U.S. MILITARY VETERAN NON-PROFIT AGENCY FRAUD (VA FUNDS ABUSE)

U.S. MILITARY VETERAN NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION FRAUD (VA FUNDS ABUSE):

ADOPT-A-VET HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION & FINANCIAL HARDSHIP AGENCY FRAUD & ABUSE.

THEY SERVED & SACRIFICED HONORABLY, SO WHY MUST THEY NOW BEG TO RECEIVE HELP?

WHY ARE SO MANY NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS, AGENCIES & CHURCHES CLAIMING TO HELP VETS, ALLOWED BY CONGRESS TO DO VERY LITTLE FOR VETS TO MAINTAIN THEIR NON-PROFIT STATUS?

WHY DOESN’T CONGRESS ENACT LEGISLATION TO ANNUALLY AUDIT ALL NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS & AGENCIES WHICH CLAIM TO HELP HONORABLE U.S. MILITARY VETS?

WHY ARE SO MANY HONORABLE U.S. MILITARY VETS BEING DENIED VA LOANS BY FANNIE MAE AND MORTGAGE SERVICE COMPANIES?

WHY ARE SO MANY HONORABLE U.S. MILITARY VETS BEING FORCED INTO FORECLOSURE BY LENDERS?

WHY ARE SO MANY HONORABLE U.S. MILITARY VETS HOMELESS OR AT-RISK OF BEING HOMELESS?

WHY ARE SO MANY HONORABLE U.S. MILITARY VETS HUNGRY OR BEING DENIED FOOD STAMPS?

WHY ARE SO MANY HONORABLE U.S. MILITARY VETS BEING BURDENED WITH STUDENT LOAN DEBT WITH NO RELIEF?

WHY ARE SO MANY HONORABLE U.S. MILITARY VETS BEING DENIED SMALL BUSINESS ASSISTANCE BLOCKING THEM FROM CREATING JOBS?

WHY ARE SO MANY HONORABLE U.S. MILITARY VETS IN SOUTHERN STATES BEING PAID VERY LOW WAGES?

WHY???


Post Sources: CNN, FTC, Huffington Post, AP, Military Family Support Foundation, Youtube


******** Veterans Charity Fraud: Despite Widespread Outrage, Groups Continue To Abuse Public Trust


For hundreds of thousands of veterans returning home from the battlefronts in Iraq and Afghanistan, making it home alive is just the first challenge.

An estimated 25 percent of returning U.S. service members will experience combat-related problems such as post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), traumatic brain injury (TBI), depression or anxiety disorders. More veterans are committing suicide than are dying in combat overseas — 1,000 former soldiers receiving care from the Department of Veterans Affairs attempt suicide every month. About 50,000 veterans are experiencing chronic homelessness, according to nonprofit housing group HELP USA.

And the unemployment rate for 18 to 24-year-old veterans is 21 percent, much higher than the 16.6 percent rate for non-veterans of the same age.

Though the VA has come a long way from the 1970s, when many Vietnam veterans failed to reintegrate into society and became homeless and addicted to drugs, the department still has problems. The VA bureaucracy is notoriously difficult to navigate, and veterans are left to figure out on their own what benefits they are eligible for. As a result, many fall through the cracks — more than 720,000 veterans do not take advantage of VA benefits for which they are eligible.

To fill in the gap, veterans charities are a crucial resource — providing financial assistance and job training, funding medical research and rehabilitative services, and helping veterans obtain government benefits. Every year, Americans give millions of dollars to such groups, expecting that the money will assist those who’ve served their country.

But as a group, veterans charities are prone to abuse, profiteering and outright fraud, say philanthropy watchdogs.

Almost half of the 39 veterans charities rated by the American Institute of Philanthropy in its April/May 2011 report received F grades, largely because they devoted only a small ratio of their expenses to charitable programs, in part due to excessive fundraising expenses. Some of these groups defend their spending by arguing that reliance on such ratios is misleading, claiming that new nonprofits may have to spend over 50 percent of their revenue on outreach, education and fundraising for a while. But charities that spend up to 90 percent of their donations on overhead have been widely condemned and were the subject of congressional hearings in 2007.

Despite bipartisan outrage at such practices, there was no real follow-up, either through enforcement efforts or new rules and regulations. And several of the charities publicly shamed at those hearings continue to receive poor grades. In the last few years, there have been several prominent cases of nonprofit groups that preyed on the public’s patriotism and generosity, promising assistance to veterans while lining their own pockets. They range from an impostor — currently one of the most-sought fugitives in the country — who claimed he was a Navy commander and ripped off at least $2 million, to a classic fraudster, who set up a table for non-existent veterans groups in front of the local post office and raked in money for years.

CRUCIAL LIFELINE TO THOUSANDS OF VETERANS

Their misdeeds cast a pall over the sector, making the public skeptical of veterans charities and threatening future donations to those groups that deserve praise.

“Veterans charities are extraordinarily important,” Oregon Attorney General John Kroger tells The Huffington Post. “There is a lot the VA doesn’t do, and charities help fill that gap. And the majority of them do an excellent job, but if you’re looking to line your own pocket, it’s an easy way to raise money. If you’re looking for a feel-good cause that can raise money on the phone, there is very little that has as much appeal as veterans’ issues.”

Darnell Epps, a 52-year-old veteran living in Virginia Beach, was homeless for years until he discovered Vetshouse, the only nonprofit in Virginia to help homeless veterans. Through the group, he was given a car to help him start his cleaning business and provided with transitional housing and food.

“If it wasn’t for them, I would probably still be out on the street,” he says. “They gave me my life back. The VA can’t do it all and these charities are key; they’ve helped many of us vets.”

Ed Edmundson credits veterans charities with easing the burden of his son, Eric, who incurred shrapnel wounds and a brain injury in a roadside bomb explosion in Iraq. The North Carolina native says he sold his business and cashed in his savings and retirement to pay for the cost of moving in with Eric and his family to provide round-the-clock care. Some of the family’s expenses, including the cost of flying Eric’s wife and daughter from Alaska to Walter Reed Medical Center, were covered by various charities, such as the Wounded Warrior Project and the Semper Fi Fund.

“Non-profit organizations became an answer to our prayers,” says Edmundson.

The Wounded Warrior Project and several other prominent veterans charities such as Fisher House Foundation, the Navy-Marine Corps Relief Society and the National Military Family Association, have been praised for assisting thousands of veterans.

ABUSING THE TRUST OF DONORS: ‘THIS IS A HUGE PROBLEM’

Attorney General Kroger says the issue is close to his heart since he himself is a veteran of the Marine Corps. But when his office recently surveyed the rising number of charities in Oregon and which ones spend the most on overhead as opposed to charity, “a number of veterans groups came up extraordinarily high on the list. One was outright fraud — a guy setting up a table at a shopping mall — and another problem was people who were raising money and not being honest about where the money was going. This is a huge problem.”

Since taking office in 2009, Kroger has been particularly aggressive in taking legal action against veterans charities that abuse the trust of donors. Among his cases is a lawsuit against Veterans of Oregon, charging that the charity claimed that donations were helping homeless and hospitalized veterans when in fact it was largely used to award medals to veterans. In addition, the group failed to disclose to donors that its fundraising partner kept 80 percent of the money it raised. The head of the charity, William “John” Neuman, is fighting the case, adamantly denying to the Chronicle of Philanthropy that he misled donors.

Kroger also sued the Oregon War Veterans Association and Military Family Support Foundation, claiming that founder Greg Warnock kept most of the money he raised and used donations to make contributions to powerful politicians in the state. The group has called the suit “baseless” and called for an investigation of Kroger.

After initially declining to comment, Warnock wrote HuffPost a lengthy statement. Among his claims, he states that “Kroger’s claims are purely political in nature and do not warrant the kind of destructive abuse we are enduring from him, especially considering all of the amazing accomplishments we have made on behalf of veterans in Oregon and beyond.” Warnock vehemently denies that he kept most of the money his group raised and claims that Kroger neglected to interview the group’s board members, donors or recipients. Warnock also says the campaign contributions were permitted political activity.

The attorney general says he can’t comment due to the pending litigation but emphasizes, “When you’re going after people and trying to hold them accountable, lots of them fire back.”

Such schemes that exploit patriotic sentiment for the plight of veterans have been around for many decades. In 1926, the New York Evening Post exposed a plot hatched in the wake of the armistice that ended World War One by the “battalions of bunk” to raise several million dollars “purporting to aid former soldiers but actually hiding the proceeds away in secret bank accounts.” Part of the scheme involved several cleaning women who borrowed neighbors’ children, dressed them in rags and pleaded for money from passersby. And in 1958, five Chicagoans were dragged before the House veterans affairs committee to defend themselves against charges that they bilked Disabled American Veterans of $2 million — three of them were later charged with mail fraud and conspiracy. That same year, Rep. Olin Teague “found so much abuse in fund raising [sic] for veterans” that he urged the House Government Operations Committee to open a wide-ranging probe into the entire field of tax-exempt charitable fundraising, reported the Gadsden Times.

“The most popular causes — veterans, firefighters, police — tend to be the least efficient because they attract money-hungry types,” says Daniel Borochoff, the president of the American Institute of Philanthropy. “There is very little oversight so it keeps happening again and again.” He notes that most enforcement happens on the state level, which often just prompts fraudulent groups to cross state lines “and come out under a different name.”

BIPARTISAN OUTRAGE AT ‘INTOLERABLE FRAUD’

The prevalence of fraud and misrepresentation in the sector has prompted Congressional scrutiny and bipartisan outrage but very few repercussions. In 2004, the Senate Finance Committee called for a panel to examine nonprofit governance, transparency and ethical standards. Though it concluded that government oversight and regulation was necessary to deter abuse, misrepresentation and fraud, it also maintained that charities are granted wide latitude in their activities due to First Amendment protections and did not recommend any new legislation.

In December 2007 and January 2008, the House Oversight Committee held hearings to spotlight abuses in the system, highlighting several egregious examples. Then-chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) noted that the American Institute of Philanthropy had given failing grades to 70 percent of the veterans charities it examined for several reasons: managing their resources poorly, paying high overhead costs and direct mail campaigns and excessive salaries. Citing the example of the American Veterans Relief Foundation, which raised $3.6 million and spent only $21,000 on veterans’ grants and assistance, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) thundered:

They fall into the category of what I would call “profiteering,” profiteering by those who use the name of a soldier or a cause in order to justify fundraising that ultimately leads to profit for individuals who may or may not be veterans, may or may not have any need, may simply be good at fundraising.
That particular charity is now defunct, but two other prominent charities whose leaders were subpoenaed to appear before the committee still operate and continue their questionable practices.

One of the hearing’s most dramatic confrontations was with Roger Chapin, a self-described “nonprofit entrepreneur” and former
real-estate developer who has launched more than 20 charities. One of those charities, Help Hospitalized Veterans, has been praised for distributing millions of therapeutic arts and crafts gifts to patients at VA medical centers, state nursing homes and military hospitals. The group, which also provides a variety of services to homebound veterans and cash support to many VA special events, has been praised by presidents and Congressional leaders since its founding in 1971.

But a Forbes magazine articles questioned whether Chapin and his wife were using their charities to fund their high salaries and illegitimate expenses such as vehicles, real estate investments and a $17,000 annual country club membership. In addition, the magazine reported that out of every dollar donated to HHV, only 9 cents went to the kits, 5 cents went to administrative expenses and for counselors visiting hospitals and 47 cents went to direct-mail expenses.

One of the charities’ critics was Edmundson, who said he didn’t feel it was “appropriate” to give a small percentage of donations to charity. He added, “I am concerned, the negative effect that the few self-serving non-profits will have on the ability of the legitimate non-profits to obtain funding from the general public. It would be an unfortunate turn of events if the service they provide is not available. As I have shared, the service they provide is immediate and personalized to the needs of the soldiers and their families.”

Chapin didn’t win any friends by reportedly going into hiding after refusing to comply with a subpoena to appear before the committee. When he did finally appear a month later, he explained that fundraising for many charities across the country depends on direct-mail expenses and that it was unfair to pick on his charity. Chapin claimed that HHV was awarded two stars by Charity Navigator, a leading watchdog group. Coming to his defense was Richard Viguerie, prominent conservative fundraiser, who lashed out at the committee, claiming that Waxman’s agenda was “unconstitutional” and “mean” and stating that advertising mail can be valuable just by generating sympathy for returning veterans.

Chapin retired from Help Hospitalized Veterans in 2009 with a $2.2 million payment package. He still serves as the president of another of his charities, the Salute to America’s Heroes Foundation. Both charities were given zero stars in Charity Navigator’s most recent evaluation, though they have increased the percentage of funds they spent on charitable programs.

Reached at home, Chapin said both charities had not made any changes in response to the criticism of their fundraising expenses, defiantly stating, “Hell, we just keep doing what we’ve been doing.” He called the hearing a “charade” and a “witch hunt,” explaining that SAHF has helped almost 20,000 veterans. He continued to defend the heavy reliance and spending on direct mail practitioners, even in the age of Facebook and Twitter and online charitable tools. “It’s an expensive way to raise money but we’re all challenged and it’s tough as hell to get donations. But something is a hell of a lot better than nothing.”

The other target in the sights of lawmakers at the 2007 hearing was Pamela Seman, the executive director of the Disabled Veterans Association, a charity which kept only $500,000 out of $4.5 million in donations raised — about 10 percent — through a professional fundraising group.

“It makes all of us angry that the veterans, people who have served our country are used to raise money to give [to] some professional organization in the business,” said Waxman. “It’s absolutely inexcusable.”

Seman, who still leads the organization, did not return calls for comment. DVA received zero stars in its latest evaluation from Charity Navigator and an F rating from the American Institute of Philanthropy. Its fundraising ratio has grown even higher, with only 5 percent going to charitable programs.

WASHINGTON DITHERS WHILE FRAUD CONTINUES

In Washington, there has not been much action. On the first day of the 2007 hearings, former Rep. Sarbanes, the author of the post-Enron accounting rules that bear his name, stated that there may be a need for stricter regulation of charities, emphasizing that “charities that serve our veterans have an extra obligation because there is a deeper trust placed in them, a broader trust than with respect to just about any other charitable endeavor.”

Though there was some discussion of legislative remedies in the wake of the hearings, especially in regard to requiring more disclosure of charity spending in direct mail pitches, nothing happened. Though some watchdog groups have pressed for more hearings to re-examine the issue, none are planned. A spokesman for Rep. Issa, who now chairs the Oversight Committee, did not return emails requesting comment.

“It got a lot of press attention during the hearings but after that died down, there wasn’t any significant demand for more disclosure or information,” says Bennett Weiner, the COO of the Better Business Bureau’s Wise Giving Alliance and an advocate of voluntary standards rather than government regulation. He says that veterans charities have slightly improved their performance, noting that the number which failed to meet one or more of their standards dropped from 62 to 54 percent. But he notes: “No question about it, veterans and police and firefighter groups have been well-known to be subject to questionable practices by those who got involved in the field and realize that there is public sympathy and the chance to raise money.”

Meanwhile, the alleged scams continue. Last month, prosecutors in Ohio pursued Vietnam veteran Michael Muhammad, claiming that he raised money for himself through his charities, Help Homeless Veterans and Veterans Hope Community House. They also claim that he was charging veterans to stay at a shelter that offered horrible living conditions. His lawyer denies the charges, saying that the money raised went to aid veterans.

And last week, an associate of one of the most brazen fundraising fraudsters in recent history pled guilty to corruption, theft and money laundering at a county court in Ohio. Bianca Contreras was the treasurer of the U.S. Navy Veterans Association, a group founded by a man known as Bobby Thompson, who is accused of using a false identity to raise millions of dollars.

Though the money was ostensibly intended for Navy veterans and Thompson attracted praise from Congressional leaders for his purported efforts, the money went into his own pocket, say attorneys general in several states. Thompson is currently a fugitive, and officials remain tight-lipped about any progress in finding him. But Contreras is expected to cooperate with prosecutors, which may reveal some clues to his identity. The 39-year-old Tampa woman faces up to 25 years in prison when she comes up for sentencing in August.

Donors who’ve been misled can be hard to identify, since most are not aware that they’ve been ripped off, says Weiner. “The number one recommendation for people wanting to contribute to a good cause is to check out the charity — the vast majority of people don’t do that. Get a financial report from the group’s website, verify that they are properly registered in your state, check with a third-party group that checks these groups out.”

This story has been updated to include comment from Greg Warnock, founder of Military Family Support Foundation.

LE'ANDRIA JOHNSON - PRAY FOR HER, DON'T JUDGE HER (GOD'S LOVE??)

LE'ANDRIA JOHNSON - PRAY FOR HER, DON'T JUDGE HER (GOD'S LOVE?):

THE CHURCH COMMUNITY HAS MANY FLAWS (ADULTERY, GREED, HIGH DIVORCE RATE, PRIDE, STRIFE, NOT HELPING POOR PEOPLE, FALSE PROPHETS).

THOSE FLAWS (ADULTERY, GREED, HIGH DIVORCE RATE, PRIDE, STRIFE, NOT HELPING POOR PEOPLE, FALSE PROPHETS) ARE EXACTLY WHY SO MANY YOUNG PEOPLE HAVE LEFT THE 21st CENTURY CHURCH.

STOP THROWING STONES BECAUSE ONLY JESUS CHRIST IS PERFECT.

GOD SENT JESUS TO HEAL THE SICK, NOT KILL THE SICK.

THE TRUE LOVE OF GOD IS INDEED MISSING IN MANY CHURCHES.

PRAY FOR LE'ANDRIA JOHNSON & EVERYONE ELSE TOO.


Post Sources: The Gospel Blog, Newsone, Christian Post, Youtube


******* Le’Andria Johnson needs our prayer


Let me start out by saying that we all need prayer in some way, shape, or form. Nobody is perfect.

Check out the video below. “Sunday Best” winner Le’Andria Johnson shares a very touching testimony about her life after the contest concluded.

In the video, she asks for people to keep her in their prayers. She also asked for this video to be posted on YouTube. After watching the video I felt compelled to share the video on this blog in the hope that more people will watch it and keep Le’Andria in their prayers.

In my opinion, every Christian is an ambassador of Jesus Christ. I think people who are in public ministry have both a different pressure and different set of responsibilities than the rest of us. They represent Jesus to many non-Christians.

I encourage you to not only pray for Le’Andria, but to pray for every Christian that has a large public ministry. There are many pastors, singers, evangelists and musicians that need us to keep them lifted up in prayer.

BILL COSBY'S BLACK AMERICA DID NOT INCLUDE ALL BLACKS (CERTAINLY NOT POOR BLACKS) #PoundCake

BILL COSBY'S BLACK AMERICA DID NOT INCLUDE ALL BLACKS (CERTAINLY NOT POOR BLACKS):

BILL COSBY FORGOT WHERE HE CAME FROM......#PoundCake

BILL COSBY'S VIEWS DIVIDED BLACK AMERICA BY SHAMING POOR BLACKS AND BASHING YOUNG BLACK MEN.

NOW BILL COSBY WILL HAVE TO FACE THOSE YOUNG BLACK MEN IN PRISON AT THE AGE OF 80.

THE SAME PEOPLE YOU SHAME & BASH ON YOUR WAY UP TO SUCCESS, YOU MIGHT MEET AGAIN ON YOUR WAY DOWN.

BE CAREFUL HOW YOU TREAT YOUR FELLOW MAN.

PRIDE GOETH BEFORE DESTRUCTION.


Post Sources: The Root, CNN, Youtube


*******How Bill Cosby Divided Black America


In the wake of the Cosby verdict, former Ebony editor-in-chief Kierna Mayo reflects on her “shattered glass” Cosby Show cover and how it highlighted a great divide.

Wednesday, when the news broke, my stomach reacted first. I was home writing when the CNN ticker flashed:

"COSBY FOUND GUILTY ON ALL COUNTS."

The rush of emotions that followed was confusing, not fully placeable if you will. I texted a few friends (COSBY!!!!) and then I sunk back into my sofa, heart racing, belly in knots. What the hell is wrong with you? began the internal talk. I just wanted to understand the sensation. I needed to feel something less indecipherable. My nerves were a wrap; I reached for the vape.

Two years ago, after the soul-stirring funeral of a friend’s beloved mother, a glamorous, gorgeous, silver-haired black woman of a certain age approached me in a parking lot filled with hundreds of mourners. She stopped right in my face and grabbed my hand.

“I wanted to send you roses,” she said.

Initially, I had no response. I had no idea who she was, and no idea what she meant. I was frozen; struck partly by her unique beauty, but mostly by her odd comment and sheer intensity. Lady, I’m emotionally spent, I didn’t quite get out.

“Thank you so much. For that cover. For supporting me. I was one of his victims.”

One. Of. His. Victims. All of a sudden it clicked. She was talking about Bill Cosby. The cover she was referring to was the November 2015 issue of Ebony magazine. I was its editor-in-chief at the time. After a raucous debate about what image should cover our “family” issue, a staff member suggested The Cosby Show. The sexual assault accusations against Cosby had been pouring in by the day. First five women, then 12, then 30 and so forth.

As journalists, we were steeped in discussion about it for months; the entire black community had been. The problem was that there was a deep divide: those who were inclined to believe the women and wholly rejected Cosby’s social status as a reason to think he was incapable of the crime, and those who believed that white women, with the help of some black women, acted as agents of “the white man” and were all conspiring against an otherwise standup family dude, also known as Dr. Cliff Huxtable.

The magazine cover, featuring a classic shot of the original Cosby Show cast, was dropped with a press release, and before the issue hit stands I was being booked on cable news shows. The sweet image of that darling black T.V. family under an overlay of shattered glass (the crack began over Cosby’s face) struck a chord. As editors, we were attempting to capture a cultural moment: the Cosby Show mattered to America, to black America, but the black “respectability politics” that it trumpeted, for better or for worse, was being metaphorically challenged by the crimes of its star. Something about this perfect black family image was cracked, something was indeed shattered, and Ebony didn’t do it. But that didn’t stop the vitriol from coming.

“John Johnson (Ebony founder) would be turning in his grave,” read one comment from a reader. For some reason, that one stayed with me. Would he be? He was friends with Cosby, of course.

I admitted to CNN’s Brooke Baldwin that I hadn’t slept in two days in anticipation of the release. I knew that the pain, frustration and anger we held over the accusations against Cosby were deep and real. Wendy Williams asked me on camera if I felt physically intimidated by some of the backlash I was receiving. I responded half-jokingly by looking over both shoulders, and then explaining that it was exactly what I did walking out of my house to come to her studio.

After nearly a year of publically talking about the accusations and intently listening to whole swaths of black America debate the facts—and the feels—on that day in the parking lot, I was standing in front of a black woman who had actually been raped by Bill Cosby. Both of us already a mess from the service, we simply cried and held each other the way we both clearly needed. For about an hour, I listened to her story. Her young model-actress life. How they met. The what, when and where. All I could hear though, was the weight of her irreconcilable sense of guilt.

“I still feel so guilty,” she said, weeping. “I just feel like I really, honestly let black people down.”

She never wanted to tell. Not because it didn’t happen, but because “we need unity with our men.” She was sacrificing the self for the whole.

“Don’t say that! We are completely here for you,” I heard myself half-way lie. But is black America here for the victims of black men?

I re-posted that old Ebony cover on IG yesterday. And I’ve since confirmed that what I felt in the moment of his conviction was an emotional lack of clarity that actually made sense. Because there are no absolute winners here.

For Cosby’s victims, there may be some resolution, for his family—his stoic wife Camille in particular—there must be devastation especially now that Cosby is 80 and legally blind, and for his people, confusion. Looking at my Instagram, there is still palpable heartbreak and for some, frightening denial. Why our Dr. Huxtable? Why???

A few comments on my post right now:

“Fuck that metoo movement. I used to support it but its taking down successful black men and I’m not with it.

“This show will never be broken. It is one of the few things that was whole in Black history.”

“I don’t believe not one of these women.”

“We needed to see his shattered image. He is flawed! He is clearly capable of being twisted in spite of the contributions he’s given to our culture.”

“This cover is literally one of the bravest most amazing things done in media in the past few years.”

We were split and shattered by Bill Cosby. And I promise a single magazine cover didn’t create the maelstrom. After this verdict, the courage to face the truth about one black man and to really be “completely there” for his victims and for the countless other women who are sexually assaulted every year is our clear option.

Which way, black America? My profound hope is that with the Cosby conviction we have turned a page as a community. There was, sure enough, a time when we confused black genius, and the illusion of what is “respectable” with lived black decency, black integrity and black life.

Perhaps after yesterday, we’ll crack all the illusions that cover up great lies.

WASHINGTON DC POVERTY - A TALE OF TWO CITIES (NO REPRESENTATION)

WASHINGTON DC POVERTY - A TALE OF TWO CITIES (NO REPRESENTATION):

GREAT WEALTH vs GREAT LACK.

WIDE ECONOMIC GAP CREATED BY 21st CENTURY GENTRIFICATION.

LOWER INCOME BLACKS ARE BEING PUSHED OUT OF NATION'S CAPITOL.

DC CITY GOVT LEADERS DON'T CARE & USE CITY ATTORNEYS TO SILENCE POOR BLACKS.


Sources: Washington Post, RT America, BBC News, YouTube


******As D.C. families get richer, staggering disparities persist, report finds


As the D.C. budget grows more flush and housing prices continue to soar, concentrated poverty among households with children persists in some areas, according to a report released Tuesday.

The report by a local advocacy agency found that the overall median income of D.C. families has climbed since 2010. But families living in Wards 7 and 8, the only wards east of the Anacostia River, have experienced sharp declines.

D.C. Action for Children’s annual “Ward Snapshots” report breaks down child poverty rates and family economics by ward, saying that as the city fills its coffers, it needs to ensure that families across the city benefit from it.

“As the District gets more wealthy, how is it affecting all kids?” Shana Bartley, the group’s acting executive director, said of the report. “Ward Snapshots” culled data from the U.S. Census Bureau, the D.C. Department of Health, the D.C. Office of the State Superintendent of Education and more.

Since 2010, the number of young children living in the city has increased by 23 percent, and children younger than 5 account for nearly 40 percent of the child population. But the wards with the highest share of these young children — Wards 5, 7 and 8 — have the lowest median family incomes.

In Ward 8, for example, the median family income dropped nearly 17 percent between ­2006-2010 and 2010-2015, from $28,979 to $24,096.

Likewise, in Ward 7, the median family income during those years went from $34,562 to $31,273, a nearly 10 percent drop.

By comparison, the median family income in Ward 2 jumped nearly 65 percent, from $114,752 to $189,324.

Bartley said that one factor driving these disparate incomes is that as families are priced out of neighborhoods in Wards 1 and 2, for example, they are moving to Ward 8, the city’s poorest ward.

While the overall child poverty rate has declined to 26.7 percent — a drop of three percentage points since 2010 — there has been a slight uptick in Wards 3, 4 and 8. Ward 3 had a child poverty rate of 2.9 percent in 2015, compared with Ward 8’s 49 percent. Some of the increases could be attributed to rising housing costs. Ward 3’s rate was previously 2.4 percent; Ward 8’s was 48.3 percent.

The report found that more than 40 percent of D.C. residents spend more than a third of their monthly income on rent and related costs. The number of children enrolled in Medicaid increased by 21 percent, with the largest jumps in Wards 3, 4 and 8.

Some positive trends also emerged: In Wards 7 and 8, teen pregnancy rates steadily declined between 2010 and 2015, and students’ standardized test scores there saw slight increases between 2015 and 2016.

The report does not create a new narrative in the nation’s capital: The city has long been divided by race and socioeconomics. The report suggests that the wave of wealth the city has seen in recent years — the D.C. budget has reserves totaling $2.4 billion — has not trickled to all residents equitably.

“The biggest thing for the District to be is forward thinking,” Bartley said. “We’re continuing to see a baby boom, we are seeing families laying down roots in the city, public school enrollment is increasing, but we have to make sure that there’s infrastructure in the city to support healthy growth for all families and kids in the District.”

D.C. Action for Children recommends that the city boost access to quality early-childhood care and education, use census and local demographic data to determine how to allocate the city’s budget, and put more resources toward home-visiting programs that would support maternal and child health.

D.C. Mayor Muriel E. Bowser released her 2018 $13.8 billion budget earlier this month that proposes modest spending increases for affordable housing, homeless services and education.

MIKE HUCKABEE SCHOOLS MEDIA ON FAIR COVERAGE & HELPING THE POOR (LIVE IN IOWA)

MIKE HUCKABEE SCHOOLS MEDIA ON FAIR COVERAGE & HELPING THE POOR (LIVE IN IOWA):

Almost immediately after participating in the Undercard Debate in Iowa, 2016 GOP Presidential candidate MIKE HUCKABEE kindly granted interviews with members of the Media.

Surrounded by a sea of Journalists and Media reps, I was finally able to get close enough to capture 3 minutes of Gov Huckabee discussing his campaign receiving unfair air time and the best strategy for helping lift Poor people out of Poverty.

Sources:  Fox News, Google, Youtube

BLACK VOTERS WANT CHANGE; WILL SUPPORT GOP IN 2016 (ATLANTA VOTERS SPEAK OUT)

ATLANTA'S BLACK VOTERS WANT CHANGE; WILL SUPPORT GOP IN 2016 (REAL VOTERS SPEAK OUT):

LIVE INTERVIEWS FROM BLACK VOTERS IN EAST POINT, GEORGIA.

EAST POINT, GEORGIA NEEDS JOBS & COMMUNITY INVESTMENTS.

Due to failing "OBAMANOMICS" policies and Democrat Politicians refusing to invest back into communities heavily populated with BLACK lower income constituents, many BLACK voters are strongly considering casting their ballots for a GOP Presidential candidate in 2016.

Some young Employed BLACK Men interviewed in the video posted above explain why they will indeed vote for a Republican President this Fall.

One of the Men I interviewed in this video is originally from CHICAGO.

*** By the way CRIME and Unemployment in East Point, Georgia is extremely HIGH.

The quality of Drinking and Bathing WATER in East Point, Georgia is grade Fair to Poor. Especially in communities further away from the Camp Creek Marketplace near College Park.

Democrats need to wake up!

This time the GOP is prepared to WIN!

Sources:  Yahoo News, Youtube

BALTIMORE vs "THE WIRE", AFTER RIOTS ENDED (FREDDY GRAY'S MURDER)

BALTIMORE vs "THE WIRE", AFTER RIOTS ENDED (FREDDY GRAY'S MURDER):

FORMER MD GOV MARTIN O'MALLEY HATED "THE WIRE".

IN 2016 WHICH POLITICAL PARTY WILL STEP UP TO HELP ELIMINATE BALTIMORE'S STEEP POVERTY?

It's been eight years since "THE WIRE", a hit television program about life in BALTIMORE'S Poorest, most Crime-ridden neighborhoods went off the air.

Former BALTIMORE Mayor and and current 2016 Presidential Candidate MARTIN O'MALLEY,
 hated "The Wire".

Perhaps O' Malley's disdain for "The Wire" television series was due to it exposing BALTIMORE'S horrific Crime rate during O'Malley's reign, which was fueled by decades of steep POVERTY.

It's almost one year after the Baltimore Riots events in which impoverished BLACK teens publicly released their Hurt and Anger on Police Officers who murdered FREDDY GRAY and consistently Brutalized their community for decades.

After FREDDY GRAY'S Murder his family received a wrongful death settlement of $6 Million from the city of BALTIMORE.

Paying Millions of dollars to families of BLACK Men who are Murdered by POLICE should not be a SOLUTION to uplift BLACK families out of POVERTY.

Which Political party will help rebuild West Baltimore by bringing JOBS, real SOLUTIONS, Business OPPORTUNITIES and Healing to that Historic region of our nation?

~ "The Wire" Cast Reunites To Give Voice To Stories Of Baltimore's Riots

Sixteen cast members of The Wire returned to Baltimore on Saturday to read stories of the city’s recent riots.

Fans saw Omar, Bunk, Kima and McNulty (Michael Kenneth Williams, Wendell Pierce, Sonja Sohn and Dominic West) reunited on stage to read monologues written by residents for Wired Up, a production at the city’s Artscape event.

One of the occasion’s main organizers, Sonja Sohn (who played Detective Kima Greggs in the show), told the Baltimore Sun she wanted to “give back” to the city where the HBO hit was set, and to give residents a microphone.

“We know how [storytelling] heals and radiates outward and what it inspires in other people,” Sohn said. “We’re going to give a platform to these folks who felt they were not being heard.”

Carver, Cutty, Marlo, Snoop and Bubbles (Seth Gilliam, Chad Coleman, Jamie Hector, Felicia Pearson and Andre Royo) were also in attendance.

In its five seasons, "The Wire" won acclaim in part for its fidelity to Baltimoreans.

Some cast members, including Pearson, Maria Broom (Marla Daniels) and Robert Chew (Prop Joe), were from the city. Others, including Gbenga Akinnagbe (Chris) and Anwan Glover (Slim Charles), grew up in nearby Washington DC. Chew died aged 52 in 2013.

“We lived here while we were shooting and became a part of these communities,” Sohn said. “There’s a real core group of us who feel parts of Baltimore are woven in to who we are as result of the time we spent here.”

In particular, the readings were meant to highlight the stories of Penn North, the neighborhood where Freddie Gray lived before he died while in police custody in April.

The neighborhood became a focal point of subsequent riots over police brutality, institutional racism and class and racial inequalities.

Sohn and others set up workshops for residents to write about their experiences before, during and after the riots, thus coming up with the raw material for the performance.

The show’s creator, David Simon, worked as a reporter in the city for several years. He was not involved in Saturday’s production but offered his own strong opinions on the state of Baltimore earlier this year.

Simon blamed abusive police tactics on the toxic relationship between residents and authorities, telling the Marshall Project the police had acted for years as “an army of occupation”.

Although The Wire won plaudits during its run and many enthusiastic fans after it ended, it has not always had a beloved place in Baltimore’s heart.

Former mayor Martin O’Malley – now a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination – denounced the series for what he felt was an unfair depiction of crime, corruption and policing.

According to Simon, O’Malley – who is believed to have been a partial inspiration for the mayor in the show, Tommy Carcetti – threatened to block filming.

Sources: The Guardian, Baltimore Sun, Youtube, HBO, Washington Post

CLIMATE CHANGE LAWS WILL DESTROY MIDDLE CLASS ON PLANET EARTH (MORE INCONVENIENT TAXES & REGULATIONS)

Global CLIMATE CHANGE Laws (new TAXES) being pushed by Pres OBAMA and other Elite world leaders will not "Save the Planet", nor "Protect the Future of our Children".

So what is the real "INCONVENIENT TRUTH" about CLIMATE CHANGE??

Is it only about reducing CARBON EMISSIONS?

These new set of Global CLIMATE CHANGE Taxes and Regulations being pushed by the Wealthy Elite, will in fact help to reconfigure Mankind on planet Earth via destroying the current Middle Class and eliminating people stuck in Poverty.

It is really all about making the Super RICH more Wealthy by creating only two Economic groups:

~ The Elite, Super Wealthy & Big Banks - LEADERS

~ A New Lower Class - WORKING SERVANTS

~ NO MORE MIDDLE CLASS



~ Climate Change Laws Hurt The Poor And Benefit No One: Why Are Political Elites Pushing So Hard?

August 21, 2015 by Bob Loewen
Bob Loewen is the chairman of the California Policy Center.

I was eighteen years old in 1966 when my plane circled the tiny airport in Ontario, California. I was traveling from the Bay Area to Claremont to begin my freshman year in college. Looking down from my window seat, the overcast cloud cover prevented me from seeing the freeways and buildings on the ground. When we landed, however, I looked up and saw a hazy blue sky. Then I realized that I was looking up through the cloud cover that I had observed from above. To my horror, what I had seen below me from the sky was not cloud cover at all; it was thick, brown smog, and I was breathing it.

That was the day I became an environmentalist. Although I have a libertarian’s skepticism of government, many times I have supported government programs to clean up the air, water, forests and beaches. In this way, I am like other Californians. Because all of us love and defend the natural resources of our state, the brand “environmentalist” is almost as popular as Santa Claus.

George Orwell warned, however, “political language . . . is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable.” [1] California’s climate change laws have nothing to do with removing smog or keeping California’s beaches clean. They hurt the poor and benefit no one. Yet a political elite has managed to impose its will on the California economy without having to explain why it has chosen to hurt the poor for no benefit to the public largely because they use the label “environmentalist”. It is time to hold them accountable.

Orwell’s warning also applies to the substance of the climate change conversation. The climate change elites do not discuss climate change issues in the manner of scientists; they collapse multiple distinct issues into demonizing rhetoric: “The science is settled,” they say in response to every argument that is made; this means that the opponent is a “science denier”. Seldom is this rhetoric even arguably responsive.

While science is one of the principal subjects of the discussion about predicting earth’s climate future through scientific computer modeling, it is no more than political rhetoric to argue that one scientist is so completely wrong in his opinion, and the other so clearly correct, that the first is “denying” the very principles of science. And this is not even the main point of this essay…

Opponents who have other reasons for their opposition to climate change laws usually do not challenge the science. Assuming the climate change outcomes have been predicted accurately by proponents, for example, opponents nevertheless contend that enforcement of climate change laws will not eliminate or delay the predicted harmful effects of climate change because reductions in GHG emissions required by California (or EPA) are more than offset by increased emissions from new power generation plants in China and India.

Opponents who make this point do not deny the science; they embrace it.

The climate change elites do not respond to this point as a distinct argument for which they are accountable; at most, they pretend that the issue does not exist, a slick move worthy of Orwell’s admonition about “political speech”.

California has the most aggressive climate change laws of any state in the nation and is the only state imposing a cap and trade protocol on emitters. It requires that GHG emissions be reduced to 1990 levels no later than 2020.

This year, new laws have been proposed to tighten that standard, requiring that 2020 emissions be reduced to 80% below 1990 levels. Other restrictions include specific requirements that specified minimum levels of wind and solar power be included in the mix of power sources.

All of this makes power in California the most expensive in the nation.

According to the Manhattan Institute, “California’s renewable energy mandates and climate change policies . . . are having a disproportionate economic impact on the poor.” [2] The report found that “in 2012, about 1 million California households were living in energy poverty, a term that applies to households that spend 10 percent, or more, of their income on household energy costs.”

There is a considerable disparity between wealthy areas, such as Mill Valley in Marin County, whose monthly energy costs were only $200 per home because of mild weather conditions, and middle-income areas, such as the town of Hanford in the San Joaquin Valley, where harsher average weather leads to average monthly energy costs of about $500 per home.

The climate change elite is leaving the poor and middle class behind in other ways too.

The Manhattan Institute study found that because of the high cost of compliance (estimated $115 billion to meet renewable requirements alone), California’s climate change laws are forcing businesses out of the state, resulting in job losses. There are also collateral effects from the general hostility of climate change elites to any business involved with fossil fuels. Take fracking, for example. Two years ago, Californians were excited about the potential for thousands of jobs when we learned that California’s shale formations are even richer than those in boom states like North Dakota. [3] A USC study predicted that fossil fuels from shale would provide “up to 2.8 million jobs, increasing the state’s total economic output by up to 14.3 percent . . . boosting personal income by up to 10 percent.” [4] Due to actions in Sacramento, nothing has happened. Why not? A public official who wants to help the poor and middle class close the economic gap has enough information to allow fracking to proceed, but for now, the political elites prefer to keep fossil fuels right where they are, embedded deep in California’s shale.

Most troubling is that the goals of climate change laws are not achieved even when they are strictly enforced. For example, the EPA is pressuring American utilities to stop using coal because it generates more GHGs than other fuel sources. India and China, however, both build coal-fired power plants faster than the United States can remove its own. [5] Eric Roston, writing for Bloomberg Business, observes “’The U.S. is dropping coal plants at an unprecedented rate, but still nowhere as quickly as India is adding them,” and “By 2020 India may have built about 2.5 times as much capacity [in coal] as the U.S. is about to lose.” [6]

China, “the world’s biggest coal addict by far,” has a plan to build hundreds of coal plants, which negates the efficacy of emissions limits imposed by political elites in this country. Eric Lawson of Princeton University, known for his strong stance in favor of the science of climate change, is quoted by Stephen Moore in Investors Business Daily: “From 2010 through 2013, (China) added half the coal generation of the entire U.S. At the peak, from 2005 through 2011, China added roughly two 600-megawatt coal plants a week for seven straight years. [7] And according to U.S. government projections, China will add yet another U.S. worth of coal plants over the next 10 years, or the equivalent of a new 600-megawatt plant every 10 days for 10 years.”

California’s climate change laws are particularly vulnerable to the criticism that they will not change the predicted outcome of man-made warming because, according to the Manhattan Institute study, all of California’s emissions are only 1% of GHG emissions worldwide and 6% of total U.S. emissions. There are no climate models that support the idea that reduction of some or all of those amounts will affect global climate change given increases of emissions in China and India.
Instead of responding directly to these criticisms, some have argued that China and India will change; if the U.S. sticks with its stringent emission reduction policies, they contend, our example will encourage them to reverse the increases in emissions that represent their recent history and turn those into reductions in emissions.

This is pure Utopian fantasy.

About 900 coal plants are currently planned in China and India.

Where is the evidence that India or China have made any plans to change these to lower-emission energy plants? What plans have been made to tear down the existing coal plants and replace them? Absent concrete plans, the follow-my-lead theory is far-fetched.

There is no precedent to suggest that follow-my-lead will succeed. There is, however, precedent suggesting it will not succeed. In California, proponents of AB32 sold the most aggressive state law on climate change in America partly on the follow-my-lead theory. They told Californians that when AB32 was enacted, other states would follow California’s example by adopting statutes similar to AB32.

This effort failed; not one state has adopted a climate change law like California’s. Since it should have been easier to convince another state, like Oregon, to join California on climate change law than to convince a sovereign nation like China, California’s experience disproves the follow-my-lead theory.

Proponents of climate change laws point to the “Joint Announcement” on climate change dated November 12, 2014 signed during President Obama’s visit to China as supposed proof that China is willing to reconsider its policy of increasing emissions.

The Joint Agreement, however, confirms that China will continue to increase its emissions through at least 2030. Much false information has been implied about this nonbinding statement. But it is available on line, and its meaning is pretty clear.

[8] China does not commit anywhere in the document to reduce its emissions; it only states, without agreeing, that it might reach a peak in its increases by 2030. By signing the Joint Agreement, President Obama effectively acknowledges that current conditions will not change before 2030 at the earliest. This means that the heavy burdens created by California’s emissions limits cannot achieve the intended benefits until sometime after that date.

These critical problems with climate change laws have been known for a long time.

Yet climate change elites do not respond to them, making it clear that they have no response that makes sense. This does not mean that nothing should be done about climate change.

But it does mean we need to change the laws that are hurting the poor and middle class, examine what is possible in the area of adaptation, and hold the political elites accountable. The future of California depends on it.

FOOTNOTES

(1) “Politics and the English Language,” George Orwell, 1946
(2) “Renewable Energy Mandates Same As A Tax On The Poor,” by Robert Bryce, Manhattan Institute, 7/26/2015
(3) “Fixing California: Will Fracking Bonanza Be Allowed?,” Chris Reed, CPC Prosperity Forum, 9/30/2013
(4) “The Monterey Shale & California’s Economic Future,” USC Price School of Public Policy, March 2013
(5) “World Falls In Love With Coal That Obama Is Waging War On,” Stephen Moore Investor’s Business Daily, 8/7/2015
(6) “The Grim Promise of India’s Coal-Powered Future,” Eric Roston, Bloomberg Business, 5/21/2015
(7) “World Falls In Love With Coal That Obama Is Waging War On,” Stephen Moore Investor’s Business Daily, 8/7/2015
(8) U.S.-China Joint Announcement on Climate Change, 11/12/2014


Sources: California Policy Center, Manhattan Institute, Fox News, YouTube, CPC Prosperity, USC Price School of Public Policy

SUICIDE IS DESTROYING BLACK FAMILIES IN AMERICA

#Suicide

Suicide is a permanent solution to a temporary problem.

Why are so many BLACK Men in America giving up and completing Suicide?

More BLACK Men are dying from Suicide than from Police Brutality.

Suicide destroys BLACK Families in America.

The Federal Govt does not seem to care about the Mental Health of BLACK Men.

America's Corrupt Child Support system has contributed to the high rate of Suicide among BLACK Men.

Why are LIFE INSURANCE Companies releasing Checks to Survivors and Girlfriends for Suicide, especially in the state of NORTH CAROLINA??


Sources: The Root, YouTube

Hillary Clinton vs Jeb Bush: Personal Wealth In 2016 And How BLACK Nepotism Contributes To BLACK Poverty

‪#‎Hillary2016‬

HILLARY CLINTON vs JEB BUSH: PERSONAL WEALTH IN 2016

HOW BLACK GREEK NEPOTISM CONTRIBUTES TO BLACK POVERTY.

WEALTHY MALE CANDIDATES vs WEALTHY FEMALE CANDIDATES.

The GOP wants to depict HILLARY CLINTON as this super Elite, uber Wealthy member of Society whom no regular everyday Voter can relate to.

Coming from a Political Party loaded with BILLIONAIRE Supporters, this Political Gimmick Rhetoric is such HYPOCRISY!

What about JEB BUSH??

Isn't JEB BUSH Wealthy too??

Isn't GH BUSH super Wealthy?

Isn't GW BUSH also super Wealthy?

Isn't MITT ROMNEY super Wealthy?

Isn't JOHN MCCAIN super Wealthy?

Wasn't RONALD REAGAN super Wealthy?

Wasn't JOHN F KENNEDY super Wealthy?

Isn't RUPERT MURDOCH super Wealthy?

Aren't the KOCH Brothers super Wealthy?

Isn't ART POPE super Wealthy??

The only Successful U.S. Presidential Candidates who weren't super Wealthy were ABRAHAM LINCOLN.......JIMMY CARTER..........BILL CLINTON..........and BARACK OBAMA JR.

GOP leaders, GOP Strategist and FOX NEWS need to Stop being HYPOCRITES on the issue of a Candidate's Personal WEALTH.

So it's acceptable for MEN to be super Wealthy but Not WOMEN?

Does GOD want only MEN to be Wealthy and Not WOMEN??

Please show me where such Foolish Theology is written in the BIBLE.

I've read the entire BIBLE and have Never come across any Scriptures referencing such Foolishness!

HILLARY CLINTON did Not grow up as a Wealthy Child.

Thus She should not run from her Personal Wealth for which She has Worked hard to acquire as an Adult.

Nor should HILLARY be Ashamed of any Opportunities She has been Blessed with as a WOMAN who resides in the United States.

Instead HILLARY should be Thankful to GOD for Blessing Her with Opportunities to achieve Greatness and Wealth, just as the LORD GOD Blessed OPRAH.

HILLARY should also Embrace Her Personal Wealth by using Her Wealth & Good Fortune to help LIFT the 47% who want to come out of POVERTY.

The United States remains a Melting Pot and a Land Flowing with Milk & Honey!

Acquiring Wealth is a Conduit for helping LIFT People out of the pit of POVERTY, and to then encourage those People to do likewise.

Everyone in the United States can SUCCEED if provided with OPPORTUNITIES versus Discriminatory BARRIERS.

Helping LIFT People out of POVERTY via removing Discriminatory BARRIERS and providing them with OPPORTUNITIES to acquire WEALTH is the Foundation of AMERICA's Legacy!

When GOD Blesses a Human Being with Great Wealth there is no need to Apologize!

Instead use that Wealth to reach back and help show other People how to acquire Wealth.

Reaching back to help LIFT up other People out of POVERTY via Equal OPPORTUNITIES, is where the BLACK American Community has FAILED BLACK Voters.

In most instances the BLACK American Community only helps other BLACK People if they are in the same FRATERNITY or the same SORORITY.

Most BLACK People who are Hired as Human Resource MANAGERS choose to Hire their FRAT Brothers and SOROR Sisters, even if they are Not QUALIFIED for the JOB.

This includes BLACK Human Resource MANAGERS who are Employed within State Agencies, County Agencies, City Agencies and PUBLIC SCHOOL Districts.

Of course these unmistakable demonstrations of NEPOTISM and ELITE BLACK Selfishness, have created a Permanent UNDER CLASS within the 21st century BLACK American Community.

At least that is how it is for BLACK People in NORTH CAROLINA.

I'm Not Lying.

Please don't make me Expose what I know about the CHARLOTTE-Mecklenburg Public School System, Guildford County Public Schools and Durham County Public School System HUMAN RESOURCE Departments.

Especially CHARLOTTE-Mecklenburg Public Schools!

Such clear demonstrations of NEPOTISM and ELITE BLACK Selfishness are also being practiced in some SOUTH CAROLINA Public School districts.

To discuss BLACK Greek NEPOTISM within the City of ATLANTA would require me writing a separate post on this subject.

Does BLACK NEPOTISM contribute to the National BLACK Unemployment rate?

Yes!

For the record, I am not Opposed to the BLACK Greek Lifestyle.

However I am Opposed to the BLACK Greek Lifestyle contributing to POVERTY within 21st Century BLACK America.

So why am I exposing this NEPOTISM and ELITE BLACK Selfishness within the BLACK American Community?

Because DISCRIMINATION on any level is WRONG and NEPOTISM is a form of DISCRIMINATION!

As members of the Human Race, we all need one another.

If HILLARY CLINTON is to launch a Successful bid for U.S. President in 2016, it will require UNITY.......DIVERSITY......TOLERANCE.......and COOPERATION.

There is No room for DIVISION and NEPOTISM if HILLARY is expected to Win in 2016!

The World needs more Wealthy WOMEN regardless of Ethnicity, Race, Religion, Age, Demographics, etc., to help create JOBS and Opportunities for both Women & Men to Rise up and experience Abundant Living on planet Earth.

All INTELLIGENT registered Voters expect U.S. Presidential Candidates to be well-qualified and WEALTHY.

It takes a lot of MONEY to be Elected into CONGRESS and even more MONEY to be Elected as President of the United States.

HILLARY does Not have to be POOR for ME to relate to Her.

I can relate to Her because She is a Human Being whom GOD created and a WOMAN.

Let the CHURCH say AMEN!

I'M READY FOR HILLARY IN 2016

Sources: Bloomberg Business; CBS News; CNN; NY Times; Talking Points Memo; Youtube

Ben Carson Explains Why Mitt Romney's 47% Comments Were Wrong ("47% Don't All Have The Same Mentality")

‪#‎47Percent‬

BEN CARSON EXPLAINS WHY ROMNEY'S 47% COMMENT WAS WRONG:

"ROMNEY assumed all the People in that 47% had the SAME Mentality."

"They Don't! Many of them are looking for a way out; For a Path to move Up."

Remarks by Dr BEN CARSON; February 8, 2015; Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace

Sources: Fox News Sunday; Bloomberg News; The Hill


ARTICLE: The Major Mistake in Romney's 47% Comments, According to Ben Carson

Likely presidential candidate Ben Carson on Sunday offered a critique of 2012 nominee Mitt Romney's “47 percent” comments, saying his fellow Republican made a key error in his characterization of Americans who don't pay federal income tax.

“He made one major mistake,” Carson said on Fox News Sunday, according to a transcript from the program. “He assumed that they all had the same mentality. They don't. A lot of people in that 47 percent are very anxious to experience the American dream. What they are looking for is the right mechanism, the pathway out.

This is what we have to provide for them, and that's going to include fixing the economy, which is not going to be that difficult to do, quite frankly—you know, some tax reform, some real tax reform, regulatory reform, you know, utilizing our natural resources the right way.”

Asked whether the debate over President Barack Obama's community college expansion plan is contributing to voters' perception that Republicans aren't looking out for the little guy, Carson said, “There are Pell grants available for poor people to go to community college already. They have existed for years and they are very effective. For those who are not poor, there is a four letter work that works extremely well. It's called W-O-R-K, work. And appreciate the education that you are getting. You know, we don't have to give away everything.”

"He assumed that they all had the same mentality. They don't."

Dr Ben Carson; 02-08-15


The retired Neurosurgeon and popular speaker said he is coming closer to announcing a White House bid.

A Bloomberg Politics/Des Moines Register Iowa poll in January showed him as the first choice of 9 percent of likely Republican caucus-goers, behind Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, Kentucky Senator Rand Paul, Romney (who has said he won't run again), and former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee.

A Bloomberg Politics/Saint Anselm New Hampshire poll found Carson was the first choice of 6 percent of Republican primary voters, behind former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, Paul, Walker, and New Jersey Governor Chris Christie.

Gone With The Wind & The 2016 Election (Raise The Wage!)

‪#‎RaiseTheWage‬

"GONE WITH THE WIND" & THE 2016 ELECTION:

SLAVERY & LOW WAGES IN THE 21ST CENTURY.

AT-WILL EMPLOYMENT & LOW WAGES = SLAVERY.

DEMOCRATS MUST ELIMINATE THIS CONTRIBUTION TO POVERTY.

On a late Friday night I chose to watch "Gone With The Wind" on television.

I'm a BLACK Woman, whose native home is Brooklyn, NY however I currently reside in the deep South and I'm watching a film which celebrates SLAVERY.

The BLACK Actors in "Gone With The Wind" were often highly Criticized for appearing in this film.

But when those BLACK Actors were questioned as to why they chose to appear in "Gone With The Wind", they quickly responded:
"I would rather play a Maid and earn $700.00 a week, instead of working as a Maid and only earn $7.00 a week."

***FYI: I'm referring to 1930's Wages.

Many 21st century GOP Supporters still long for those days when the CONFEDERACY ruled not only the South, but also the Federal Government.

You see this explains why many WHITE, Southern Republican lawmakers still see absolutely NOTHING wrong with passing Legislation to continue AT-WILL EMPLOYMENT in Southern states.

Longing for those days when the CONFEDERACY ruled the South and Federal Government also explains why many WHITE, Southern Republican lawmakers still see absolutely NOTHING wrong with passing Legislation to continue Paying Workers in those regions extremely LOW WAGES.

AT-WILL EMPLOYMENT and LOW WAGES = SLAVERY.

AT -WILL EMPLOYMENT gives Employers in Southern states the LEGAL Authority to Terminate Employees at will without Cause.

LOW WAGES gives Employers in Southern states the LEGAL Authority to Force Employees to work like a dog for Pennies.

Of course the Majority of the Workers in Southern states employed as AT-WILL EMPLOYEES are BLACK and LATINO citizens.
Of course the Majority of the Workers in Southern states earning LOW WAGES are BLACK and LATINO citizens.

The "Good Ole' South" is what many WHITE, Southern Republican lawmakers & Republican Voters aim for when they pass Legislation or go to the Polls on Election day.

The 2016 U.S. Presidential Election is fast approaching us.

I suggest DEMOCRATS put on their climbing gear and be steadfastly Determined to eliminate all or most Barriers to pulling People up out of POVERTY in the United States.

Let's start with combating Legislation which allows AT-WILL EMPLOYMENT and LOW WAGES.

#RaiseTheWage

It's Time To RAISE THE WAGE in the United States!

It's Time For INCOME EQUALITY in the United States!

Sources: Warner Bros; Youtube

MARCO RUBIO vs BARACK OBAMA JR: Helping To Eradicate Poverty Before 2016 (Who's Right??)

#RUBIO

MARCO RUBIO'S "WAR ON POVERTY" REFORM vs OBAMA'S "PROMISE ZONES": WHERE ARE THE JOBS??

This week U.S. Senator MARCO RUBIO (R-FL) delivered a response to Pres OBAMA'S recent Anti-Poverty Speech aka "PROMISE ZONES".

I agree with MARCO RUBIO on the subject of ERADICATING POVERTY more so than Pres OBAMA.

Sort of.....

Why??

Because from 2009 to 2013, Pres OBAMA'S Economic Policies appear to have contributed to POVERTY in America.

From his STIMULUS Legislation which was intentionally passed through CONGRESS with RACIALLY Divisive guidelines, to his administration sending more JOBS overseas (DETROIT)........
It's quite clear Pres OBAMA'S Economic Policies have in fact contributed to lingering High U.S. Unemployment numbers.

(U.S. Unemployment - 7.3%)
(BLACK Unemployment - 14%)

I am in NO way Opposed to the Federal Gov't offering some level of Assistance to help LIFT People out of POVERTY but we must remember that PEOPLE NEED JOBS NOT JUST HAND-OUTS FROM THE GOVERNMENT!

PEOPLE ALSO NEED FAIR OPPORTUNITIES TO CREATE SMALL BUSINESSES SO THEY CAN BECOME JOB CREATORS.

However........

For MARCO RUBIO to suggest CONGRESS should leave the act of ERADICATING POVERTY solely to Governors & State Legislators as the only Solution to helping LIFT Poor Citizens out of a cycle of POVERTY, is in itself Politically NAIVE.

What about States with with a long history of RACISM & SEGREGATION??

For example: ARKANSAS, GEORGIA, LOUISIANA, TEXAS, SOUTH CAROLINA, NORTH CAROLINA, FLORIDA??

If the Federal Gov't does NOT step in and FORCE those States to help LIFT Poor BLACK & LATINO Citizens out of POVERTY via Fair OPPORTUNITIES, those Citizens will remain in POVERTY Forever.

So what's the Solution??

Both CONGRESS & State Lawmakers must work together to help ERADICATE 21ST CENTURY POVERTY.

The Solution must NOT stem from POLITICS & Winning Elections!

Instead it must stem from COMPASSION for Our Fellow Human Beings & Neighbors.

Nevertheless I still agree more so with MARCO RUBIO'S ideology on ERADICATING POVERTY than Pres OBAMA'S.

Sort of.....

To both DEMOCRATS & REPUBLICANS:

WHERE ARE THE JOBS???





ARTICLE: "Rubio Wants States, Not U.S., To Lead Second Wave In War On Poverty"


Sen. Marco Rubio on Wednesday proposed a sweeping overhaul of the nation's anti-poverty programs, arguing that for decades Washington has been too fixed on dealing with poverty's consequences rather than its causes.

The Florida Republican suggested giving federal funds to states so they could devise ways to combat poverty.

"Five decades and trillions of dollars after President Johnson waged his 'War on Poverty,' the results of this big-government approach are in," Rubio said on the 50th anniversary of the day Johnson first declared his goal for government help to the poor.

"Our anti-poverty programs should be replaced with a revenue-neutral flex fund," Rubio argued. "We would streamline most of our existing federal anti-poverty funding into one single agency."

Each year, the flex funds would go to states "so they can design and fund creative initiatives that address the factors behind inequality of opportunity."

Meanwhile, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), the chairman of the House Budget Committee and Mitt Romney's running mate in 2012, is expected to discuss poverty in an interview Thursday with NBC's Brian Williams.

Rubio offered no list as to what programs would be involved in his initiative, other than perhaps the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or food stamps.

The senator also proposed replacing the earned income tax credit, a popular break for lower- and moderate-income workers, with a "federal wage enhancement for qualifying low-wage jobs."

Someone with a lower-paying job would also get a federal benefit, paid at the same time as the monthly paycheck. The amount, Rubio said, "will depend on a range of factors."

Rubio's address to a group of experts and reporters at the Capitol's Lyndon B. Johnson Room was a marquee event during a day of reflection and speeches over how to tackle poverty.

The poverty rate was 15% in 2012, down slightly from the mid-1960s. Critics charge the change has been negligible and expensive. Supporters say the rate could be higher if not for the expansion of safety net programs.

Partisan divisions over how to proceed were clear Wednesday.

"We created new avenues of opportunity through jobs and education, expanded access to health care for seniors, the poor, and Americans with disabilities, and helped working families make ends meet," President Barack Obama said in a statement.

At the Capitol, Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., told the Senate that 50 years ago Johnson identified poverty as "a national problem. And that's why he made it a national priority."

"So I think we ought to rededicate ourselves today to that national priority," said Murray, who chairs the Senate Budget Committee.

The nation is emerging from a deep recession, and unemployment in November was 7%, its lowest level in five years. The divide between rich and poor remains stark, triggering a flood of recent promises from the White House and congressional leaders to work to narrow the gap.

Rubio is one of three Republican senators mentioned as a possible 2016 presidential candidate talking about new approaches to government help for the poor.

Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky is promoting "economic freedom zones," which would provide tax breaks for companies and workers in high unemployment areas.

Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas urged several steps he said would reduce inequality, including repealing the Affordable Care Act, expanding energy production and stopping "abusive regulations that are hammering small businesses."

Rubio, like other Republicans on Wednesday, first offered compassion and empathy for the poor. He explained how lower-income Americans today are plagued by a lack of lower-skilled jobs.

"The jobs that have replaced the low- and middle-skill jobs of the past pay more," he said. "But they require a high level of professional, technical or management skills. And we simply have too many people who have never acquired the education needed to attain those skills."

The solution does not lie in dictates from Washington, he contended.

"Our current president and his liberal allies propose that we address this by spending more on these failed programs and increasing the minimum wage to $10.10," he noted. "Really? That is their solution to what President Obama has identified as the defining issue of our time?"

The Rubio approach contains two long-held Republican philosophies: Give the private sector an opportunity to thrive by removing regulatory burdens and unfair taxes and give the states more flexibility.

The plan is similar to the overhaul of the nation's welfare system in 1996, when states got more responsibility to reduce dependence on government aid.


Sources: AP, CNN, Wisconsin Journal Sentinel Online, USA Today, Youtube