The Cost of Bad Intentions

Shriver and like-minded policymakers designed programs far more ambitious than those of the New Deal liberalism that had characterized the Democratic Party since Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s election in 1932. Though the New Deal vastly expanded the government safety net, it still recognized a connection between work and upward mobility and viewed government’s role as that of a temporary helper when someone was truly down and out. The officials behind the War on Poverty, by contrast, saw the poor as powerless, crushed by economic and cultural forces that could be overcome only with massive government help. Instead of temporary aid, welfare would now be a right, which the poor were entitled to receive, and benefits became far more generous, so that, by the late 1970s, welfare payments and other government aid now brought in about as much money as low-wage work.

Read the whole thing.

Source: The Cost of Bad Intentions

Federal Employees Want Taxpayers to Keep Their Distance

What inhumane, outrageous and bigoted Trump administration policy has attracted the attention of Ms. Salstrom? Has someone purchased a one-way ticket to Somalia for Rep. Ilhan Omar?

Not exactly, but the outrage does involve travel. The Trump administration is planning to move portions of the Department of Agriculture and the Bureau of Land Management closer to where agriculture happens and land is managed.

Placing swamp bureaucrats closer to the people over which they rule is evidently inherently offensive. Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-Barnacle) warned, “In the White House, there is, among some people, a real disrespect for federal employees, animated by their disrespect for the government generally. So if you’re hostile to government, you’re then … hostile to those who work in government.”

Omigod! A sensible government policy! Democrats must be scared to death!

Source: Federal Employees Want Taxpayers to Keep Their Distance

 

A theory behind why government is sexualizing children – Bookworm Room

Governments are enthusiastically weaponizing the Leftist trend of sexualizing children, because doing so dramatically increases government power.

What’s terrifying about the child transgender movement is that it’s moved beyond the moral degenerates of the entertainment and media worlds. We’ve now reached the point at which governments are rapidly internalizing it and using it to sever the parent-child bond. Last year in Ohio, parents actually lost custody for not being sufficiently supportive of their daughter’s claimed transgenderism. Currently, in Texas, a father is being told that, if he doesn’t get with his ex-wife’s program of insisting that their six-year-old son wants to be a girl, he will lose any access to his son.

Source: A theory behind why government is sexualizing children – Bookworm Room

This Civil War – My South Carolina Tea Party Convention Speech

We’ve been having this fight for a while. But this century things have escalated.

They escalated a whole lot after Trump’s win because the network isn’t pretending anymore. It sees the opportunity to delegitimize the whole idea of elections.

Now the network isn’t running the country from cover. It’s actually out here trying to overturn the results of an election and remove the president from office.

It’s rejected the victories of two Republican presidents this century.

There’s only been two, and they’ve rejected both.

This is a civil war between volunteer governments elected by the people and professional governments elected by… well… uh… themselves.

Of the establishment, by the establishment and for the establishment.

Yep.

We’re in a civil war between conservative volunteer government and leftist professional government.

The pros have made it clear that they’re not going to accept election results anymore. They’re just going to make us do whatever they want. They’re in charge and we better do what they say.

That’s the war we’re in. And it’s important that we understand that.

Because this isn’t a shooting war yet. And I don’t want to see it become one.

Personally I’m preparing for one.

Both sides talk about taking back the country. But who are they taking it back for?

The left uses identity politics. It puts supposed representatives of entire identity groups up front. We’re taking the country back for women and for black people, and so on and so forth…

But nobody elected their representatives.

Identity groups don’t vote for leaders. All the black people in the country never voted to make Shaun King al Al Sharpton their representative. And women sure as hell didn’t vote for Hillary Clinton.

What we have in America is a representative government. A representative government makes freedom possible because it actually represents people, instead of representing ideas.

The left’s identity politics only represents ideas. Nobody gets to vote on them.

That’s because their ideas are so good they have to be forced down our throats.

Read the whole thing. Or watch the video.

Source: This Civil War – My South Carolina Tea Party Convention Speech

California’s Green ‘Bantustans’ Are Coming to America

Why call neighborhoods with mandated ultra-high density “Green Bantustans”? Because the Bantustan was where a racist elite used to herd the African masses during South Africa’s apartheid era. The commonality between the Green Bantustan and the Racist Bantustan becomes clear when you step back and ponder what is happening. In both cases, a privileged elite condemn the vast majority of individuals to live in a concentrated area designed to minimize their impact on the land.…

“Smart Growth” is Not Smart, It’s Just Cruel
None of this is necessary. The idea that American policymakers should enforce urban containment is a cruel, entirely unfounded, self-serving lie.

So that’s why. I’m house hunting and I noticed the lack of yards in new construction. I’m avoiding cities now and looking for a couple of acres in the rural areas.

Source: California’s Green ‘Bantustans’ Are Coming to America

Lawmakers Introduce Bill to Shut U.S. Department of Education

Massie continued. “And then I ask the liberals who want the federal government involved, I say: Do you really want President Trump deciding what or how your children should learn?” the congressman said. “And so now you have got a situation where the left has to advocate for President Trump controlling the education of their children if they want to keep the Department of Education.”

My question is: Why wasn’t this introduced two years ago when the Republicans ran the House, the Senate, and the Presidency? This is just another RINO attempt to fool the base into thinking that the RINOs are conservatives who support the Constitution. Notice they always introduce these bills when there is no chance of them passing.

Source: Lawmakers Introduce Bill to Shut U.S. Department of Education

From my reading…

On entering the House of Representatives of Washington, one is struck by the vulgar demeanor of that great assembly. The eye frequently does not discover a man of celebrity within its walls. Its members are almost all obscure individuals whose names present no associations to the mind: they are mostly village lawyers, men in trade, or even persons belonging to the lower classes of society. In a country in which education is very general, it is said that the representatives of the people do not always know how to write correctly.

At a few yards’ distance from this spot is the door of the Senate, which contains within a small space a large proportion of the celebrated men of America. Scarcely an individual is to be perceived in it who does not recall the idea of an active and illustrious career: the Senate is composed of eloquent advocates, distinguished generals, wise magistrates, and statesmen of note, whose language would at all times do honor to the most remarkable parliamentary debates of Europe.

What then is the cause of this strange contrast, and why are the most able citizens to be found in one assembly rather than in the other? Why is the former body remarkable for its vulgarity and its poverty of talent, while the latter seems to enjoy a monopoly of intelligence and of sound judgment? Both of these assemblies emanate from the people; both of them are chosen by universal suffrage; and no voice has hitherto been heard to assert, in America, that the Senate is hostile to the interests of the people. From what cause, then, does so startling a difference arise? The only reason which appears to me adequately to account for it is that the House of Representatives is elected by the populace directly, and that the Senate is elected by elected bodies. The whole body of the citizens names the legislature of each state, and the federal Constitution converts these legislatures into so many electoral bodies, which return the members of the Senate. The senators are elected by an indirect application of universal suffrage: for the legislatures which name them are not aristocratic or privileged bodies which exercise the electoral franchise in their own right; but they are chosen by the totality of the citizens; they are generally elected every year, and new members may constantly be chosen who will employ their electoral rights in conformity with the wishes of the public. But this transmission of the popular authority through an assembly of chosen men operates an important change in it, by refining its discretion and improving the forms which it adopts. Men who are chosen in this manner accurately represent the majority of the nation which governs them; but they represent the elevated thoughts which are current in the community, the generous propensities which prompt its nobler actions, rather than the petty passions which disturb, or the vices which disgrace it.

— Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America

The 17th Amendment deprived the States of any representation in Congress. Basically we have two Houses of Representatives. And it shows! Liberals always destroy things that work and the Senate hasn’t worked since the 17th Amendment was adopted. Repeal the 17th Amendment.