Big Girl Pants

WHO's policies deal best with poverty?

with just 49 days to go until the 2008 presidential and general election, things are getting downright bile-filled out in the ether.  democrats accuse republicans of lying.  republicans accuse democrats of lying.  independents are just trying to figure out who will best represent them in the coming four years.

although it MAY be anecdotal, there is some indication that the conservatives in this country are getting motivated for mccain/palin.  i'm talking not merely "get drunk and vote for mccain", but actually working the phones, pounding the pavements and hammering on the keys - keyboards that is - to rally the country to elect john and sarah.

we have all seen the trend in recent days of the independents moving away from obama into camp mccain.  but while this is bad new for obama, in and of itself, it is not all good news for mccain.  you see, mccain can't win without the enthusiastic advocation of the conservatives and based on recent trending, it appears he's getting just that.

my regular readers - if i have any - surely know how i feel about polls and how worthwhile they are.  they're not.  it's fun to watch them, but i'm not really writing about the polls, but rather about the atmosphere in the country right now.

my blogging acquaintance, mustang, put up this poston friday.  he's easily one of the most articulate bloggers i've read and puts a great many "real" reporters to shame as well.  this is an article on "political equanimity" and he's spot on in his analysis:

"Asked when American politics started getting nasty, Rudy Giuliani opined that it began during the 2000 elections. I disagree. I think it began during the Federalist Debates after the start of the Constitutional Convention. My point is Americans have always disagreed with one another along an entire range of issues that affect them personally. One-third of our colonial forefathers were completely disengaged from the revolution, but of course, there was a risk to sitting along the sidelines, too. There still is."

there's more at mustang's place and it's well worth the read if you're so inclined.  as i said, i believe he is spot on his this analysis.  and it was this that got me thinking.

in my blog visits to mustang, brooke, z, defiant infidel, angel and others, i see messages of both hope for the future (primarily because they can now get behind mccain with the palin pick) and frustration.  in the comments at many of these sites i see the twisting and vileness that we are also seeing with the political ads and the mainstream media, at large.  the main charge by the liberals, based on the blogs and comments i've seen, is that the republican economic and other policies do not work for the people.  that it is because of the republican policies that the country is in a downward spiral.

yes, the economy has slowed down, but it's not because of republican policies.  if republican policies are so damaging, why is that the ten most poverty-ridden cities in the country are firmly in control of the democrats?  and why is that the most poverty-ridden segments of our society are firmly in the camp of the democrats when it comes to voting?  no seriously, i'd like an explanation for this.  let's look at the charts, shall we?

in the latest "income, earnings, and poverty data from the 2007 american community survey" report (Download census_report_2007.pdf) from the u.s. census bureau, we learn that american indians (including alaskan natives) have the highest rate of poverty by segment of society, closely followed by blacks:

 

in that same report, we also learn about the ranking of each county and city (with more than 250,000 residents) in terms of percentage in poverty per capita:

i am not addressing the leanings of the political leanings of the counties specifically, although the bulk of the top 10 counties in regards to poverty have tended to be blue in the past two elections.  however, let's look at the top 10 poverty-ridden cities on the list from the u.s. census bureau, shall we?

1. detroit, michigan has a poverty rate of 33.8% (give or take 1.4%). this is more than 4% higher than cleveland, ohio.  the current mayor pro-tem of detroit, ken cockrel, jr. is a democrat.  he took over for the disgraced and indicted mayor of nearly six years, kwame kilpatrick (the youngest mayor in the history of detroit who also spoke at the 2004 dnc convention) this week and he is also a democrat.  the last republican mayor in detroit, michigan?  eugene van antwerp, who served from 01/06/1948-01/03/1950, was a republican.
2. in cleveland, ohio, frank g. jackson, a democrat, is the current mayor.  he took over in 2006 for jane l. campbell, also a democrat.  the last time cleveland elected a republican mayor was, george v. voinovich in 1980.  he served until 1989.   the poverty rate in cleveland is 29.5%.
3. buffalo, new york has not had a republican at the helm since stanley makowski was replaced by democrat james griffin on the first of january in 1978.  the current mayor is bryan brown is a democrat; he was elected in 2005 and took office in 2006; he presides of a poverty rate of 28.7 (down from 29.1 in 2006). 
4. in el paso, texas,  john cook took office nearly three years ago replacing his fellow democrat joe wardy.  democrats have enjoyed control of this texas city since june of 2001 and have a current poverty percentage of 27.4.
5. memphis, tennessee has been held by a single democrat, willie w. herenton is october of 1991.  his tenure as the city's mayor has been marked with a great deal of controversy and corruption. the current poverty rate in memphis is 26.2%.
6. with the exception of a few months in 1996 when republican willy gort as the acting mayor, miami, florida has only elected democrats to office since 1955. they currently enjoy a poverty rate of 25.2%.
7. milwaukee, wisconsin has been solidly under democrat or socialist party control since republican sherburn m. becker left office in 1908. however, their solid standing with poverty at nearly a quarter of the city's population (24.4%) is nothing to brag about.
8. in newark, new jersey the last republican mayor, ralph a. villani, left office in 1953 and was replaced by leo p. carlin and it's been led by democrats ever since.  23.9% is the current rate of poverty in this city.
9. when democrat joseph s. clark  became mayor of philadelphia, pa in 1952, he replaced the last republican mayor since seen in the city of brotherly love.  bernard samuel left office on 07 january 1952 after serving for 11 years. the current mayor is presiding over a poverty rate of 23.8%.
10. cincinnati, ohio has been under democrat or charterite control since 1971.  since 1926 only two of the 30 mayors have been elected by the city's residents - the rest of them have been appointed by the city council.  23.5% of the residents of cincinnati are in poverty today.

it is also interesting to note that the breakdown of political control for even the ten highest poverty-ridden smaller cities is decidedly democrat as well:

 

in bloomington, indiana democrats have controlled the mayor's office since 1972.  in camden, the list in complete, but the dems have controlled city hall since at least 1956.  control of the city's government in brownsville has been with the democrats since at least 1991.  in gainesville, fl democrats have had controll of the mayor's office for at least seven years.  kalamazoo has been under the control of democrats since 1973.  the democrats have been in control of flint michigan since 1975.  in reading, pa, they have a past full of socialists and democrats and the dems have controlled the mayor's office for at least the past 10 years.  the dems have controlled city hall in macon all the way back to 1954.  in youngstown, oh, the current mayor is an "independent" with definite leftward leaning tendencies, other than that there have been democrats at the helm since 1978.  and finally in pontiac city, mi, the current mayor is a democrat; it appears that the control of the dems goes back to 1967, but i am not 100% certain of that as the information is spotty.

isn't it interesting that the ten cities - large or small - with the highest rates of poverty per capita are run by democrats?  how can the failed policies of the dems be blamed on the republicans when the facts bear information that is contrary?

just one last thing to leave you with.  if the socialist policies of the left work so well to get people out of poverty, why is that the highest poverty levels fall in areas that are squarely in control of the democrats/socialists?  is this really the direction we want to head with our country?

btw, if you like this post, please go vote for it here.  thanks, y'all!

yes virginia, there is intelligent life on the supreme court

against nearly every hope i had - after last week's debacle in favor of enemy combatants - the supremes came through this morning and found that the second amendment really is part of the bill of rights and therefore the constitution.

in the first real consideration given by the supremes of the second amendment the court certified that citizens do have the right to bear arms.  in writing for the majority (chief justice john roberts and justices
antonin scalia, samuel alito, anthony kennedy and clarence thomas) justice scalia said:

the Constitution does not permit "the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home."

the court's 5-4 finding struck down the d.c. gun ban that's been in place for more than 30 years.  predictably, the hardcore liberals on the court take umbrage with the majority's findings.  in writing the dissent for the minority (justices john paul stevens, stephen breyer, ruth bader ginsburg and david souter) justice stevens posited:

that the majority "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons."

He stated further that such evidence "is nowhere to be found."

amazingly enough, i believe the last phrase in the second amendment gives that evidence quite succinctly:

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

emphasis is mine, but the language is that of the founders.  i'm wondering what part of "shall not be infringed" gives anyone reading it the notion that our government has any right, whatsoever, to tamper with the right guaranteed by that amendment.

any way, it's a grand day with this ruling by the court.  won't you please join me in joyous celebration on this momentous ocassion?!?!?

our brave new party?

my good friend, defiant infidel, pointed out that some may have missed the chart  i so painstakingly put together.  so i have posted each of the three pages in image form or you may download the actual pdf to make for easier reading.  Download romney_vs_mccain.pdf. 

   

don't get me wrong, i realize that it's not the most exhaustive of comparisons, but it does show those things that should be of most concern to we conservatives.  please note that i did not say "neo-conservatives" as in my opinion that term is oxymoronic at best.

as g-man noted as his place, there are several of us blogging to stop this runaway train that mccain is riding - notice i said riding - he is NOT the one who's driving this train it's the msm!  rush is speaking the loudest and, per usual, making a great amount of sense - and besides, he's finally joined up with what i've been saying for months and months - glad he's finally seen the light :)

anyway, it's important to understand that republican party unity is NOT the most important thing at this time.  adhering to the conservative principles of our founders is the most important thing - and mcvain just is NOT the guy that can do it.

did you catch the segment with david frum on tucker carlson last friday?  click here to watch the whole video from newsbusters.  the pertinent part of the exchange (imho) is this:

TUCKER CARLSON: ...John McCain is way more liberal than I am on a lot of things, and very annoying about it, often, from my point of view. But as a man, name another candidate who you'd like your son to grow up to be. Name one -- ever.

FRUM: You're right, he's an impressive guy; he's an impressive guy.

CARLSON: So what is this about? Other conservatives do not seem to feel the way I feel.

FRUM: People tend not to love those who don't love them back.

CARLSON: That's very . . . deep and true.

FRUM: John McCain has made it very clear over the last half-dozen years: he does not love the Republican party. He'll put up with it. He'll tolerate it. If they will follow him he will consent to lead them. But he does not love this party, and the party knows it. Plus there are the substantive issues, of which immigration is far and away the most important; it is a hugely important issue.

And a bit later . . .

FRUM: McCain doesn't just try to explain to the party why he disagrees. His method is to explain to the party why not only does he disagree, but they are racist and wrong and stupid for thinking the way they do, and people never like that.

And yet a bit later . . .

FRUM: He's not interested in the project of saving conservatism in the Republican party. He is really trying to build a personal movement with the Republican party as its vehicle.

mark finkelstein is dead-on in identifying how arrogant and nasty mccain behaves towards the conservative base.  then i received my "rush in a hurry" email and read this (well i heard it too, but easier to cut & paste and i'm basically pretty lazy) from rush:

"When a "maverick" is on our side denouncing our side, running against Republicans, the Drive-By Media loves him. Do we let the NY Times and Washington Post pick our candidate? The maverick is not a maverick. The maverick is with the majority, and he's swimming very easily with the tide. "

i also heard a soundbite from some woman on rush's show (can't remember who it was and i can't find it on his site yet) who said something to the effect that she was amazed that mccain thought he could win this thing.  that he had so far captured some moderate dems and independents, but unless he captured the conservative base he didn't stand a chance.  she's absolutely correct - and he's not really trying to capture we conservatives - he just seems to think we're going to line up behind him because of party unity.  fat chance.

look, i'm not denigrating john mccain.  i just don't understand all the people jumping on the mccain bandwagon.  he's not a conservative, folks - not by any stretch of the imagination.

the good (and i use that in the least unflattering manner) senator lied about mitt romney having a timetable for withdrawal.  it was proven to be a lie and even acknowledged to be inaccurate by most of the msm and yet STILL mccain persists in saying it.  he has also been lying about why he opposed the bush tax cuts.  he clearly thinks we are stupid and that we should just shut up and kiss him.

romney won the caucuses in maine due to a huge turn out of conservatives that no one predicted.  he garnered 53% of the vote there while mcvain got only 21%.  and while i realize that this straw poll will not have any real bearing until the spring, it does show that people are not simply willing to accept mccain as the inevitable nominee.  we're not going to take this one lying down.

so if you're in a super tuesday state, get out there and vote against mccain.  make certain to make your voice heard.  me, i'll be wearing my favorite shirt and talking to everyone i see and reminding them that a vote for mccain is just a vote against the constitution; same as voting for a democrat would be - no difference.

did you catch this ad on fox news channel last thursday?  neither did i - mainly because i'm not watching any news outlets because they all sicken me - but this is a great, accurate ad.  of course, mccain - in the best clinton mode he can muster - will cry foul because [apparently] even if it's the truth it's bashing if you're talking about john mccain.

one last thing - also in my "rush in a hurry" email was a couple of great quotes.  this one from ronald reagan from 1975 seems especially apropos:

"I'm impatient with those Republicans who -- after the last election -- rushed into print saying we must broaden the base of our party, when what they meant was to fuzz up and blur even more the differences between ourselves and our opponents."

hey, i'm still hoping for a brokered convention, but for now, i'm with mitt!

blogbursting for fred thompson

tuesday, fred at right wing nut house proposed that those of us who support fred make a concerted effort to help raise funds for fred's campaign in iowa.  you can read the whole post, above, but in part he said:

don’t think any of us believe that our endorsement of Thompson alone means that much in the long run. But working together, uniting for one day and speaking with one voice, I think we could make a significant impact on Fred’s chances in Iowa. After all, when the candidate you support rolls the dice as Fred has, the least we can do is back his play to the best of our ability.

then, today, i received this email from fred's campaign - seems like fred was prescient...

The first leg of our Iowa bus tour last week was phenomenal. We visited with voters in 21 cities and towns and did 21 events all across the state. Everywhere we went we were greeted by enthusiastic crowds of Iowans who are looking for a consistent conservative leader who will tell it like it is.

It's working: Just last Friday a new Strategic Vision poll showed me moving into a strong third at 16%.

We are poised for the great showing we want!

Just last week I picked u p the endorsement of Congressman Steve King. He has been a champion in the fight to end illegal immigration, and I am pleased that he has joined our team. He's been with me on the bus and the great reception we've received on the tour has really put a jolt into this race.

This is where you come in.

I have a terrific new TV spot. You can see it now at Fred08.com. Take a look, and forward this message on to 10 of your friends.

I need your help to put it on the air. We need to put $248,846 in the bank before 6 PM EST on Friday, December 28th to do it.

Can you help me by making a contribution today? I know I've asked a lot, and you've done a lot, but this is critical to our success. Help me make history.

The Clear Conservative Choice: Hands Down bus tour will run from today to caucus day. We have a terrific ground game in place.

All we need is air cover--which the spot on our website will provide.

This ad will help me let the people of Iowa know that my plans for this country are the best that have been presented. It will help me make the case that not only am I the only reliable, consistent conservative in this race, but that I have the experience and the vision to lead our Party and our nation through difficult times.

I've always shot straight with you, now's no different. I need your help. Can I count on you?

if any of you out there like fred but are waiting to see what happens in the primaries, you're waiting too long.  support him now so that he has a strong showing in iowa and he will be the nominee for the gop.

so this is my effort for the cause.  i gave today and i will give again tomorrow.  who among you will join me?

infringe on the liberals' right to lie, not my right to bear arms.

my good friend, defiant infidel, put this up the other day and i haven't been able to stop thinking about it ever since.

john stossel is great; he's a true anomaly at abc.  i don't always agree with him, but more often than not the point of view presented is mainstream american and not loonietoons leftist.  and he always gives some insite into the other side and that's really where i'm going with this post.

the bill of rights, comprised of the first ten amendments to the u.s. constitution, grants rights to individuals and excplicitly limits the powers of the federal government.  the second amendment reads:

"A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

it's pretty clear cut and we've all heard it before.  those who advocate for "gun control" - better called "second amendment nullification" - posit that our founding fathers didn't really mean what they wrote.  or maybe that because guns are "bigger and better" now, we need to limit ownership and perhaps manufacturing or something else they'll come up with later.

there are myriad shades of gray in the arguments for 2nd amendment nullification, and every one of them that i've heard is way convoluted.  seems like the argument is always something like "well yes, it does say 'shall not be infringed' but i'm not proposing that we put fringe on the guns before they're sold - only after.  it is of course  what we need to do to reduce crime and make us all safer."  um, i don't think so.

trust me, i am all for a reduction of crime and making us all safer.  however, making me register my firearms, or telling me what kind of gun or how many guns i can purchase is altogether the wrong way of accomplishing the stated goal.

registering a firearm only makes easier to target gun owners - whether the goal is harrassment or confiscation, the result is the same:  my right has been infringed.  one of my favorite wisemen, walter williams, said

“For individual freedom to be viable, it must be a part of the shared values of a society and there must be an institutional framework to preserve it against encroachments by majoritarian or government will.”

and that's the crux of things, as i see it.  the lame stream media keeps putting forth the myth that gun control makes us safer.  that criminals wouldn't see a 'need' for guns if the citizens weren't allowed to own them.  that criminals are simply getting guns IN CASE whomever they're after has one.  and so the lemmings who read and believe (make that nearly everyon in at least this country) the lame stream media, think that we need greater and greater assults on the 2nd amendment to protect us.  yeah, sure.

it's a trite statement and basically just an updated version of what thomas jefferson said, but seriously folks - if guns are outlawed, then only outlaws will have guns.  i myself have even posited on the slope we are barreling down with all these assults on the 2nd amendment:

"you know it occurs to me that if we are to believe in the church of evolution and survival of the species is dependent upon survival of the fittest - think of who the fittest are in our society. by government diktat, the fittest are the thugs and criminals."

about three years ago, the national academy of sciences released a 328-page report that is referenced in the video above.  unfortunately, when the results of their study didn't pan out as the majority of the panel had hoped, they simply said the subject needs further study.  what the study ACTUALLY revealed is that 2nd amendment nullification laws, which are [by default] levied against law abiding citizens, are not capable of reducing crime.  world net daily wrote a great article on it and there are several links in there to follow through, as well.  to me, the most pertinent paragraph in the article is this:

The study noted the number of criminals who obtained guns from retail outlets was dwarfed by the number of those who picked up their arms through means other than legal purchases. The report was the result of interviews with more than 18,000 state and federal inmates conducted nationwide. It found that nearly 80 percent of those interviewed got their guns from friends or family members, or on the street through illegal purchases.

kind of telling isn't it?

read the study for yourself - if you can stand the dry, boring nature of the thing.  otherwise, do some studying here. i haven't quite figured out who's who on this site, but it's a great one for information on what the policies and laws have actually done for [to?] this country.

i am of the opinion that the good people of kennesaw, georgia have it figured out. i agree that all households should have at least one gun. and not one that's locked up - how are you supposed to defend yourself if you have to unlock the darn gun, first?!? "uh, please wait right there mr. robber while i go get my gun out of its lockbox." sure, that'll work. "but, heidianne, what about the safety of our children and ourselves?" easy peasy, jimbob - teach your child to have respect for and knowledge of the firearms in your house. that's what my parents did. that's what i did. a child should KNOW what a gun can do (like knowing the stove is hot and the knife is sharp); they should know it's a tool and a weapon and they should know how to use as soon as they are able to grasp the safety issues. 'nuff said.

and finally, just because i like the story, there is this from mark steyn:

"I live in northern New England, which has a very low crime rate, in part because it has a high rate of gun ownership. We do have the occasional murder, however. A few years back, a couple of alienated loser teens from a small Vermont town decided they were going to kill somebody, steal his ATM cards, and go to Australia. So they went to a remote house in the woods a couple of towns away, knocked on the door, and said their car had broken down. The guy thought their story smelled funny so he picked up his Glock and told ‘em to get lost. So they concocted a better story, and pretended to be students doing an environmental survey. Unfortunately, the next old coot in the woods was sick of environmentalists and chased ‘em away. Eventually they figured they could spend months knocking on doors in rural Vermont and New Hampshire and seeing nothing for their pains but cranky guys in plaid leveling both barrels through the screen door. So even these idiots worked it out: Where’s the nearest place around here where you’re most likely to encounter gullible defenseless types who have foresworn all means of resistance? Answer: Dartmouth College. So they drove over the Connecticut River, rang the doorbell, and brutally murdered a couple of well-meaning liberal professors. Two depraved misfits of crushing stupidity (to judge from their diaries) had nevertheless identified precisely the easiest murder victims in the twin-state area. To promote vulnerability as a moral virtue is not merely foolish... it signals to everyone that you’re not in the real world."

anyone have anything to add?