Women In Combat: Making A Virtue Of Weakness Gets People Killed
Assigning women to combat units is a profoundly bad idea that will result in a lot of people being killed for no real reason.Read More »
USDA cuts assistance to 600,000 women and children while increasing subsidies for wineries and alcoholic beverage distilleries.
Back in 1995 when the first Republican House majority in 40 years proposed welfare reform and a smaller increase in the federal school lunch program than had been appropriated in the previous fiscal year, civil rights icon and Democratic representative of the city of Atlanta in Congress, John Lewis seethed with righteous indignation:
“Read the Republican contract,” Lewis said on the House floor on March 21, 1995. “They’re coming for our children. They’re coming for the poor. They’re coming for the sick, the elderly and the disabled.”
Yet, not a peep was heard from Lewis last week when President Barack Obama slashed aid to the poorest of the poor:
Wednesday, Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) of the Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs penned a letter to Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack pointing out waste and abuse within the department that could be cut in order to pay for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) assistance that the department slashed for 600,000 women and children.
It turns out that Republicans “comin’ for our children, the poor, the sick, the elderly and disabled” meant reducing the number of them in welfare poverty, increases in Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security and lunches so plentiful that obesity in our youth skyrocketed.
When Republicans have had power in D.C., they have never once spent less money on domestic programs. When the Democrats have held power in Washington, Republicans have never proposed spending less than the year before. Yet, there has never been a year when the main argument made by Democrats against the GOP has not been that Republicans were “coming” for the most vulnerable in our society. Democrats always propose spending more than Republicans and define caring as supporting the new, Democrat-approved higher level.
Democrats always claim that only by spending as much as they propose in their latest bills can one prove one truly cares about the poor and the weak. Actual results of Democrat programs and their effects on the poor don’t matter. And, apparently, actual cuts by their President don’t matter. What matters is the D next to their names and their desire to stay in power. The truth be damned, and why not, when their political allies own most of the media and never hold them accountable; and when an electoral majority re-elects a President for the first time in history who left them worse off than they had been four years earlier.
The fact is that Obama, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and John Lewis came for our children in 2009 and made them poorer.
Mike DeVine’s Right.com
“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson