Our Books

If you enjoy this site, please consider purchasing one of our books (as low as $2.99). Click here to visit our Amazon page.

Our Books

Our Books
Books by Trevor Grant Thomas and Michelle Fitzpatrick Thomas

E-Mail Me:

NOTE: MY EMAIL ADDRESS HAS CHANGED! Trevor's new email address: trevorgrantthomas@gmail.com

Latest News/Commentary

Latest News/Commentary:

News/Commentary Archives:

News/Commentary Archives (for the current year; links to previous years archives at the bottom of each page)---PLUS: Trevor's Columns Archived (page linked at the bottom of the table below):
Showing posts with label poverty. Show all posts
Showing posts with label poverty. Show all posts

Monday, August 5, 2019

Baltimore Needs Revival, Not More “Reparations”

To be fair, as far as I know, no one has (yet) directly blamed the blight of Baltimore on slavery and the lack of reparations. However, one could consider the billions trillions of dollars in taxpayer funds already spent on places like Baltimore a form of reparations. In that case, it should be clear that more money from the government is not going to fix places like Baltimore.

Ever since Lyndon Johnson and the Democrat Party gave us the infamous promises of the “Great Society”—which was supposed to result in “the total elimination of poverty and racial injustice”—for decades, liberals across the U.S. have promised minorities—especially black Americans—that if they would only vote for democrats, life would be better. Fifty-five years, dozens of welfare programs, and $20-plus trillion later, modern democrats are still making the same empty promises. Even Charles Barkley sees the folly of this.

Lyndon Johnson’s famous speech touting the Great Society was the commencement address at the University of Michigan in May of 1964. It was before a massive audience of about 90,000 people. The Michigan Quarterly Review published the text of the speech. The tagline at the top of the page boldly declared the purpose of the Great Society: “To Prevent an Ugly America.”

Whether we’re talking about Baltimore, Detroit, Seattle, the homeless-lined streets of Los Angeles, the poop-filled streets of San Francisco, or the violent streets of Antifa-plagued Portland, I think everyone in his right mind can agree on how “ugly” much of America still remains—especially urban America.

What’s more, after all those programs and all that money, many U.S. cities are in much worse condition than before the Great Society was ever launched. As Ellie Bufkin—a former resident of Baltimore who refers to the city as her “cherished hometown”—recently and shockingly noted at The Federalist, “Baltimore’s homicide rate is so high that under current U.S. asylum laws, the residents could qualify for refugee status in the United States.” In other words, like so many other U.S. municipalities dominated by decades of democrat rule, Baltimore currently qualifies as one of the world’s “crapholes.”

As most well know, the Great Society gave us the so-called “War on Poverty.” More so than any other “conflict” in which the U.S. has been involved, the War on Poverty has, to a great extent, been an “abject failure.” As Edwin Feulner at The Heritage Foundation put it in 2014,
[T]he War on Poverty is an abject failure. As social critic Irving Kristol has observed, “the welfare state came gradually to be seen less as a helping hand to those in need, a ‘safety net,’ and more as a communal exercise in compassion toward an ever-expanding portion of the population.”
And yes, as Baltimore well illustrates, this “war” has had its casualties—including the loss of human life. As was reported last year, the vast majority of murders in the U.S. occur in a very small portion of the country. More than half of all murders in the U.S. occurred within just two percent of the counties. Over two-thirds (68 percent) of the murders in America occurred within only five percent of the counties.

Almost all of these counties are in large urban areas, where federal funds have flowed like lies from a liberal and where democrats have had virtually unhindered political rule for decades. As was noted a few years ago—and remains the case today—virtually all of the most dangerous cities in the U.S. have been dominated by democrats.

This danger has especially impacted the black community. Shockingly, the CDC reveals that for U.S. black males ages 15 to 34 the leading cause of death is homicide. What’s more, for American black males who die between the ages of 15 and 24, half of such deaths are from homicide. As has been often reported (but also often ignored), the vast majority (over 90%) of these homicides are the result of black-on-black violence.

Though one would never know it from the words of the race pimps that are so common among the left-wing media and the Democrat Party, such violence is of far more concern than any so-called systemic “racism” among the police. A recent study—that hasn’t received near the publicity it should have—reveals that the narrative that “racist” police are disproportionately killing black Americans to be the lie that many of us already knew it to be.

In the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, researchers from the University of Maryland and Michigan State University concluded:
We did not find evidence for anti-Black or anti-Hispanic disparity in the police use of force across all shootings, and, if anything, found anti-White disparities when controlling for race-specific crime.
In other words, the riots we’ve seen in Baltimore, Ferguson, and the like are little more than “ugly” political theater fueled by lies from the left.

Nothing the modern left has to offer is going fix places like Baltimore. This is because what’s truly ailing Baltimore (and the like) defies a political solution, and the left is about little more than politics.

Like so many other dirty, crime-ridden areas, one of the biggest problems—if not the biggest problem—is the breakdown of the family. Along with never being able to fix such a problem, much to the contrary, the politics of the left is complicit in the destruction of the family in urban America. As The Heritage Foundation also notes,
The War on Poverty created negative incentives. Instead of promoting the growth of healthy families, the welfare system discouraged them. A single mother could receive larger payments from Uncle Sam by remaining single than by marrying the father of her child.

Over time, many fatherless children entered the world. The welfare checks showed up month after month, regardless of how their parents spent their days. As these boys and girls grew up without fathers around, they came to regard such households as natural. The social safety net, designed to be a temporary help to the people in need, instead kept them trapped in government dependency.
To end this dependency on government—on democrats—urban America must repent and return to the truth when it comes to marriage, the family, and the like. They must stop killing the unborn and stop listening to the lies of the left. To borrow from the deceived Marianne Williamson, urban America needs to awaken from their “dark days” and come to the light. For this, they need a revival.

(See this column at American Thinker.)

Copyright 2019, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
www.trevorgrantthomas.com
Trevor is the author of the The Miracle and Magnificence of America
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

Friday, August 26, 2011

Are We Too Fat or Too Hungry?

I’m confused (no jokes, please). The Obama administration and the mainstream media really need to work on coordinating their message better. I mean, usually memos and pressers from the White House, the pages of the New York Times, LA Times, and Washington Post (et al), and the broadcasts of ABC, CBS, and NBC are nearly indistinguishable. Thus, this recent piece from ABC news left me rather perplexed.

According to the story, “Every day, children in every county in the United States wake up hungry. They go to school hungry. They turn out the lights at night hungry…To put it another way, one in four children in the (U.S.) is living without consistent access to enough nutritious food to live a healthy life.”

Yet, barely a year ago, in February of 2010, the Washington Times revealed that “Nearly one-third of U.S. children are overweight or obese — a rate that has tripled among adolescents and doubled in younger children over the past 30 years. In addition, one-third of children born in 2000 or later eventually will suffer from diabetes, according to the White House.”

Thus we end up with Michelle Obama involved in policy and get bombarded with messages of “Let’s Move!” We also end up with school systems telling children that they can’t bring their own lunch to school.

So, in barely a year we’ve gone from one-third of all U.S. children being overweight or obese, to one-fourth of them continuously being hungry (and three-fourths of all U.S. high school students can’t correctly place in least-to-greatest order the three fractions I just used, but I digress). No wonder C.S. Lewis bemoaned, “Lord! How I loathe great issues…Could one start a Stagnation Party— which at General Elections would boast that during its term of office no event of the least importance had taken place?”

And who is better at creating, or at least dictating, the “great issues” than liberals within the U.S. federal government? The aforementioned report trumpeted by ABC was on the subject of a study funded by ConAgra Foods, which was “based on 2009 statistics compiled by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.”

If one wants more government, the quickest way to such an end is to create a “crisis” that only government can solve. After all, there is no way that we can fight obesity and hunger without the government, right? Evidently not, because, again according to the ABC report, “a shocking 49 percent of all babies born in the U.S. are born to families receiving food supplements from the WIC program,” which is operated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

To qualify for WIC, women, or families, with children under 5 must have a household income that is less than 185% of the federal poverty guidelines. Why not 175% or 150%? What government bean counter decided 185% was the magic number?

Speaking of the federal poverty limit, according to the U.S. census, 30 million Americans are living in poverty. That’s about one in ten Americans. What does it mean to live in poverty in the U.S.? According to a recent Heritage Foundation report, which used the government’s own data, the average household in America that “lives in poverty” has air conditioning, cable TV, a microwave, and a washer and dryer. They also have a car, two color televisions, a DVD player, and if a child is in the home, an electronic game system.

Not quite the emaciated African we’ve often seen in those moving television ads, is it? But that’s what happens when we allow our secular federal government to define things. That’s what happens when we give the purse strings of a trillion dollar kitty to professional politicians. That’s how we end up with the conflicting, confusing, and asinine messages of “fight obesity, but not too hard!” It’s how far too many politicians buy votes and create a perpetual and seemingly unending culture of dependency on government.

I know! Perhaps we need a government agency to prevent contradictory federal programs. We could call it the Washington Institute to Stop Everything Undertaken by Progressives, or W.I.S.E. U.P., for short. To work there, one would have to be able to identify at least 50 oxymoronic federal behaviors. Their motto would be, “The Bucks Stop With Us!”

(See this column on American Thinker.)

Copyright 2011, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com