book in print. He does this through his trademarked Book Whispering Process (TM). 

The author is not an official spokesperson for any organization or person mentioned herein. 

Your comments are welcome... Please observe some ground rules. No profanity, vulgarity, or personal attacks. Profanity, vulgarity and personal attacks not only betray a lack of vocabulary and imagination, they also are the hallmarks of bigotry, and bigotry is the hallmark of someone who is fundamentally insecure in their views. Facts are always welcome.

Learn more about Tom Sheppard at his Amazon Author Page:


http://amzn.to/2vERMnU
Get your own copy of Tom's blockbuster Godvernment today.

(c) Copyright 2018 A+ Results LLC. All Rights Reserved. 

Thursday, September 22, 2016

Charlotte Shooting

http://heyjackass.com/2016-race-of-victim-assailant/ 
Having lived in the Charlotte area for more than 20 years, and with four of my five children still living there, and lots of friends there, I have watched the recent news broadcasts of violence there with trepidation for the safety of those I hold dear.

However, I have not let my concerns for my loved ones blind me to the bigger picture here.

I wanted to know, has anyone else noticed that the Black Lives Matter narrative has changed significantly from its start in Ferguson?

Back then, the drama was focused heavily on the fact that a white cop shot a black man.  For some time thereafter, the drumbeat was an attempt to say that white cops had it in for black men, of all ages.  I call this the "Bad White Cops" message.

Somewhere between then and now, the emphasis has changed.  Segue to Charlotte.

Here we have a black cop, working for a black chief of police, shooting a black man.  Now, the whole "bad white cop" message is out of sight.  Now it is all cops are bad.  I call this the "Bad Cops" song.

Advocates of the Black Lives Matter movement claim that "stop and frisk" practices and profiling are racist policing.  They have woven these threads into the banner of their movement as fundamental doctrines.

In Chicago, the adopted homeland of President Barak Obama and the city run by one of his top former advisors, Rahm Emanuel, the politicians joined in on the chorus of "Bad Cops."  They have given the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) the right to review every single police stop.

As a direct result of the Chicago Police being put at risk of a lawsuit and job loss with every stop they perform, they have understandably stopped making stops.  Now, they just cruise on past potential trouble like they just don't care.

A recent Wall Street Journal article noted that the consequence of the politicians slapping the PD is that now, black lives are being ended on the streets of Chicago at a record rate not seen in "two decades" according to Dean Angelo, President of the Chicago police union.

"By Sept. 8, nearly 3,000 people had been shot in Chicago in 2016, an average of one shooting victim every two hours. Five hundred and sixteen people had been murdered. Gun homicides and non-fatal shootings were up 47%..."
One shooting victim every two hours.  Can you imagine that happening in your home town?

And what does the article say is the root cause of this killing spree?
"Chicago officers have cut back drastically on proactive policing under the onslaught of criticism from the Black Lives Matter movement and its political and media enablers."
The accompanying chart shows who is killing who in Chicago this year.


http://heyjackass.com/2016-race-of-victim-assailant/


As the chart at the top of this article notes, 78.2% of murder victims in Chicago this year are blacks.

This begs the question, do black lives matter only when police kill them?

These numbers show definitively that the real fruit of the Black Lives Matter movement is a dramatic increase in the number of black lives ended by murder.

In his "Daily Rant" Mychal Massie on September 22 made the point that Black Lives Matter is not heading the right direction.  What will reduce the number of dead black men in our streets is for people to show respect for authority, both at home and in the streets.

Regarding the shooting in Charlotte, he says, "...Lamont was responsible for his own death."

From there, he goes on to note how members of the black community used the shooting as an excuse to descend like a Mongol horde following Ghengis Khan to loot a nearby Wal Mart and pillage and intimidate innocent people on a nearby freeway.

Speaking on the topic of this kind of lawless behavior, black commentator Star Parker says,
The basis of a civilized, decent and just society is law. But law, if it is going to be respected, must be rooted in core values and eternal truths. In the words of our second president, John Adams, we need "a government of laws, not of men."
In our zeal to purge our nation of Judeo-Christian values, driven by the false notion that religion hampers rather than enhances our freedom, we bear the consequences of this effort. We wind up with a government of men, not laws.
She goes on to link the lawlessness permitted in characters like Hilary Clinton and her handling of classified information as further affirmation that we are emerging as a government of men where power and wealth can buy immunity for wrong-doing.  This directly inspires the narrative promoted by Black Lives Matter that the only cure for injustice is through violence.

While I am certain that there are some bad cops out there, just as there are bad people in almost every line of work, I am equally certain that the majority of police officers, regardless of their color are good people.  The cops I have known joined the force out of a desire to help people in meaningful ways.

Respect for authority and the rule of law, not of capricious men, are bulwarks of civilization and foundations for both the US Constitution and this nation.

Black Lives Matter sympathizers need to redirect their energy to supporting law enforcement.  Their current efforts are clearly resulting in more black lives ended than was happening when the police were allowed to do their jobs and given the respect they deserve for putting their lives on the line every day.  The song needs to change from "Bad Cops" to "My Country 'Tis of Thee," and to "Politicians Accountability."

Hilary violated laws and regulations that were put in place to protect the people of the United States.  She should be prosecuted for that.  Just as should everyone who violates the laws of the land, regardless of their race or wealth.

Black Lives Matter is right to focus on accountability.  And they should focus on accountability of all parties involved.  The dead man is accountable for failing to put down his gun when ordered by the police.  The police involved are accountable for keeping everyone in the area safe from a man with a gun who is disregarding lawful police orders.

But where does that common sense approach leave the "protesters?"  Now, they have to take accountability for their own savagery, barbarity and lawlessness.

Your comments are welcome... Please observe some ground rules. No profanity, vulgarity, or personal attacks. Profanity, vulgarity and personal attacks not only betray a lack of vocabulary and imagination, they also are the hallmarks of bigotry, and bigotry is the hallmark of someone who is fundamentally insecure in their views. Facts are always welcome.

Tom Sheppard is a business consultant and coach to small business owners and individuals. He is a recognized author with dozens of titles in business and fiction to his credit. One of his endeavors is to help those who want to see their own book in print. He does this through his trademarked Book Whispering Process (TM). 

The author is not an official spokesperson for any organization or person mentioned herein. 

(c) Copyright 2015 A+ Results LLC. All Rights Reserved.