Why Rambam hated dependency and liberal ideas are counterproductive. They hurt the needy

Poverty Up for Those of Working Age Since 'War on Poverty'

The percentage of Americans ages 18 to 64 who live below the poverty line has risen by 30.5 percent since 1966, two years after President Lyndon Johnson declared the War on Poverty, according to the latest U.S. Census Bureau data.

"We have declared unconditional war on poverty," Johnson declared in 1964. "Our objective is total victory. I believe that 30 years from now Americans will look back on these 1960s as the time of the great American breakthrough toward the victory of prosperity over poverty."

But a report from the House Budget Committee, "The War on Poverty: 50 Years Later," states: "Today, in the aftermath of the Great Recession, we are once again debating the best way to help the least among us.

"On this important anniversary, we should take stock of the federal government's anti-poverty programs — and figure out why we have yet to achieve the 'total victory' Johnson predicted."

According to the Census Bureau, 13.7 percent of those ages 18 to 64 — 26,497,000 people — were living below the poverty line in 2012. In 1966, 10.5 percent of that age group — 11,007,000 people out of 105,241,000 — were living below the poverty line. (The Census did not report data for this demographic in 1965 and 1966.)

From 10.5 percent to 13.7 percent is an increase of 30.5 percent.

An average family of four was considered poor in 2012 if its pre-tax cash income for the year was below $23,492.

That threshold reflects "crude estimates of the amount of money individuals or families, of various size and composition, need per year to purchase a basket of goods and services deemed as 'minimally adequate,'" according to the Congressional Research Service.

The Budget Committee report noted that "during his administration, Lyndon Johnson expanded the size and scope of assistance programs to an unprecedented degree. The Great Society created or made permanent a number of programs that remain with us today" — including Medicaid, food stamps, Head Start, Job Corps, Volunteers in Service to America, and child-nutrition programs.

But today, the federal government's anti-poverty programs are "duplicative and complex," the committee observed.

"There are at least 92 federal programs designed to help lower-income Americans. For instance, there are dozens of education and job-training programs, 17 different food-aid programs, and over 20 housing programs."

The federal government spent nearly $800 billion on these programs in fiscal year 2012 alone, including $300 billion on healthcare, $200 billion on cash aid, $100 billion on food aid, $90 billion on education and job training, and $50 billion on housing.

Despite the massive spending in the last five decades, the overall poverty rate has gone down only a few percentage points, from 17.3 percent in 1965 to 15 percent in 2012.

"Perhaps the single most important determinant of poverty is family structure," the committee reported, adding that "poverty is most concentrated among broken families. For all families, the poverty rate was 13.1 percent. But 34.2 percent of families headed by a single female were considered below poverty, and 22.8 percent of households composed of [unmarried] individuals were considered to be in poverty."

In 1960, 70 percent of black children and 97 percent of white children were born to married couples. Today, just 30 percent of black children and 76 percent of white children are born to a married couple.

Lie Lie lie treachery treachery treachery of Obama etc.

Can Obama say anything truthful? (you can keep your doctor and health plan + I had no knowledge of scandal a, b, c, d, e, f)

Now he, Pelosi., Reid, Debbi Washerman Shultz etc keep lying
1. Say Bergdahl was a POW. LIE. never was. He as at best a deserter and probably a traitor. Just discovered he converted to Islam and considered himself WARRIOR for ISLAM!
2. Says he was imminent health danger LIE  never was in health danger
3. Says he was hero. LIE. He deserted his post, and his fellow soldiers say probably helped taliban
4. Dem leaders suggesting unanimous view of his fellow soldiers that he deserted is a Republican political effort. Come on!
5. Treachery released 5 top terrorist leaders and now idiot Dems saying we are SAFER with them out of Gitmo then in.
6. 8 soldiers lost lives looking for this deserter. How many more Americans will die because of release of these 5?
7. Dem spokespeople say we don't know if he was deserter and traitor. There is loads of evidence coming in every hour about it.
8. notice how this all occurred to push DEM VA scandal, which killed veterans, off the front pages.
9. Happened same week we learned US has been talking with terrorist Hamas group for 6 months and has accepted Hamas-Fatah agreement government.
10. Happened week after Kerry blamed Israel for collapsed talks with Hamas-Fatah terrorist government
11. Obama lets Iran keep moving forward with Iran nuclear weapon development while we just talk and talk
12. Dems trying to stymie Benghazzi investigation, where Obama, hillary, Susan rice lied and lied, blaming death of 4 Americans on video, when they KNEW it was al quida organized attack, which did not fit Obama's politcal narrative that al quida vanquished
13. Obama has lost Egypt to Russians after backing Muslim Brotherhood Morsi as leader, and refuses to help Egypt quash those terrorists.

Obama aiding terrorists again-Bergdahl story

Bergdahl’s box of horrors Posted: 03 Jun 2014 04:45 AM PDT (Scott Johnson) In his CNN report of soldiers’ reaction to the prisoner exchange that resulted in the release of Bowe Bergdahl from his time with the Taliban, Jake Tapper included Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel’s nonanswer to the question whether Bergdahl had walked away: A reporter asked Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel on Sunday whether Bergdahl had left his post without permission or deserted — and, if so, whether he would be punished. Hagel didn’t answer directly. “Our first priority is assuring his well-being and his health and getting him reunited with his family,” he said. “Other circumstances that may develop and questions, those will be dealt with later.” That nonanswer requires translation. I think we can take that gibberish as a definitive “yes.” Hagel must have a pretty good idea of the underlying facts. James Rosen reports for Fox News that Bergdahl and his disappearance are the subject of “a major classified file.” Rosen adds that “many within the intelligence community harbor serious outstanding concerns not only that Bergdahl may have been a deserter but that he may have been an active collaborator with the enemy.” Rosen’s source hadn’t seen the 2010 file. Citing unnamed American officials, Ken Dilanian and Deb Riechmann now report for the AP: “The Pentagon concluded in 2010 that Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl walked away from his unit, and after an initial flurry of searching the military curbed any high-risk rescue plans.” Our translation of Secretary Hagel’s nonanswer stands. The soldiers who have spoken up also assert that Bergdahl walked away. We have the testimony of the soldiers quoted by Tapper. We have the testimony of Nathan Bradley Bethea. We have the testimony of the soldiers quoted by David Martosko in his Daily Mail article. The New York Times fastens on Bergdahl’s 2009 walk-off in today’s story by Eric Schmitt, Helene Cooper and Charlie Savage: “Bowe Bergdahl’s vanishing before capture angers his unit” (bonus video with White House photo op included). The deal that resulted in Bergdahl’s release opens a Pandora’s box of Obama administration horrors. In the spirit of inquiry, with no intent of providing a comprehensive list, I tentatively offer the following. Notwithstanding the substantial evidence to the contrary, we have the assertion by President Obama’s national security adviser that Bergdahl served with distinction and honor. We have the denial by administration officials that the Taliban is a a terrorist organization. We have lost soldiers as a result of Bergdahl’s conduct. We have the torment of the Bergdahl disgrace added to the grief of the families of those lost as a result of his conduct. We have the five Taliban leaders released in exchange for Bergdahl. They will return to the battlefield and return to their duties. We have the weird photo opportunity in the Rose Garden with President Obama celebrating Bergdahl’s return with Bergdahl’s parents. We have the Taliban celebrating what realistically appears to be a great victory, and we have the disgrace of their enemy thrown in for good measure.       Obama’s Illegal Prisoner Swap If there is one constant about U.S. policy in the Middle East, it is the law of nasty unintended consequences. That’s something the Obama administration disregarded when it recently chose to ignore the law that requires… I beg your pardon Posted: 03 Jun 2014 02:17 PM PDT (Scott Johnson) The ceremony in the Rose Garden celebrating the return of Sergeant Beau Bergdahl must be the most misbegotten photo op of all time. In addition to President Obama, both Bergdgahl mère and père spoke. It seemed to me bizarre beyond belief, a photo op gone wrong. Was Mr. Bergdahl vetted? Did anyone in the White House notice that Mr. Bergdahl seems to have gone over to the other side? As Paul notes, the scene now has the Washington Post working overtime to cover for Obama. Obama’s handlers didn’t hold it against Mr. Bergdahl that he was “still working to free all Guantanamo prisoners,” in the words of his now deleted tweet. Okay, in that respect, he’s just like Obama. But did anyone around Obama think it problematic when the old man predicted God would “repay the death of every Afghan child, Ameen”? Actually, make that “Ameen!” That appears to be a prayer for the death of Sergeant Bergdahl’s fellow soldiers. Did Team Obama know that Mr. Bergdahl was going to invoke Allah, quoting from the Koran in Arabic (video below)? You have to wonder what exactly that was all about. The White House wasn’t highlighting the five Taliban leaders it was giving up for Sergeant Bergdahl, but did it raise a question in the mind of anyone around Obama that that Mr. Bergdahl seemed to be striving to resemble them?     I beg your pardon Posted: 03 Jun 2014 02:17 PM PDT (Scott Johnson) The ceremony in the Rose Garden celebrating the return of Sergeant Beau Bergdahl must be the most misbegotten photo op of all time. In addition to President Obama, both Bergdgahl mère and père spoke. It seemed to me bizarre beyond belief, a photo op gone wrong. Was Mr. Bergdahl vetted? Did anyone in the White House notice that Mr. Bergdahl seems to have gone over to the other side? As Paul notes, the scene now has the Washington Post working overtime to cover for Obama. Obama’s handlers didn’t hold it against Mr. Bergdahl that he was “still working to free all Guantanamo prisoners,” in the words of his now deleted tweet. Okay, in that respect, he’s just like Obama. But did anyone around Obama think it problematic when the old man predicted God would “repay the death of every Afghan child, Ameen”? Actually, make that “Ameen!” That appears to be a prayer for the death of Sergeant Bergdahl’s fellow soldiers. Did Team Obama know that Mr. Bergdahl was going to invoke Allah, quoting from the Koran in Arabic (video below)? You have to wonder what exactly that was all about. The White House wasn’t highlighting the five Taliban leaders it was giving up for Sergeant Bergdahl, but did it raise a question in the mind of anyone around Obama that that Mr. Bergdahl seemed to be striving to resemble them?    Washington Post has Obama’s back on Robert Bergdahl Posted: 03 Jun 2014 01:14 PM PDT (Paul Mirengoff) Robert Bergdahl is a already a major embarrassment for President Obama. Not only did the senior Bergdahl, with his Taliban-style beard, break into Pashtun and Arabic during Obama’s would-be photo opportunity, he has made a string of anti-American, pro-Taliban statements (see below). The potential for further embarrassment seems great. Bergdahl either loves to explain himself, loves the sound of his own voice, or both. It’s not clear to me whether Obama cares about the fall-out at this point. However, his backers do. Consider this article about the senior Bergdahl by Todd Frankel in today’s Washington Post. It casts the Taliban sympathizer in the best possible light by (1) focusing on his beard and ignoring his substantive remarks and (2) characterizing the beard, and Bergdahl’s immersion in Islam, as an attempt to cope with his son’s capture. Bergdahl has spewed forth a stream of anti-American, pro-Taliban comments. Among them are: Working to free all Guantanmo prisoners. God will repay for the death of every Afghan child, ameen! ‘Democracy’ is a cult in in the West. Release Moazzam [Begg] (note: Great Britain’s most notorious Taliban supporter). ISAF perceive foreign presence as the main impetus of war inside Afghanistan! My son speaks about unjust treatment of Afghan children. (Note: Bergdahl included a link to the Taliban’s website). We understand the rationale of the Islamic Emirate has made through videos [of Bowe Bergdahl]. (Note: Islamic Emirate in Afghanistan is the Taliban’s preferred name) Frankel mentions none of this in his article. But what of Frankel’s claim that Bergdahl grew his beard and studied Islam and the Taliban in an effort to cope with his son’s captivity? It’s quite possible that, as Frankel euphemistically says, the father “changed his appearance and altered his interests to align with his son’s experience.” But Frankel overlooks evidence that Bergdahl’s anti-Americanism predates Bowe’s capture and, indeed, may well have been partly responsible for his son’s plight. We know that in the period leading up to Bowe Bergdahl’s desertion of the Army he was sending anti-American emails to his father. Some of them signaled that he was preparing to desert. What was Robert Bergdahl’s response? “OBEY YOUR CONSCIENCE.” If, instead, he had advised his son to do his duty as an American soldier, perhaps Bergdahl would not have deserted. Bowe Bergdahl, then in his early 20s, deserved adult counsel from his father. Instead, he got leftist cant — an updated version of “do your own thing.” If the father had talked the son out of deserting, American soldiers would not have died looking for Bowe Bergdahl, deadly Taliban commanders would still be sidelined, and Bowe would have avoided his five-year ordeal. In addition, Bob Bergdahl would not have grown his awful beard, and the Washington Post would have one less issue on which to run interference for President Obama.

Hillary's incompetency

Earlier this week, strategist Karl Rove attacked Clinton's health, suggesting she suffered traumatic brain injury from a 2012 fall.

Her husband, former president Bill Clinton, insisted she works out regularly and is in "better shape" than him. And while he said there was nothing to Rove's charge, the ex-president acknowledged a candidate's health is fair game in national campaigns. 

In addition, Clinton has been under attack for her handling of the 2012 terror attacks in Benghazi, Libya and on her record on the terrorist organization Boko Haram, which kidnapped nearly 300 Nigerian teenaged girls from their school and threatening to sell them.

The State Department, under Clinton, refused to designate Boko Haram — which is affiliated with al-Qaida — as a terror organization. That designation was not made until last November, well after Clinton had resigned as secretary of state.

Clinton's age has also come under fire. She will turn 69 years old two weeks before the 2016 election. Late President Ronald Reagan, in comparison, was eight months older than that when he ran for office in 1980.

The former first lady's history will be an issue should she decide to run, said Priebus Sunday.

"I think Hillary is a known product," he said. "Actually, I think it's sometimes worse running against a blank slate. Hillary has decades of history for us to explore."

Priebus said her role in "Hillarycare," her push for health insurance reform while she was still first lady, will be brought up, as will her experience as a New York senator, "where there's nothing significant to point to." 

Further, Priebus said, Clinton's experience as secretary of state "is just not significant, but there's all kinds of problems with her."

And when she was asked questions about Benghazi and her response was "what difference does it make," Priebus said, "I assure you it will be an issue if she decides to run."

But Priebus said that despite calls for Rove to apologize for his comments, that will be "up to Karl Rove. He's a political operative."

But he thinks health and age is "fair game."

"It was fair game for Ronald Reagan. It's fair game with John McCain," said Priebus, noting that people attacked the Arizona Republican, saying he was "maybe psychologically not fit because he was a prisoner of war." 

But he's not sure there is "a graceful way to bring up age, health, and fitness for a candidate that wants to be president of the United States. I think the more important issue for me as leader of this party is what's the record of Hillary Clinton? What was her record as a secretary of state, Benghazi, Boko Haram, Syria. Those are the issues." 

Priebus, meanwhile, refused to speculate on Rove's claims.

"I'm not a doctor," Priebus said. "What I do know is the issue will come up as it does for any person running for president. What I think is going to make her rethink whether she should actually run for president... She's coming out with a book called "Hard Choices" or something like that. She's made a series of bad choices."

He also accused Clinton of trying to sweep Benghazi under the rug.

"If you want any evidence ask the families of people who lost their sons in Benghazi," he said. "They've talked plenty about what happened in Benghazi." 

IRS scandal deepens

Your tax dollar collectors at work– the IRS targeting scandal deepens Posted: 14 May 2014 09:59 PM PDT (Paul Mirengoff) New documents obtained by Judicial Watch demonstrate conclusively that the IRS policy of targeting tea party and conservative groups came directly from Washington D.C., not a rogue office in Cincinnati. They also show that Sen. Carl Levin was working with the IRS to make sure tea party and conservative groups were targeted for harassment. As to the first point, a July 2012 email from IRS Attorney Steven Grodnitzky confirms that tea party group applications for exempt status were being handled in Washington. Grodnitzky wrote: [We are] working the Tea party applications in coordination with Cincy. We are developing a few applications here in DC and providing copies of our development letters with the agent to use as examples in the development of their cases. Chip Hull [another lawyer in IRS headquarters] is working these cases. . .and working with the agent in Cincy, so any communication should include him as well. Because the Tea party applications are the subject of an SCR [Sensitive Case Report], we cannot resolve any of the cases without coordinating with Rob. “Rob” is believed to be Rob Choi, then-Director of Rulings and Agreements in IRS’s Washington, DC, headquarters. Furthermore, a new email from Lois Lerner confirms that BOLO lists (“be on the look out”) were created specifically for tea party and other groups that focused on issues related to government spending, debt, taxes and “how the country is being run.” On April 2, 2012, Lerner explained: Because the BOLO only contained a brief reference to “Organizations involved with the Tea Party movement applying for exemption under 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4)” in June 2011, the EO Determinations manager asked the manager of the screening group, John Shafer [IRS Cincinnati field office manager], what criteria were being used to label cases as “tea party ” cases. (“Do the applications specify/state ‘ tea party’? If not, how do we know applicant is involved with the tea party movement?”) The screening group manager asked his employees how they were applying the BOLO’s short–hand reference to “tea party.” His employees responded that they were including organizations meeting any of the following criteria as falling within the BOLO’s reference to “tea party” organizations: “1. ‘Tea Party’, ‘Patriots’ or ’9/12 Project’ is referenced in the case file. 2. Issues include government spending, government debt and taxes. 3. Educate the public through advocacy/legislative activities to make America a better place to live. 4. Statements in the case file that are critical of the how the country is being run. . . ” So, we believe we have provided information that shows that no one in EO “developed” the criteria. Rather, staff used their own interpretations of the brief reference to “organizations involved with the Tea Party movement,” which was what was on the BOLO list. Just to be safe, the IRS put red and orange alert symbols on tea party issues for heightened awareness. As to Levin’s involvement, the documents newly obtained by Judicial Watch show the IRS responding to a stream of “intense” requests from Democrat Senator Carl Levin to come down on conservative tax exempt groups. Levin communicated director with then-Deputy IRS Commissioner Steven Miller. Naturally, Levin was particularly concerned about groups working against his reelection campaign. Miller assured the Senator that IRS regulations were flexible enough to allow IRS agents to “prepare individualized questions and requests” for select 501(c)(4) organizations. On June 4, 2012, for example, Miller told Levin: There is no standard questionnaire used to obtain information about political activities. Although there is a template development letter that describes the general information on the case development process, the letter does not specify the information to be requested from any particular organization … Consequently, revenue agents prepare individualized questions and requests for documents relevant to the application. . . In other words, the IRS can pretty much do what it wants when it comes to picking which political action groups to subject to additional scrutiny and how much scrutiny to apply. Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton concludes: These new documents show that officials in the IRS headquarters were responsible for the illegal delays of Tea Party applications. It is disturbing to see Lois Lerner mislead the IRS’ internal investigators about her office’s Tea Party targeting. These documents also confirm the unprecedented pressure from congressional Democrats to go after President Obama’s political opponents. The IRS scandal has now ensnared Congress. Indeed.

Is Harry Reid most corrupt/worst Senate leader ever?

Wretched Reid

Posted: 25 Apr 2014 05:19 AM PDT

(Scott Johnson)

It seems to me that in Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid we have something new under the sun. He revives old-fashioned, LBJ-style corruption in office, as Adam O’Neal’s understated RCP column suggests. He brings pure partisan prevarication and hackery to his office, as Fred Barnes suggests in “Mudslinger in chief.” And he disgraces the institution that he leads, as Victor Davis Hanson judges in “A McCarthy for our time.”

Liberal commentators observe Reid’s shenanigans in the spirit of detached amusement. In this respect Chris Cillizza is representative. It’s the best he and they can do, but it is pathetic.

If that’s the best Cillizza can do as a supposed political junkie — if the chairman of the Republican National Committee is a truer guide to the Reid phenomenon than Cillizza — it’s time for him and his ilk to pursue other opportunities.

As Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid has brought his office to an unprecedented low. There is no lie he will not recite, no libel he will resist so long as it advances some narrow partisan purpose. As Majority Leader, he holds the mirror up to President Obama. They illuminate each other. It’s not a pretty sight.

If Reid had a shred of decency, he would be ashamed. But he doesn’t and he isn’t.

We have, finally, Reid’s nonstop defamation of, and lying about, the Koch brothers. Explored humorously in the video below, it is frankly contemptible and disgusting.

Video via Washington Free Beacon.

Is this the worst Obama lie?

Obama’s most dangerous lie

Posted: 25 Apr 2014 11:08 AM PDT

(Paul Mirengoff)

Rank-ordering the lies of President Obama is a daunting task. But high on any sound list, though absent from most actual ones, is Obama’s claim that al Qaeda has been “decimated” and is “on the path to defeat.”

This claim was ripped to shreds yesterday at an AEI conference called “Getting it right: A better strategy to defeat al Qaeda.” You can watch that event here and I encourage you to do so.

I’ll discuss the “better strategy” later. For now, I want to focus on al Qaeda’s ascendency and President Obama’s willful failure to deal with our most dangerous and lethal enemy.

According to panelist Bruce Hoffman, director of the Center for Security Studies and a professor at Georgetown’s School of Foreign Service, al Qaeda is present and active in twice as many countries as it was six years ago (i.e., near the end of the Bush administration). Moreover, al Qaeda is not even “on the path to defeat” in Pakistan, where the Obama administration has concentrated its efforts. To the contrary, according to Hoffman it is resurgent there, having succeeded in recruiting well-educated, middle-class Pakistanis.

Meanwhile in Syria, al Qaeda fighters are enjoying their greatest successes since at least 2006, before the Bush administration’s surge routed them in Anbar province where, by the way, al Qaeda is also resurgent. Obama engineered a self-inflicted defeat in Iraq. And he refused to provide meaningful assistance to non-al Qaeda rebels in Syria, thus paving the way for al Qaeda’s dominant position in the rebellion.

Underlying the Obama administration’s failed approach to al Qaeda is its absurd, politically-driven definition of that organization. Mary Habeck, a visiting scholar at AEI and a senior fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute, attempted to find that definition. It wasn’t easy. Team Obama, though talking frequently about al Qaeda, has been reluctant to declare publicly what it understands that term to mean. It prefers to hide the ball.

The Obama administration’s National Strategy for Counterterrorism deems the threat posed by al Qaeda to emanate from al Qaeda and its affiliates and adherents. But what is al Qaeda?

As near as Habeck can tell, the administration applies a definition that tracks the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) which gave President Bush the authority to wage war against al Qaeda and still defines the limits of presidential authority in this fight. Under that definition, al Qaeda would consist of “those nations, organizations, or persons [determined to have] planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001. . . .”

Under this definition, and only this definition, Obama can honestly claim that al Qaeda has been decimated. It can also justify its primary strategy for dealing with al Qaeda — a war of attrition against specific individuals.

But the definition is absurd — sort of like defining the New York Yankees as Joe Torre, Derek Jeter, Tino Martinez, Bernie Williams, Roger Clemens, Mike Mussina and the rest of the 2001 team. Only Jeter remains from that team, but the Yankees soldier on.

Like the Yankees, al Qaeda has replenished its ranks, including its leadership. Given the levels of violence it has perpetrated in Syria, Iraq, Libya, Mali, Somalia, Yemen, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and elsewhere, and given the numerous al Qaeda terrorist plots that are continually being uncovered in Europe and the Middle East, it makes no sense to view al Qaeda as consisting of the men who planned 9/11 and the people who affiliate with or adhere to that particular crew. Most of these men are gone but their successors soldier on, and with increasing success.

Absurd as it is, Team Obama’s definition of al Qaeda is useful to the president. It enables him to claim victory over al Qaeda and, accordingly, to deescalate the fight with an eye towards withdrawing from it. The political utility of claiming victory was obvious during the 2012 election campaign. The political utility of withdrawal is also clear; Americans are tired of the fight.

Unfortunately, al Qaeda is not war weary. It is stronger than it’s been in years and arguably stronger than ever. The report of its near demise is, I would argue, the most dangerous lie of Obama.