Kansas senator warns US is ‘headed for socialism’

An incumbent Republican senator has said on two occasions that the United States is “headed for national socialism.” The Washington Times reported on Sept. 24. Sen. Pat Roberts made the initial comments were made last week at a town hall meeting in Dodge City, Kan. Roberts reiterated his to a reporter the next day.

In a Youtube video of the press conference, Sen. Roberts can be seen telling attendees, “There’s a palpable fear among Kansans all across the state that the America that we love and cherish will not be the same America for our kids and grandkids, and that’s wrong. One of the reasons that I’m running is to change that. There’s an easy way to do it. I’ll let you figure it out. But at any rate, we have to change course because our country is headed for national socialism. That’s not right. It’s changing our culture. It’s changing what we’re all about.”

Roberts apparently intended allude to socialism on a national scale and not to invoke Nazis, which were officially called the National Socialist Party.

The Washington Post also reported on Sept. 24 that Roberts had confirmed his fear that the country was becoming socialist the next day when responding to a reporter. “I believe that the direction he is heading the country is more like a European socialistic state,” Roberts answered. “You can’t tell me anything that he [Obama] has not tried to nationalize.”

Roberts, a senator since 1997, is in the midst of a close reelection battle against Greg Orman, a lifelong Democrat who is ostensibly an independent. Real Clear Politics rates the race as a tossup, but Roberts has trailed Orman in several recent polls.

Roberts handily defeated Milton Wolf in the 2014 Kansas Republican primary earlier this year. The race had been close until Wolf, a radiologist, was revealed to have posted and joked about x-ray images of injuries and gunshot wounds on his Facebook page.

Allegations that Roberts is no longer a resident of Kansas have also proved troublesome for his campaign. According to the Topeka Capital-Journal, Roberts’ house is Kansas is rented out and the senator rents a room in a supporter’s house. A recent revelation is that Roberts’ mortgage documents show his house in Virginia as his principle residence.

The Republican quest for a Senate majority may come down to Kansas. Republicans need to gain six seats to gain control of the Senate. Kansas is one of the few states in which the Democrats have a chance to pick off a Republican incumbent.

Read the full story on Elections Examiner

Polls point to Republican wave

After months in a virtual deadlock, recent polling is now pointing toward a Republican wave in this year’s midterm elections. Polls from September 17 and recent weeks indicate that public opinion is breaking strongly toward the GOP.

The most recent poll, released Sept. 17, from CBS and the New York Times shows a strong advantage for Republicans in congressional elections. The poll found that 49 percent of registered voters would prefer the Republican candidate if the election were held today. Only 42 percent would prefer the Democrat.

A CNN poll from last week also points toward a significant movement toward Republicans. This poll found that voters favored Republicans by a 49-45 percent margin. Most significantly, the CNN poll found that independent voters favored Republicans by a 15 point margin. In the past, independent voters have often swayed elections toward the Democrats.

Rasmussen’s generic congressional ballot also shows a subtle shift toward Republicans. The Sept. 15 poll found that likely voters prefer Republicans by a 41-39 margin. This poll has typically reflected a close margin over the past several months.

From August to September 2014, Gallup’s party affiliation poll showed a startling nine point swing. In one month’s time, the poll moved from 46-42 percent in favor of the Democrats to 47-42 in favor of the Republicans when “leaners” are included. When leaners are not counted, the two parties are in a statistical tie. This poll has consistently favored Democrats for the past several years.

There are indications that this shift in national mood may be beginning to impact the hotly contested races that will decide control of the Senate as well. Several recent polls show that tossup races may be trending for the Republicans:

· The two most recent polls from Kansas, one from Rasmussen released today, the other from Fox News released Sept. 17, show incumbent Pat Roberts with a small lead over Democratic-leaning independent Greg Orman.

· A Quinnipiac poll released on Sept. 18 shows that Republican Cory Gardner is now leading Democratic incumbent Mark Udall in Colorado by eight points. A USA Today poll the day before showed Gardner with a one point lead.

· In Iowa, Quinnipiac found Republican Joni Ernst up by six points over incumbent Bruce Braley. Fox News showed the race in a tie the same day.

· In Louisiana, Fox News found incumbent Mary Landrieu trailing Republican challenger Bill Cassidy by an astonishing 13 points in a two-way race. In an open primary, Cassidy leads by four points.

Two races where the shift in public opinion has not yet made an impact are North Carolina, where Sen. Kay Hagan is holding a lead over Republican Thom Tillis, and New Hampshire, where Sen. Jeanne Shaheen consistently leads former Massachusetts Sen. Scott Brown. In both cases, the Democratic incumbents have single-digit leads over their Republican challengers. In other key races, such as Alaska and Arkansas, there are no recent polls.

One possible reason for the shift in public opinion is the news from Iraq. The shocking stories of massacres by ISIS and the collapse of the Iraqi army, to say nothing of videos showing the beheadings of two American hostages, have undermined President Obama’s foreign policy and the credibility of the Democrats on national security and terrorism.

Whether this week’s polls are truly the first indications of a Republican wave or a blip will soon be apparent. If the polls are accurate, with elections less than six weeks away, there will be little time for Democrats to reverse the trend toward the Republicans.

Read the full article on Elections Examiner

The myth of 2012’s missing Republicans

Since the 2012 election, many have believed that Mitt Romney lost the election because many Republicans, turned off by Romney’s status as a “Republican in name only,” stayed home and didn’t vote. As the theory goes, the Republicans could have won the election if only they had nominated a candidate who was more conservative and who would have motivated the Republican base to turn out. Who are these conservative Republicans who did not vote in 2012? The answer to the missing Republicans of 2012 can be found in exit polls and vote tallies.

The first thing to note is that Mitt Romney got more votes than John McCain did in 2008. The Federal Election Commission’s official tallies for 2008 show that McCain received 59,948,323 votes. The official 2012 results from the FEC show that Mitt Romney received 60,933,500 votes. Romney received almost a million votes more than McCain.

President Obama received 69,498,516 votes in 2008 and 65,915,796 votes in 2012. Obama’s vote total in 2012 was 3.5 million votes less than he had received in 2008, but this was still enough to secure a victory against Romney. Obama’s percentage of the vote declined from 52.93 percent in 2008 to 51.06 percent in 2012. On the surface it would appear that if Republicans stayed home for anyone it was John McCain.

Exit polls from CNN seem to confirm the notion that a boycott by conservatives was not Mitt Romney’s problem. The 2008 exit polls show that the electorate that year was comprised of 39 percent Democrats, 32 percent Republicans and 29 percent independents. CNN’s 2012 exit polls showed almost exactly the same the breakdown: 32 percent Republican, 29 percent independent and 38 percent Democrat, one point less than 2008.

In both years, the candidates won approximately 90 percent of the votes of their own party members. Obama won 89 percent Democrats in 2008 and 92 percent in 2012. McCain and Romney won 90 and 93 percent of Republicans respectively.

The big difference came from independent voters. Obama won 52 percent of independents in 2008, but in 2012 he only received 45 percent of the independent vote. The Republican share went from 44 percent in 2008 to 50 percent in 2012.

Looking at individual battleground states shows much the same. In Ohio, the 2008 electorate was 39 percent Democrat and 31 percent each for Republicans and independents. In 2012, the breakdown was exactly the same. The big difference was that independents swung from 52 percent for Obama in 2008 to 53 percent for Romney.

In Virginia, the electoral breakdown was 39 percent Democrat and 33 percent Republican in 2008. In 2012, the Democrats had the same percentage while Republicans declined to 32 percent. Independents, a demographic that increased by two percentage points, shifted from 49 percent for Obama (48 percent McCain and three percent other) to 54 percent Romney.

In Florida, both parties declined from 2008 to 2012, the Democrats from 37 to 35 percent and the Republicans from 34 to 33 percent. Independents increased from 29 to 33 percent and Obama won the demographic both years. In 2008, he won 52 percent of independents and 50 percent in 2012.

North Carolina, a state that swung from blue to red is a bit different. In 2008, the electorate was 42 percent Democrat, 31 percent Republican and 27 percent independent. In 2012, Democrats lost three points while Republicans gained two for a total five point swing in party identification. McCain and Romney both won independents, a group that grew by two percentage points, by 60 and 57 percent respectively.

In almost every case, the Republican candidate won more than 90 percent of the Republican vote. The exception was John McCain who only received 87 percent of the Republican vote in Florida in 2008. In each of these states, Mitt Romney received a greater percentage of the Republican vote than McCain.

The exit poll figures closely mirror Gallup party identification poll results. In early November 2008, Gallup found 26 percent Republicans and 39 percent Democrats with 35 percent identifying as independents. When “leaners” were taken into account, Democrats led Republicans by a 51-40 percent margin.

Four years later, in November 2012, the Democrats still held the advantage. Thirty-five percent identified as Democrats and 30 percent as Republicans. Thirty-three percent considered themselves independent. Counting “leaners,” Democrats led 50-42.

The poll results exploding the myth that Republicans stayed home rather than vote for Mitt Romney. Republicans voted for Romney in even greater numbers than they voted for John McCain.

The fundamental problem for Republicans is that they did not grow the party between 2008 and 2012. North Carolina, the only state to shift from blue to red, was the only state examined in which Republicans increased as a percentage of the electorate. The five point shift was enough for Romney to claim the state.

A secondary and related problem is that the percentage of independents increased in many states. While Mitt Romney took a greater share of the independent vote than McCain, it was not enough to overcome the advantage of the larger Democratic base.

These numbers indicate that a Republican strategy that focuses on increasing the turnout of Republican voters is not likely to succeed in future elections. Since Republicans comprise a smaller percentage of voters than Democrats, the key to a Republican victory is to win independents by a large margin. In future elections this will be even more critical since the percentage of independents has grown dramatically since 2012. Gallup reports that almost half of all voters consider themselves independent.

The 2012 election proved that attacking Obamacare was not enough to secure a Republican victory. A strategy that may help sway independents and grow the Republican base is to present a more positive vision of the Republican agenda rather than simply criticizing the records of Democrats and focusing on the repeal of Obamacare. As economist Arthur Brooks argues, Republicans should spend less time fighting against abstract things and more time fighting for the people that they want to vote for them.

Read the full article on Elections Examiner

TSA allowed illegal aliens on airliners without valid IDs

In July, Breitbart issued an exclusive report that alleged that the Transportation Security Administration was allowing illegal immigrants to travel on airline flights without proper identification. According to the story, Border Patrol officers claimed to have witnessed TSA agents permitting illegal aliens to board domestic airline flights with only a Notice to Appear, a federal citation for illegally crossing the border. To determine whether these allegations were true, Examiner contacted the National Border Patrol Council, a union for Border Patrol officers, and the TSA.

For those unfamiliar with a Notice to Appear, also called Form I-862, Nolo.com explains that it is a charging document that signals the initiation of removal proceedings and means that the recipient must appear in immigration court. The document lists the recipient’s name, aliases, address, alien registration number and date of birth, but does not include a photograph and is easy to duplicate. A sample Form I-862 is available on the Justice Department’s website.

In response to a query from Examiner, the TSA Media Team issued a statement via email which declared, “A Notice to Appear, issued by the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), is not an acceptable form of ID at the TSA checkpoint.”

The TSA went on to explain that “for Mexican nationals without a passport who are returning to Mexico” an alternate procedure exists. The Mexican national can apply for a Certificate of Presumptive Nationality of Mexico (CPNM), which is issued by the Mexican government. The CPNM includes a photograph of the traveler and the TSA’s Identity Verification Call Center (IVCC) authenticates the certificate before the traveler is allowed through the TSA checkpoint.

The CPNM must be provided by the Mexican government in PDF form 24 hours prior to the flight and the passenger must undergo enhanced screening. The travel must be completed on the same day and Mexico must be the final destination. According to TSA, about 1,900 CPNMs are issued annually.

The same IVCC can also verify the identities of U.S. citizens who have lost or forgotten their identification. The TSA website lists other acceptable forms of identification.

Shawn Moran, media contact for the National Border Patrol Council, stands by the original allegations made by Hector Garza, a spokesman for Local 2455. Moran told Examiner that Border Patrol officers observed TSA agents allowing illegal aliens to board flights in Laredo, Tex. with only a Notice to Appear as identification. When asked if these were international flights that would return the aliens to their countries of origin, Moran answered, “These were solely domestic flights.”

Moran was unaware of the CPNM procedure that was touted by the TSA. He noted, “At the time our agents observed this, there was no procedure. There may be now.”

A crucial distinction is that the CPNM procedure, according to the TSA, is for foreign nationals “returning to their own country.” The claim made by the Border Patrol officers is that foreign nationals were flying, not only without a CPNM, but on domestic flights traveling to points within the United States. If true, this would not be permissible under the TSA policy.

Moran claims that the “TSA flat out lied when the story broke” about the policy of allowing aliens to fly with a Notice to Appear. “They have since changed the policy,” he says.

When asked if there is evidence to the claim beyond the testimony of TSA officers, Moran answers, “I’m sure there is, but it would all reside with TSA. They wouldn’t have gone out of their way to clarify this if it wasn’t happening.”

The smoking gun in the allegations is a letter from the TSA to Rep. Kenny Marchant (R-Tex.). The letter, first reported by the Gateway Pundit and dated August 7, 2014, explicitly says that passengers with only a Form I-862 can fly under certain conditions, such as with confirmation “that the I-862 was issued to an individual with the name provided”:

“If a passenger can only present a Form I-862, TSA will attempt to establish the passenger’s identity through DHS partner Components, such as U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) or U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). If other DHS Components are able to provide corroborating information (such as that the I-862 was issued to an individual with the name provided) to permit TSA to verify an individual’s identity when taken together with all other information available, the passenger is permitted into the screening checkpoint to undergo screening.”

The full letter can be viewed on the website of the Federation for American Immigration Reform.

When Examiner asked the TSA about the letter to Marchant, a spokesman replied, “The letter is very clear regarding the other verification methods used. The letter speaks for itself.”

After receiving the TSA letter, Rep. Marchant introduced the VALID (Verified and Legitimate ID) Act on Sept. 10. The bill would “prohibit the TSA from accepting Notice to Appear Forms as valid personal identification for clearing airport security,” according to Marchant.

It appears that the TSA was allowing illegal aliens to board domestic airliners with only a Notice to Appear at one time. The TSA has apparently now changed that policy and requires further documentation from the alien’s home country. If Rep. Marchant’s bill becomes law, this change would be made permanent.

Read the full story on Aviation Examiner

Will next economic collapse start one year from today?

What if there is a pattern going back more than a decade in American history that shows that the last two economic crises occurred on a predictable seven year cycle? What if this pattern occurred at the same time as many other indications became evident, giving reason to believe that the pattern itself was not a coincidence? Would it be possible to predict when the next economic crisis would occur and prepare for it?

Rabbi Jonathan Cahn believes that he has discovered just such a pattern within recent American history that stretches back before the September 11 attacks of 2001. Cahn, the author of the best-selling book, “The Harbinger,” discovered the astounding fact that the financial crashes of 2001 and 2008 both occurred on the same day of Jewish calendar. What’s more, that date was the very day and year of the Jewish calendar on which ancient Biblical law called for debts to be erased.

“The Harbinger” gained immediate popularity, but was also the subject of fierce criticism from some theologians. Cahn had answered much of this criticism is interviews. Additionally, Jose Bernal has written a valuable book answering the critics of “The Harbinger.” Bernal’s book is “The Truth About the Harbinger.”

Cahn’s discovery centers around the Shemitah years on the Jewish calendar. The Shemitah (Sabbath or sabbatical) year was established in Deuteronomy 15:1-2 when the ancient Israelites were instructed, “At the end of every seven years you shall grant a release of debts. And this is the form of the release: Every creditor who has lent anything to his neighbor shall release it; he shall not require it of his neighbor or his brother, because it is called the Lord’s release.”

The traditional day to forgive debts was Elul 29, the last day of the Jewish year. In 2001, this date occurred on September 17, the largest single day crash of the stock market in U.S. history according to rankings by the Wall St. Journal. The crash occurred as financial markets reopened in the wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks. Seven years later, the Elul 29 of 2008 was on September 29. This date superseded September 17, 2001 as the largest stock market crash as prices collapsed after the House of Representatives voted down a bipartisan plan to bail out banks with tainted “toxic” mortgage securities.

Now Cahn has released a new book, “The Mystery of the Shemitah.” Charisma News says the new book details Cahn’s new discoveries about the Shemitah cycle that extend farther back in American history more than 100 years. World Net Daily notes that the book debuted at number five on Amazon’s Top 100 list. This is in spite of the fact that Cahn fell ill as the book was published and could not go on a promotional tour.

Cahn’s theory does not merely hinge on the fact that dates on the Jewish calendar match up to catastrophic events in American history. In “The Harbinger,” Cahn points out many other parallels between recent events in the United States to events thousands of years ago just prior to the destruction of ancient Israel at the hands of the Assyrians, the ancestors of today’s radical Islamists. Cahn asserts that these specific parallels, including specific words, dates and actions, mean that God is shaking Americans in attempt to warn them about impending judgment if the country remains on its current course. The specific details of the parallels are too numerous to discuss here, but were addressed in a previous Examiner review of “The Harbinger.”

In “The Harbinger,” Cahn makes the point that the September 11 attacks were similar to an early attack by the Assyrians on ancient Israel. Rather than accepting the attack as a warning and a call to repentance, the Israelites made a vow of defiance, echoed in Isaiah 9:10. Interestingly, two prominent American elected officials referenced this obscure verse in the wake of the September 11 attacks and President Obama paraphrased it in reference to the 2008 financial collapse.

Cahn goes on to describe how the September 11 attacks led to both record-breaking stock market crashes which occurred exactly seven years apart on the Jewish calendar. One of the main tools used to stave off a recession in the wake of the attacks was a cut in interest rates. With interest rates at abnormally low levels, saving was discouraged and people were motivated to take advantage of cheap loans to buy houses. The increased demand for real estate inflated a bubble that eventually burst in 2008, causing the financial crisis.

The process by which a nation attempts to defy God’s plans for judgment and call for repentance by using its own devices to resolve the crisis is referred to as the Isaiah 9:10 effect by Rabbi Cahn. The irony is that the action of the nation under judgment instead “sets about a chain of events that brings about the very calamity that it sought to avert,” as Cahn wrote in “Harbinger.”

On September 13, 2015, one year from today, will come the next Elul 29 of a Shemitah year. The Shemitah year begins on the evening of September 24, 2014 according to American calendars. September 25 is Rosh Hashanah, Tishrei 1 of the Jewish year 5775. The entire year is Shemitah, but Cahn writes in “The Mystery of the Shemitah” that “it is at the Shemitah’s end (September 13, 2015) and its wake that the most dramatic repercussions are felt.”

In a 2013 interview, Examiner asked Rabbi Cahn whether he believed that September 13, 2015 would be the date of another “shaking” or judgment. “I haven’t been led to be dogmatic concerning what may or may not happen,” he answered, “but I think it’s wise to keep our eyes open.”

In “The Mystery of the Shemitah” he goes further. Cahn points out that since September 13, 2015 is on Sunday, American financial markets will not be open that day, but “there is the possibility of a trigger event that takes place outside the time of the markets’ openings that could bring about a market collapse – as in the case of 9/11.” He also notes that the last day that markets will be open prior to Elul 29 will be Friday, September 11, 2015.

Cahn also points out that there will be two solar eclipses in 2015. The first will be on the exact center point of the Shemitah, March 20. The other will occur on the last day of the Shemitah: Elul 29 or September 13.

Nevertheless, he writes, “Nothing significant has to happen…. The phenomenon may manifest itself in one cycle, not in another, and then again in the next. And the focus of the message is not date-setting but the call of God to repentance and return. At the same time, something of significance could take place, and it is wise to note the times.”

Whether a shaking and judgment occurs in this Shemitah or not, Cahn leaves no doubt that, without repentance, it will occur. “No nation,” he writes, “can defy the ways and will of Him who is its source of blessings and expect those blessings to continue.”

Although he has no specific message on what lies ahead, Cahn does have advice for believers. He speculates that the timing of the completion of the new tower on the World Trade Center site may be of note. One World Trade Center, often called the Freedom Tower, is expected to open in 2014 after numerous construction delays. The first tower in the complex, 4 World Trade Center, officially opened on November 13, 2013.

Cahn also suggests that “it would be wise to take note of America’s crossing of key thresholds in its spiritual and moral descent.” This could possibly suggest a link to a ruling on same-sex marriage, support for Israel, persecution of Christian believers, or a variety of other issues that deal with Christianity that are being discussed in the public square today. Cahn cites “the offering of their sons and daughters in the fires of Baal and Molech” as the “sin that would bring about the nation [of Israel]’s destruction.” The parallel in the United States might be sacrifice of more than one million Americans annually through abortion.

In the end, although Cahn is uncertain about the nature of judgment as well as its timing, he writes, “I believe a great shaking is coming to this nation and to the world. I believe that this shaking will involve economic and financial collapse, though it will not necessarily be confined or limited to those realms.”

Given the current state of the American economy and the world, Americans, regardless of their spiritual beliefs, would do well to prepare for hard times.

Read the full article on Atlanta Conservative Examiner

Majority calls Obama a failure

A new poll from the Washington Post and ABC News released on Tuesday shows that a majority of Americans believe that Barack Obama is a failure as president. Fifty-two percent of registered voters say that the Obama Administration has been a failure while only 42 percent call it a success.

The poll also found that voters disapprove of Obama’s handling of a variety of issues by strong margins. Obama’s overall approval as president and his handling of the economy were both at 41 percent. Approval for international affairs and the handling of the health law was at 38 percent. Obama’s handling of immigration had the approval of only 31 percent.

Thirty-one percent also believe that the country is on the wrong track. Seventy-four percent are dissatisfied with the way the federal government works. Of these, 25 percent are angry at the federal government.

Most voters feel that Obama is not a strong leader (55 percent) and is too cautious in international affairs (53 percent). Fifty-five percent believe that he has done more to divide the country than unite it. On the other hand, even after numerous scandals, a slight majority (49 percent) believe that he is honest and trustworthy and understands the problems of people like them.

With respect to the upcoming election, 35 percent rate the economy and jobs as the most important issue. At the same time, 69 percent rate the economy as poor or not so good. Voters believe that Republicans can do a better job on the economy by a 45-40 margin.

On Obamacare, 52 percent of voters disapprove while 43 percent favor the law. Even though most voters dislike the law, 57 percent think that it should go ahead. Only 39 percent of voters favor a repeal of Obamacare.

The news is not all bad for Democrats, however. Only 15 percent approve of Congress, but congressional Democrats have a higher approval rating (33 percent) than Republicans (21 percent). Forty-five percent approve of the job that their own representative is doing. Democrat voters are also more enthusiastic about voting (71 percent) than Republicans (63 percent).

The most heartening item for the Democrats may be in an analysis of the demographics of the poll by the Washington Post’s Aaron Blake. Blake points out that while 25 percent of Democrats and 29 percent of liberals consider Obama a failure, there is one important demographic group that considers him a success. Moderate voters consider Obama a success by a slight margin (48-44 percent). This is the group that decides many elections.

 

Read the full article on National Elections Examiner

Save America: Take your family to church

Recent polls now show that almost three quarters of Americans believe the nation is on the wrong track. The reality is that regardless of whether Republicans win control of the Senate this year and the presidency in 2016, it will be very difficult to solve the problems facing America today. Many of the most serious issues facing the country stem from cultural changes that cannot be solved solely by changes to government policies. Americans who are serious about changing the direction of the country should begin by taking their families to church. To save America, it will take a moral revolution that can only come from God, not government.

Even though some polls show that church attendance is still strong in the US, ChurchLeaders.com reports that counts by denominations and local churches show that church attendance is down and still declining. Although about 40 percent of the population reports that they attend church, the real number is probably less than 20 percent and not keeping pace with population growth.

It is likely that the decline in church attendance can be connected with many of America’s social and economic ills. Movement away from traditional Judeo-Christian morality may be responsible for a change in social mores that has led to an expansion of government and a growth in entitlement spending.

While there is no hard data or studies establishing a causal relationship between church attendance and fundamental shifts in American society, it is easy to see a correlation between the two. The movement away from traditional religion has occurred at the same time as a sharp decline in marriage. According to Census data, the share of unmarried couples cohabiting has risen from one percent in 1960 to more than 11 percent today. At the same time, the marriage rate has declined from 90 percent in 1950 to 36 percent. Both men and women are delaying marriage until later in life.

Unsurprisingly, the decline of marriage has led to an increase in the share of children living in single-parent homes. Two-parent families have declined from almost 90 percent in 1960 to less than 70 percent today. Put another way, according to The Atlantic, at 31 percent of U.S. households, “single parents have more than tripled as a share of American households since 1960.”

The change is even pronounced in black families where more than two-thirds of children belong to single-parent families. Many children who do live in two-parent families are not with both biological parents. The trend is not limited to black families. Nationwide, one out of every three children live in homes where the biological father is absent.

Given the enormous costs of raising children, it should come as no surprise that with the growth of single parent families has come a similar growth in federal entitlement spending. As more children grow up within broken families, the federal government has borne an ever larger financial share of the burden of parenthood. Federal entitlement spending has grown from less than one percent to approximately 13 percent of GDP with no sign of slowing.

The effects of single-parent families on children are well documented. According to the National Father Initiative, growing up in single-parent families, particularly families where the father is absent, puts children at risk for a variety of negative outcomes. Such families are more likely to live in poverty due to the fact that a single mother often cannot work a full-time job and care for her children. Children of absent fathers are more at risk for emotional and behavioral problems, juvenile delinquency, drug and alcohol abuse, sexual activity and teen pregnancy, and even bad grades.

The problem of single-parent families is a vicious cycle. Statistics show that children who grow up in single-parent families are more likely to experience divorce themselves as well as being less likely to marry in the first place. In many cases, children of single parents grow up to head their own single-parent families, which in turn require more government help.

Due to the unintended consequences of entitlements, such programs would be problematic even if the federal government could afford them. In reality, entitlements are unaffordable. The Heritage Foundation points out that 61 percent of federal spending is on mandatory items such as entitlements. Further, 31 cents of every federal dollar spent is borrowed. This has led to a federal debt of more than $17 trillion. When unfunded liabilities such as Social Security and Medicare are included, the total debt comes to $127 trillion, according to Forbes.

The problem of the growth of government deficit spending on entitlements is not merely an economic issue. It is also a moral issue. Growth in government is largely a response to the decline of the family and entitlements fill the vacuum of money and stability in single-parent families. Because a government check cannot fully replace a missing mother or father, these entitlement payments make the problem worse in the end by making marriage and traditional families seem optional.

The destruction of the family causes other problems as well. The problem of out-of-wedlock pregnancy is undoubtedly related to the abortion issue as well. According to the Centers for Disease Control, more than 85 percent of women who abort their babies are unmarried. The Guttmacher Institute notes that 75 percent say that they cannot afford a child, a problem that is often associated with single-parent, single-income families. Half specifically cite their desire to not be a single parent or problems with their husband or partner. While the rate of abortions in the U.S. is declining somewhat, more than 1 million abortions still occur in the U.S. each year.

Another possible, but less conclusive, result of the destruction of the family is increased homosexuality. Accurate statistics on the rate of homosexuality are hard to find (due to small sample size and self selection), but the theory that homosexuality in some people is related to domineering mothers has been around for decades, such as a paper by Dr. Marvin Siegelman from 1974 and several books by Dr. Joseph Nicolosi, author of “A Parent’s Guide to Preventing Homosexuality.” While the left disputes this view, little is definitely known about the root causes of homosexuality.

Some psychologists and psychiatrists have advanced therapies based on these theories of environmental causes for homosexuality. In spite of being attacked by gay activists and leftists, there is evidence that these therapies can help some homosexuals. In some cases, liberals have sought bans against gay reparative therapy, even though such bans violate the freedom of speech of doctors and the freedom of choice of families. If homosexuality is a result of strong mother figures for some gays, then the rate of homosexuality should increase as the rate of single-parent families increases.

The negative effects of homosexuality are less disputed. Dr. Timothy Dailey of the Center for Marriage and Family Studies summarized the risks of homosexuality. These include an increased risk of suicide, domestic violence, and substance abuse in addition to greater risk for a variety of sexually transmitted diseases. Lesbians also have a higher risk for a variety of cancers.

Today, the United States resembles the Israel of the Bible in many ways. As Isaiah described, in spite of the blessings that God has bestowed upon America, the nation increasingly produces “bad fruit.”Americans increasingly revel in pleasure and immorality and our moral compasses are so distorted that we frequently “call evil good and good evil.” In America today, religion is being from the public square and people who follow the teachings of the Bible are increasingly in conflict with laws enforcing the new morality. Ancient Israel was destroyed by God’s judgment and some, such as Rabbi Jonathan Cahn, believe that America is already undergoing the early stages of judgment as well.

When viewed in context, it is apparent that a change in governmental policy is not sufficient to reverse the decline of the American family and the budget-busting entitlements that go along with it. What is needed is a national revival and a return to traditional family models.

The only way to reverse the trend of ever-increasing government entitlements is to reduce the need for those entitlements in the first place. By returning to a traditional family model where two parents share the responsibility for raising children, there will be less need for government intervention and support. Changes in policy without attacking the underlying problems will be doomed to failure.

The government cannot force Americans to return to traditional and time-proven methods of bearing and raising children, but a true revival and voluntary return to the Biblical teachings has the capability to change the course of American society and culture. Such a cultural shift will be necessary for the long term prosperity – and even survival – of the United States.

A revival has to start somewhere. If you want to save America, take your family to church. Teach your kids the value of the traditional family. Show them that when spouses fight, it doesn’t mean that the marriage has to end. If you love your children, try to make your marriage work. You can start this process by taking your family to church to learn about God’s forgiveness. You might save your country as well as your soul.

Read the full article on Examiner.com

Tea Party losses bode well for GOP

As the 2014 primary election season draws to a close, it is apparent that voters have rejected the vast majority of Tea Party candidates in favor of traditional Republicans. In spite of much ballyhooed and hard fought challenges against Republican incumbents, only one prominent Republican, Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.) was defeated by a Tea Party challenger, Dave Brat, who was not funded or backed by national Tea Party groups. The Tea Party losses are a good thing for the Republican Party as a whole and make a Republican Senate majority more likely.

As noted before in Examiner, most Republican officeholders are real conservatives. Charges that they are “RINOs” or “closet liberals” do not stand up to the scrutiny of their voting records. Nevertheless, Tea Party challengers leveled these and other charges against Republican incumbents in their campaign attacks from the right.

Contrary to the belief of many on the right, elections are not merely won by marshaling the conservative base. While getting out the conservative vote is important, conservatives do not make up a majority in any state except Wyoming according to a January 2014 Gallup poll. Elections are decided by the moderate and independent voters who do not adhere to either party. For many Republican candidates, having fended off challengers from the right may make them more appealing to the undecided voters in the middle of political spectrum.

Second, while some Tea Party candidates have been very qualified and successful, think Rand Paul and Ted Cruz, others have made serious mistakes that caused the Republican Party to lose elections that should have been easily winnable. The names of past Tea Party losers include Todd Akin of Missouri (“legitimate rape”), Richard Mourdock of Indiana (pregnancy from rape is “something God intended”), and Christine O’Donnell of Maryland (“I dabbled in witchcraft”). Tea Party support for such candidates was one of the factors that cost Republicans control of the Senate in both 2010 and 2012. While candidates like Aiken and O’Donnell failed to win Democratic seats for the GOP, Mourdock transferred a Republican seat to the Democrats after defeating incumbent Richard Lugar in the primary.

Recent elections may show that Republican voters are becoming more discerning about who to vote for. In the current primary season, Republican voters have voted down a number of Tea Party nominees who would have almost certainly gone down to defeat in the general election. In Kentucky, Matt Bevin, challenger to Senator Mitch McConnell, was caught on video attending a rally to support the legalization of cockfighting. Bevin also was revealed to have supported TARP in 2008. The Tea Party challenger to Senator Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), Dr. Milton Wolf, was revealed to have posted numerous x-ray images of deceased patients on his Facebook page. Wolf then joked about the pictures with his Facebook friends. Even Chris McDaniel, who lost the hotly contested and controversial primary in Mississippi, would have been troubled in the general election by recordings of his talk radio show. By rejecting such flawed candidates, Republican voters increase the chances that Republicans will win control of the Senate.

Third, Tea Party identification is not helpful to moderate and independent voters. In June, a Gallup poll found that only 24 percent of registered voters considered themselves Tea Party supporters. One month earlier, Gallup had noted that Tea Party support among Republicans had declined to 41 percent, down 20 points from 2010. The Tea Party was always a conservative and libertarian movement. At its height, in 2011, only 30 percent of Americans were supporters.

When independent voters were polled, Gallup found an almost even split between supporters and opponents of the Tea Party (14 to 13 percent). More telling, 73 percent of independents had no opinion on the movement. Tea Party endorsements of candidates would have little effect on these voters.

The good news for Republicans is that rejection of the Tea Party is not tantamount to a rejection of conservatism. Recent polls show that two-thirds of Americans are not satisfied with how American government works (Gallup) and 72 percent thought that big government was a greater threat than big business or big labor (Gallup). Voters consistently say that the country is on the wrong track by a greater than two-to-one margin (Rasmussen).

In the end, the Tea Party has not failed. The Tea Party, combined with the failure of President Obama’s agenda, moved the Republican Party to the right. National Journal called the current Congress the “most divided ever” with very few moderates left in either party. This is confirmed by a University of Georgia researcher whose research indicates that the Republican Party is at its most conservative point in 100 years.

There is still a place for the Tea Party within the Republican Party. As Michael Tanner noted in National Review, the Tea Party’s ability to field primary challengers against Republican incumbents will keep the GOP from moving too far toward the left. Even if the Tea Party never elects another candidate, by holding the feet of Republican incumbents to the fire, it has accomplished its purpose.

Read the full article on Elections Examiner