Recent Blog Posts

 

Listen and learn with us

Listen to our Podcast.

This Website is being updated...

please be sure to visit great

History Resources on the right.

Click on picture 

 

Link to--Churches Can Make A Huge Difference In An Election

 

 

Click to podcast link (2nd on list is most recent show-archive to 2015)

 

Click here for link to our podcasts

Search Bar Below To Look Up Articles

SEARCH BAR

Listen to internet radio with City On A Hill Radio on BlogTalkRadio

Why is America At War

Cross in the ashes of the WTC

Click on pic to 9/11

 

The Powerful Story on the Twins
Lifting Each Other in Prayer with Ms. Margaret
Remembering 9/11 in'09
Fresh Hope, the ministry of Susan Sieweke, D.Min.
Laminin

For in him we live (zao {dzah'-o}, and move, and have our being; Acts 17:28

Our Children Our Future
What If A Nation Prayed

See Prayer List

 

 


Let us do our part to keep this the Land of the Free and Honor the Brave

  

Get to speed--basic info you must know as there is not enough news still for K-12th hidden agenda and about the ROE--so please share!

Homosexual Indoctrination for K-12th hidden in Anti-Bullying Law: The Bill   The Agenda  Federalizing

Revised Rules of Engagement--Empowering The Enemy:  Joshua's Death  The Father's Letter & Interviews

Czars and Their Unconstitutional Powers

Health Care Bill Or The Derailing Of America

Cap and Trade--Skyrocketing Utilities For Almost Bankrupt America/ For Whose Benefit? EPA Report

Know How They Voted

Truths To Share As Freedom Isn't Free

Click on pic to see samples of what's on site

Join with us in prayer (National Prayer List)

EPHRAIM'S ARROW--JEWISH STUDIES


Weather By The Hour

Don't forget as you check on the weather to check in with the One who calms the storms!

 

Fields White To Harvest

 

 

Lord, I thought I knew you,

   but know the winds have changed.

Tossed away, will you find me?

   Can still , my heart be sustained?

Just me and you when things were new,

then the season's storms blew by.

   Did I forget to worship you?

 

Will you come, Lord Jesus to gather us- your sheep.

   For the days grow long and still,

If we watch and wait, will you hear us yet-

   Can we stand strong to do you will?

 

 The wheat has been blowing in that field,

   While the laborers are so few.

What then, now are we waiting for?

   Can hardened hearts become like new?

 

 Safely can we stay behind you,

   as we march with your trumpet sound?

Or- have we stayed and hid so long now,

   That our roots dry underground?

 

 I pray Lord that you will find me.

   I pray not to be ashamed.

I seek you when it's early Lord.

   I pray not to fall away.

 

So come Lord Jesus come quickly-

   The terrible day is at hand.

I pray we'll all be steadfast.

   So you may strengthen our spirits ,

as we stand.

 

Loree Brownfield

Sunday
Jan062013

Why Stand In The Gap For Children In Their Schools


Going Back To Tyranny-- Is America Losing Or Giving Up Her First Amendment?
Friday, September 23, 2011 at 09:12AM
"Losing Our Right To Express Our Opinions" by Donna Garner

Two days ago FoxNews and other media highlighted an incident in the Ft. Worth School District in which a high-school student was suspended for expressing his opinion that homosexuality is wrong.  (I have posted the article at the bottom of this e-mail.)
How did we get to this point in America where our First Amendment rights are being shattered?
What I have attempted to do in this report is to piece together various articles that show the clear progression which has occurred in our country under the Obama administration.
The following articles provide sufficient documentation to prove that the Obama administration’s Common Core Standards (CCS) are meant to promote homosexuality in our nation’s public schools.   
Please scan through each article to track how this agenda is being implemented widely in the 46 states that have committed to adopt the CCS.  
Then toward the end of this compilation, please read two articles that give the latest alarming data on the spread of HIV/AIDS and other STD’s among the homosexual population, particularly between the ages of 13 and 24 years.
“85 % of all HIV cases among young adults and adolescents were caused by homosexual activities and/or drug use…Among males diagnosed with HIV infection from 2005-2008, 70% were attributed to male-to-male sexual contact. The percentage of diagnosed HIV infections attributed to male-to-male sexual contact was even larger (85%) among males aged 13 to 24 years.”
================================
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=99560
Sunday, May 31, 2009 WorldNetDaily Exclusive 'Gay' activist to oversee public classroom 'safety'
Homosexual group founder handed federal Education Department Posted: May 29, 2009
11:45 pm Eastern By Bob Unruh WorldNetDaily

The founder of the homosexual activist group GLSEN, which promotes homosexual clubs in high schools, middle schools and grade schools and is the driving force behind the annual "Day of Silence" celebration of homosexuality in many districts, has been handed a federal appointment where he will be responsible for overseeing "safety" in the nation's public schools.
Linda Harvey of Mission America, which educates people on anti-Christian trends in the nation, said it is nothing more than a "tragedy" for an open homosexual who has "had an enormously detrimental impact on the climate in our schools" to be in such a position.
The appointment of Kevin Jennings was posted – with little fanfare – on a government list of federal jobs recently. He was named by U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan to be the Assistant Deputy Secretary in the Office of Safe Schools.  
He previously worked to raise money for the presidential campaign for President Obama.
In the new post, he'll be working on "safe schools" programs for educational institutions nationwide, said Harvey.  
"In his own writings and books listed on the GLSEN [Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network] Website, I've reported, Kevin Jennings has given tacit nods of approval to sex between young teens and adults," Harvey told WND. "In addition to that, the writings and books, many of which I've read and are incredibly graphic, seem to normalize early teen same-sex sexual behaviors."
"It is unconscionable. This is educational malpractice and child corruption," she said. On Jennings' own website, a biographical sketch talks about how his work as an activist started when he used a school assembly in a district where he was a teacher to announce his homosexuality.  

He soon started the GLSEN activist group and, the report said, "has spent the last 12 years building GLSEN into a national organization at the forefront of a bold movement that now works with over 3,000 Gay-Straight Alliances." But a blogger who calls himself Beetle Blogger cited another statement from Jennings about his early promotion of homosexuality in schools.

The blogger quoted Jennings saying, "We immediately seized upon the opponent's calling card – safety – and explained how homophobia represents a threats to students' safety by creating a climate where violence, name-calling, health problems, and suicide are common. Titling our report, 'Making Schools Safe for Gay and Lesbian Youth,' we automatically threw our opponents onto the defensive and stole their best line of attack. This … short-circuited their arguments and left them back-peddling from day one." Harvey said the appointment really is not surprising, given the pro-homosexual position adopted by Obama and Jennings' fund-raising for the Democrat.
.
But she warned when "safe" is combined with "LGBT" as is happening at the federal agency, "What you have is the silencing of any conservative opinion. That's what they consider safety
"This is an outrageous 'in-your-face, take this, we don't care about your version of safety' for kids," she said. She also cited the introduction in Congress of H.R. 2262 by U.S. Rep. Linda Sanchez, D-Calif., which is "to amend the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act" to include pro-homosexual language that could use the issue of bullying to force indoctrination sessions for both students and teachers.  

The proposed training would relate to "real or perceived" sexual orientation and gender identity, she said.

"How does this work? Well, let's look at an example from a state that already passed a similar law. In Iowa, teachers in some school districts endure the most outrageous in-service training imaginable. The Council Bluffs, Iowa, school district, Loess Hills Area Education Agency 13, gives a two-day teacher training course called 'How to Make My Classroom Safe for LGBT Students.' As part of the training, 'Videos will be used from Anderson Cooper 360, 'Will & Grace,' and several popular film segments like 'Brokeback Mountain' and 'Latter Days,''" Harvey said.

"This man's work [Jennings] and his agenda are exactly why we've seen the radical pro-homosexuality curriculum pushed across California. He is now more strongly positioned to implement his agenda nationwide," said Karen England, executive director of Capitol Resource Institute.

In Duncan's announcement appointing Jennings, he said GLSEN "works to make schools safe for all students, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity."

===============================================================
http://blogs.cbn.com/thebrodyfile/archive/2008/12/16/obamas-pick-for-education-secretary-pushed-for-gay-high-school.aspx

Dec. 16, 2008:
Obama’s Pick for Education Secretary Pushed For Gay High School

by David Brody

Obama’s new pick for Education secretary is Arne Duncan, head of Chicago Public Schools. He’s been pushing for Chicago to start their first gay high school. Not kidding...

The Chicago Public Schools' first high school designed for gay, lesbian and transgender teens is among 20 new schools recommended to the school board today by CPS Chief Arne Duncan...

"If you look at national studies, you see gay and lesbian students with high dropout rates...Studies show they are disproportionately homeless," Duncan said. "I think there is a niche there we need to fill."

...Opponents have called the move a misuse of public funds. At a recent public hearing on the proposal, some gay rights advocates have said the move would segregate these students and said the district should work more on fostering acceptance by mainstream students, teachers and other school officials.

Look, I know how this will be spun. Some will say this isn’t really a “gay high school.” It’s really more a safe place and an educational environment that will cater towards gays and lesbians. But folks, let’s be real here. It’s a high school for gay students. Plain and simple.

While the idea of a gay high school may be troubling for some, the problem for Obama is that a pick like this doesn’t portray him in such a centrist way. It gives the impression that he’s nominating wild liberals to his Cabinet.

Arne Duncan may have the total package and be a great Education secretary, but pushing ideas like a gay high school will make social conservatives wonder what he will be pushing next.

[Obama’s Safe Schools Czar Kevin Jennings (homosexual, founder of Gay Lesbian and Straight Education Network from 1995-2008) has let the cat out of the bag.  The Common Core Standards that are supposedly meant to raise the academic achievement of all our public school children are really a ploy to infuse social justice, diversity, multiculturalism, and social engineering into our public school children’s lives. This is exactly why so many parents fear national standards, national tests, national curriculum, and a national database. According to this article, their fears are justified. --- Donna Garner]

http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/rick_hess_straight_up/2010/02/bait_and_switch_on_common_standards.html

 Bait and Switch on Common Standards?  By Rick Hess on February 19, 2010 7:05 AM

We've been told time and again that the current common standards push is guided by the mantra "fewer, clearer, and higher" standards. That's a good thing, since efforts to craft expansive standards tend to crumble under their own weight. Recall what happened to the national history standards panel back in the 1990s, when disputes over who and what should be in and out led the U.S. Senate to resoundingly reject its handiwork.

I've previously written about why it is so tough in the U.S. to craft standards outside of math and language arts that don't devolve into culture clashes, or piles of mush (and even in math and language arts, we know that good standards are no picnic). This has made the "fewer, clearer, and higher" mantra most welcome and suggested that advocates have learned from past mistakes.

So, imagine my surprise when I read this interview with Secretary Duncan's anti-bullying chief Kevin Jennings in the February Phi Delta Kappan magazine.

Jennings, who directs the Department of Education's Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools, first tells PDK editor Joan Richardson that no student should worry about "find[ing] something written on your locker or if you're going to be called names in the hallway...Then we also need to make sure that all kids feel like they belong." Fair enough. Jennings elaborates, "Just as we have standards around academic goals, we need standards around school climate...And we need a data system so parents know what kind of environment a kid will encounter in a school." Well, okay.

And then it gets weird. Phi Delta Kappan asks, "So, you want to include this in the Common Core standards?"

Jennings says, "Yes. If we don't get this one right, the other ones don't matter. Right now, they're really focused on the academic standards. This one is much newer. We have to build understanding of the concept first." He went on: "We're not first up to bat, and I'm not troubled by that. The Common Core movement is right to start on the things where there's already widespread agreement. We're way down the road."

Seriously? A high-ranking administration official is telling us that the common standards being financed by $350 million in Race to the Top funds "start" with academics but will eventually encompass "school climate" standards too? Jennings raises further red flags when he concedes that we have not determined "the definition of school climate," though he says it "does not include air conditioning" but does include kids feeling "emotionally safe." Maybe it's my cynical streak, but that sounds like a summons to social agendas, culture clashes, and political fisticuffs. In other words, the stuff that sinks standards.

Mr. Jennings' remarks raise concerns about the old bait-and-switch. If he is speaking for Secretary Duncan and the President, they seem to have been less than truthful so far when discussing their vision for common standards. If not, a President seeking bipartisan comity might want to encourage Mr. Jennings not to suggest that the Department is covertly planning to drive a massive 48-state effort into a familiar ditch...or to turn it into a Trojan Horse.

 
Help Stop Bullying, U.S. Tells Educators
By SAM DILLON
Published: October 25, 2010
 

In a 10-page letter to be sent on Tuesday to thousands of school districts and colleges, the Department of Education urges the nation’s educators to ensure that they are complying with their responsibilities to prevent harassment, as laid out in federal laws.

The letter is the product of a yearlong review of the federal statutes and case law covering sexual, racial and other forms of harassment, officials said. Issuing the letter took on new urgency in recent weeks because of a string of high-profile cases in which students have committed suicide after enduring bullying by classmates, the officials said.

In one case, Tyler Clementi, an 18-year-old Rutgers University freshman, jumped from the George Washington Bridge in an apparent suicide last month, days after his roommate, according to prosecutors, streamed over the Internet his intimate encounter with another man.

The department issued the letter to clarify the legal responsibilities of the authorities in public schools and in colleges and universities under federal laws, the officials said. Certain forms of student bullying might violate federal anti-discrimination law.
“Open Letter to Parents, Legislators, School Personnel:  Which Policy Are You Going To Promote?”
by Donna Garner 11.7.10  Parents, legislators, school personnel, and the public, you need to be gearing up to take a stand about the type of policies and curriculum school districts should promote to address the bullying issue because the Obama administration has co-opted this issue to drive its lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender agenda right straight into every school in America.  
On October 26, 2010, the U. S. Department of Education with homosexual Kevin Jennings in charge of the Safe and Drug-Free Schools initiative sent a 10-page LGBT-supportive document to “all public and private schools, colleges, and universities, including the country’s 15,000 school superintendents.”  This document threatens schools, K-16, with litigation and loss of federal funds if the schools do not promote and accept LGBT behavior.
Please read the details of this aggressive initiative as explained in my article posted on EdWeek.org on 10.27.10: http://www.educationnews.org/commentaries/opinions_on_education/101979.html
Which approach should legislators and schools develop to address the bullying issue?  Which approach would be fair and healthy for all students?

In an article that explained the various types of anti-bullying laws being considered and/or passed across the country: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/oct/28/dc-mulls-anti-bullying-law/

Here is the anti-bullying law that the D. C. council is considering:  “...place special emphasis on gender-related characteristics, including gender, sexual orientation, gender expressions and gender identity…[examples enumerated by Gay Lesbian Straight Education Network (GLSEN).”

This is what Missouri has passed: "Each district's antibullying policy shall be founded on the assumption that all students need a safe learning environment. Policies shall treat students equally and shall not contain specific lists of protected classes of students who are to receive special treatment. Policies may include age-appropriate differences for schools based on the grade levels at the school. Each such policy shall contain a statement of the consequences of bullying [including] cyberbullying, e-mails as acts of bullying, intimidation and harassment.” If parents really care about their children, they must get highly involved with their local school districts to fight off the LGBT pressure and intimidation of the U. S. Department of Education.
To do this, parents are going to need alternatives that they can present to their local school districts that would help to diminish the anti-bullying problems that definitely are occuring among students.
As alternatives to curriculum proposed by the LGBT organizations, I encourage schools to develop their own curriculum utilizing: (1) the True Tolerance website (http://www.truetolerance.org/ ) which is full of good ideas and information. (2) the Scott & White Worth the Wait® sex education curriculum (http://www.worththewait.org/index.html ).  Yes, S&W teaches teen abstinence;  but it also contains many student activities that emphasize healthy personal relationships.
Several years ago, I was the writer/researcher for the S&W program; and each of the four notebooks (Grades 6, 7, 8, and High School) begins with an emphasis not on sex education but on establishing healthy personal relationships based upon positive personal character traits.  In other words, the foundation for the S&W program is to help students to value other people and to honor their personhood. This is exactly the kind of curriculum schools should present to help prevent bullying.
The activities found in S&W help students to recognize each person’s uniqueness and to treat others with dignity and worth.  The activities help students to learn to identify positive personal character traits in others and then to learn ways to infuse those traits into their own lives.
Because the units are stand-alone, educators are free to pick and choose the age-appropriate activities that emphasize strong, healthy relationships.  The activities are fun, and they increase students’ abilities to communicate effectively with one another.
If parents (and the public) are going to go to their school officials and object to the USDOE’s push to get all students to accept LGBT activities as normal, parents must be able to offer alternatives to school officials.  I hope that the above-mentioned alternatives will equip parents (and the public) with the ideas and materials they need to build a strong defense for their children.
“Bullying -- an Agenda” by Donna Garner 10.26.10

For some time, many of us have been warning America about Kevin Jennings who was Obama and Arne Duncan’s choice at the U. S. Department of Education for the position of Assistant Deputy Secretary for Safe and Drug-Free Schools.  Jennings is the founder of Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) and was the director until 2008.  GLSEN is the organization that was responsible for transporting public school students during the school day (March 25, 2000) to a conference where they were taught about “fisting.”  (To find out what this disgusting term means, please go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisting .)  GLSEN is also the organization behind the Day of Silence in the public schools.  

Kevin Jennings promotes homosexuality in K-12 and is doing so under the guise of the “bullying” curriculum that is permeating our public schools.  

Today’s article (posted below) shows how the Obama administration is deliberately taking the Title IX federal law and distorting the verbiage to include gender identity.
Title IX does not include gender identity; it says that harassment based on race, color, national origin, sex, or disability violates the federal civil rights laws.  The Obama administration, however, has taken it upon themselves to include lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender under the word “sex.”

Now the Obama administration is threatening public school educators with the USDOE’s misinterpretation of the Title IX law and making educators fear prosecution unless they promote the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender (LGBT) lifestyle as normal. Yes, all students should be taught to treat others with dignity; and bullying is a terrible problem.  But forcing students to accept a perverse lifestyle that leads students into sexually transmitted diseases and early death is not something that schools should be advocating.   Tolerance is a good thing to teach students, but educators should not be intimidated into forcing students to accept perversity.

Please go to my article entitled “What Is the Centers for Disease Control?” published on 10.23.10 in which I lay out the disturbing data on the increase of HIV among young men ages 13 to 24 years:  From 2005-2008…Most (74%) diagnoses of HIV infection in adults and adolescents were in males. Among males diagnosed with HIV infection from 2005-2008, 70% were attributed to male-to-male sexual contact. The percentage of diagnosed HIV infections attributed to male-to-male sexual contact was even larger (85%) among males aged 13 to 24 years.  http://www.educationnews.org/breaking_news/health/101841.html )
Knowing that the Obama administration is sending its 10-page LGBT-supportive document to  “all public and private schools, colleges, and universities, including the country’s 15,000 school superintendents” should justifiably make concerned parents furious.
Fed to schools: Law requires actions against bullying  By Dana Rudolph on October 26, 2010  

The U.S. Department of Education is issuing guidance to school officials today (October 26), reminding them that federal law requires schools to take action against bullying—including gender-based and sexual harassment of LGBT students. This is the first time the department has detailed the responsibilities educators have to protect LGBT students against such harassment, which is forbidden by Title IX and enforced by the department’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR). Title IX prohibits discrimination “based on sex” in federally funded programs.

“We think this could not be any more timely or important,” said Russlynn Ali, Assistant Secretary for OCR, at a press briefing Monday. “If students don’t feel safe in school, they simply cannot learn.”

The announcement comes after widespread media coverage in September and October of a string of bullying-related suicides by LGBT students or those perceived to be. But it also fulfills a promise to issue such guidance –a promise made by U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan in early August at the department’s first-ever Bullying Prevention Summit. The 10 pages of guidance make clear that, although current laws enforced by OCR do not explicitly address harassment based on sexual orientation, they do prohibit sexual harassment and gender-based harassment directed at LGBT students or those perceived to be.

The approach is similar to that taken by the administration elsewhere. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development in July issued guidance explaining how gender and disability discrimination protections may cover gender-identity discrimination or discrimination based on real or perceived HIV/AIDS status—even though the Fair Housing Act (FHA) does not explicitly cover sexual orientation- or gender identity-based housing discrimination.
The U.S. Justice Department also intervened in January in the case of a New York teen who was bullied and physically hurt for being effeminate. Justice Department lawyers argued that the federal law against gender-based discrimination also applied to gender expression. In an out-of-court settlement, the school district agreed to pay the boy $50,000, legal fees, and the cost of therapy. Tuesday’s guidance is being issued in the form of a “Dear Colleague” letter from Ali to administrators at all public and private schools, colleges, and universities, including the country’s 15,000 school superintendents. It reminds them of their obligations to protect students from discrimination based on sex (Title IX), race, color, or national origin (Title VI), and disability (Section 504 and Title II), all statutes enforced by OCR.

The Department also plans to hold workshops around the country in early 2011 to train educators about their obligations and the resources available to help them.

Kevin Jennings, Assistant Deputy Secretary for the Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools (OSDFS) at the Department of Education, said at the press briefing that they would also be conducting a grassroots campaign to inform educators and others through community-based groups and the Web site Bullyinginfo.org. If schools violate the anti-discrimination laws enforced by OCR, said Ali, the Department could withdraw all federal funds or place conditions upon them. She noted, however, that the Department has not done so with any school district in the last decade, for any type of civil rights violation, “because they usually come into compliance during negotiation.”

She also noted that the Department has not received any complaints in recent years on LGBT harassment. But Jennings suggested the lack of complaints may have been “because people have not seen federal authorities as a receptive audience” and because of the lack of a federal civil rights law that includes sexual orientation. The guidance is the latest in a series of Department of Education moves to address school bullying—moves initiated even before the recent suicides. In addition to the August 2010 Summit, the Department in 2009 formed a federal task force on bullying, with representatives from the Departments of Justice, Health and Human Services (HHS), Agriculture, Defense, and Interior.

The Department also announced October 4 the awarding of $36 million in grants to 11 states from a new Safe and Supportive Schools program. The states must survey students, family, and staff about school safety issues, including bullying, and direct grant money at the problems where students say there is the biggest need.

It has also worked with HHS on a Stop Bullying Now campaign that is being expanded from middle school students to elementary school students. And early next year, the White House plans to host a conference to raise awareness about bullying and harassment and share resources for students, parents, educators, and others.

Two bills in Congress, however, seek to provide greater protection for LGBT students, beyond bullying that is based on sexual harassment or gender stereotyping. The Student Nondiscrimination Act (SNDA) would prohibit discrimination—including harassment—on the basis of real or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity in any program receiving federal funds. The Safe Schools Improvement Act (SSIA) would require schools receiving federal funds to implement and report on LGBT-inclusive anti-bullying programs. Versions of both bills are still pending in House and Senate committees.
Federal departments and their employees are prohibited by law from lobbying Congress about specific legislation, but Ali said Monday that the Department supports the goals of both bills. She said that, as the Department works to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the major act guiding educational policy, “we will certainly use all of the policy tools within our disposal to try and prevent this kind of harassment from occurring.”

She noted that the guidance issued Tuesday is “about using the tools within our disposal now.”

Jennings said the new guidance was the first step to letting people know that, “in this administration, we plan to apply the letter of the law to the fullest extent of the law in order to extend the greatest level of protections humanly possible to LGBT students.”

 

===============================

http://www.educationnews.org/index.php?news=105680

 

The Obama Administration’s Bullying Agenda

09/01/2010 10:34:00 Henry W. Burke

Henry W. Burke - In three articles written during October and November, Donna Garner predicted that the U.S. Department of Education would use their bullying agenda to promote homosexual rights. (Donna Garner is an experienced Texas teacher who writes extensively on education issues.)

Sure enough, the U.S. Justice Department went into a high school in Silver Spring, MD on Tuesday, 1.04.11, and told the students, “If you have been targeted for harassment or bullying because of your sexual orientation, because of your gender identity or expression, or simply because your classmates see you as different, I am here to tell you that the Civil Rights Division will not stand for it.”  (CNSNews.com,  1.05.11).

This should not surprise us.  Kevin Jennings, Assistant Deputy Secretary for Safe and Drug-Free Schools, is an avowed homosexual and founder of Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network (GLSEN).  He is promoting homosexuality in K-12 schools under the guise of the “bullying” curriculum.

http://www.cnsnews.com:80/news/article/bullied-school-being-gay-us-justice-depa< /b>

Bullied at School for Being Gay? The U.S. Justice Department 'Won't Stand for It,' High School Students Told

Wednesday, January 05, 2011

By Susan Jones


“What Is the Centers for Disease Control?”  By Donna Garner
http://www.educationnews.org/breaking_news/health/101841.html

We taxpayers pay for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and part of the job of this government agency is to collect infectious disease data from across the country.

Since January 2005, thirty-seven states have had laws that require them to report HIV infections through confidential, name-based mechanisms.
It is no secret; the medical data is clear.  Male-to-male sex is what is spreading HIV/AIDS, and to me the following is one of the most worrisome statistics:
From 2005-2008…Most (74%) diagnoses of HIV infection in adults and adolescents were in males. Among males diagnosed with HIV infection from 2005-2008, 70% were attributed to male-to-male sexual contact. The percentage of diagnosed HIV infections attributed to male-to-male sexual contact was even larger (85%) among males aged 13 to 24 years.”
This indicates that the homosexual agenda is making inroads with the young and vulnerable males in our society.
I believe this has come through the constant drumbeat of homosexual characters on TV, the movies, and in the school anti-bullying curriculum that is permeating students’ classrooms under the auspices of Obama’s Kevin Jennings, the Safe Schools Czar at the U. S. Department of Education.  

Kevin Jennings is openly homosexual and is the founder of Gay Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN).  This is the organization that led students during the school day in Massachusetts to learn about “fisting.”  

We adults who should be countering the indoctrination by the homosexual community of our young people have been intimidated into silence by political correctness/social justice.

Why not put the CDC’s medical data out there and make sure that our young people know how very dangerous homosexual activities really are?  

No empirical research exists to show that homosexuality is inherent (inborn); therefore, young people do have a choice.   

We also know that Exodus International and other organizations have proven that people involved in homosexual activities can change their lifestyles.

However, when children are told at a young age that they have a proclivity to be homosexual and that “it is perfectly normal,” many of them become entrapped with the homosexual lifestyle and do not know how to get out of it.

They end up being dragged deeper into perversion and the very harmful medical conditions that follow, sometimes ending in early death.  

To find out for yourself what the CDC’s medical data shows, please follow these directions:
Please click on the following site (http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/resources/slides/msm/index.htm ).
PRESENTATION NOTE FOUND ON ONE OF THE SLIDES

From 2005-2008, an estimated total of 161,795 adults and adolescents were diagnosed with HIV infection in the 37 states and 5 U.S. dependent areas with confidential name-based HIV infection reporting since at least January 2005.


Most (74%) diagnoses of HIV infection in adults and adolescents were in males. Among males diagnosed with HIV infection from 2005-2008, 70% were attributed to male-to-male sexual contact. The percentage of diagnosed HIV infections attributed to male-to-male sexual contact was even larger (85%) among males aged 13 to 24 years.
During 2008, male-to-male sexual contact was the most frequently reported transmission category—accounting for 54% of all diagnoses of HIV infection that year.

 In 2008, an estimated 72% (22,810) of all diagnosed HIV infections among adult and adolescent males were attributed to male-to-male sexual contact.
Heterosexual contact was the second largest transmission category among males, at nearly 15% of diagnosed HIV infections…
Heterosexual contact is with a person known to have or to be at high risk for HIV infection.
[Notice this statistic:  HIV -- 72 % of 2008 cases caused by MSM activities; 15 % from heterosexual contact
 
Facts for the Day — 9.30.10
HIV is an “equal opportunity provider.” HIV is not politically correct.
The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) just released today (9.30.10) a report on HIV infections from January 2005 through 2008.
Through numerous slides, this report graphically shows that HIV is being spread by:
72 % — male-to-male (MSM) sexual contact.  9 %  – injection drug use  
4 %  – male-to-male sexual contact and injection drug use
Conclusion:  85 % of all HIV cases among young adults and adolescents were caused by homosexual activities and/or drug use. These are all preventable activities.
HIV increased among MSM from 50 % in 2005 to 54 % in 2008.  The more the homosexual agenda is being pushed in the U. S. culture, the higher the rates of HIV are climbing. The slides clearly show that the biggest percentage of HIV cases is occurring among Black/African-Americans.  This CDC information was gathered from only 37 states (those that had laws or regulations requiring confidential name-based HIV infection reporting since at least January 2005). However, here is the alarming news:  The following states are not included in the CDC’s data.
It is the CDC’s latest figures that led to the 9.23.10 Reuters report saying that 1 in 5 gay, bisexual men in US cities has HIV; and it is these figures that led me on 8.31.10 to write an open letter to Glenn Beck, Kenneth Mehlman, Ed Gillespie, Ann Coulter, Michael Steele, Dick Cheney, Lou Dobbs, almost all Democrats, and others who have indicated that they do not think we should care what people do in the privacy of their bedrooms:
I believe it is actually everybody’s business what homosexuals and/or drug users choose to do in the privacy of their bedrooms because we taxpayers get left paying for their STD’s and drug treatments.  Sixty-five per cent of all HIV cases are from people who are homosexuals and/or drug users. (Source: Centers for Disease Control)
Also, those STD’s can and do get transmitted to other innocent people such as wives.  I have two long-time friends whose husbands were involved in bisexual relationships.  Both of these faithful wives have been left FOR LIFE with STD’s that they got from their husbands. Both of them had no idea that their husbands were bisexual and were involved in perverse relationships.  Both of these women have had to have serious surgeries within this last year because of the STD’s that were transmitted to them by their bisexual husbands.
I have not even mentioned other STD’s besides HIV/AIDS such as viral hepatitis.  In 2006,  nearly 1 in 10 men diagnosed with hepatitis A reported engaging in homosexual behavior.
Other STD’s that are transmitted throughout the gay population are urethral Chlamydia and gonorrhea.
In one year, the rate of fluoroquinolone-resistant gonorrhea increased from 29% to 39% among men who have sex with men (MSM).

The number of new syphilis cases, driven by gay and bisexual men, has doubled in recent years in such places as Los Angeles County and San Francisco.  Men who have sex with men (MSM) accounted for approximately 64% of the reported cases of P&S syphilis in the United States during 2006.  (Source: Centers for Disease Control)
I also have not mentioned the prevalence of tuberculosis that is spread among homosexuals who have HIV/AIDS.  They contract TB and other diseases because their immune system has been compromised by the HIV/AIDS.  
TB and many other diseases are contagious, and we in the general population are put at risk by what homosexuals and/or drug users do in the privacy of their bedrooms.

 

Now the homosexual movement is pressuring the Red Cross to change their blood collection policies because gay men have been banned from giving blood since 1985.  The gays say this is “discriminatory.” If the gays win their “social justice” argument and are allowed to pollute our blood supply with their STD’s, then the chances of an innocent person contracting an STD “for life” from a homosexual will be greatly increased.

 

Also, there is the matter of cost.  Please be sure to study this link

( http://fairfoundation.org/update.htm ) where it shows how much per patient we taxpayers spend on HIV compared to other conditions such as cardiovascular conditions and cancer.

 

What is occurring is that because of the strong political support for the gay agenda, huge amounts of money are being spent by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) on HIV/AIDS that should be going toward helping to alleviate other conditions/diseases that people develop NOT based upon their sexual choices.  

 

In fact, it is not a stretch to say that we might have had more breakthroughs on solving cancer, heart, diabetes, prostate, and Alzheimer’s if the NIH had not spent so much time and money on HIV/AIDS research.

 

Yes, it actually does matter to the rest of us whatever people do in the privacy of their bedrooms.

 

==============================

 

7.1.11

  The Enhanced Comprehensive HIV Prevention Plan for The Dallas Metropolitan Division

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In the Dallas MD, approximately 15,957 people are living with HIV, and approximately 900 new cases of HIV have been identified annually. 83% of people with HIV in the Dallas MD reside in Dallas County. Gay men and other men who have sex with men (MSM) account for 67% of those living with HIV and represent 70% of all new diagnoses.

Black MSM alone account for 25% of people living with HIV in the Dallas MD.
Heterosexual transmission is the second largest exposure category for people living with HIV and females comprise 77% of these cases.
…as many as 1 in 4 black gay men in Dallas may be HIV positive.

In Chicago, 70% of all diagnosed cases of HIV are among men, with male-to-male sexual contact being the leading mode of transmission across all ethnic groups. Among men who have sex with men (MSM) diagnosed with HIV in 2008, 51% are black. In 2008, blacks accounted for 66% of AIDS diagnoses while whites and Hispanics represented 15% and 17% of the diagnoses respectively.

 

=====================

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/nhas/echpp/pdf/echpp-houston.pdf

 

Houston

 

 A closer look at HIV/AIDS prevalence in Harris County shows that the epidemic continues to be predominantly among males (74%), specifically among men who have sex with men (43%) and among people of color (70%).


 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention:  HIV among Gay, Bisexual and Other Men Who Have Sex with Men (MSM)

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/msm/index.htm

 

Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM)1 represent approximately 2% of the US population, yet are the population most severely affected by HIV and are the only risk group in which new HIV infections have been increasing steadily since the early 1990s.

In 2006, MSM accounted for more than half (53%) of all new HIV infections in the United States, and MSM with a history of injection drug use (MSM-IDU) accounted for an additional 4% of new infections.

At the end of 2006, more than half (53%) of all people living with HIV in the United States were MSM or MSM-IDU.

Since the beginning of the US epidemic, MSM have consistently represented the largest percentage of persons diagnosed with AIDS and persons with an AIDS diagnosis who have died.
The Numbers
New HIV Infections2

    In 2006, more than 30,000 MSM and MSM-IDU were newly infected with HIV.
    Among all MSM, whites accounted for nearly half (46%) of new HIV infections in 2006. The largest number of new infections among white MSM occurred in those aged 30–39 years, followed by those aged 40–49 years.
    Among all black MSM, there were more new HIV infections (52%) among young black MSM (aged 13–29 years) than any other racial or ethnic age group of MSM in 2006. The number of new infections among young black MSM was nearly twice that of young white MSM and more than twice that of young Hispanic/Latino MSM.
    Among all Hispanic/Latino MSM in 2006, the largest number of new infections (43%) occurred in the youngest age group (13–29 years), though a substantial number of new HIV infections (35%) were among those aged 30–39 years.

Estimated Number of New HIV Infections among Men Who Have Sex with Men (MSM), by Race/Ethnicity and Age Group, 2006

Source: CDC. Subpopulation Estimates from the HIV Incidence Surveillance System—United States, 2006. MMWR. 2008; 57(36):985–989.
HIV and AIDS Diagnoses3 and Deaths

    A recent CDC study found that in 2008 one in five (19%) MSM in 21 major US cities were infected with HIV, and nearly half (44%) were unaware of their infection. In this study, 28% of black MSM were HIV-infected, compared to 18% of Hispanic/Latino MSM and 16% of white MSM. Other racial/ethnic groups of MSM also have high numbers of HIV infections, including American Indian/Alaska Native MSM (20%) and Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander MSM (18%).
    In 2007, MSM were 44 to 86 times as likely to be diagnosed with HIV compared with other men, and 40 to 77 times as likely as women.
    From 2005–2008, estimated diagnoses of HIV infection increased approximately 17% among MSM. This increase was likely due to a combination of factors: increases in new infections, increased testing, and diagnosis earlier in the course of infection; it may also have been due to uncertainty in statistical models.
    In 2008, an estimated 17,940 MSM were diagnosed with AIDS in the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the US dependent areas—an increase of 6% since 2005.
    By the end of 2007, an estimated 282,542 MSM with an AIDS diagnosis had died in the United States and 5 dependent areas.

Prevention Challenges

The high prevalence of HIV infection among MSM means they face a greater risk of being exposed to infection with each sexual encounter—especially as they get older

Many MSM with HIV are unaware of their HIV infection, especially MSM of color and young MSM. A recent CDC study found that among urban MSM in 21 cities in 2008 who were unaware of their HIV infection, 55% had not been tested in the previous 12 months. Low awareness of HIV status among young MSM likely reflects several factors: they may have been infected more recently, may underestimate their personal risk, may have had fewer opportunities to get tested, or may believe that HIV treatment minimize the threat of HIV. CDC recommends that all MSM get tested for HIV once a year— and more often if they are at higher risk. MSM at higher risk includes those who have multiple or anonymous sex partners or use drugs during sex.

==================
Ft. Worth ISD Student Suspended for Saying Gay Is Wrong Published : Wednesday, 21 Sep 2011, 4:48 PM CD
Lari Barager FOX 4 News  Adapted for Web by Tracy DeLatte | myFOXdfw.com

FORT WORTH, Texas - A Fort Worth high school student was sent to the principal’s office earlier this week for telling another classmate he believes homosexuality is wrong.
Fourteen-year-old Dakota Ary spent most of the day Tuesday serving an in-school suspension. It was punishment for discussion in his German class at Fort Worth’s Western Hills High School.
“We were talking about religions in Germany. I said, ‘I’m a Christian. I think being a homosexual is wrong,’” he said. “It wasn’t directed to anyone except my friend who was sitting behind me. I guess [the teacher] heard me. He started yelling. He told me he was going to write me an infraction and send me to the office.”
An assistant principal called Ary’s mother at work to let her know he was in trouble.
“At first I was in disbelief. My son is on the honor roll with great grades. I don’t have any problems out of him,” Holly Pope said.
After hearing Ary’s explanation of what happened, the assistant principal reduced the original suspension from two days to one. But Pope was not satisfied with that.
He was stating an opinion. He has a right to do that. They punished him for it,” she said.
Attorney Matt Krause joined Ary and his mom at a Wednesday morning meeting with the principal. They asked for the blemish to be taken off his record and reassurance there would be no retaliation.

“Students don’t lose their first amendment rights just because they go in the schoolhouse door,” Krause said.

District spokesman Clint Bond said the Fort Worth Independent School District does not comment on specific employee or student-related issues.

“We are following district policy in our review of the circumstances and any resolution will likewise be in accordance with district policy,” Bond said.

If Ary continues taking German he’ll have to learn from the same teacher who punished him. His mom is relying on faith that things will work out.

“I want to believe the school will make the right decision. That’s something the school will need to handle,” she said.

Thursday
Jan032013

Why Work When You Can Get Welfare?  

Why Work When You Can Get Welfare?  

 

 

http://educationviews.org/why-work-when-you-can-get-welfare/ 

 

 

by Henry W. Burke

 

12.19.12 

 

 

 

STARTLING STATISTIC: The average wage for a working family is $24.00 per hour while the average wage for a welfare family is $23.55 per hour. 

 

 

 

Are welfare benefits for individuals and families overly generous?  Does welfare discourage people from seeking employment?  Is there a connection between large welfare benefits and the number of people dropping out of the work force?

 

 

 

 

Means-tested welfare programs include those benefits that are provided only to poor and lower-income persons (e.g., food stamps, public housing, Medicaid, and Temporary Assistance to Needy Families).

 

 

 

 It is important to have a complete understanding of the vast welfare system in this country; welfare is much broader and far more expensive than most people think. 

 

 

 

 

 Welfare Spending Is Out of Control!

 

 

 In spite of spending $19.8 trillion on welfare since 1965, the poverty rate has remained relatively constant (around 15 %)!  Obviously, the government's welfare programs are not working! 

 

Welfare spending has been the fastest-growing part of government spending for the past two decades, with nearly a 300 % increase!  Welfare in this country is a massive complex of 79 federal means-tested anti-poverty programs. 

 

http://budget.house.gov/UploadedFiles/rectortestimony04172012.pdf

 

 

 

By any measure, welfare is huge!  Federal welfare spending for Fiscal Year 2011 was $717 billion; when state spending is included, total welfare spending for FY 2011 was $927 billion!  Under Obama, total welfare spending (federal plus state) has grown from $714 billion in 2008 to $927 billion in 2011.  Welfare spending in 2012 will likely be around $973 billion.  This is a 36 % increase in four years!

 

 

 

Means-Tested Welfare Spending

(Billions of Dollars)

 

Fiscal

Year

Federal

($ Billions)

State

($ Billions)

Total

($ Billions)

    2007

    $469

    $189

    $658

    2008

    $522

    $192

    $714

    2009

    $613

    $167

    $780

    2010

    $695

    $193

    $888

    2011

    $717

    $210

    $927

 

Source:  The Heritage Foundation

 

 

http://budget.house.gov/UploadedFiles/rectortestimony04172012.pdf

 

 

 

 

 

 

Recent information from the Congressional Research Service places welfare spending slightly higher.  In Fiscal Year 2008, the federal government spent $563 billion on welfare.  Welfare spending in 2009 was $692 billion; welfare spending in 2010 was $733 billion; and welfare spending in 2011 was $746 billion.  Final figures are not available for 2012 but welfare expenses will likely total about $770 billion for this year (FY 2012).

 

This is the link for the 10.16.12 letter from the Congressional Research Service to the Senate Budget Committee:  federal means-tested spending

 

 

 

 

 

The Cato Institute recently released a comprehensive report on welfare in America.  The authors detailed numerous separate federal anti-poverty programs, with a total 2011 cost of $668.2 billion.  The single largest welfare program today is Medicaid at $228 billion.  The food stamp program (SNAP) is the second largest program at $75 billion. 

 

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/PA694.pdf

 

 

When the $668 billion in federal spending is combined with the $284 billion in state spending, the result is total 2011 welfare spending of $952 billion (nearly $1 trillion per year)!

 

[$668.2 billion federal + $284 billion state = $952.2 billion total]  

 

 

 

Cost of Largest Welfare Programs

(Billions of Dollars)

 

 

Program

2011

Federal

Cost

($ Billions)

Number of

Participants

(Millions)

Cost

per Participant

($1)

Medicaid

   228.0

    48.9

    4,663

SNAP

     75.0

    44.2

    1,697

EITC

     55.0

    27.0 *

    2,037 / h

SSI

     43.7

      8.1

    5,395

Federal Pell Grants

     41.0

      9.6

    4,265

TANF

     21.0

      4.5

    4,675

Section 8 Housing

     18.1

      2.0 *

    9,050 / h

Very Low Housing Loans

     16.7

 131,370 **

127,122 / u

Title 1 Education Grants

     14.1

    N/A

      --

CHIP

     13.5

      7.7

    1,747

National School Lunch

     10.9

    31.0

       352

Adjustable Rate Mortgages

     10.6

  43,687 **

242,635 / u

    Subtotal

   547.6

      --

        --

Other Programs

   120.6

      --

        --

    Total Welfare Programs

   668.2

      --

        --

 

Source:  Cato Institute, Policy Analysis No. 694, The American Welfare State: How We Spend Nearly $1 Trillion a Year Fighting Poverty - and Fail, April 11, 2012.

 

 

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/PA694.pdf

 

 

Notes:

 

* Households (h)

** Units (u)

 

Medicaid -- Health care for poor (excludes long-term care)

SNAP -- Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program

EITC -- Earned Income Tax Credit

SSI -- Supplemental Security Income

TANF -- Temporary Assistance for Needy Families

CHIP -- Children's Health Insurance Program

 

 

 [When figures from this table are extended for a family of four, the result is a welfare benefit of around $32,000 per family.]

 

 

 

 Welfare Spending Per Person and Per Family

 

It is useful to know how much we spend on welfare per person in this country.  We should also know the average welfare benefit per family.  With many overlapping welfare programs, it is difficult to determine the average benefit received by low-income persons.  Two separate studies are considered -- The Cato Institute and The Heritage Foundation.

 

 

The Cato Institute determined that the government spends $20,610 for every poor person in America.  The spending for a family of three is $61,830.

 

 http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/PA694.pdf

 

 

Cato placed total FY 2011 welfare spending (federal plus state) at $952.2 billion.  When this is divided by 46.2 million people in poverty, the result is $20,610 per person. 

[$952,200 million / 46.2 million persons = $20,610 per person]

 

 

 

Then, the welfare spending for a family of three is $61,830. 

[$20,610 x 3 persons = $61,830 per family]

 

 

Compared with the poverty threshold for that family of $18,530, we should have wiped out poverty in America three times over!

 

 

 

 

Welfare Spending Per Person and Per Family (FY 2011) 

 

 

Description

Spending

per Person

Spending

per Family

Poverty Threshold

       --

 $18,530

 

 

 

Welfare spending per person

  $20,610

      --

Welfare spending per family of three

       --

 $61,830

 

Source:  Cato Institute, Policy Analysis No. 694

 

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/PA694.pdf

 

 

 

The Heritage Foundation provided some useful analyses on welfare spending per person and per family.

 

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, there were 46.2 million poor persons in the U.S. in 2011; the poverty rate was 15.0 % and the median household income was $50,054. 

http://www.census.gov/prod/2012pubs/p60-243.pdf

 

 

Heritage determined that the average welfare benefit per person is $20,069

http://www.heritage.org/research/testimony/2012/05/examining-the-means-tested-welfare-state

 

One way of estimating the average welfare benefit per person would be to divide the total welfare spending by the total number of poor persons in the U.S.  Total welfare spending (federal plus state) was $927.2 billion for FY 2011.  If this sum is divided by 46.2 million poor persons, the result is $20,069. 

[$927,200 million / 46.2 million persons = $20,069 per person]

[This calculation is quite similar to the Cato Institute computation.]

 

The Heritage Foundation's modified calculation places the average welfare spending at $9,040 per person in 2011; the average welfare spending for a family of four is $36,160.

The simple $20,069 calculation can be misleading because many people with income above the official poverty level also receive means-tested welfare aid.  Because most welfare aid is targeted to people in the lowest-income one-third of the population, this is a more accurate figure.  (One-third of the 308 million total population equals 102.6 million people.)  When the $927.2 billion total welfare spending is divided by 102.6 million people, the result is average welfare spending of $9,040 per person in 2011.  For a family of four, the average welfare spending is $36,160.

 [$9,040 per person  x  4 persons = $36,160 per family]

 

Another way of examining welfare spending is to look at welfare spending on families with children.  Heritage determined that average welfare spending on a family with children is $33,000

In FY 2011, total welfare spending was $927 billion.  About half of the 2011 spending ($462 billion) will go to families with children.  There are about 14 million families in the lowest-income one-third of families with children.  If the $462 billion were divided equally among these families, the result would be around $33,000 per low-income family with children.   

[$462,000 million / 14 million families = $33,000 per family]

 

In addition, most of these lower-income families have some earned income.  The total income (welfare benefit plus earned income) for a family is $49,000.

Average earnings within this group are typically $16,000 per family.  When this earned income is added to the welfare benefit, the resulting total income is $49,000.

[$33,000 + $16,000 = $49,000] 

 

However, during this recession, the earnings might be somewhat less, say about $8,000.  The total "recession" income for a welfare family is $41,000

If this "recession" earnings figure of $8,000 is added to the welfare payments, the result is $41,000.

 [$33,000 + $8,000 = $41,000]

 

When we look at average total earnings of $41,000 to $49,000 per family (welfare benefits plus earned income), it is difficult to believe the claims that millions of lower-income families are chronically hungry, malnourished, or without good housing. 

 

After all, many families live quite well on $41,000 per year!  Also, the $49,000 total income figure is extremely close to the median household income of $50,054 (Census Bureau amount for 2011).

 

 

Welfare Benefits Per Person and Per Family (FY 2011)

 

Description

Benefits per Person

Benefits per Family

Welfare benefits for low-income persons

 $20,069

      --

Welfare benefits for bottom one-third income

   $9,040

 $36,160

Welfare benefits for families with children

       --

 $33,000

Welfare benefits for families + earned income

       --

 $49,000

Welfare benefits for families + recession income

       --

 $41,000

 

 

Source:  The Heritage Foundation, Examining the Means-tested Welfare State: 79 Programs and $927 Billion in Annual Spending, May 3, 2012

 

http://www.heritage.org/research/testimony/2012/05/examining-the-means-tested-welfare-state

 

 

The Cato and Heritage reports concluded:

 

 1.  Cato -- The total welfare spending in 2011 (federal plus state) for a family of three is $61,830.

 

2.  Heritage -- The total welfare benefit in 2011 (federal plus state) for a family of four is $36,160.

 

3.  Heritage -- The total 2011 welfare benefit for a family with children is $33,000.   

 

4.  Heritage -- The total 2011 income for a family on welfare (federal and state welfare benefits plus earned income) is $49,000.

 

5.  Heritage -- The total 2011 income for a family on welfare (federal and state welfare benefits plus "recession" earned income) is $41,000.

 

 

 Corresponding Hourly Wages:

 

 1.  The median annual income for 2011 was $50,054.  At 2,080 hours per year, the corresponding hourly wage would be about $24.00 per hour.  (This calculation is based on one person earning the income for the family.)

 

2.  For the welfare family with total income of $49,000, the corresponding hourly wage is $23.55 per hour.

 

3.  The hourly wage for the 2011 working family is $24.00 per hour.  This compares with an hourly wage of $23.55 in the welfare family.

 

 

 

 

 Welfare Spending vs. Unemployment

 

 

Under Obama, total welfare spending (federal plus state) has grown by 36 % in four years!  

 

Obama's supporters say that the recession caused the growth in welfare spending and that the spending increases are only temporary.  These ideas may seem plausible but we need to do some "fact checking."  As borne out by the long-term spending plans in his 2013 budget, most of Obama's increases are permanent expansions of the welfare state.

 

 

One of the measures of an economy is the employment situation.  The following table shows the employment picture for Obama's nearly four-year term. 

 

 

 

 

 Unemployment Under Obama

(Millions of Persons)

 

 

Date

Number

Employed

Employed

Change

Unemployment

Rate

Not in

Labor

Force

Not in

Labor

Force

Change

Jan. 2009

 142.099

      --

      7.6 %

  81.023

      --

Jan. 2010

 138.511

 - 3.588

      9.7 %

  83.663

 + 2.640

Jan. 2011

 139.330

 + 0.819

      9.1 %

  85.454

 + 1.791

Jan. 2012

 141.637

 + 2.307

      8.3 %

  87.874

 + 2.420

Nov. 2012

 143.262

 + 1.625

      7.7 %

  88.883

 + 1.009

3.8-Yr. Term

 

 + 1.163

   + 0.1 %

 

 + 7.860

 

 

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS)

 

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

 

 

 

When Obama was sworn into office in January 2009, the unemployment rate was 7.6 %; it is 7.7 % today.  In January 2009, 142.099 million people were employed; 143.262 million persons are employed today.    In spite of a population growth of 9.4 million people in this 3.8-year period, employment has grown by only 1.2 million people. 

 

 

Under Obama, the number of people "Not in Labor Force" has increased by 7.860 million persons.  Clearly, 7.9 million people have dropped out of the work force and have given up looking for work.

 

 

Instead of helping the truly needy, the welfare programs have exacerbated the problem by encouraging many people to drop out of the work force and become dependent on the government.  This discourages self initiative and traps people in the welfare system for many years.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 CONCLUSION

 

 

 Most compassionate Americans (including conservative Republicans) believe in a safety net for the truly needy.  We should provide assistance for the elderly, the mentally or physically-disabled, and those people who cannot work.  On the other hand, when the government is overly generous with the welfare programs, it destroys the incentive to work.

 

 

The average welfare family has a total income of $49,000.  This is very close to the median annual income of $50,054.

 

 

The corresponding average wage for the welfare family is $23.55 per hour; the average wage for the working family is $24.00 per hour.

 

 

Under Obama, welfare spending has increased by 36 % in four years.  The food stamp program has simply skyrocketed, with a 116 % increase in cost during Obama's term.

 

 

Through our very generous welfare programs, we have taken away much of the incentive to find employment and leave the welfare rolls. 

 

 

 

 

Our population has grown by 9.4 million people in the last four years yet the labor force has expanded only slightly.  Under Obama, 7.9 million people have dropped out of the work force and have given up looking for work.

 

 

 

There is a clear connection between the number of people dropping out of the work force and our overly generous welfare programs.  Why work when you can receive welfare?

 

 

 

 ACTION STEPS

 

 

The current concept behind how we fight poverty is wrong!  The vast majority of our welfare programs are aimed at making poverty more comfortable (better health care, money, food, shelter and so forth).  Instead, we should focus on creating the prosperity that will get people out of poverty.

 

 

Actually, we have a pretty solid idea on getting people out of poverty: (1) finish school; (2) do not get pregnant outside of marriage; and (3) get a job and stick with it.

 

 

==============================

 

 

The following article makes the connection between our burgeoning welfare spending and the fiscal cliff: "Elephants and the Fiscal Cliff," by Henry W. Burke, 12.12.12.

 

 

http://educationviews.org/elephants-and-the-fiscal-cliff/

 

http://nocompromisepac.ning.com/profiles/blogs/elephants-and-the-fiscal-cliff-by-henry-w-burke-12-12-12?xg_source=msg_appr_blogpost

 

 

===============================

 

 

 

Bio for Henry W. Burke

 

 

Henry Burke is a Civil Engineer  with a B.S.C.E. and M.S.C.E.  He has been a Registered Professional Engineer (P.E.) for 37 years and has worked as a Civil Engineer in construction for over 40 years. 

 

Mr. Burke had a successful 27-year career with a large construction contractor. 

 

Henry Burke serves as a full-time volunteer to oversee various construction projects. He has written numerous articles on education, engineering, construction, politics, taxes, and the economy.

 

 

Henry W. Burke

E-mail:  hwburke@cox.net 

 

Thursday
Jan032013

Lowering Taxes Actually Raises More Money

 

Amazing -- Lowering Tax Rates Actually Raises More Money

 

 

http://educationviews.org/amazing-lowering-tax-rates-actually-raises-more-money/

 

http://nocompromisepac.ning.com/profiles/blogs/6457500:BlogPost:36389?xg_source=msg_appr_blogpost

 

 

 

 

by Henry W. Burke

 

12.31.12

 

 

 

 

Fact:  When Presidents Harding, Coolidge, John F. Kennedy, Ronald Reagan, and George W. Bush cut tax rates, the tax revenues amazingly increased between 32% and 100%.

 

 

 

Experience demonstrates that high tax rates discourage more work and investment; the result is less tax revenue flowing to the government.

 

 

The historical record has shown repeatedly that lowering tax rates will cause the rich to pay more taxes.  More importantly, cutting the tax rates will actually increase the total tax revenues collected by the federal government! 

 

 

Reducing the tax rates will lead to significant economic growth and more tax revenues.  The economy expands; jobs are created; and unemployment drops.  After tax cuts are instituted, the rich make more money, keep more money and send more tax revenue to the government.

 

 

Why is Obama pushing for tax rate increases if they raise little or no additional revenue?  He wants to cause dissension among Republicans and incite a "civil war."  Any Republican officeholder that votes for a tax increase runs the risk of losing in the next primary election.

 

 

Obama is harping about increasing taxes on the rich (the "wealthiest two percent").  Even though the election is over, he continues to campaign on this point.  Obama's demands for more revenue are not an economic policy or a budget policy; rather, the demands express his vision of social justice and income redistribution.   

 

 

Obama included these class warfare taxes in his failed budget attempts; Democrats and Republicans alike shunned the toxic issue.  The 2012 Budget that Obama submitted to Congress last year was soundly defeated in the Senate by a 97 to 0 vote!  His 2013 Budget, which included numerous recycled tax hikes, suffered a similar fate; Obama's 2013 Budget was defeated unanimously in the House 414 to 0!  

 

 

It is estimated that Obama's tax hikes on the so-called "rich" (individuals with incomes more than $250,000) will generate about $80 billion per year (at best).  The federal government spent $3.5 trillion in Fiscal Year 2012 (ending September 30, 2012).  This equates to about $9.7 billion per day.  At our current rate of spending, this tax increase on the rich will pay for only 8.5 days of federal government spending!

 

 

Obama completely ignored the recommendations of his own Deficit Commission; he has gone more than three years without an approved federal budget; and he has shown no leadership in cutting spending.  Where are the spending cuts that he mentioned?  They do not exist!  Instead of real spending cuts, the White House has concocted "baseline" budgeting schemes to claim credit for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. 

 

 

 

 

Brief History of the Income Tax

 

Stephen Moore recently released his excellent book Who's the Fairest of Them All?  Moore is an editorial board member and senior economics writer at the Wall Street Journal; he is also a regular economic commentator on CNBC TV and the Fox News Channel.  In the book, Stephen Moore describes true tax fairness, the taxes that people pay, and the effects of lower tax rates.  Finally, Moore builds a strong case for the flat tax. 

 

 

The book includes a fact-filled Chapter 6: "Soak the Rich with Lower Tax Rates."  In that chapter, the author gives a great history of income taxes and explains how lower tax rates produced increased tax revenue.  [Information in this section and the next two sections was taken from Moore's book.]

 

 

 

The United States briefly had an income tax during the Civil war but the Supreme Court struck this act down and thwarted other income tax attempts throughout the 19th Century.  With the passage of the 16th Amendment in 1913, the income tax became a permanent fixture of government in America.  [The year 2013 will mark 100 years of the federal income tax!] 

 

 

The New York Times argued in 1894 that the income tax was a "vicious, inequitable, unpopular, impolitic, and socialist act."  Even the Washington Post saw the negative effects of a graduated income tax.  The Post editorial board said "It punishes everyone who rises above the rank of mediocrity."  The tax was supposed to be capped at 7 % and would apply only to the very richest Americans: the Rockefellers and Vanderbilts.

 

 

When the income tax was debated, some of the opponents in Congress argued that there should be a constitutional cap on the income tax at 10 %.  The income tax supporters assured voters that this was unnecessary because the income tax rate would never go that high.  They could not have been more wrong!  

 

 

 

 

Lessons from History on Tax Cuts

 

History can teach us some valuable lessons on tax cuts.  In the last 100 years, there have been four episodes of significant tax rate reductions.

 

 

 

1.  The Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge Tax Cuts

 

After passing the 16th Amendment in 1913, it did not take long for the government to drastically increase the income tax rate.  Within 8 years (by 1921) and during Woodrow Wilson's presidency, the top tax rate stood at 73 %!  [This is slightly above the promised 10 % maximum rate.]  Elected officials justified this high tax rate to fight the Germans in World War I. 

 

 

In the 1920 presidential election, Warren Harding and the Republicans promised a "return to normalcy" and Harding won in a landslide.  The country was suffering from a post-war recession and was experiencing very high unemployment. 

 

 

President Warren Harding pushed for cutting the tax rates.  After Harding died in office, his successor Calvin Coolidge promoted a steep reduction in tax rates to get the U.S. economy moving again.  Coolidge argued for the tax rate reductions in his 1924 State of the Union address.  He confidently predicted that his plan "would actually yield more revenues to the government if the basis of taxation were scientifically revised downward."

 

 

What happened when these tax cuts were instituted?  The economy roared back to life in the mid-1920s and earned the label "The Roaring '20s."  The rich got richer and middle-class Americans shared the affluence.  Even the poor could afford radios and indoor plumbing.

 

 

Income tax revenue soared from $720 million in 1921 to $1,150 million by 1928.  This is a 60 % increase in tax revenues.  Also, the share of taxes paid by those earning over $50,000 (the rich back then) rose from 45 % in 1921 (when the tax rate was 73 %) to 62 % in 1925 (when the tax rate was 25 %).  President Calvin Coolidge made eloquent speeches on how tax rate cuts would spur greater output and employment.  Coolidge said this in 1924:

 

            Experience does not show that the higher tax rate produces the larger revenue.  Experience is all the other way.

 

 

One of the main architects behind this first American supply-side tax cut was Secretary of the Treasury Andrew Mellon.  (The 1920s tax cut plan is sometimes called the "Mellon tax cuts.")  Mellon was one of the few people in Washington who predicted that lowering the tax rates would produce more growth and even more tax revenue.  Andrew Mellon said this about tax cuts:

 

          It seems difficult for people to understand that high rates of taxation do not necessarily mean large revenues to the government and that more revenue may often be obtained by lower tax rates.

 

 

 

In the fall of 1929, the stock market crashed and the economy tanked.  One contributor to the crash was the reversal of the Coolidge tax rate cuts.  In President Herbert Hoover's last year in office, the economy was sagging and the government faced a $2 billion budget deficit.  Hoover and the Republicans called for a tax increase that doubled the tax rates.  The economy sunk. 

 

 

When Franklin Delano Roosevelt entered office, all the rates were raised.  FDR and the Democrats increased the tax rates from 25 % to 63 %; then in 1935, FDR raised the top tax rate to more than 83 %.  During the war, rates were increased even more to an astounding 92 %!  Workers and investors kept 8 cents on the dollar!

 

 

 

 

2.  The Kennedy Tax Cuts

 

America's high tax rates took a toll.  The economy grew in the 1950s but not steadily.  By the end of the Eisenhower presidency, the economy was stalled again.  A young charismatic Senator from Massachusetts, John F. Kennedy, ran for president in 1960, promising to get the economy growing faster.  The Democratic party platform called for 5 % real economic growth rates.  [We would certainly like to see those growth rates today.]

 

 

When JFK took office in 1961, the highest marginal tax rate was 91 %; the lowest was 20 %.  Many of Kennedy's advisers, including John Kenneth Galbraith, argued for a massive government spending program.  [Does this sound familiar?]  John Kennedy was ultimately his own economic counselor and understood human nature and the lessons of history.  He decided the best way to get the economy moving was through across-the-board tax reductions. 

 

 

John F. Kennedy was the first modern-day supply side president.  He wisely declared this in 1963:

 

          Let me make clear why, in today's economy, fiscal prudence and responsibility call for tax reduction even if it temporarily enlarged the federal deficit -- why reducing taxes is the best way open to us to increase revenues.

 

 

Tragically, President Kennedy was assassinated but his tax package was enacted into law in 1964.  The law reduced the top personal income tax rate from 91 % to 70 % by 1965 and cut the lower rates as well.  Some of his opponents suggested that this tax cut would benefit the rich.  Kennedy argued that economic growth would benefit all income levels and uttered the famous quote: "A rising tide lifts all boats."

 

 

Guess who opposed the tax cuts in Congress?  Politics was flipped on its head with Democrats pushing for tax cuts and Republicans opposing tax reductions.  House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Wilbur Mills wisely prophesied: 

 

          The larger revenues derived from this additional income will result in the federal budget being balanced sooner than would be the case in the absence of the tax cut.

 

 

What were the results from the Kennedy tax cuts?  The economy grew rapidly in 1964, 1965 and 1966.  The unemployment rate fell to its lowest peacetime level in more than 30 years.  The Gross National Product (GNP) grew by 10 % in 1966.

 

 

How about the tax revenues?  The tax revenues grew from $113 billion in 1964 to $149 billion in 1967 ($36 billion improvement).  This is a 32 % increase in tax revenues. 

 

http://www.nber.org/erp/ERP_2012_Complete.pdf

 

 

This is the interesting part.  Lower tax rates on the rich led these income classes to pay a much larger share of the total tax burden.  Americans earning over $50,000 per year (equivalent to $200,000 today) increased their taxes by nearly 40 %.  Their tax share rose from 12 % in 1963 to almost 15 % in 1966.  Americans over $1 million doubled their tax payments from 1962 (when the tax rate was 91 %) to 1965 (when the tax rate was 70 %).  The rich pay more when the tax rates are reduced!

 

 

 

3.  The Reagan Tax Cuts

 

President Ronald Reagan and Congressman Jack Kemp modeled their tax cuts after the successful Kennedy plan.  Tax rates were cut across the board by 25 %.  The highest tax rate was slashed from 70 % to 50 %, and then later to 28 %.  This time, the Republicans were pushing for lower tax rates and the Democrats were arguing that lower tax rates could not be afforded.

 

Reducing income and capital gains tax rates in 1981 helped to launch what we now appreciate as the greatest and longest period of wealth creation in world history.  In 1981, the stock market bottomed out at about 1,000 (Dow Jones Industrial Average), compared to nearly 13,000 today.

 

After the tax cuts, the economy soared in the 1980s.  Federal revenues doubled from $517 billion in 1980 to $1,032 billion in 1990.

 

 

Also, the rich paid a larger share after the tax cuts.  The richest 10 % of Americans paid $177 billion in federal income taxes in 1980 but they paid $237 billion in 1988.  The remaining 90 % of households paid $5 billion less in income taxes over this period.  The share of total income taxes paid by the wealthiest 1 % of Americans rose from 18 % in 1981 to 25 % in 1990.  The wealthiest 5 % saw their tax share rise from 35 % to 44 %.  This means that the rise in deficits during this period was not a result of "tax cuts for the rich" but rather a rise in federal spending.

 

 

Federal Reserve Board member Lawrence Lindsey wrote a report in the peer-reviewed Journal of Public Economics.  Lindsey painstakingly compared the actual revenues generated and determined that all of Reagan's income tax cuts were "recouped by changes in taxpayer behavior."  Lindsey concluded his analysis by stating:

 

          But the core supply side tenet -- that tax rates powerfully affect the willingness of taxpayers to work, save and invest, and thereby also affect the health of the economy -- won as stunning a vindication as have been seen in at least a half-century of economics.

 

 

 

 

4.  The George W. Bush Tax Cuts

 

The tax rate cutting history would not be complete without a quick review of the Bush tax cuts of 2003.  That plan reduced income tax rates, dividend tax rates and capital gains rates to spur a stock market recovery and create jobs.  President Bush was accused of employing "trickle-down" economics and giving tax cuts to the rich.

 

 

Here are the results.  Tax receipts exploded by a record $786 billion in four years, going from $1,782 billion in 2003 to $2,568 billion in 2007.  This is a 44 % increase in tax revenues.  The economy produced 8 million new jobs.  And once again, the rich paid more tax, not less.  In 2005, the top 1 % of earners paid 39 % of the federal income taxes (the highest ever); the top 5 % paid 57 % of the income taxes; and the top 10 % paid 66 % of the taxes.  The bottom 50 % paid a whopping 3 % of the taxes. 

 

 

 

 

Summary of the tax revenue increases from the four tax cuts:

 

1.  Harding-Coolidge Tax Cuts -- As a direct result of the tax cuts, tax revenues rose from $720 million in 1921 to $1,150 million in 1928.  This is a 60 % increase in tax revenues.

 

 

2.  Kennedy Tax Cuts -- After the tax cuts were passed in 1964, tax revenues grew by $36 billion in three years.  This is a 32 % increase in tax revenues

 

 

3.  Reagan Tax Cuts -- The Reagan-Kemp tax cuts caused a $515 billion growth in tax revenues, going from $517 billion in 1980 to $1,032 billion in 1990.  This is a 100 % increase in tax revenues.

 

 

4.  Bush tax Cuts -- The Bush tax cuts caused a large increase in tax receipts; tax revenues grew by $786 billion between 2003 and 2007.  This is a 44 % increase in tax revenues.

 

 

 

 

Percent of total tax revenues paid by the top income earners:

 

1.  Harding-Coolidge Tax Cuts -- For those earning over $50,000 per year, their share of the total taxes paid rose from 45 % in 1921 to 62 % in 1925.  For those who made more than $100,000, their share of the taxes rose from 28 % in 1921 to 51 % in 1925.

 

 

2.  Kennedy Tax Cuts -- Americans earning over $50,000 per year saw their share of the total taxes increase from 12 % in 1963 to 15 % in 1966; this is a 40 % increase in their share.  For those who earned over $100,000, their share of the total taxes rose by 68 %.  For people who earned over $1 million, their share of the taxes increased by 80 %.

 

 

3.  Reagan Tax Cuts -- The richest 10 % of Americans paid 34 % more in taxes between 1980 and 1988. 

 

 

4.  Bush Tax Cuts -- After the Bush tax cuts, the richest Americans shouldered the highest percentages ever.  In 2005, the top 1 % of income earners paid 39 % of the total taxes; and the top 10 % of earners paid 66 % of the taxes.

 

 

 

 

The Laffer Curve

 

Obama's tax hikes on the rich are doomed to fail!  History teaches us that high tax rates do not produce more tax revenue for the government.  Also, high tax rates are the worst way to redistribute income to the poor and middle class.  This is because of the "Laffer Curve" effect.  [Someone needs to tell Obama about the Laffer Curve.] 

 

 

The Laffer Curve is a graph that plots Tax Rate vs. Tax Revenue.  Experience demonstrates that high tax rates discourage more work and investment; the result is less tax revenue flowing to the government.  For example, a tax rate of 80 % means that the worker or investor keeps only 20 cents out of every dollar.

 

 

Stephen Moore offers this simple illustration:

 

          If there were a 20 percent tax rate for working on Monday, a 40 percent tax rate for working on Tuesday, a 60 percent tax rate for working on Wednesday, an 80 percent rate for working on Thursday, and a 90 percent rate for working on Friday, how many people would work on Friday?  Not many.

 

 

Rich people put more of their money in tax shelters when the tax rates are high.  This results in less taxable income and lower tax payments.  Every time taxes have been raised, revenues have fallen.  Of course, the opposite also holds -- lower tax rates produce greater tax revenues.  This was demonstrated by the four major tax cuts (Harding-Coolidge, Kennedy, Reagan, and Bush).

 

The rich pay more when incentives to hide income are reduced. 

 

 

 

 

Who Pays the Taxes?

 

The highest-earning families and businesses already pay the lion’s share of the federal income tax burden.  A recent IRS publication provides some basic facts on income tax rates and tax shares.

 

 

Source:  U.S. Department of Treasury, Internal Revenue Service, Individual Income Tax Rates and Shares, 2008, (September 20, 2011).

 

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/11intr08winbul.pdf

 

 

The report reveals that the top 1 % of income earners paid 38 % of all federal income taxes in 2008; and the top 10 % of earners paid 70 % of the total taxes.

 

 

The bottom 50 % of income earners paid 3 % of the total income taxes.

 

 

Taxpayers who had incomes over $200,000 earned 32 % of the total income and paid 52 % of the total income taxes.

 

 

 

 

The following statements can be made about Higher-Income Earners:

 

1.  Taxpayers with an Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) from $200,000 to $500,000 earned 13 % of the total income and paid 19 % of the total income taxes.

 

2.  Taxpayers with an AGI from $500,000 to $1 million earned 5 % of the total income and paid 9 % of the total income taxes.

 

3.  Taxpayers with an AGI over $1 million earned 14 % of the total income and paid 24 % of the total income taxes.

 

4.  The higher income group (taxpayers who earned over $200,000) earned 32 % of the total income and paid 52 % of the total income taxes.

 

5.  The Average Tax Rate for this group was 21.9 %.

 

 

 

It is easy to see that higher-income taxpayers are already paying a very high percentage of the total taxes.

 

 

Obama’s plan is straightforward – soak the top-earning households in America – those earning more than $200,000 as single filers or $250,000 as married couples.  According to the IRS data, that “tiny, wealthy minority” encompasses more than 4.3 million households!  When we count spouses, children, and other dependents, we are talking about 12.5 million Americans! 

 

Also many of the small businesses fall into this $200,000 - $250,000 category.  Roughly two thirds of small businesses are taxed at this rate.  Why would we want to raise taxes on the job creators?  [People who make $50,000 do not create many jobs.]

 

 

Obama wants to dramatically increase taxes on the "rich."  What if the feds confiscated 100 % of the gross income from the taxpayers who made over $1 millionThat would amount to $1.068 trillion (2008 study).  This amount is less than the federal deficit for one year!  (Deficits have been running over $1.3 trillion per year under Obama.)

 

 

Obviously, this is ridiculous and far-fetched, but it makes a point.  People would not stand for it; they would have no incentive to earn money; and they would leave the country in droves!  However, it helps to put the government's spending and deficits into perspective. 

 

 

I might also point out that the Total AGI for all taxpayers ($7.58 trillion) is less than half of our $16.4 trillion National Debt.

 

 

 

Obama has successfully focused the attention on people at the upper end of the income scale, the so-called "rich."  What about people at the lower end of the income scale?  The bottom 50 % of income earners paid 3 % of the total income taxes; and the bottom 40 % paid no federal income tax!  Instead, the bottom 40 % of tax filers receive net payments from the income tax system equal to 3.8 % of all taxes paid (about $39 billion per year).

 

 

Under Obama, new "refundable tax credits" have been inserted into the tax code.  Today, refundable tax credits cost the federal treasury $82 billion a year.  These are welfare payments that are disguised as tax cuts.  The amount of the refundable tax credits ($82 billion) is essentially identical to the $80 billion tax increase that Obama expects to get from the rich.  [Does this make sense?] 

 

 

 

 

 

CONCLUSION

 

 

Obama wants to increase tax rates on the "rich."  (Apparently, he defines rich as anyone making over $250,000 per year.)  Obama is driven in this direction by his income redistribution ideology.

 

 

Obama's plan will not reduce the deficit, mainly because he offers no real spending cuts.  His "baseline" budgeting schemes are bogus tactics that do nothing to trim the recurring deficits and burgeoning national debt.

 

 

History has repeatedly demonstrated that reducing the tax rates will lead to significant economic growth and more tax revenues.  The economy expands; jobs are created; and unemployment drops.  After tax cuts are instituted, the rich make more money, keep more money and send more tax revenue to the government.

 

 

I would call this a "Win-Win" Tax Plan!

 

 

 

==============================

 

 

Henry W. Burke

E-mail: hwburke@cox.net 

 

Saturday
Dec292012

Getting a Hold of the Fiscal Cliff and Taxmageddon--What Happens To Defense, Welfare, Jobs and You-and Who Can Help?

Hear a great explanation of the fiscal cliff from our friend who likes to dig out the true facts and figures--Mr. Henry Burke on the first hour and then some words of encouragement as to why the Church must be involved in politics in the 2nd hour.

 

Saturday
Dec292012

Hope Our Leaders Get A Wake Up Call--Like Evel Knievel Did--In This New Year

Evel Knievel's Testimony -about how he had been praying to a god that left him empty until he realized he had to go to the Living God and now he is complete.

 

He always believed in god (power) but always had a problem believing in Jesus Christ. He now knows there's more to life than what he's had.  He wrote a book called Evil Ways.  He said he's had a life better than any king or any president or any prince and now calls that thinking--"HogWash".  He was talking about the Rolls Royce (he had 5 of them), the Ferraris(he had 5 of them), the Stetsons, the Lamborghinis, the jet airplanes-two of them (he flew one alongside the other so he could read his name on the side),the diamonds, gold, racehorses, women and booze. He tells us the difference between a Christian and an atheist--a Christian wants to believe in everything about Christianity and Jesus.  An atheist doesn't believe in God because he does not want to.  He stays away, he gets mad and he doesn't want to hear about it.  But...


He says, "If YOU don't believe that Jesus Christ is what he says he is you'll surely die and die in your sins.  Let me see how many of you have felt what I feel (he asks the crowd in Robert Schuller's church where he is giving his testimony).  Isn't it a wonderful feeling to say I have a God I can believe in-a real God I can believe in?  Isn't it a wonderful feeling to wake up in the middle of the night and say I am glad I woke up and can go back to sleep a few minutes but in the meantime I am going to think about Jesus Christ--it's such a warm wonderful feeling."


Hope in this New Year that more of us and our leaders would realize the truth he finally saw and also to see the many things taking up our lives unnecessarily as HogWash.  It's time for America to clean up its act from the bottom to the top and may God have mercy on US in this coming year and let's start with praying for our leaders to get their wake up call.

Matthew 16:26 
For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?

 

Thursday
Dec272012

Why Did Benghazi-Gate Come About? Hear Perspectives on Gun-Running Gone Amuck (Again-Remember Fast and Furious) And Why The Need For Big Cover Up With Help of Mainstream Media

Hear interview that gives new perspective on the incident in Benghazi-Libya that many may have never heard.  Was Obama administration involved in gun running (again as in fast and furious)?  What would prompt Obama administration to not send help to our US personnel in dire jeopardy in the Libyan incident?  What is so big that Obama denies knowledge of the truth in prime time in front of all the world and still the truth to this day is not fully known?  Will Americans be satisfied with answers given and pacified enough to ignore the price of freedom--the death of those who in essence call for help was ignored by the highest posititons in the land.  Only time will tell if truth is still important to Americans.  Get a glimpse of the COIN doctrine and our wrong-headed thinking in the middle east that is proving very costly yet few will admit as wrong.

Thursday
Dec272012

Was Nov 2012 Election A Mandate For Obama Or Did A Disgruntled Electorate and Voter Fraud Make The Difference In A Tight Election?

 

Hear interview with Neil Mammen, author of Jesus Is Involved In Politics Too as he breaks down what really took place in the Nov 6, 2012 elections.  There were voter frauds and there were many who sat down and did not vote.  The results should warn both sides as in truth there is an upheaval on both sides.  Will lessons be learned?  We will find out soon enough as in two years many Democrats are up for election.   Neil Mammen's perspective gives many of us food for thought about where to go after this Nov 2012 election results. Absent voters and fraud do not mix well in producing a better American government.  Time will tell if they really chose well or helped speed up America's doom.