The current government of the US is a product of the lo/info voter: We're broke, under water, quickly becoming a third-world country The Curse Of The LO/INFO Voter

Obama LO/INFO voter—sometimes referred to as LIVs—are a curse on America.  It is they who are driving America’s “post constitution” government.  They, however, are SO low-information they have no idea their influence may lie at the root of the problems America faces today.

Now.  Who are these LO/Info voters?  What is a Lo/Info voter?  Let’s take a closer look.
I will guarantee when we finish here you will KNOW who a Lo/Info voter is—and—you might be surprised to learn that YOU fall within their ranks.  Not to worry.  Most of us have been, at one time in our lives, card carrying members of the Lo/Info voter classification.

Let’s begin with the obvious.  Lo/Info voters are people who may vote, but who are, generally speaking, poorly (or badly) informed about politics.  That fact alone speaks volumes concerning the inherent weakness of a democracy.  It can certainly be considered an important reason the Founders of America decided that a Representative Republic was the way to go for this fledgling country and its government.

The LIVs could not define their political ideology if their lives depended upon it.  As a rule, with some exceptions, of course, they have no political ideology of their own.  Instead, they choose candidates that are, for whatever reason, appealing to them.  It could be as simple as the physical appearance of the candidate. In fact, it often IS the visage of the candidate.  For instance, America’s last balding President was Dwight Eisenhower.

Having no coherent political ideology the LIVs are more likely to be swing voters, and they will split a ticket in a heartbeat.

Some years ago, I was conversing with a young man about an upcoming Presidential Election.  He volunteered that he probably would not vote because his vote didn’t really make a difference anyway.  I tried to convince him, as best I could, that he was wrong.  But as the conversation went on I began to understand that this young man knew squat about America’s political system. He was married, a high school graduate with possibly some college, a veteran, gainfully employed, and dumb as a post about politics in America. He was, and I suspect still is, a LIV.

I have a friend, a middle-aged government employee, very intelligent, with more than one college degree, married, very successful in his chosen field, who, when asked his opinion on something or other the government is proposing in Congress, responds with:  “I don’t worry about stuff like that.  There’s nothing I can do about it. So why worry?”

Do either of these examples remind you of some of your friends and acquaintances?
These are LO/INFO voters ... and they are dangerous to America.

America was very carefully designed for people who were educated, moral, and involved in the politics of the country. Over the two and a half centuries America has been on the scene we have seen what can happen to her and her government as fewer and fewer Americans deign to take part in the governing process.
By taking part, I mean not just voting, but following, closely, the goings on in the Congress and the Oval Office and writing letters, e-mails and telephoning or faxing their representative in Congress over their concerns about proposed legislation, etc. It means attending City Council meetings, at least occasionally,  and County Commissioner meetings, too.  All these politicians need to see you and hear you and KNOW hey are being held accountable to and by the voters who selected them as their representatives.
It is frighteningly easy to see what happens to a government when the electorate does not stay involved.  We get exactly what we have today in Washington—a Congress that is so out of touch with their constituents as to seem almost rogue in nature.

The current government of the US is a product of the lo/info voter.  Who else but lo/info voters would vote for a man for President based simply on the color of his skin?  How do we get so many worthless, corrupt, politicians returned term after term to the Congress except by the votes of lo/info voters?

So now, we are paying the price.  We’re broke, under water, quickly becoming a third-world country, and we’re scratching our collective heads wondering how we ever got into this mess.

I submit that wondering how we got into this mess is not the real question.  We already know the answer to that.

The real question is:  “How do we get out of this mess?”

”.

Sequester-Sized Government Waste Can Go First

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel complained today about $8.5 million in cuts for classroom teachers in Wisconsin if the sequester goes through. The Fort Worth Star Telegram was more worthy, saying that the $67.8 million Texas will lose in education funding is doable for the state.
“That's a lot of money,” says Star-Telegram.com, “but the state is scheduled to receive $4.9 billion in federal funds this year, part of a total school spending plan that tops $40 billion when local funds are included. What the White House is talking about is taking away less than a 10th of a percent of public education spending in Texas. It's doable.”

Both positions in Milwaukee and Houston are understandable. But both are also off the mark.
Because the question that’s most salient here isn’t the monies that are at stake now, but the monies that have been wasted before- and will be wasted again if we don’t demand cuts now. Monies that won't go to teachers and firefighters and cops and soldiers. Money that will reward those who've created the monster.   
With government spending expected to cost $6.3 trillion in the US for 2013, let’s look at the things that we’ve squandered money on thus far; waste that has gone a long way to getting us where we are.
After all, sequester demands that we only cut $44 billion in federal spending. That’s a sum that more or less we’ve wasted on a ton of high profile boondoggles that seem to spark little outrage by the administration that can’t stand the idea of cutting even waste.

As Investor’s Business Daily says:
But will a $44 billion cut in spending out of a $3.8 trillion budget, a mere 1%, really be a "meat cleaver approach" that will "eviscerate" government programs?

Obama frightens people by pretending that the $1 trillion cut takes place right away rather than being spread out over 10 years.

He has taken almost every possible position on spending and taxes. During the 2008 presidential campaign, Obama continually promised to "cut net spending" and make government smaller. The stimulus was promised not to "raise projected deficits beyond a short horizon of a year or at most two."

Yet, during the fifth year of Obama's presidency, we are told that we can't cut spending, that we need even more government "investments."

The Department of Energy, for example, has sponsored loans of $34.5 billion to tenuous “green” companies, many of which have political connections to the Obama White House.
Let’s call in those loans.

The government’s venture into venture capitalism doesn’t seem like such a good idea to me when classroom teachers are going to get the axe. 

Or maybe we could get General Motors to make due on the $15 billion that taxpayers are in the hole on the public stock offering of GM? Or perhaps we could ask the auto companies to get back the $27 billion that the government wasted on shoring-up the United Auto Workers union in the bailout plan?
Do we really need to save a union with declining membership and relevance, rather than pay teachers?
We can talk healthcare too.

Before we let the government take over the whole healthcare system, they could first clean up the estimated $48 billion in fraud and abuse that the government’s own General Accounting Office says haunts the part of healthcare that the government controls now-- Medicaid and Medicare.
  
“In 2010 the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report claiming to have identified $48 billion in what it termed as ‘improper payments,’” reports Forbes. “That’s nearly 10 percent of the $500 billion in outlays for that year.  However, others, including U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, suggest that there is an estimated $60 to $90 billion in fraud in Medicare and a similar amount for Medicaid.”
Holy tamoly: That’s at least $120 billion savings right there.

So if we can find an alternative to the green loans, tell GM to give us back the $42 billion that we wasted on the auto bailout- they have $26 billion in cash today…they can owes us the rest- that $60 billion in savings. Then if we clean up fraud and abuse in the healthcare system that the government runs we could save all told about $180 billion this year, with ongoing savings of $120 billion.
All of this before I cooked dinner, even.
   
Shouldn’t we do that first before raising any taxes or firing any teachers?
I mean cut spending- and waste- not cook dinner.

http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/johnransom/2013/02/26/sequestersized-government-waste-can-go-first-n1520374/page/full/

Which Government Spend the Most Per Capita on Government Healthcare: France, Italy, the United States, Sweden, Canada, Greece, or the United Kingdom? government is the problem and less government is the solution

What government spends the most on health care?

• Is it Canada or the United Kingdom, which are famous (or, if these stories are any indication, infamous would be a better description) for single-payer healthcare systems?
• Is it Sweden, the home of the cradle-to-grave welfare state?
• Or France, the land of the world’s most statist people?
• How about Italy or Greece, nations that have spent themselves into fiscal crisis?

Nope, nope, nope, and nope.
The United States spends more money, on a per-capita basis, than any of those countries. Here’s a chart from a Forbes analysis prepared by Doug Holtz-Eakin and Avik Roy.

There are three big reasons why there’s more government-financed healthcare spending in the United States.

1. Richer nations tend to spend more, regardless of how they structure their healthcare systems.

2. As you can see at the 1:18 mark of this video, the United States is halfway down the road to a 

single-payer system thanks to programs such as Medicare and Medicaid.

3. America’s pervasive government-created third-party payer system leads to high prices and costly inefficiency.

So what’s the moral of the story? Simple, notwithstanding the shallow rhetoric that dominates much of the debate, the United States does not have anything close to a free-market healthcare system.
That was true before Obamacare and it’s even more true now that Obamacare has been enacted.
Indeed, it’s quite likely that many nations with “guaranteed” health care actually have more market-oriented systems than the United States.

Avik Roy argues, for instance, that Switzerland’s system is the best in the world. And the chart above certainly shows less direct government spending.

And there’s also the example of Singapore, which also is a very rich nation that has far less government spending on healthcare than the United States.

If you read the Avik Roy articles linked above, and also this study by my Cato colleague Mike Tanner, you’ll see that there’s no perfect system.

Our challenge is that it’s very difficult to put toothpaste back in a tube. Thanks to government programs and backdoor intervention through the tax code, the United States healthcare system is nowhere close to a free market (with a few minor exceptions such as cosmetic surgery and – regardless of what you think of the procedure – abortion).

Yes, I think entitlement reform can make things better, though fixing Medicare and Medicaid should be seen as a necessary but not sufficient condition. As I show in this post, we would simply move a little bit in the right direction on the spectrum between markets and statism.
Tax reform could solve another part of the problem by removing the bias for over-insurance, which presumably would lead people to pay out of pocket and use insurance for large, unexpected costs.

Fundamental tax reform is also the best way to improve the healthcare system. Under current law, compensation in the form of fringe benefits such as health insurance is tax free. Not only is it deductible to employers and non-taxable to employees, it also isn’t hit by the payroll tax. This creates a huge incentive for gold-plated health insurance policies that cover routine costs and have very low deductibles. …Shifting to a flat tax means that all forms of employee compensation are taxed at the same low rate, a reform that presumably over time will encourage both employers and employees to migrate away from the inefficient over-use of insurance that characterizes the current system. For all intents and purposes, the health insurance market presumably would begin to resemble the vastly more efficient and consumer-friendly auto insurance and homeowner’s insurance markets.

In other words, as this poster suggests, government is the problem and less government is the solution

http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/danieljmitchell/2013/02/24/which-government-spend-the-most-per-capita-on-government-healthcare-france-italy-the-united-states-sweden-canada-greece-or-the-united-kingdom-n1519116/page/full/

Executive Order 13603 -- Tyranny at the stroke of a pen

Shovel ready: Obama’s big infrastructure myth

resident Barack Obama is reportedly ready to pivot back to the topic of jobs (again) in his State of the Union — which means he won’t be pivoting away from the myth that more “investments” will help stimulate and  “grow the middle class.” That’s the plan. That’s been the only plan.

No doubt, there is a substantive debate to be had over infrastructure spending. What sort do Americans need and want? Do we want expensive and inefficient trains and more green energy projects? Do we want “investments” allocated locally rather than nationally? We can debate those topics, and many other things, but there is no evidence that government infrastructure projects have sparked economic growth.

In his first State of the Union address, Obama claimed that, “Over the next two years, this plan will save or create 3.5 million jobs.  More than 90 percent of these jobs will be in the private sector – jobs rebuilding our roads and bridges; constructing wind turbines and solar panels; laying broadband and expanding mass transit.”

ut none of his promises came true.  Obama is around 8 million in the hole when it comes to jobs, but let’s focus first on the president’s malleable definition of  “infrastructure,” which is ideologically driven. After all, when Democrats had a chance to spend on legitimate infrastructure they didn’t; the priority was elsewhere. A study by John Taylor at Stanford found that out the total $682 billion package, federal infrastructure spending was just $0.9 billion in 2009 and $1.5 billion through the first half of 2010—or less than four-tenths of 1 percent.”
A year after the stimulus passed, the Associated Press reviewed Transportation Department data on more than $21 billion stimulus projects across the country, and the unemployment data to “assess the effects of road and bridge spending on local unemployment and construction employment.”
Here’s what it found:

A federal spending surge of more than $20 billion for roads and bridges in President Barack Obama’s first stimulus has had no effect on local unemployment rates, raising questions about his argument for billions more to address an “urgent need to accelerate job growth.”
An Associated Press analysis of stimulus spending found that it didn’t matter if a lot of money was spent on highways or none at all: Local unemployment rates rose and fell regardless. And the stimulus spending only barely helped the beleaguered construction industry, the analysis showed.

Furthermore, the Heritage Foundation identified 19 bankrupt green energy companies (“infrastructure”) were unable to be profitable even with $2.6 billion in financial assistance from Washington.
As Investors Business Daily reported in 2011:

In 2009, Obama dedicated $7.2 billion of stimulus funds to build “clean tech” jobs. He vowed to create 5 million jobs over the next decade.
So far, that effort has “created or retained” just 7,140 jobs, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. That’s about $1 million per job. The number is actually down from last year, when the EPA claimed 16,605 green jobs.

Spending $1 million per job might not bother the Krugmanites in Washington, but the only thing that kind of money has stimulated is the imagination of Greenies, not the economy.

http://www.humanevents.com/2013/02/12/obamas-big-infrastructure-myth/

The Pro-Growth SequesterNo, it's not Armageddon.

The Pro-Growth SequesterNo, it's not Armageddon.

The Obama administration is whipping up hysteria over the sequester budget cuts and their impact on the economy, the military, first providers, and so forth and so on. Armageddon.
But if you climb into the CBO numbers for 2013, you see a much lighter and easier picture than all the worst-case scenarios being conjured up by the administration.

For example, the $85 billion so-called spending cut is actually budget authority, not budget outlays.
According to the CBO, budget outlays will come down by $44 billion, or one quarter of 1 percent of GDP. (GDP is $15.8 trillion.)

What's more, that $44 billion outlay reduction is only 1.25% of the $3.6 trillion government budget. So the actual outlay reduction is only half the budget-authority savings.

The rest of it will spend out in the years ahead — that is, if Congress doesn't tamper with it.
And please remember that these so-called cuts come off a rising budget baseline in most cases. So the sequester would slow the growth of spending.

They're not real cuts in the level of spending. (Not that a level reduction is a bad idea.)
Looking at the sequester in this light, it's clear that it won't result in economic Armageddon. In fact, I'll make the case that any spending relief is actually pro-growth.
That's right. When the government spending share of GDP declines, so does the true tax burden on the economy.

As a result, more resources are left in the free-market private sector, which will promote real growth.
The Wall Street Journal editorial page points to the Reagan 1980s and the Clinton 1990s, when domestic spending as a share of GDP fell significantly and the private-sector economy boomed.
Ditto for the post-WWII period, when spending declines as a share of the economy were quite substantial and the private economy came back strong.

And I would point to the new book from Amity Shlaes, "Coolidge." Silent Cal was a manic budget cutter who slashed the level of the budget. And he presided over a tremendous U.S. economic boom.
In fact, Coolidge's budget cuts and Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon's tax-rate cuts were a one-two punch that serves as an example of how to fix our ailing economy today.
And here's an important point: Despite all the pessimism these days, spending as a share of GDP has actually come down in recent years.

Read More At IBD: http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-perspective/022113-645281-federal-spending-cuts-are-actually-pro-growth.htm#ixzz2LkbolSQr
Follow us: @IBDinvestors on Twitter | InvestorsBusinessDaily on Facebook

40% Give Obama Positive Marks for Job Creation

While a sizable number of U.S. voters see job creation and issues affecting small business as very important, they're narrowly divided over how President Obama is performing in these areas.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 40% of Likely U.S. Voters rate the president’s handling of issues related to job creation as good or excellent.  Forty percent (40%) also give him a poor rating in this area.

On issues related to small business, the president also gets good or excellent ratings from 40%, while another 40% think he is doing a poor job.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/february_2013/40_give_obama_positive_marks_for_job_creation

OBAMA ADMIN. CALLS ON SUPREME COURT TO STRIKE DOWN DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT DEFINING MARRIAGE AS BETWEEN A MAN AND WOMAN

The Obama administration on Friday formally urged the Supreme Court to strike down the federal Defense of Marriage Act defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

In a brief filed Friday evening, Solicitor General Donald Verrilli argued that DOMA’s section three, which bars married same-sex couples from filing joint federal tax returns and other federal spousal benefits, is unconstitutional:

Section 3 of DOMA violates the fundamental constitutional guarantee of equal protection. The law denies to tens of thousands of same-sex couples who are legally married under state law an array of important federal benefits that are available to legally married opposite-sex couples. Because this discrimination cannot be justified as substantially furthering any important governmental interest, Section 3 is unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments in United States v. Windsor on March 27. At issue is whether the law violates the Fifth Amendment guarantee of equal protection for legally married same-sex couples. The case surrounds Edith Windsor, who was forced to pay a federal estate tax of $363,053 upon the death of her wife, while heterosexual spouses are generally able to inherit estates tax-free.

The Obama administration’s brief comes almost exactly a year after Obama instructed the Justice Department to no longer defend DOMA’s constitutionality.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/02/22/obama-admin-calls-on-supreme-court-to-strike-down-defense-of-marriage-act-defining-marriage-as-between-a-man-and-woman/

61% Think State Governments Should Give Out Jobs, Not Welfare

Sixty-one percent (61%) of Likely U.S. Voters think state governments should offer minimum wage jobs instead of welfare payments to those who have lost their jobs and been unsuccessfully looking for work for a year. 

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 21% don’t like this idea. Eighteen percent (18%) are not sure about it. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

(Want a free daily e-mail update? If it's in the news, it's in our polls). Rasmussen Reports updates are also available on Twitter orFacebook.

The survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted on February 14-15, 2013 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/jobs_employment/february_2013/61_think_state_governments_should_give_out_jobs_not_welfare

If Obama is America’s father, please call CPS Then would somebody call Child Protective Services and find us foster parents?!

By now you likely have heard that Chris Rock considers Barack Obama to be America’s father. If that is true, then would somebody call Child Protective Services and find us foster parents?!

For Chris Rock, America’s true Founding Fathers were disappointingly white. I suspect that whatever color America’s Founding Fathers might have been, they would not have approved of having a failure like Obama among their esteemed membership.

Though the Founding Fathers had many flaws, they were wise enough to eliminate the self-indulgent institution of slavery from America’s future. Further, they crafted the Constitution to help posterity avoid mistakes like Obama, to help America avoid having a “baby daddy” rather than a real father. Despite their imperfections, the Founding Fathers were men of character: Obama is not.

Obama reminds me of my father. And like my father, Obama uses anybody and everything at his disposal for his own personal exploitation. I thought it was despicable that my father stole Christmas presents from our family one year. However, when you consider that Obama not only steals Christmas, he steals our children’s futures–my deadbeat, drug-addicted, murdering father doesn’t seem quite so abhorrent.

My father and Obama do have one difference. My father was convicted of his crimes and served many years in San Quentin, while Obama’s crimes gained him the presidency.

Chris Rock wants a father who has spent the family’s mortgage money, and can’t keep food in the fridge. He wants a father who has gambled away the kids’ college fund, and made us believe he “invested” our money. All that is left for Obama to do is to kill mother for the insurance.

In Rock’s press conference he wanted to convey his respect for the office of the presidency, which is why he wanted to show public support for Obama. However, when asked in 2007 about the possibility of a black Commander-in-Chief, Rock said this concerning George Bush:

“If [America] is ready for a retarded president, why wouldn’t it be ready for an African American president?”

There was no talk then of how citizens needed to shut up and do whatever Bush wanted without question. Chris Rock will step and fetch for Hollywood white men, but there was no way he would do so for a white president. I suspect Rock would rather get that bite in the ass he referenced, than kowtow to a white president.

Rock yearned for a reason to showcase his abject hatred of whites, a sentiment he and other Liberal blacks–people angry without even knowing why–have nutured for decades. Obama is the manifest destiny of that pent-up hatred. Obama represents payback; misplaced payback.

Instead of celebrating Obama’s achievement as the first recognizable black president, Rock denigrates that milestone in America’s societal evolution. Chris Rock is a creation of the guilty white Leftists, and he is unquestionably a modern-day racist. Guilty white Leftists have given Chris Rock, and all racist blacks, permission to be racists.

In some twisted way, these Liberal white elitists feel good being “accepted” by people like Rock, while concurrently holding dominion over them. Liberal elitists make sure that racists, such as Chris Rock, keep their day job. They support Rock’s movies and his twisted ideology, while knowing they still control the puppet strings.

How sad that somebody convinced Chris Rock there would never be a black president in his lifetime, for when he got one, Rock simply reverted back to his reptilian brain: to support Obama based solely on his color. It’s tribal for him.

If Obama’s white heritage were more evident, Rock would dedicate entire comedy routines to the destruction Obama has wreaked in the black community. But Obama proclaims blackness, so tribalism won’t allow Chris Rock to use sanity or logic in his evaluation of Obama. He must blindly support the man who is destroying blacks.

Such is the plight of the liberal black community, and the reason there are so many bad black leaders. So your daddy can’t keep the lights on and beats your mom? Who cares the family’s credit is in the toilet, and daddy spends money like a pimp. Chris Rock is just glad to have his black father in the home.

http://theblacksphere.net/2013/02/obama-dad-call-cps/

Obama Hypocrisy: Hurting Minorities While Claiming : the reason liberal policies and programs always seem to backfire and hurt those they purport to help is because liberals either do not understand human nature or simply ignore it.

The maxim, if you want to FEEL good be a liberal but if you want to DO good be a conservative, has never rung so true. It is disturbing to realize how far liberal Democrats have been able to advance their leftwing agenda by whispering pleasing but false promises in the ears of poor minorities while simultaneously stabbing them in the back. In fact, it is no exaggeration to say that contemporary liberalism—so-called progressivism—has done more to harm poor minorities than anything since slavery. In fact, for poor minorities in America, progressivism is little more than a new form of slavery.

Examples abound concerning liberal policies and programs that purport to help poor minorities when in fact they do more harm than good. One such example is the left’s commitment to continually raising the minimum wage in spite of indisputable evidence that doing so creates high unemployment, especially among young blacks and other minorities. Ever higher minimum-wage rates simply freeze young minorities out of the workplace just when they are seeking that all-important first job. Unable to get a job, too many are left spending their idle time on the streets where the criminal element quickly recruits them for nefarious activities that lead to no good. Those poor minorities who refuse to take up a life of crime are still prime targets for another group: liberals looking to expand the ranks of entitled minorities who look to government for their sustenance. Either route is destructive for the individuals in question and for our country.

Another liberal policy that claims to help minorities but in fact hurts them is affirmative action. There are two ways in which affirmative action harms minority students. First, as Richard Sander and Stuart Taylor, Jr. document in their new book Mismatch, affirmative action hurts otherwise qualified minority applicants for college admission by placing them in institutions where they are over their heads academically. These minority students are qualified for college admission and, if placed in institutions appropriate to their academic levels, could succeed. However, placing them in classes with the top students in the world puts them at a competitive disadvantage.

Minority students who are accepted at top-tier universities because they are minorities rather than because their test scores and preparation merit admission fail in high numbers because they are mismatched—not because they are minorities. This phenomenon is no different than a good high school athlete failing in a top tier college program when he could have succeeding at a smaller school. Not every high school football player can play for the University of Alabama. Not every student, regardless of race, can attend America’s top ten universities, but because of affirmative action many minorities who would have succeeded in a good state university are being set up for failure by those who use affirmative action to enroll them in world-class universities where they simply cannot compete.

The latest social issue that is compelling liberals to “help” minorities is gun violence. Their answer, of course, is gun control—more laws that will disarm law-abiding citizens while emboldening violent criminals. Writing for Townhall, conservative economist, professor, and commentator, Thomas Sowell, states: “Although gun control is not usually considered a racial issue, a wholly disproportionate number of Americans killed by guns are black. But here, as elsewhere, liberals’ devotion to their ideology greatly exceeds their concern about what actually happens to flesh and blood human beings as a result of their ideology.”

Sowell accurately states that factual studies over the years in the United States and abroad have repeatedly shown that gun-control laws do not reduce gun violence. Cities in the United States with the toughest gun-control laws have murder rates far above the national average. In fact, the highest murder rates in the world are in countries that have 100 percent gun bans. Consider just a few examples. Measured by murders per 100,000 people, Honduras has a murder rate of 91.6, Jamaica’s is 52.2, South Africa’s is 31.8, the Dominican Republic’s is 25.0, Russia’s is 10.2, and Pakistan’s is 7.8. By way of comparison, the murder rate per 100,000 people in the United States is 4.2, a number that will only increase with stricter gun-control laws.
Additional liberal programs that hurt those they claim to help fall under the broad rubric of welfare, but space limitations require that this be the topic of another column. To conclude this column, the reason liberal policies and programs always seem to backfire and hurt those they purport to help is because liberals either do not understand human nature or simply ignore it. This is unfortunate because as any good leader can tell you, failing to factor human nature into your decisions is what gives rise to the law of unintended consequences, and this law is the Achilles heel of liberal programs and policies—a fact that hurts poor minorities.

Read more: http://patriotupdate.com/articles/liberal-hypocracy-hurting-minorities-while-claiming-to-help-them/#ixzz2LfmspNPw