The War on Poverty Has Been a Colossal Flop
Today, the U.S. Census Bureau will release its annual report on poverty. This report is noteworthy because this year marks the 50th anniversary of President Lyndon Johnson’s launch of the War on Poverty. Liberals claim that the War on Poverty has failed because we didn’t spend enough money. Their answer is just to spend more. But the facts show otherwise.
Full Report: The War on Poverty After 50 Years
Since its beginning, U.S. taxpayers have spent $22 trillion on Johnson’s War on Poverty (in constant 2012 dollars). Adjusting for inflation, that’s three times more than was spent on all military wars since the American Revolution.
One third of the U.S. population received aid from at least one welfare program at an average cost of $9,000 per recipient in 2013.
The federal government currently runs more than 80 means-tested welfare programs. These programs provide cash, food, housing and medical care to low-income Americans. Federal and state spending on these programs last year was $943 billion. (These figures do not include Social Security, Medicare, or Unemployment Insurance.)
INFOGRAPHIC: 9 Facts About How the Poor in America Live
Over 100 million people, about one third of the U.S. population, received aid from at least one welfare program at an average cost of $9,000 per recipient in 2013. If converted into cash, current means-tested spending is five times the amount needed to eliminate all poverty in the U.S.
Rich Lowry: Obama's Foreign Policy Has Collapsed
President Barack Obama's foreign policy has collapsed amid conflicting messages about how to manage the threat of the Islamic State (ISIS) and a track record of mistakes in the Middle East, said Rich Lowry, editor of the National Review.
In an opinion piece for Politico Magazine, Lowry says that Republican hawks who have long warned of the disastrous consequences of a weak foreign policy have been proven right.
"What we have been witnessing the past few weeks, in real time, is the intellectual collapse of Obama's foreign policy, accompanied by its rapid political unraveling," Lowry wrote.
Lowry said that Obama's policies toward al-Qaida, the crisis in the Middle East, and Iraq and Syria have all been misguided.
"We elected a president with the middle name of Hussein who did all he could to liquidate George W. Bush's foreign policy and made outreach to the Muslim world one of his top priorities — yet the terror threat has grown."
By contrast, Lowry contends, predictions by Arizona GOP Sen. John McCain, for example, of the dangers of pulling out of Iraq have come to fruition.
"It is not that the latest events in Iraq and Syria necessarily vindicate a rigorously McCainite foreign policy," Lowry wrote. "Events have vindicated the surge that devastated the forerunner of ISIL and demonstrated the folly of Obama’s total pullout from Iraq, the point at which the country began its downward slide."
He added that the folly of Obama's foreign policy doctrine, summarized by the president as "don't do stupid stuff," is most evident in Syria.
"We didn't invade, we didn't bomb, we didn't even really try to create an allied rebel force on the ground," Lowry said. "ISIL has established a base from which to launch operations in Iraq. This is not only a humanitarian catastrophe but a disaster for our interests, and more and more people are recognizing it as such."
Lowry said the president's remarks on Wednesday that he intended to reduce the threat of ISIS to a "manageable problem" are not only vague but entirely misguided.
"President Obama has said of President Bush's alleged approach to the world, every problem looks like a nail. By the same token, when the only tool you have is retreat, every problem looks 'manageable.'"
President Barack Obama let al-Qaida bounce back in Iraq because he pulled out U.S. troops in 2011, thereby setting the stage for the development of the Islamic State, said former Ambassador to Iraq Paul Bremer.
The United States had defeated al-Qaida due to the 2007 surge during the Iraq War, a fact that "President Obama admitted himself when he came into office," Bremer told Fox News' "America's Newsroom."
"We beat al-Qaida in Iraq under the surge directed by Gen. Petraeus, and, obviously, authorized by President Bush," Bremer said Thursday. "The problem in Iraq is what has happened in the last two to three years, particularly after we pulled out the troops in 2011, which was a big mistake."
By retreating from Iraq, the vacuum allowed al-Qaida to regain strength, ultimately spawning the more violent organization formerly known as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), which now poses a threat to Middle Eastern countries and the West.
Arab countries would be willing to join with the United States to defeat ISIS, Bremer said, but they wanted to see American leadership in the effort.
"A lot of the Arabs in the Middle East have substantial military capabilities. They could be engaged to help fight ISIL. But, they won't do it unless they are persuaded America is prepared to take the lead," he said, using an alternate acronym for the group.
"Saudi Arabia has a quarter-million men under arms. They have an advanced American-supplied air force. There's a lot that other countries in the region could be doing to help, but they won't do it unless they see a clear American commitment."
Dianne Feinstein did not speak kindly of LOTUS ISIS foreign policy
‘TOO CAUTIOUS:’ Lawmakers blast Obama’s foreign policy approach to combatting ISIS in Syria and Iraq
Republicans AND Democrats took the President to task Sunday after he admitted last week that the White House doesn’t ‘have a strategy yet’ to beat back the advance of the bloodthirsty ISIS militant group.
"I think I've learned one thing about this President, and that is he's very cautious," Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), the chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said on NBC's "Meet the Press." "Maybe in this instance, too cautious."
On Thursday, during a televised statement to the U.S., Obama admitted that "we don't have a strategy yet " to combat the rise of the bloodthirsty ISIS militant organization in Syria and Iraq.
angry all over again that Obama didn't go to war
So much happy horse shyt.
The fact that the "White House doesn’t ‘have a strategy yet’ " has nothing to do with going U. S. boots on the ground war. It has to do with sending arms to the kurds, for which they've been fruitlessly begging for a year, and training and providing intelligence support.
We are already at war from 40,000 feet idiot.
Islamic State (ISIS) cells are already in the United States, and some of them have entered by crossing the Mexican border says former CIA agent Bob Baer.
Baer told CNN's "The Lead with Jake Tapper" on Tuesday that people working in intelligence-gathering have told him they don't know what ISIS members' plans are, but "it's a definite concern.
"People who do this for a living are very alarmed," Baer said.
Other ISIS members are American citizens who have been to Syria and have returned, he said. While intelligence agencies are aware of some of the people they suspect of being ISIS members and are working to gather evidence to apprehend them, they fear there are more that they don't know about.
ISIS, currently calling itself the Islamic State, has taken over large portions of Syria and Iraq, claiming to have set up a caliphate from which it will wage world jihad. A spokesman said recently that ISIS plans to raise "the flag of Allah" in the White House.
The group released a video Tuesday purporting to show the beheading of American journalist Steven Sotloff.
It was the second such video in the past two weeks.
ISIS had threatened to behead Sotloff at the end of a video showing the beheading of American journalist James Foley if the United States did not cease airstrikes against ISIS in Iraq.
Baer told CNN's Tapper that he had expected the killings after U.S. airstrikes helped hinder ISIS' efforts in Iraq.
"They have no choice in their minds but to strike back," Baer said.
Foley and Sotloff were among at least four Americans publicly known to be held by ISIS, and Baer said they essentially grabbed the first American they could in order to carry out the grisly actions that they then released on video.
With ISIS continuing to be hurt by American attacks, Baer said he expects them to continue to behead Western captives.
"I think there'll be more," he said.
Classic example of LOTUS's foreign policy to either 1-LEAD, 2-FOLLOW or 3-GET OUT OF THE WAY....he decisively chose option 3.
LOTUS had to chose one of those options in setting our nations foreign policy, particularly towards ISIS....HE CHOSE THE LAST.
President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry both referred to ISIS as "a cancer" recently, yet neither has done much to stop it from spreading. FOX News reported today that our Campaigner-in-Chief received "specific and detailed intelligence" about the terror group's build-up at least a year ago. But the U.S. still has not taken definitive action to stop these barbaric murderers or to help the more than one million displaced Iraqi Christians and other religious minorities.
After months of brutal ISIS attacks that have killed nearly 6,000 civilians, you might expect that by now the entire "international community" would have rallied around the Iraqi men, women, and children forced from their homes. Surely, with tens of thousands facing genocide, major relief organizations and world bodies must be mobilizing to help Iraqi Christians and other religious minorities.
But that's not the case. Sadly, in the face of this horrific (and ongoing) suffering, persecution, and genocide, the world AND Washington, D.C. remain mostly silent. Our leaders can't seem to do much more than call ISIS names, like "a cancer" and "hateful."
As the situation in northern Iraq grows steadily worse, I got word today that little to nothing is being done to bring relief to victims who have lost everything. My staff received the following alarming update this morning from RUN Ministries president Eric Watt:
ISIS terrorists are sending their spies into our "Community of Hope" refugee camps! Out of fear of more killings, captures and rapes, some camps have been forced to move locations. Nowhere seems safe, and very little help is coming.
RUN's leadership team in northern Iraq met over the weekend. We have come up with a strategy that we believe will enable us to continue the search, rescue and care of displaced Iraqis, while still protecting those who have lost everything.
As a result of this extreme, ongoing need, RUN Ministries is increasing the size of our current "Community of Hope." We also are going to villages in rural areas and asking people to join us in creating a new "Underground Railroad" that will house and care for families. Even today, we are hiding hundreds of people, providing them with food and water until it is completely safe to build more refugee camps.
It's disturbing to read the words "very little help is coming." That's why it's so important for Liberty Counsel Action friends to continue standing with RUN Ministries. Members of Eric's team are risking their lives to rescue Iraqi men, women and children, despite the imminent, deadly threat of ISIS terrorists.
Unlike President Obama, RUN's network of believers have a strategy that will enable them to continue their difficult, dangerous and lifesaving work. Friends of Liberty Counsel Action have done so much to support the work of these brave volunteers, but their work is only just beginning!
2014 Lie of the Year
Ba aha aha ha aha ha ha ah aha ha ha ha ha ah aha ha ha ha ha ha ah ah ah aha ha ha ha ha ah ah aha ha
The sound lazykid hears while entertaining in an empty forest.
closed every single one of their stores six months ago
So what ...
What does that have to do with "Reviewing LOTUS travels to Arabian states", and "Moochelle"s" past and current non- travels to Arabian states....and why FLLOTUS is AWOL in Muslim states.
As US lawmakers grapple with ways to slash spending, many were shocked to learn authorities are spending $250 to $1,000 per day to care for each minor apprehended crossing the US border.
More than 57,000 unaccompanied children, mostly from Central America, have been caught entering the country illegally since last October, and President Barack Obama has asked for $3.7 billion in emergency funding to address what he has called an "urgent humanitarian solution."
"One of the figures that sticks in everybody's mind is we're paying about $250 to $1,000 per child," Senator Jeff Flake told reporters, citing figures presented at a closed-door briefing by Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson.
"A lot of people were very troubled coming out of there."
Federal authorities are struggling to find more cost-effective housing, medical care, counseling and legal services for the undocumented minors.
Some $1.8 billion of Obama's emergency supplemental would be allocated to the Department of Health and Human Services to address those needs.
The base cost per bed was $250 per day, including other services, Senator Dianne Feinstein said, without providing details.
"It goes up to $1,000 per day if you have to contract temporarily," she added. "That's what they're trying to avoid."
Senator Marco Rubio, who like Flake is a Republican who helped craft a comprehensive immigration reform bill that passed the Senate but has died in the House, said lawmakers "were shocked at the figures."
"I think now we're starting to see the human costs and the economic costs of providing care for those who have entered the country illegally, and it behooves us to address this as quickly as possible."
US officials predict some 30,000 more unaccompanied children will cross the border by the end of September, and that 145,000 will be apprehended next year.
ACTIONS speak louder than words.Another interesting item regarding Sharia Law. Why has Barack Hussein Obama insisted that the U.S. Attorney General hold the trials of the 911 Muslim Terrorists in Civilian Courts as Common Criminals instead of as Terrorists who attacked the United States of America? If the Muslim Terrorists are tried in Military Tribunals, convicted and sentenced to death, by LAW, Barack Hussein Obama, as President of the United States, would be required to sign their death warrants. He would not be required to sign the death warrants if they are sentenced to death by a Civilian Court. Muslim Jihadist, Army Major Hassan slaughtered non-Muslim soldiers at Ft. Hood, Texas rather than go to Afghanistan and be a part of anything that could lead to the deaths of fellow Muslims. He stated that Muslims 'could not and should not kill fellow Muslims.' Is the motive for Barack Hussein Obama's insistence on civilian trials, to make sure he doesn't have to sign the death warrants for the Muslim Terrorists? Why would he, as President of the United States, not sign the death warrants for Muslim Terrorists who attacked the United States and murdered over 3,000 U. S. Citizens on 9/11? Could it be that he is FORBIDDEN by his RELIGION to authorize the execution of Muslims? Think about that! Open your eyes, ears and mind to who the President is, how he behaves and what he is doing. Actions speak louder than teleprompter -written words!
Reviewing LOTUS travels to Arabian states
Interesting! Sheppard Smith, Fox News.
“If you check President Obama’s last trip over-seas, his wife left just after their visit to France . She has yet to accompany him to any Arab country. Think about it. Why is Michelle returning to the states when ‘official’ trips to foreign countries generally include the First Lady.”
Here’s one thought on the matter.
While in a Blockbuster renting videos I came across a video called “Obama”. There were two men standing next to me and we talked about President Obama. These guys were Arabs, so I asked them why they thought Michelle Obama headed home following the President’s recent visit to France instead of traveling on to Saudi Arabia and Turkey with her husband. They told me she could not go to Saudi Arabia , Turkey or Iraq . I said “Why not,(?) Laura Bush went to Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Dubai .” They said that Obama is a Muslim and therefore he is not allowed to bring his wife into countries that adhere to Sharia Law.
Two points of interest here: 1) I thought it interesting that two American Arabs at Blockbuster believe that our President is a Muslim, who follows a strict Islamic creed.
2) They also said that’s the reason he bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia . It was a signal to the Muslim world, acknowledging his religion.
For further consideration, here is a response from Dr. Jim Murk, a Middle Eastern Scholar and expert on Islam. This is his explanation of what the Arab American’s were saying.
“An orthodox Muslim man would never take his wife on a politically oriented trip to any nation which practices Sharia law, particularly Saudi Arabia where the Wahhabi sect is dominant. This is true and it is why Obama left Michelle in Europe . She will stay home when he visits Arab countries. He knows Muslim protocol; this includes, bowing to the Saudi King. Obama is regarded as a Muslim in the Arab world, because he was born to a Muslim father; he acknowledged his Muslim faith with George Stephanopoulus. Note that he downplays his involvement with Christianity, by not publicly joining a Christian church in D.C. And occasionally attending the chapel for services at Camp David . He also played down the fact that America is a Christian country and said, unbelievably, that it was one of the largest Muslim nations in the world, which is nonsense. He has publicly taken the side of the Palestinians in the conflict with Israel and he ignored the National Day of Prayer, something no other President has ever done. He is bad news! He conceals his true faith to the detriment of the American people.”
— Jim Murk, Doctor of Philosophy in Middle Eastern Culture & Religion.
So how could he know she was wrong
What she was wrong about was stuffing unwanted food down throats of kids. So her so called nutrition program is accomplishing nothing other than wasting tax $$s.
More Evidence U.S. Funds al-Qaeda Terrorists in Syria
Establishment media glosses over hypocrisy of war on terror
Earlier this year, the United States and the Gulf monarchies initiated a propaganda effort designed to sanitize the image of the mercenaries fighting to topple the Syrian government. According to The Telegraph, mercenary groups “best equipped to take on the extremists” were given millions of dollars to go up against al-Qaeda’s Islamic State of Iraq and al-Shams (ISIS), which was said to have “hijacked” the foreign effort to overthrow the regime of Bashar al-Assad.
The British newspaper reported Jamal Maarouf, with the help of the CIA and Saudi and Qatari intelligence, created the Syrian Revolutionary Front (SRF), a collection of “moderate” fighters who reportedly launched attacks against the ISIS and its jihadist allies.
He hasn't, you senile dunce.
Relly.....It's obvious you don't get the 1st hand reports because you don't watch the FOX news reports or try to read current news reports---
As it turns out, the war against ISIS is not what the establishment media in the West make it out to be. On Wednesday, Maarouf told The Independent the fight against al-Qaeda was “not our problem” and admitted the mercenaries he leads with U.S., Saudi and Qatari help conduct joint operations with Jabhat al-Nusra, seen as the de facto al-Qaeda branch in Syria. Maarouf told the newspaper he does not have a problem working with al-Qaeda so long as the objective is the ouster of the al-Assad government.
In fact, according to Maarouf, his benefactors told him to provide al-Nusra with weapons despite the aforementioned propaganda campaign designed to give the impression “moderates” are fighting the good fight against al-Qaeda in Syria. He said if “the people who support us [U.S., Saudis, Qataris] tell us to send weapons to another group, we send them. They asked us a month ago to send weapons to Yabroud so we sent a lot of weapons there. When they asked us to do this, we do it.”
According to Barak Barfi, a research fellow for the globalist funded New America Foundation, al-Nusra, the al-Qaeda-linked group known for summarily executing Syrian soldiers and other atrocities (including beheading Christians; see the video above), receives weapons indirectly from SRF.
Maarouf’s revelation, however, is not news. In December, The Washington Post and other establishment media outlets reported the United States and its partners are involved in a “cold-war style of warfare” which includes the use of “proxies to punish Assad.” The mention of the term Cold War alludes to covert intelligence operations, the hallmark of decades of undeclared warfare against the Soviet Union.
In an effort to minimize the fact the United States is colluding with an enemy aligned with a terrorist organization allegedly responsible for attacking the United States, the Post reported:
The United States government knowingly contributed to the territorial gains of radical Islamists allied to our gravest enemy in an effort to hijack the Syrian Revolution and install Sharia Law in a very rich and very powerful country. In an effort to thwart the fear of the public that the U.S. would be supporting radical Jihadists, the secretary of state made a statement that he was certain that only 25 percent of the rebels were Jihadists. There are roughly a hundred eighty thousand Syrian Rebels, and as of now an estimated one hundred thousand of those rebels fall under the command of the Islamic Front.
In other words, in an effort to subvert a sovereign nation and decide who will rule over it (and who will cooperate with the financial elite), the United States is only partially collaborating with declared enemies. This is, we are assured, better than fully cooperating with them.
Once again, this is sheer and transparent propaganda designed to minimize the obvious fact the United States does not differentiate between enemies and allies (who often, as Taliban did, become tomorrow’s sworn enemies if so declared by geopolitical imperatives decided upon by the global elite).
“For half a century the United States and many of its allies saw what I call the ‘Islamic right’ as convenient partners in the Cold War,” writes Robert Dreyfuss in his book, Devil’s Game: How the United States Helped Unleash Fundamentalist Islam. The Afghan Mujahideen, enthusiastically supported by the CIA in its successful covert war against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, would ultimately produce both al-Qaeda and the Taliban, a fact admitted by Jimmy Carter’s National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, CIA director and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
Naturally, this fact – the United States not only creates and supports the likes of al-Qaeda and al-Nusra, to name but two, but itself constitutes the largest, most organized, well-funded and dangerous terrorist organization in the world – is never mentioned by the establishment media, even when U.S. proxies, headed up by war profiteers such as Jamal Maarouf, admit they are in league with brutal sadists who behead innocents, execute prisoners of war, and desecrate Christian churches.
Then why did the writer take an opinion on nutrition?
I don't know that the writer took a position on nutrition other than throwing in a comment for digestion, and in your case indigestion. The point is the kids aren't buying or eating Mardelle's #$%$ food, and it's being tossed, wadting $millions in tax bucks. Do you care about throwing away tax $$$$$s?
Only three days ago, on Friday the 13th, President Obama vowed he would not put U.S. boots on the ground in Iraq. “We will not be sending troops back into combat in Iraq,” Obama said at a White House press conference. “But I have asked my security advisers to prepare a range of other options.”
Now comes word that Obama has, in fact, ordered that several hundred armed troops be immediately deployed in and around the collapsing country. Even though these U.S. forces are “armed” — if Obama is to be believed (a BIG “if”) — they will not be fighting.
Now what kind of sense does that make? And if the president says they aren’t wearing boots because he promises “no boots on the ground”, then….
The Associated Press reports on the troop deployment:
The U.S. is…considering sending an additional contingent of special forces soldiers as Baghdad struggles to repel a rampant insurgency, even as the White House insists anew that America will not be dragged into another war.
President Barack Obama notified Congress Monday that up to 275 troops could be sent to Iraq to provide support and security for U.S. personnel and the American Embassy in Baghdad. About 170 of those forces have already arrived and another 100 soldiers be on standby in a nearby country until they are needed, a U.S. official said.
While Obama has vowed to keep U.S. forces out of combat in Iraq, he said in his notification to Congress that the personnel moving into the region are equipped for direct fighting.
And separately, three U.S. officials said the White House was considering sending a contingent of special forces soldiers to Iraq. Their limited mission — which has not yet been approved — would focus on training and advising beleaguered Iraqi troops, many of whom have fled their posts across the nation’s north and west as the al-Qaida-inspired insurgency has advanced in the worst threat to the country since American troops left in 2011.
So, the Obama administration is sending U.S. warfighters into Iraq, but they won’t be doing any fighting. Really, is this “depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is” rhetorical nonsense? Is this hollow wordplay and delicate dancing of the most cynical sort?
How does anyone know what will or will not happen in a nation being overrun by bloodthirsty insurgents affiliated with al Qaeda? Even if our soldiers are authorized only as advisors and trainers, what the heck are they supposed to do if/when terrorists start shooting at them?
This afternoon's presidential press conference on Iraq, the biggest news being the announced deployment of 300 US special forces operators into the country. As expected, President Obama repeatedly stressed that these troops will fulfill an explicitly non-combat role, promising that no US forces will return to combat duty in Iraq. He did, however, say that the military isprepared to take "targeted and precise military action" of the situation warrants it. He's presumably speaking of airstrikes against ISIS targets from drones or manned aircraft. Obama placed a great deal of emphasis on Iraq finding a "political solution" to its troubles, praising the nation's multi-sectarian elections in recent years. In doing so, he nudged Iraqi President Nouri al-Maliki to step down -- a heavily hinted call for, well, regime change. A Maliki spokesman quickly shot down the implication. Obama's politically-focused message and demands for a more inclusive Iraqi government seemed wildly out of step with realities on the ground. Of course a political solution is the goal, but the country's on fire right now, with hardcore militants controlling massive swaths of land and threatening to lay siege to the capital city. Iraq's political situation isn't the issue at the moment:
If the extremists' march continues, there will be no country remaining to govern, and in its wake will be a failed state awash with anti-American, anti-West jihadists. Obama explicitly conceded this scenario poses a genuine threat to US national security, yet his solution to the urgent, full-blown crisis is to send in a few hundred troops in an advisory role...and possibly some bombing. Maybe. Administration critics have argued that the bloody chaos was predictable and avoidable. As a candidate, Obama proposed pulling American forces out of Iraq in a careful and responsible manner. Part of his stated vision included a residual pool of US troops in Iraq, whose mission would be to fortify the Iraqi military and to repel serious threats from terrorist groups. Such a force could have prevented today's disaster, but it never materialized. Asked by CNN's Jim Acosta whether he regrets the failure the secure a status of forces agreement (SOFA) needed to make that happen, Obama insisted that there's nothing to regret because it wasn't his fault.