OT - Gunner Quote

In snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com Gunner
wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  

their
were
to262 >murders in DC.)
The DC death stats, if true, were for a full year.
"The deaths bring to 500 the number of U.S. service members who have died since the Iraq conflict began on March 20."
How many from other nations, including Iraqis killed by US forces, have there been? The number of Iraqis killed is a deep secret.
But if you are even a suspect for anything it seems your family and relatives can be taken off to concentration camps and your home destroyed.

  Quoted Text Here  
THE BILL OF NO RIGHTS
We, the sensible people of the United States, in an attempt to help everyone get along, restore some resemblance of justice, avoid any more riots, keep our nation safe, promote positive behavior, and secure the blessings of debt-free liberty to ourselves and our great-great-great-grandchildren, hereby try one more time to ordain and establish some common sense guidelines for the terminally whiny, guilt-ridden, delusional. We hold these truths to be self-evident: that a whole lot of people are confused by the Bill of Rights and are so dim that they require a "Bill of NO Rights."
ARTICLE I: You do not have the right to a new car, big screen TV or any other form of wealth. More power to you if you can legally acquire them, but no one is guaranteeing anything.
ARTICLE II: You do not have the right to never be offended. This country is based on freedom, and that means freedom for everyone -- not just you! You may leave the room, turn the channel, express a different opinion, etc., but the world is full of idiots, and probably always will be ... and like the rest of us you need to simply deal with it.
ARTICLE III: You do not have the right to be free from harm. If you stick a screwdriver in your eye, learn to be more careful; do not expect the tool manufacturer to make you and all your relatives independently wealthy by telling them they didn't warn you not to stick the screwdriver in your eye.
ARTICLE IV: You do not have the right to free food and housing. Americans are the most charitable people to be found, and will gladly help anyone in need, but we are quickly growing weary of subsidizing generation after generation of professional couch potatoes who achieve nothing more than the creation of another generation of professional couch potatoes.
ARTICLE V: You do not have the right to free health care. That would be nice, but from the looks of public housing, we should be wary of public health care or public anything.
ARTICLE VI: You do not have the right to physically harm other people. If you kidnap, rape, intentionally maim, or kill someone, don't be surprised if the rest of us want to see you fry in the electric chair (yes, capital punishment).
ARTICLE VII: You do not have the right to the possessions of others. If you rob, cheat or coerce away the goods or services of other citizens, don't be surprised if the rest of us get together and lock you away in a place where you still won't have the right to a big screen color TV, pool tables, weight rooms or a life of leisure.
ARTICLE VIII: You don't have the right to a job. All of us sure want you to have a job, and will gladly help you along in hard times, but we expect you to take advantage of the opportunities of part time jobs, education and vocational training laid before you to make yourself useful.
ARTICLE IX: You do not have the right to happiness. Being an American means that you have the right to PURSUE happiness--which by the way, is a lot easier if you are not encumbered by an overabundance of idiotic laws created by those of you who were confused by the Bill of Rights.
ARTICLE X: This is an English speaking country. We don't care where you are from. We welcome you here. English is our language and like the one you left behind, w e also have a culture. Learn it or go back to the country and the living conditions you were fleeing.

On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 10:21:25 GMT, "dalecue"
  Quoted Text Here  
Fourteen Commandments of the Religious left Thou shalt not have no other god except thyself; after all, it's thy self exteem that counts. If thee don't love thee who will.
Thou shalt not make any graven image out of any substance which can not be recycled.
Thou shalt not take the name of liberals in criticism including feminists, racial minorities, or any person who thinks he is a victum of America.
Remember the anniversaries of Roe V Wade and Anita Hills testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee and keep them holy.
Honor thy mother if she's disfunctional it's thy fathers fault.
Thou shalt not kill. With these exceptions; life under the second trimester and those opting for medically assisted suicide.
Thou shall not commit adultery, unless thou aspire to high political office, use a condom, or thou cannot help it.
Thou shall not steal, unless thou art disadvantaged or upset with a California jury verdict.
Thou shalt not bear false witness, unless thou art discussing the history of the 1980's are campaigning for office, or can afford good legal council in the event thou art discovered and can ask the American people to pay thy legal bills.
Thou shalt not covet, thou shalt not desire, thou shalt not desire anthing. Unless thou art the victum of gender related oppression or art still angry with Reagan's tax cuts.
Always hide the truth about thyself.
Never admit who or what thou really art.
Always blame someone else for what thou doest even so far as to blame society.
Thou shalt oppose all punishment.
" ..The world has gone crazy. Guess I'm showing my age... I think it dates from when we started looking at virtues as funny. It's embarrassing to speak of honor, integrity, bravery, patriotism, 'doing the right thing', charity, fairness. You have Seinfeld making cowardice an acceptable choice; our politicians changing positions of honor with every poll; we laugh at servicemen and patriotic fervor; we accept corruption in our police and bias in our judges; we kill our children, and wonder why they have no respect for Life. We deny children their childhood and innocence- and then we denigrate being a Man, as opposed to a 'person'. We *assume* that anyone with a weapon will use it against his fellowman- if only he has the chance. Nah; in our agitation to keep the State out of the church business, we've destroyed our value system and replaced it with *nothing*. Turns my stomach- " Chas , rec.knives

On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 10:21:25 GMT, "dalecue"
  Quoted Text Here  
The Hypocritic Oath June 12, 2001 It's The Pitts By Lee Pitts I swear an oath on my honor as a hypocrite that... I will cuss cows but eat beef, blast miners but wear jewelry and drive a car but condemn oil companies. I don't want trees cut for any purpose other than to provide the lumber for my next house. As a Hollywood celebrity I assert my God given right to sire at least four children by three different wives and then protest about overpopulation in the world.
I will put fish first by saving the sucker and salmon, but not the farmers and ranchers who feed me. I demand that politicians and federal judges in Washington save all endangered species, except the small business man. I feel government is imminently qualified to micro- manage nature, after all, look what a smashing job they've done with the IRS, EPA, USDA, FBI, BLM and assorted other alphabet agencies.
As a self-righteous hypocrite it is my duty to celebrate Earth Day with barbecues and parades and by leaving tons of trash behind. I demand that feedlots and farms stop polluting our ground water. That privilege should be preserved for me every time I flush the contents of my toilet into a septic tank or the ocean.
I want to relocate grizzly bears and wolves to the West but not in my big-city backyard. After all, people live here! I give my permission for mountains lions to eat lambs but if a lion eats my dog or cat I demand the abominable beast be shot on sight.
I will cuss oil companies on talk radio and stand in the way of their drilling more wells while sitting in my gas guzzling SUV with the engine running. I will write letters to the editor on my computer castigating utility companies for not providing enough electricity. At the same time I will send money to green groups who want to tear down hydroelectric dams and stand in the way of any new power producing projects.
I avow at the next cocktail party I attend while smoking a cigarette and sipping a martini that I will sue the tobacco companies for causing my lung cancer.
Although I have never personally milked a cow or grown vegetables in a garden I demand to have a say on how farmers and ranchers do it. As a pompous hypocrite I demand that water, herbicides, and pesticides be taken away from farmers immediately, but I don't want it to affect the price, quantity or quality of the food I buy in the store. It is my strongly held conviction that we should ban all pesticides, except the can of bug spray I use to kill ants and other unwanted bugs in my home.
As a mealy-mouthed hypocrite I vow to help stop global warming by watching the Discovery Channel on my giant sized television in my air-conditioned house.
I assert that cattle pooping on our nation's grasslands is a national disgrace while fertilizing my urban lawn with steer manure and urea is simply good ecology. I will complain about fertilizer runoff from farms but not from golf courses because I happen to be a golfer.
I will hound hunters in the woods because they use guns despite the fact that hunting groups have increased habitat and wildlife numbers. I demand that the government end all timber cutting or recovery in our national forests but I'll cry like a singed coyote if the feds allow wildfires to burn near my house.
As a card-carrying hypocrite I disavow the use of fur, leather, wool and all animal by-products, except the ones used in medicine that might save my life. I demand labels be placed on all food products but not on a rock album that endorses killing cops.
Finally, as an arrogant and self-serving hypocrite I firmly believe that rural folks have done a terrible job of taking care of the countryside and they must do a better job because that's where I want to live or visit someday when I can escape the pollution, crime, and insanity of the barren big city in which I currently reside.
" ..The world has gone crazy. Guess I'm showing my age... I think it dates from when we started looking at virtues as funny. It's embarrassing to speak of honor, integrity, bravery, patriotism, 'doing the right thing', charity, fairness. You have Seinfeld making cowardice an acceptable choice; our politicians changing positions of honor with every poll; we laugh at servicemen and patriotic fervor; we accept corruption in our police and bias in our judges; we kill our children, and wonder why they have no respect for Life. We deny children their childhood and innocence- and then we denigrate being a Man, as opposed to a 'person'. We *assume* that anyone with a weapon will use it against his fellowman- if only he has the chance. Nah; in our agitation to keep the State out of the church business, we've destroyed our value system and replaced it with *nothing*. Turns my stomach- " Chas , rec.knives

On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 10:21:25 GMT, "dalecue"
  Quoted Text Here  
Rush's 35 Undeniable Truths
There is a distinct singular American culture - rugged individualism and self-reliance - which made America great.
The vast majority of the rich in this country did not inherit their wealth; they earned it. They are the country's achievers, producers, and job creators.
No nation has ever taxed itself into prosperity.
Evidence refutes liberalism.
There is no such thing as a New Democrat.
The Earth's eco-system is not fragile.
Character matters; leadership descends from character.
The most beautiful thing about a tree is what you do with it after you cut it down.
Ronald Reagan was the greatest president of the twentieth century.
The 1980s was not a decade of greed but a decade of prosperity; it was the longest period of peacetime growth in American history.
Abstinence prevents sexually transmitted disease and pregnancy - every time it's tried.
Condoms only work during the school year.
Poverty is not the root ("rut") cause of crime.
There's a simple way to solve the crime problem: obey the law; punish those who do not.
If you commit a crime, you are guilty.
Women should not be allowed on juries where the accused is a stud.
The way to improve our schools is not more money, but the reintroduction of moral and spiritual values, as well as the four "R's": reading, 'riting, 'rithmatic, and Rush.
I am not arrogant.
My first 35 Undeniable Truths are still undeniably true.
There is a God.
There is something wrong when critics say the problem with America is too much religion.
Morality is not defined by individual choice.
The only way liberals win national elections is by pretending they're not liberals.
Feminism was established as to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream of society.
Follow the money. When somebody says, "It's not the money," it's always the money.
Liberals attempt through judicial activism what they cannot win at the ballot box.
Using federal dollars as a measure, our cities have not been neglected, but poisoned with welfare dependency funds.
Progress is not striving for economic justice or fairness, but economic growth.
Liberals measure compassion by how many people are given welfare. Conservatives measure compassion by how many people no longer need it.
Compassion is no substitute for justice.
The culture war is between the winners and those who think they're losers who want to become winners. The losers think the only way they can become winners is by banding together all the losers and then empowering a leader of the losers to make things right for them.
The Los Angeles riots were not caused by the Rodney King verdict. The Los Angeles riots were caused by rioters.
You could afford your house without your government - if it weren't for your government.
Words mean things.
Too many Americans can't laugh at themselves anymore. " ..The world has gone crazy. Guess I'm showing my age... I think it dates from when we started looking at virtues as funny. It's embarrassing to speak of honor, integrity, bravery, patriotism, 'doing the right thing', charity, fairness. You have Seinfeld making cowardice an acceptable choice; our politicians changing positions of honor with every poll; we laugh at servicemen and patriotic fervor; we accept corruption in our police and bias in our judges; we kill our children, and wonder why they have no respect for Life. We deny children their childhood and innocence- and then we denigrate being a Man, as opposed to a 'person'. We *assume* that anyone with a weapon will use it against his fellowman- if only he has the chance. Nah; in our agitation to keep the State out of the church business, we've destroyed our value system and replaced it with *nothing*. Turns my stomach- " Chas , rec.knives

On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 10:21:25 GMT, "dalecue"
  Quoted Text Here  
George Washington
The man who is known to all Americans as "first in war, first in peace, and first in the hearts of his countrymen," gave us much sound advice on how to keep our independence and freedom. George Washington's advice is part of our American heritage that should be known to all our citizens.
#1 RELY ON GOD
When George Washington took the oath as first President of the United States on April 30, 1789, he added this four-word prayer of his own: "So help me God."
These words are still used in official oaths by Americans talking public office, in courts of justice, and in other legal proceedings. Washington's words show that he was a man who believed in asking God's help in every part of our private and public lives.
During the terrible times of the Revolutionary War, Washington repeatedly counseled his troops to put their faith and trust in God.
Here is one of his messages:
"The time is now near at hand which must probably determine, whether Americans are to be, freeman or slaves; whether they are to have any property they can call their own .... The fate of unborn millions will now depend, under God, on the courage and conduct of this army .... Let us therefore rely on the goodness of the cause and the aid of the Supreme Being, in whose hands victory is, to animate and encourage us to great and noble actions."
In his first Inaugural Address as President of the United States, Washington reverently acknowledged our country's dependence on Almighty God:
"It would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official act, my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the universe who presides in the council of nations - and whose providential aids can supply every human defect, that his benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the people of the United States, a government instituted by themselves for these essential purposes."
After serving as our President during probably the most important two terms in our history, Washington advised us again that religion and morality are necessary for good government. In his Farewell Address on September 19, 1796, he clearly said: "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports."
#2 HONESTY
George Washington was a man of great personal honesty. The famous story about Washington chopping down the cherry tree, and admitting it to his father with the words, "I cannot tell a lie," perfectly illustrates the character of the Father of Our Country. In his Farewell Address, Washington, having served our country in war and peace, gave his advice that we as a nation should be bound by the same rules of honor and honesty that should bind individuals. He said: "I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs that honesty is always the best policy."
As part of his belief that our nation should practice honesty, Washington urged that our Government always be honorable in money matters. He urged our country to borrow as little money as necessary and to avoid piling up a big debt. He realized that emergencies, such as unavoidable wars, would require us to borrow from time to time; but he urged that these debts be paid off as rapidly as possible. Washington said that failure to do this means we will be making our children pay the debts we ourselves should pay. Here are his words from his Farewell Address:
"Avoid likewise the accumulation of debt, not only by shunning occasions of expense, but by vigorous exertions in time of peace to discharge the debts which unavoidable wars have occasioned, not ungenerously throwing upon posterity the burden which we ourselves ought to bear."
#3 RESIST POLITICAL PRESSURES
Washington was well aware of how politicians are subjected to political and economic pressures which may persuade them to give up their principles, or to favor one group over another. In the midst of such pressures from all sides, Washington stood like a rock of strength and advised us how to keep to a standard of truth and justice. As President of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, Washington gave this advice to his fellow Delegates: "If to please the people, we offer what we ourselves disapprove, how can we afterwards defend our work? Let us raise a standard to which the wise and honest can repair; the event is in the hand of God." The men who followed Washington's Advice produced the United States Constitution, which has properly been called "the most wonderful work ever struck off at a given time by the brain and purpose of man."
#4 FORMULA FOR PEACE
George Washington was not only "first in war," but also "first in peace." He developed the best formula for keeping the peace that has ever been devised by man: the formula of discouraging the enemy from attack by making sure that he knows beforehand that America is ready for war. In his Fifth Annual Address to Congress, given in Philadelphia on December 3, 1793, Washington said:
"There is a rank due to the United States among nations, which will be withheld, if not absolutely lost, by the reputation of weakness. If we desire to avoid insult, we must be able to repel it; if we desire to secure the peace, one of the most powerful instruments of our rising prosperity, it must be known that we are at all times ready for war." Washington's advice on how best to keep the peace is thus in two parts: (1) we must be ready for war, and (2) just as important, the enemy must know we are ready.
#5 PRESERVE THE CONSTITUTION Washington realized that as our country grew, there would be "bad guys" who would try to seize powers they shouldn't have and change the wonderful plan for American freedom and independence set up by the Founding Fathers. On the other hand, he knew that some changes in the Constitution would be necessary from time to time. Washington advised us that these changes should be made only in the way the Constitution provides - and not in any other way. He said in his Farewell Address:
"If in the opinion of the people the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed."
Washington thus advised that we should be alert to protect the freedom of the people against men who try to take too much power in an unconstitutional way. Washington believed that "Government is like fire a good servant, but a dangerous master."
#6 LIBERTY MUST INCLUDE RESPONSIBILITY As a schoolboy, Washington wrote in his copybook: "Labor to keep alive in your breast that little spark of celestial fire - conscience."
Washington had risked everything he had in the Revolutionary struggle for liberty. But he knew that "liberty" does not mean license to do anything without restrictions. True liberty must include responsibility to conscience - to God and to country. In his Farewell Address, he advised us to give full support to our new Government: "Respect for its authority, compliance with its laws, acquiescence in its measures, are duties enjoined by the fundamental maxims of true liberty." #7 AVOID FOREIGN INFLUENCE Washington knew that European nations had been constantly involved in one war after another. He knew that their political and economic interests were not the same as ours. He knew also that various foreign nations would try constantly to extend their influence over the American Government and people. Washington believed that the only way for the United States to grow strong and keep her hard-won independence was to remain free from European wars, problems, and influence. In his Farewell Address, he said:
"History and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. " Washington predicted that foreign propaganda would operate inside and outside our Government. He warned that 'foreign influence' in our Government would even trick Americans about whom we can trust. He said in his Farewell Address:
"Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people to surrender their interests." #8 DON'T EXPECT FAVORS FROM NATIONS In advising us against becoming entangled with foreign problems, Washington warned us against giving favors to other nations in the hope of receiving favors in return. He warned that we will be "reproached with ingratitude for not giving them more," and we will have to "pay with a portion of our independence" for placing ourselves in such a position. He said in his Farewell Address:
"There can be no greater error than to expect or calculate upon real favors from nation to nation. It is an illusion which experience must cure, which a just pride ought to discard." #9 PATRIOTISM Washington was one of our greatest American patriots, and he demanded patriotism in the men who served with him in war and peace. Legend tells us that the night he crossed the Delaware, he gave the famous command: "Put none but Americans on guard tonight." Even though we cannot find this quotation in his published writings, it accurately represents his thinking. In his Farewell Address he advised all our citizens:
"The name of AMERICAN, which belongs to you in your national capacity,must always exalt the just pride of patriotism more than any appellation."
#10 THANKSGIVING TO GOD Washington advised Americans to set aside a day of public Thanksgiving to God for the great favors He has bestowed on our nation. On October 3, 1789 Washington proclaimed the first Thanksgiving Day - the first of a long series of presidential orders that have remained part of American life down to the present: "Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the Providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor, and whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint committee requested me to commend to the people of United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness, now therefore I do recommend and assign Thursday the 26th day of November next, to be devoted to the service of that great and glorious Being, Who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or will be." Home
Compiled by Phyllis Schlafly Eagle ForumTh
" ..The world has gone crazy. Guess I'm showing my age... I think it dates from when we started looking at virtues as funny. It's embarrassing to speak of honor, integrity, bravery, patriotism, 'doing the right thing', charity, fairness. You have Seinfeld making cowardice an acceptable choice; our politicians changing positions of honor with every poll; we laugh at servicemen and patriotic fervor; we accept corruption in our police and bias in our judges; we kill our children, and wonder why they have no respect for Life. We deny children their childhood and innocence- and then we denigrate being a Man, as opposed to a 'person'. We *assume* that anyone with a weapon will use it against his fellowman- if only he has the chance. Nah; in our agitation to keep the State out of the church business, we've destroyed our value system and replaced it with *nothing*. Turns my stomach- " Chas , rec.knives

On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 10:21:25 GMT, "dalecue"
  Quoted Text Here  
Of all the governments in all the countries in all the world, he had to screw up mine. Say no to liberalism because no one ever says, "I want to be a tyrant when I grow up." Vote Democrat, its easier than getting a job. Vote Democrat: because higher taxes are cool! Vote Democrat: The political party for double-standards. Vote Democrat because racism is okay as long as it is against white males and rich people. Liberals don't like reality, that's why they're liberals. All "smart" liberals know that every white male is a racist, sexist, homophobe. The Democratic Party is the political party for murderers, rapists, welfare junkies, and last and definitely worst: Bill Clinton. What do you get when you cross a crooked politician with a dishonest lawyer? Chelsea. There is no controlling legal authority to stop Bill Clinton because liberals don't have to answer to the law. Support the ACLU: Because Christians have too many God-Given liberties. Vote Democrat: Because Freedom and Responsibility just aren't working.
" ..The world has gone crazy. Guess I'm showing my age... I think it dates from when we started looking at virtues as funny. It's embarrassing to speak of honor, integrity, bravery, patriotism, 'doing the right thing', charity, fairness. You have Seinfeld making cowardice an acceptable choice; our politicians changing positions of honor with every poll; we laugh at servicemen and patriotic fervor; we accept corruption in our police and bias in our judges; we kill our children, and wonder why they have no respect for Life. We deny children their childhood and innocence- and then we denigrate being a Man, as opposed to a 'person'. We *assume* that anyone with a weapon will use it against his fellowman- if only he has the chance. Nah; in our agitation to keep the State out of the church business, we've destroyed our value system and replaced it with *nothing*. Turns my stomach- " Chas , rec.knives

On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 10:21:25 GMT, "dalecue"
  Quoted Text Here  
You were saying?
  Quoted Text Here  
http://gi.grolier.com/presidents/aae/side/waronp.html
WAR ON POVERTY
The War on Poverty, declared in the State of the Union address on Jan. 8, 1964, was the attempt of President Lyndon B. Johnson to break the cycle of poverty affecting nearly 35 million Americans. Economic expansion had reduced unemployment to 5.3 percent, but projections showed that 25 percent of young blacks were destined for a life of irregular employment. Johnson, having enacted the modest antipoverty program of his predecessor, John F. Kennedy, wanted his own, and directed Sargent Shriver to steer the development and passage of an omnibus bill.
Rejecting an alternative of direct subsidies, the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, signed into law by Johnson on Aug. 20, 1964, attempted to prepare the poor for successful competition in an expanding economy. It combined new and existing programs of services by professionals--VISTA, Neighborhood Youth Corps, Job Corps, College Work Study, and Head Start--with the novel Community Action Programs (CAP), designed to involve recipients with "maximum feasible participation." Shriver's Office of Economic Opportunity (OEO) was given authority to run its own programs and supervise related agencies. Funding for OEO, which was never adequate, was further reduced as spending for the Vietnam War increased. Thus, an extended structure, poorly financed, frustrated the rising expectations of the poor.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0109/p01s02-ussc.html?usaNav USA > Society & Culture from the January 09, 2004 edition
In war on poverty, early gains and a long stalemate
LBJ launched a major national battle 40 years ago this week.
By Peter Grier and Patrik Jonsson
WASHINGTON AND RALEIGH, N.C. – Sam Nicholson is broke. Things could be worse - he's got his own bed to sleep in, and food stamps help. But the retired cabbie's teeth need to come out, he's got little hope of seeing a dentist soon, and a cold wind is whistling outside Raleigh's Morgan Street soup kitchen. That's an actual cold wind, not a metaphorical one. Lately temperatures in Raleigh have been unusually low. "Matters are only getting worse in this country," says Mr. Nicholson. "People are losing jobs and can't afford medical help or insurance." Forty years ago this week, President Lyndon Baines Johnson declared an unconditional war on poverty in America. Today that war is not over, and there's a question as to whether the US or poverty has the upper hand.
Big-screen TVs are blowing out the doors of retailers, but 34 million Americans still live below the poverty line. The US GDP is roaring ahead, but the nation still has the worst child-poverty rate in the industrialized world. Still, some in the front ranks say they haven't given up hope. This is one fight where there may be a certain kind of victory in the struggle.
"If the question is, 'Are we winning this war?' I'd say yes," says retired lawyer Bob Slaughter, who cooks and serves at Morgan Street. ""Every day that one of these folks doesn't have to go hungry, we're winning."
In his State of the Union address on Jan. 8, 1964, LBJ both proposed a legislative program and challenged the country. The legislative war on poverty was to be a multipoint program aimed at getting Washington, the states, and local authorities to work together. It included a massive expansion of the food-stamp program, job training, youth employment, and special aid for Appalachia, among other things. Hospital insurance for the elderly - today's Medicare - was part of the effort.
The challenge was an appeal for cooperation at all levels of US politics to help solve a truly national problem. "If we fail ... then history will rightly judge us harshly," said Johnson.
Almost forgotten today is the fact that, at the same time he proposed a war on poverty, LBJ also pledged to reduce overall federal spending by $500 million, in an effort to win conservatives' votes.
Furthermore, he made his pitch at a time when poverty was actually declining, from 22.4 percent in 1959 to about 19 percent at the time of his address.
Still, the next few years saw the nation make its greatest gains since the end of the Depression against an intractable human problem. The poverty rate fell steadily for almost a decade, bottoming out at 11.1 percent in 1973.
And that was it. Since then, the poverty rate has seesawed up and down, largely following the state of the economy. It hit highs of 15.2 percent in 1983 and 15.1 percent in 1993. It declined in the go-go 1990s, then began rising again: In 2002, the latest full year for which the Census Bureau has figures, it was 12.1 percent. That's almost 35 million people in poverty, 12.1 million of them children.
ADAM WEISKIND - STAFF SOURCE: US CENSUS BUREAU
Some parts of the Great Society war on poverty, such as Medicare, remain among modern US government's most popular and successful efforts. Others have withered away.
In fact, recent years have seen a major attitudinal shift in how Washington approaches the problem of driving down stubborn poverty numbers. Where LBJ's approach focused on cash assistance along with other benefits such as food stamps, today the main thrust of government programs is to get poor people into private-sector jobs.
Welfare reform, passed in 1996, is the symbol of this change. Under this bill, if aid recipients don't get a job within a certain time frame, they generally lose most cash benefits. Ten years on, welfare rolls have declined remarkably, though they've begun rising again in some states.
"The effects of reform are moderately clear at this point. They are overwhelmingly positive, if not entirely so," said Lawrence Mead, a New York University professor of politics, at a recent Brookings conference.
Yet the system presents tough new problems, such as how to raise the incomes of ex-welfare mothers in entry-level jobs, and how to get ex-welfare fathers more involved with their kids.
And as even Professor Mead noted, not all experts are satisfied with the perceived morality of the new system. At the same conference, Harvard public policy professor Mary Jo Bane - who resigned from the Clinton administration in protest over the '96 bill - said she did not object to pressuring the poor to work. She did object, she said, to how the safety net of other kinds of benefits, such as housing supports, was damaged in the process.
When it comes to helping the poor, said Professor Bane, morality demands that the government "err on the side of generosity."
Back at the Morgan Street soup kitchen, there's a festive air in the cafeteria, as groups huddle together and eat. It's not Paris, but there are magnolias on every table and music from an out-of-tune upright piano. Willard Duncan admits that many poor people are bitter about their plight. But not this Vietnam vet. "There's always more that people can do to help other people," he says. "I just thank God I was born in America."
http://www.npr.org/display_pages/features/feature_1589660.html Jan. 8, 2004 -- Forty years ago today in his first State of the Union speech, President Lyndon B. Johnson declared a "War On Poverty." Johnson's declaration came just weeks after succeeding to the White House upon the assassination of John F. Kennedy.
Making poverty a national concern set in motion a series of bills and acts, creating programs such as Head Start, food stamps, work study, Medicare and Medicaid, which still exist today. The programs initiated under Johnson brought about real results, reducing rates of poverty and improved living standards for America's poor.
But the poverty rate has remained steady since the 1970s and today, Americans have allowed poverty to fall off the national agenda, says Sheldon Danziger, a professor of public policy at the University of Michigan.
http://www.thepublicinterest.com/archives/2000summer/article2.html
Percentage of US populaton on Welfare since 1960 http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/news/stats/6097rf.htm
http://www.heartland.org/archives/ia/julaug95/welfare.htm July/August 1995: Welfare
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How Much Does the Welfare State Really Cost? by Robert Rector & James Hirni As the national debate on welfare reform continues to dominate the 104th Congressional agenda, policymakers should recognize one overriding fact: the War on Poverty has failed. It has been thirty years since President Lyndon Johnson launched his "unconditional war." But in most respects, the problems of the poor, the underclass, and the inner city actually have gotten worse, not better, in the subsequent years.
That failure is not due to a lack of government spending. In 1993 alone, federal, state, and local governments spent $324 billion on means-tested welfare programs for low-income Americans. Current welfare spending is so large it is difficult to comprehend. One way to make it more tangible is to recognize that, on average, the cost of the welfare system amounted to $3,357 in taxes from each household that paid federal income tax in 1993.
The U.S. welfare system is defined as the sum total of government programs explicitly designed to assist poor and low-income Americans. The federal government currently runs over 75 interrelated and overlapping welfare programs. These include: cash aid programs, medical aid programs, housing aid programs, energy aid programs, jobs and training programs, targeted and means-tested education programs, social service programs, and urban and community development programs. Of all of those welfare programs, 48 percent of the total welfare spending was devoted to medical programs. Cash programs took 22.1 percent. Food, housing, and energy programs comprised 18.8 percent of the total, while education aid, job training, social services, and urban and community aid accounted for 11.1 percent. Along with those federally subsidized programs, many states operate independent state-run programs.
The combination of federal and state welfare spending has made welfare the third largest category of total government spending, ranking below the top category of combined Social Security and Medicare costs, and the second category of government education spending, but above spending on national defense. In 1993, government spending on Social Security (including Old Age and Survivor's Insurance and Disability Insurance) was $304.5 billion. Medicare costs added another $115 billion, bringing total combined Social Security costs to $419.5 billion. While Social Security and Medicare combined remain the number one government spending item in the U.S., welfare spending now amounts to 75 cents for every $1 spent on Social Security and Medicare.
In fiscal year 1992, total government welfare spending exceeded spending on national defense for the first time since the Great Depression of the 1930s. By FY 1993, welfare spending by all levels of government had reached $324 billion compared with $291 billion spent for defense (see chart).
Moreover, there is not even the faintest glimmer of light at the end of the tunnel for spending on the War on Poverty. According to Congressional Budget Office figures, under existing law total annual federal welfare spending will rise from $272.1 billion in 1995 to $387.3 billion in the year 2000. The federal government will spend $1.69 trillion on welfare aid during the five-year period from 1996-2000.
Under current law, combined federal and state welfare spending will rise from $378.7 billion in 1995 to $551.7 billion in the year 2000. Together federal and state governments will spend $2.38 trillion on welfare during the next five years.
If advocates of welfare reform are to accomplish their goals--reducing illegitimacy rates, establishing reciprocity and work demands, and promoting a sense of moral renewal among welfare recipients--the debate itself must be based on capping the growth of welfare spending and ending welfare as an entitlement. It's time to put the welfare system on a diet. ********************************* Naw...lets just toss some more money at the problem..Im sure if we spend enough..we can solve the problem real soon.
Gunner
" ..The world has gone crazy. Guess I'm showing my age... I think it dates from when we started looking at virtues as funny. It's embarrassing to speak of honor, integrity, bravery, patriotism, 'doing the right thing', charity, fairness. You have Seinfeld making cowardice an acceptable choice; our politicians changing positions of honor with every poll; we laugh at servicemen and patriotic fervor; we accept corruption in our police and bias in our judges; we kill our children, and wonder why they have no respect for Life. We deny children their childhood and innocence- and then we denigrate being a Man, as opposed to a 'person'. We *assume* that anyone with a weapon will use it against his fellowman- if only he has the chance. Nah; in our agitation to keep the State out of the church business, we've destroyed our value system and replaced it with *nothing*. Turns my stomach- " Chas , rec.knives

On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 10:21:25 GMT, "dalecue"
  Quoted Text Here  
Which reminds me..lets toss some more money on education and maybe we can have graduates who can read their diplomas. NEA..hummm isnt that packed chock full of Democrats and Liberals?
http://www.publicpurpose.com/pp-edpp.htm
http://pub60.ezboard.com/fourchildrenleftbehindfrm14.showMessage?topicID `.topic September 16, 2003 (U.S. Tops School Spending, Not Scores) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- story.news.yahoo.com/news...n_compared
U.S. Tops in School Spending, Not Scores By BEN FELLER, AP Education Writer
WASHINGTON - Given its investment in education, the United States isn't getting the return it expects when compared with the performance of other nations, a report shows.
Among more than 25 industrialized nations, no country spends more public and private money to educate each student than the United States, according to an annual review by the Paris-based Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
But American 15-year-olds scored in the middle of the pack in math, reading and science in 2000, and the nation's high-school graduation rate was below the world average in 2001.
"The countries that spend more tend to be the countries that do better. But ... it's not a perfect relationship," said Barry McGaw, the organization's education director. "There are countries which don't get the bang for the bucks. And the U.S. is one of them."
<snip>
http://www.edweek.org/ew/newstory.cfm?slug &mcas.h21
http://www.mackinac.org/article.asp?ID 7
http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2003/oct03/03-10-29.shtml More Children Left Behind Oct. 29, 2003
A gaudy sign reading No Child Left Behind, the education slogan of the Bush Administration, guards the entrance to the U.S. Department of Education in Washington, D.C. The more-than-a-thousand-page NCLB education law, enacted at the beginning of last year with bipartisan flourish, combined a big increase in spending to please the Democrats with conservative buzzwords to please Republicans such as "standards," "tests," and "accountability." If no child is to be left behind, why are so many students flunking and being left behind in failing schools? Why are schools in an uproar all over the country, with complaints coming from parents, teachers and students?
The answer is plain for anyone to see. The mandated tests reveal the painful truth that the nation's schools are not providing a quality education, even though the taxpayers are paying a per-child rate that rivals expensive private schools.
Since the penalties for not complying with NCLB requirements are severe, states and school districts have devised ingenious methods to avoid the sanctions. The Texas State Board of Education reduced the number of questions students must answer correctly to pass the third- grade reading test from 24 to 20 out of 36.
http://www.cse.org/informed/issues_template.php?issue_id 90
A Chance for Freedom?s Advance Let's put freedom to work in public education. Liberals love the idea of the federal government spending lots of money on public education. The more money the better, and for the most part liberals have succeeded in getting more federal money for education. Since 1980, federal funding for education has grown an astounding 228 percent ? a good track record if your goal is to maximize federal spending. The problem is, liberals don?t care if the spending actually goes towards better educating children. More education spending has not resulted in higher test scores.
Nowhere is this truer than in the public school system in the District of Columbia, arguably the worst public schools in the country. The Washington, DC public school system is failing real children, whose shot at the American Dream are threatened by the incompetence of the schools. At Anacostia Senior High School, 69 percent of the students read at a ?below basic? level. 91 percent of the students? math skills are below basic. At Cardozo Senior High, 64 percent read at a below basic level and 90 percent are below basic in Math. At Dunbar the numbers are 61 percent below basic for reading and 92 percent for math. These sad numbers repeat themselves at almost every public high school in the District of Columbia. In fact, at only one public high school in the District can the majority of the students read at above the ?below basic? level. If this is not a school system that is failing, than what is the meaning of failure?
Take a guess what the liberals? solution is to this human tragedy? That?s right, they want more money for the District public schools. Of course, Washington, D.C. already spends $9,650 per pupil a year, which is more than $3,000 above the national average. If spending were the issue, DC would have a top-notch education system.
Michigan officials lowered from 75 to 46 the percentage of students who must pass statewide high school English tests in order to certify a school as making adequate progress. Colorado restructured its grading system, lumping "partially proficient" with "proficient" students.
It's not only students who are judged by test scores; it's the schools, too. The No Child Left Behind Act requires schools to score higher on standardized tests each year, and also requires every racial and demographic group to show improvement.
If any group fails to report higher scores for two consecutive years, a school is labeled "needing improvement." A school that does not improve its scores after being so labeled can have its principal and teachers replaced or even be closed by the state.
Parents, teachers and taxpayers are shocked to learn that the first year's results are showing an extraordinarily high percentage of schools to be so labeled. At least 60 percent of North Carolina schools and 75 percent of Louisiana schools are expected to be so labeled.
One of the sanctions imposed on failing schools is to give students the option of transferring to another school. Los Angeles and Chicago officials are meeting this challenge by approving very few transfers, citing overcrowding concerns. New York City went ahead and approved 8,000 transfer requests, but a third of the students have been moved from one "failing" school to another.
Under the NCLB law, schools with low graduation rates risk being designated as "failing." Schools can manipulate the figures with "pushouts," students who are pressured to leave school long before graduation in order to improve its statistics.
During the 2000-2001 year, New York City schools graduated 34,000 students, while discharging 55,000 high school students. The discharges included students who moved away or transferred to private schools, but it is easy to hide thousands of "pushouts" in the "transfer" category.
The NCLB law allows transfers from schools designated as "persistently dangerous." The states can set the threshold for this label, but 44 states plus the District of Columbia have set the threshold so high that none of their schools fits the definition.
The six other states (New Jersey, New York, Nevada, Oregon, Pennsylvania and Texas) have identified 52 schools as dangerous. That's just 52 out of the 90,000 U.S. public schools where 700,000 violent crimes took place in 2000 (the last year for which government statistics are available).
The vision of No Child Left Behind is to close the gap between higher-achieving students and minorities. It's a noble goal, in President Bush's words, to end the "soft bigotry" of low expectations.
Yet it appears that no strategies introduced so far have done much to close that gap. The liberals' solution is always to throw more money at the problem, and billions of dollars have been spent through the Title I program.
A new study by the American Enterprise Institute called "Closing the Education Gap: Is Title I Working?" compared the scores of individual Title I students with the scores of similar students who did not receive Title I benefits. The researchers found no evidence that Title I programs had improved the recipients' academic performance.
Of course, despite a 20-year record of failure, Title I funding was reauthorized in the NCLB Act. Federal spending on education has grown by $11 billion since President Bush took office.
The tests mandated by NCLB have ripped back the curtain and exposed a major national problem. How about trying some innovative solutions to introduce competition into the monopoly system, such as giving parents choice over which courses and which teachers they want for their children?
The N.E.A.'s Political Agenda The National Education Association is becoming increasingly strident and incorrect in its statements, critics charge. Moreover, the teachers' union is doing little to hide its controversial political agenda -- which some 40 percent of its members oppose.
Here are a few examples:
To attack the voucher school movement, the N.E.A. recently published a book which claimed to be "the most comprehensive report to date of an ultraconservative network that is pursuing an aggressive political agenda nationwide, including a 'state-by-state assault on public education.'"
The publication links the aims of school choice supporters with legislation and ballot initiatives that would require unions to get the permission of a member before the member's dues could be spent on politics -- so-called paycheck protection proposals.
In California, the N.E.A. and its state affiliate spent $9 million on a successful effort to beat Proposition 226 -- which would have required them to get members' permission for those expenditures in the future.
N.E.A. President Bob Chase claimed in a "Firing Line" debate that tuition for private schools average something like $12,000 a year -- but a 1996 Cato Institute study put the figure at $3,116, with 67 percent of all private schools charging $2,500 or less. The N.E.A. continues to claim private schools would skim off the best students and leave public schools with disabled and at-risk students. But more than 100,000 special education students already attend private schools at public expense, according to U.S. Education Department figures. And at least seven states contract with private schools to handle at-risk students.
Source: Pete du Pont (National Center for Policy Analysis), "Grand Conspiracy to Educate Children?" Washington Times, November 3, 1998.
http://www.focusoneducation.com/teachers/news/a0002040.html
<snip> "Yet, recent evidence reveals the NEA for what it is: a powerful labor union surreptitiously committed to increasing its political power. Once upon a time, the NEA concerned itself primarily with representing its members’ interests, but the union’s political agenda has now supplanted even that.
The recent evidence began last year with the Landmark Legal Foundation’s complaint to the IRS. Landmark Legal charged the NEA used tax-exempt funds for political purposes and extensively coordinated campaign activities with the Democratic National Committee (DNC). If a non-profit organization expends funds for political purposes, they must report it to the IRS and pay taxes. Landmark Legal contends the NEA did neither. Landmark Legal continued its whistle blowing this year with a similar complaint filed with the Department of Labor.
The reason for the NEA’s alleged failure to report the political expenditures transcends simple tax evasion. In fact, the real reason strikes at the heart of the NEA’s source of political power—money. If the NEA spent members’ dues for political purposes, union members would be entitled to a refund, just as the NEA’s Washington State affiliate had to do earlier this year.
But there’s more. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) slapped down the NEA for its harassment of religious objectors. Under the Civil Rights Act of 1974, people of faith may divert forced union dues to a charity of their choice if their religious convictions diverge with those of their union. Recognizing the implications of losing those funds, the NEA put religious objectors through an inquisition of sorts to prevent losses. With the EEOC’s decision, the NEA could be hauled into court if it fails to stop its harassment.
On the heels of this announcement came news from Washington State that a county judge unwisely gave the NEA’s state affiliate more leeway to conduct political activities on public school property. The judge ruled that restricting on-campus political activity violated the First Amendment.
<snip>
Snicker.. now know why I hold Liberals in such contempt?
Gunner
" ..The world has gone crazy. Guess I'm showing my age... I think it dates from when we started looking at virtues as funny. It's embarrassing to speak of honor, integrity, bravery, patriotism, 'doing the right thing', charity, fairness. You have Seinfeld making cowardice an acceptable choice; our politicians changing positions of honor with every poll; we laugh at servicemen and patriotic fervor; we accept corruption in our police and bias in our judges; we kill our children, and wonder why they have no respect for Life. We deny children their childhood and innocence- and then we denigrate being a Man, as opposed to a 'person'. We *assume* that anyone with a weapon will use it against his fellowman- if only he has the chance. Nah; in our agitation to keep the State out of the church business, we've destroyed our value system and replaced it with *nothing*. Turns my stomach- " Chas , rec.knives

snipped-for-privacy@lightspeed.net says...
<snip post, stare in awe at Gunner's flood of counter- postings>
  Quoted Text Here  
WOWSER! Where did you GET all this stuff from?
FW, quite impressed

On 18 Jan 2004 14:57:40 GMT, fwhite*NOSPAM*@colfax.com (Frank White) wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
I keep a library. Knowledge is power.
Gunner
" ..The world has gone crazy. Guess I'm showing my age... I think it dates from when we started looking at virtues as funny. It's embarrassing to speak of honor, integrity, bravery, patriotism, 'doing the right thing', charity, fairness. You have Seinfeld making cowardice an acceptable choice; our politicians changing positions of honor with every poll; we laugh at servicemen and patriotic fervor; we accept corruption in our police and bias in our judges; we kill our children, and wonder why they have no respect for Life. We deny children their childhood and innocence- and then we denigrate being a Man, as opposed to a 'person'. We *assume* that anyone with a weapon will use it against his fellowman- if only he has the chance. Nah; in our agitation to keep the State out of the church business, we've destroyed our value system and replaced it with *nothing*. Turns my stomach- " Chas , rec.knives

Gunner wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
Are you implying that you have power? That reminds me of a Margaret Thatcher quote: "Being powerful is like being a lady. If you have to tell people you are, you aren't." She should be at least someone you like, being conservative and all.
If you know so much, how come you're so powerless?
Other than the power you may have from all those guns of course, you have no power.
Chairman Mao did say: "All political power comes out of the barrel of a gun." Individuals do not have political power, only governments do. Abrasha http://www.abrasha.com

  Quoted Text Here  
Hamei, Is this true...??
Later, Mike
"That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other." Virginia Constitution 1776

Santa Cruz Mike wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
Every Communist must grasp the truth, "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun."
"Problems of War and Strategy" (November 6, 1938), Selected Works, Vol. II, p. 224.
Abrasha http://www.abrasha.com

Abrasha wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
Read it for yourself at: http://www.maoism.org/msw/vol2/mswv2_12.htm
Abrasha http://www.abrasha.com

Abrasha wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
Oh, I almost forgot, the quote was also part of "Quotations of Chairman Mao" (The Red Book). Which is where I got it.
http://www.maoism.org/msw/redbook/quotes_idx.htm
It's in Chapter 5: War and Peace
Abrasha http://www.abrasha.com

On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 05:47:30 GMT, the renowned Abrasha
  Quoted Text Here  
I've heard it translated as "out of the barrel of a gun grows political power", which is really quite different from *ALL* political power grows from the barrel of a gun.
Best regards, Spehro Pefhany

On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 06:01:52 GMT, Spehro Pefhany
  Quoted Text Here  
That translation does add a beauty and power to the statement.
"That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, and not by force or violence, and therefore all men, have an equal, natural and unalienable right to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience, and that no particular religious sect or society ought to be favoured, or established by law in preference to others. Rhode Island Constitution 1776

wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
I wouldn't trust any translation that sounded like good English ... Spehro's sounds more accurate to me, but I'd have to go buy a little red book to know for sure. I got one to send to gunner, but Garibaldi probably forgot to mail it, No biggy :-)
Anyway, the statement is kinda obvious. Would anyone pay the IRS if they didn't have guns ?