Syria Is Not Iraq – Don’t Get It Twisted

Syria Is Not Iraq - Headerby Benjamin T. Moore, Jr.

Syria Is Not Iraq

Have you ever noticed how our Presidents seem to age right before our very eyes? These are the problems and issues that cause this apparent rapid ageing. As President Obama once pointed out, all the easy decisions are handled before they ever reach his desk. The problems that reach the “Oval Office” are the ones only he can make a decision about. What to do about Syria’s use of chemical weapons on its own people is just such a decision. Contrary to what some of the pundits would have you believe, Syria is not Iraq.

 This Is Not His Daddy’s War

Syria Is Not Iraq - GW BushThere is no doubt the shenanigans of “Bush 43” left a very sour taste in the mouths of the  American people when it comes to military operations in the “middle east.” The analytical amongst us figured out early on, the primary reasons for going into Iraq following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, had more to do with the oil cartels wanting to get their grimy mitts on the 2nd largest oil reserves in the world and our military industrial complex looking to loot this country. Add to these facts, G.W. would get to finish the job his daddy only started, and it was a done deal.

The United States is still paying for the criminal incompetence of G.W. Bush. In the words of Obi Wan Kenobi, “who’s the bigger fool? The fool or the fool who follows him?” I think we’ve answered that question and at an extremely high cost.

Chemical Weapons Actually Used

Unlike the cobbled together justification for going into Iraq, Syria has actually used chemical weapons on its citizens. We’ve seen the videos and the dead bodies have been examined. Did Saddam use chemical weapons on the Kurds? Yes he did. We sold him the chemical weapons he used. However, this occurred back in 1988. At the time of this writing, Syria used chemical weapons against its citizens just 10 days ago. Syria is not Iraq.

Mission Is Not Regime Change

Syria Is Not Iraq - Saddam Statue Pulled DownPresident Obama is not interested in changing the Syrian regime. Not only does the United States have no Constitutional authority to go around changing the regimes of sovereign nations, who is to say that the regime replacing the current one would be any better? Although many nations in our global community are expressing trepidation about taking action, it has been long established policy – global policy – that the nations of the world will not tolerate the use of weapons of mass destruction. Chemical weapons fall under this prohibition. Had Assad detonated a “tactical nuke” I suspect there would be no hesitation in the global community for taking action. The reality is, using chemical weapons is philosophically no different.

Syria Is Not A Major Oil Producer

Syria Is Not Iraq - Graph Of Oil Producing NationsIn point of fact, Syria has not been able to export any oil since the 2011 sanctions. If Syria were a major oil producer, you’d best believe the Republican lap dogs would be getting calls from their corporate masters and they’d be itching to go into Syria. Syria is not Iraq.

Destabilizing Civil War Already In Progress

When we went into Iraq under George Bush 43, Iraq was not at war and was relatively stable. You may not have liked Saddam’s administration, but his people had food, they had electricity and there was law and order in the streets. We went in and destabilized Iraq, seized their oil production and destroyed their infrastructure. As Colin Powell advised Bush 43, “it’s the pottery barn rules; you break it you bought it.” We’ve been paying to keep Iraq together ever since.

Syria is already in the middle of a civil war that is destabilizing the region. If tomorrow you awoke to tanks rolling down your street and bombs falling, what would you do? If possible you’d take your family and get the hell out of Dodge. Those in Syria who can are doing that very thing. Where are they going? They’re going across their borders where possible and that means the surrounding nations are inundated with refugees. Over time, this will serve to destabilize those nations. Thus, the longer this conflict continues, the more dangerous it becomes for that region. Syria is not Iraq.

What To Do?

What should we do in Syria? Frankly, I don’t know. I’m not the President and I’m damn glad I don’t have to make this decision. I’m definitely not an advocate for “boots on the ground.” We can’t simply blow up his chemical weapons stock piles because that would release them into the environment.

I also am not naive enough to believe we shouldn’t do anything. We’ve seen what happens when despots get away with even the least bit of genocide. It always grows and it sets a precedent for all the tin horn dictators watching to see what the consequences might be.

I might recommend what I call the “Moore Doctrine” of modern warfare. Under my doctrine, when dealing with a nation that refuses to see reason, you take out one third of their military assets. You then give them the opportunity to negotiate. If they remain recalcitrant, you take out another third and so on. Assad wants to maintain power. If he loses his military, he’s done for. Reduce his military by one third, you haven’t removed him from power, thus further destabilizing the region, but you may have taught him a valuable lesson and a lesson, more importantly, that those watching will appreciate.

Evidence Of Jesus Being Married Grows.

Jesus Married - Papyrusby Benjamin T. Moore, Jr.


I don’t know why Christians find the idea of Jesus being married so repugnant. Why shouldn’t he have been married? Being married was a requirement for being a Rabbi. Jesus was a Rabbi. The Bible says he was tempted in all points such as is common to man. There are some temptations one simply cannot experience if they’re not married.

According to a newly discovered papyrus, Jesus mentions his wife. Scholars are now debating its authenticity however as one scholar pointed out, hoaxing a papyrus that old written in Coptic is not trivial. Although the canonized Gospels do not mention Jesus having a wife, they also don’t say he did not. Even Paul when suggesting that his followers live celibate as he claims to have been living, does not point to Jesus as an example of celibacy.

If anything, Jesus being married would make his sacrifice much more meaningful. Speaking personally, I do not fear death. My objection to dying has much more to do with the impact it would have on my family and loved ones. I simply do not want to leave them without my protection. I would not want to cause *them* to grieve.

A person without those obligations is much more free to take risks and do as they will. Why? Because their decisions only affect themselves. For example. I *think* I’d like to ride a Harley. I’ve ridden a motorcycle a time or two in my youth and thoroughly enjoyed it. My wife says, “HELL 2 THE NO!!!” I will not overrule her on this because my life is no longer my own to do with as I wish. My life belongs to her.

When we first got together, I was doing Bodyguard work. My fault for talking too much… but during dinner one day she asked how my day went. “I told her not bad, I was shot at twice… but they MISSED!” Didn’t matter. She told me I was done and she forcibly retired me. I loved her enough to abide by her wishes. Again, the point is, she has a say in what risks I take and what happens to me.

Jesus Married

Thus, when we propose that Jesus was married and yes, may have had children, shouldn’t that make his sacrifice – for Christians – even more meaningful? Or is it the whole notion that… dare I mention it, Jesus may have actually had SEX??? Oh my! What a concept! Here you’ve been taught that sex was dirty and come to find out… Jesus had sex! Yes, I see the problem. Perhaps Christians should rethink things? We know that whole “celibacy” thing isn’t working out too well for the Catholic Church.

Faith Based Skepticism

Faith Based Skepticism Headerby Benjamin T. Moore, Jr.

Faith Based Skepticism

For some time now I have pondered the dichotomy between the mission statement of scientific skepticism and its actual practice. On the one hand, a healthy dose of skepticism is essential for finding truth. However, taken to extremes, skepticism can become every bit as irrational and delusional as the faith based perspectives.

skep·ti·cism also scep·ti·cism  (skpt-szm) n.

1. A doubting or questioning attitude or state of mind; dubiety.

2. Philosophy

a. The ancient school of Pyrrho of Elis that stressed the uncertainty of our beliefs in order to oppose dogmatism.

b. The doctrine that absolute knowledge is impossible, either in a particular domain or in general.

c. A methodology based on an assumption of doubt with the aim of acquiring approximate or relative certainty.

3. Doubt or disbelief of religious tenets.

There are few who would find anything objectionable with skepticism based on its definition. However, the way skepticism is actually practiced now borders on religious fervor. First, let me state, I am a devout Agnostic. A friend once defined that as being a “weak atheist.” Actually, there is a distinct difference between atheism and agnosticism. The root of “atheism” is theism. Atheism is the disbelief in gods or God and in particular God as a “personal saviour.” Agnosticism leaves that door open and is not inextricably linked to religious philosophy. The Agnostic simply says, “I do not know.”

Who Debunks The Debunkers?

Faith Based Skepticism - James Randi

The Amazing Randi

While I could certainly focus on matters of religion, the focus of this article is on the cottage industry of skepticism that has sprung up over the past few decades. One of the better known ones is the “James Randi Educational Foundation” founded in 1996. It’s expressed purpose is “to help people defend themselves against paranormal and pseudo-scientific claims.”  While this mission statement certainly seems laudable, we must remember Randi himself admits to being a cheat, trickster and a charlatan. I’m not sure if those are the best credentials for someone who purports to uncover the truth about claims of the paranormal and extraordinary.

I have followed James Randi over the years. I actually saw his appearance on the “Tonight Show” when the inimitable Johnny Carson was the host. On the night in question he was demonstrating how spoon and key bending is done and damnit if the key didn’t break. Thinking quickly he immediately stomped on the broken piece to conceal it from the audience. Of course, this was done so clumsily, everyone noticed him do it.

As a magician, Randi really isn’t all that exceptional. Thus, his foray into debunking did not come as a surprise. Not unlike the “Masked Magician” who has made his living revealing how magic tricks are done, Randi has figured out a way to generate revenue as a professional debunker. That may be his best “magic trick” to date!

Don’t get me wrong. Exposing the pariahs of society which feed like parasites on the fears and superstitions of the ignorant is a good thing. I’m all for unmasking, exposing and defaming hypocritical religions and their leaders who have turned a gullible public into their personal cash cows. I feel equally malignant towards medical quacks who are giving people false hope while looting their bank accounts. A pox on them all!

CSI – Committee for Skeptical Inquiry

Faith Based Skepticism - Joe Nickell

Dr. Joe Nickell

This organization does a slightly better job at suppressing its biases.  Nevertheless, those biases are exposed by the experts they send out to speak to various issues. One such expert is Dr. Joe Nickell. I’ve seen him sent out to debunk everything from UFOs to Bigfoot to paranormal claims. He’s a credible debunker right? He does have a Ph.D after all… Yes he does! He has a Ph.D from the University of Kentucky in English with a focus on literary investigation and folklore. In other words, he’s an expert at evaluating books on the customs and myths of indigenous peoples. He does not have a background in science or the scientific methodology. His opinions on these matters is no more valid than the Janitor’s down the hall.

Occupationally, Dr. Nickell has been a carnival barker, private detective, blackjack dealer, riverboat manager and a stage magician. While he might certainly make for an interesting dinner guest, there is nothing in his background that would qualify him to speak to the matters he often is seen debunking.

What Is The Scientific Method?

Perhaps we need some clarity regarding just what the “scientific method” entails. The “Cliff’s Notes” on the scientific method or methodology are as follows:

  • Hypothesis. Your idea as to what is going on.
  • Null Hypothesis. What you should find if your hypothesis is wrong.
  • Experimental Design. The experiment you design to test your hypothesis.
  • Experiment. You run your experiment and collect your data.
  • Data Analysis. You analyze your data producing a “finding.”
  • Acceptance or Rejection of your hypothesis. Your results.
  • Repeatability. You and others should be able to follow your methodology and reproduce the same results.

In a nutshell, this is the “Scientific Method.” If I am measuring acceleration caused by gravity and drop a 2 kilogram lead ball from 10′ feet and take the measurements, I should get similar results if I perform the exact same experiment in Russia, China, Australia or Brazil. Repeatability is one of the hallmarks of the “Scientific Method.”

Faith Based Skepticism - Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann

Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann

In 1989, Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann announced that they had discovered “Cold Fusion.” This is nuclear fusion at room temperatures. The Sun is powered by nuclear fusion but clearly not at room temperature. It created quite a stir as you might imagine. Cheap, clean, abundant energy without the danger of nuclear radiation or radioactive waste? Oh yes, they made quite a stir. Instantly laboratories around the globe began trying to replicate their findings. Some were successful, many were not.

They were ultimately denounced and censured. Why? Well, largely because they violated the orthodoxy of the Scientific Community. There was more outrage at their violation of the orthodoxy than there was interest in what they may have discovered. According to the orthodoxy, they were supposed to have submitted their discovery for “peer review.” Instead of doing this, they published their results to the world. In typical debunking fashion, the labs that were able to replicate their experiment were largely ignored and only the labs who could not were focused on.

The result was, Cold Fusion was considered to be a hoax or an error and the public largely forgot about it. Think about what it would mean to have a small fusion reactor powering your home or your car. Not only would it mean an end to carbon emissions, all the fossil fuel industries would collapse. World poverty could be ended and the wars over oil and resources would end. The military industrial complex would go broke. We can’t have that now can we? Fortunately there have been scientist working quietly behind the scenes to realize the potentials of “Cold Fusion.” Some have been wildly successful.

The Higgs Boson Does Not Exist

Faith Based Skepticism - Large Hadron Collider

LHC – Large Hadron Collider

If we hold the discovers of the Higgs Boson – the so called “God Particle” which gives mass to all other particles – to the same standards as Pons and Fleischmann were held to, we must similarly conclude that the Higgs Boson does not exist. Why? Because you cannot replicate the experiment unless you happen to have the equivalent of the – Large Hadron Collider – LHC. Yet, scientist around the world believe that the Higgs particle has been discovered. Text books are being rewritten and this new discovery is now being factored into the mathematical equations used by physicist around the globe. Evidently, they all take it on faith!

Faith Based Skepticism - Philip J. Klass

Dr. Philip J. Klass – Member of CSI

Yes, the Scientific Community, just like any church organization, has it’s own orthodoxy, it’s own recognized Apostles – Albert Einstein for one – their own Bibles – peer reviewed journals – and they meet all the definitions of a faith based community. If one of their Apostles says that UFOs don’t exist or are not visiting Earth, they all fall in line with the orthodoxy. Never mind the reams of data, eyewitness testimony, photographs and videos to the contrary. Two old farts over in the UK are making all those crop circles around the globe.

If one of their Apostles says Bigfoot is a hoax, they all fall in line. Never mind the fact that the Roger Patterson film was never sold, nobody has yet attempted to profit off of it and if that’s a man in a monkey suit, they should have got the same fellow to make Chewbacca’s suit. We even have DNA evidence for Bigfoot. Foot prints have been found in such out of the way locations, the likelihood of anyone coming upon them would make it pointless for a hoaxer to plant them. Yet, because the orthodoxy does not accept their existence, I guess they don’t exist.

Even in the face of scientific evidence that jet fuel does not burn hot enough to melt steel – if it did, what would you make jet engines out of? – the scientific orthodoxy believes that jets brought the twin towers down on September 11, 2001. If you point out that “Building 7” was never hit by a jet this doesn’t seem to bother them. Never mind the fact that immediately following the “attacks” when the entire nation was under a “no fly order” our government was rounding up family members of Osama Bin Laden and flying them out of the country, nobody asks how or why our government was doing this when presumably they did not yet know whom they were going to blam… excuse me, whom was responsible for the attacks.

Faith based skepticism for some strange reason is rarely applied to whatever the official government approved party line is. I find that not only odd, but extremely disturbing. If we cannot rely on our Scientific community to use the tools of the Scientific Method to ferret out the truth, how are they any better than the pastor of that “mega-church” who sells heaven for a price to his gullible followers?

Evidence is always defined by the persons requiring it. _Benjamin T. Moore, Jr.

Should We Stop Talking About Racism?

Should We Stop Talking About Racism?by Benjamin T. Moore, Jr.

Because Not Talking Has Worked So Well…

Should We Stop Talking About Racism? - Ted Nugent

Ted Nugent

It is always amusing to me when certain white people attempt to designate a Black person and suddenly make him the spokesman for all Black people in America. It is about as cheerful as Black people declaring Ted Nugent to be the spokesman for white people in America. Get the point?

Black people are no more monolithic than white people. This strategy of declaring “leaders” and then only dealing with those handpicked few is another form of racism. Who are the white leaders? Who speaks for ALL white people?

We are not aliens and neither are white people. Thus this whole “take me to your leader” shtick needs to be retired. Most recently it has reared its ugly head with a meme being circulated quoting something Morgan Freeman said during an interview. Morgan says that his policy is not to discuss racism. I think he should probably stick to that policy. On the day in question, he proffered a solution to the racial problems in this country as to simply stop talking about it.

What a novel idea? Of course, not talking about a problem has always been effective right? Following this logic, we could solve all the ills on this planet simply by not talking about them! World hunger? Stop talking about it! Global poverty? Stop talking about it. Violence against women? If we stop talking about it, it will go away! Our declining educational system. Don’t mention it and suddenly all our students will begin getting straight “A’s.”

Should We Stop Talking About Racism? - Fukushima

Radioactive Seawater

If we simply stop talking about the Fukushima melt down, all that radiation that is being continuously released into the ocean ecosystem and the environment will stop. Want terrorism to end? Simply stop talking about it! What about the economy? Out of work? Under water on your mortgage? Just stop talking about it and everything will be fine!

Of course this is utter nonsense! One of the keys to our successful survival on this planet has been our ability to communicate to solve problems. Talking about our problems has always been the preferred solution. Talking about our problems has prevented and ended wars. The Internet wasn’t invented so you could update your relationship status on Facebook or post happy pictures of your feline. It was originally invented as a way for scientist to collaborate and share their research with other scientist around the globe. The quickest path to progress is through talking. Never forget this simple truth! Should we stop talking about racism? Hell no!

When Your Racism Blinds You To Reality

Gallery - SCOTUS Meme

by Benjamin T. Moore, Jr.

Irony, i-ro-ny: Incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs.

How many times have you heard some Tea Party nitwit make the claim that President Obama is destroying our “American Way of Life?” It is a constant theme and the drum beat to whatever tune they’re singing. If they open their refrigerator and the milk is sour, it’s President Obama’s fault.

When unemployment was high, that was President Obama’s fault. Now that unemployment numbers have been dropping, well, those independent agencies that report on these matters, are fudging the numbers for him.

How many times have you heard some nitwit Tea Bagger declare, “I want my country back!” When I woke up this morning, I made a point to check on it and apparently it’s still here. Nevertheless, for some reason, they believe that this country has changed… and it’s all Obama’s fault!

A great number of so called Libertarians and Tea Baggers are simply appalled that two people who love each other, regardless of gender can make a lifetime commitment to one another and marry. This seems odd to me because I was under the impression that Libertarians enshrined the philosophy of absolute personal freedom so long as the exercise thereof does not negatively impact another.

“Obama’s coming for your guns!” How many times have you heard that one? Never mind the fact that your gun rights have actually been expanded under President Obama, nevertheless, that one sure gets people up in arms – literally – and hollering about the decimation of our Bill Of Rights.

The Irony? While they’re venting their spleens at President Obama, the United States Supreme Court – the majority appointed by Republican Presidents – has done more to change this nation from the comforting delusion they’ve embraced all their lives.

It wasn’t President Obama who signed an executive order striking down the Defense of Marriage Act which led to Gay people finally being able to marry. That was the U.S. Supreme Court. It wasn’t President Obama who struck down California’s Proposition 8 which took away the legality of marriages between same sex couples. That was the U.S. Supreme Court.

“Land Of The Free?” The Supreme Court has held that police can seize your DNA without you being even charged for a crime. The Supreme Court has held that the police can strip search you if they arrest you for a traffic violation. Perhaps you didn’t have your insurance card with you when you were pulled over?

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that Corporations have the same rights as an individual citizen. I’m 56 and this isn’t the America I remember growing up in. Hate the idea of everyone having health care – “Obama Care” – It was the Republican majority of the U.S. Supreme Court that declared “Obama Care” to be legal and Constitutional.

So, why aren’t the Tea Baggers taking a cue from the Occupy Wall Street Movement and marching on the U.S. Supreme Court? Because the real issue isn’t all the things they claim. Their real issue is, there’s a Black man in the White House. That’s what has really changed in this country and some of them simply have no idea how to deal with this fact.

When your racism blinds you to reality, your behaviours and your actions put your own self-interests at risk.

The Problem With Atheism

Gallery - Their Problem With Atheismby Benjamin T. Moore, Jr.


Emperor Constantine invented Christianity to control his empire. Indeed to understand the Catholic Church, one need simply realize the Roman Empire never went away. It merely became the Catholic Church.

Adolf Hitler was raised a devout Catholic. He later discovered the writings of Martin Luther and used Luther’s hatred of the Jews as an organizing point for Germans to rally around. Thus he used a religious belief system to motivate and mobilize Germany into creating a war machine that threatened the world. Small matter that it cost 6 million Jews and untold other millions of people their lives.

Joseph Stalin was raised Georgian Orthodox. He later became an Atheist and did much to stamp out all religion in Russia. However, with the advent of WWII, he relented and began to support the Russian Orthodox Church calling it “a patriotic institution.” Why? Because it was useful in controlling and organizing the Russian people for their war efforts.

The Popes are the head of what may well be the largest and wealthiest corporation on this planet. They are the new versions of the Roman Emperors. Without the need for fielding an army, they control billions of people all around the planet with the carrot and the stick of heaven and hell. People willingly pay tribute/taxes to them in the form of offerings and donations. The Catholic Church influences all the politics around the globe.

Karl Rove is an Anglican-Episcopalian. He wears his religion rather loosely and in practice is more of an Agnostic… unless playing the religion card for political gain. His extensive use of “wedge issues” in politics was a stroke of diabolical genius. Abortion, Gay rights etc. He successfully duped Christians into focusing on those issues while ignoring the other equally – more important – issues they should have been focused on. Poverty, caring for the poor, feeding the hungry, clothing the naked and caring for the sick. How exactly can one be against abortion yet support capital punishment and war?

Pat Robertson is a Southern Baptist minister who makes his living doing a rather poor imitation of Johnny Carson’s “The Tonight Show.” There is not much difference between his “Word Of Knowledge” shtick and Carson’s Carnack The Magnificent. Nevertheless, he has been successful in not only gaining a following, but exerting political influences on our elections.

What do all these people have in common? They exploit those who subscribe to a Christian belief system for personal and political gain. If a stranger walked up to you on the street and told you that you needed to take $500 dollars across town immediately, what would you do? If you’re like me, you would put some distance between yourself and whomever this person was and – in my case – make certain your gun hand was free and unencumbered.

Why? Because you don’t know them. The very nature of their statement would cause suspicion and red flags to begin to wave. However, if that same person claimed they were delivering a message from your mother or some other loved one, suddenly they would have slipped past the first layer of your mental defenses. You would probably ask, “what’s wrong with my mother?” Perhaps, “what is she doing in town?” Notice you’re no longer questioning the authenticity of the message, you’re beyond that. Your mind is now processing what the problem might be and how to solve it.

Religious belief works in the same way. If a preacher tells a Christian that God wants them to pledge $500 or give $500 or vote Republican, your average Christian does not question the message or the messenger, they focus on how or if they can do what is requested. Let’s go back to the message from your mom example. Suppose your mother had passed several years ago and someone came with the same message? Now you would know they were lying and up to no good. Your system of belief and feelings for your mother cannot be exploited.

This is the problem those in power have with Atheist. Atheist are “free thinkers.” You cannot manipulate them using the levers of a belief system. Your appeal must pass the test of logic. An Atheist is going to apply logic to your message or request. They’re going to actually think about what is being said and come to their own conclusions. Tell a Christian that God will supply all their needs, and you’ll get an “Amen!” Turn around and pass an offering plate telling a Christian that their money is needed to support and further God’s work and they’ll pull out their wallets without ever stopping to ask, “if God can supply all *my* needs, why can’t he supply the financial needs of his own ministry?” See the problem?

The Truth About Welfare

Gallery - Truth About Welfare Meme

by Benjamin T. Moore, Jr.


I have been watching this welfare debate – now called “entitlements” – for a number of years now. Most often this subject comes up around election time. Of course now that the next election seasons begins almost as soon as the current one ends, there seems to be a steady drumbeat about “welfare” and “entitlements.”

In almost every piece I’ve seen, they always feature Black or Brown faces when talking about welfare. The figures – which I am now convinced they pull right out of the air – are truly staggering. This puzzled me for two reasons. The first is, Black people only make up 13% of our population. Thus if we were receiving all these government handouts, poverty would have been eliminated in the Black community years ago.

The second reason has to do with my own personal life’s experience. My extended family is fairly large. We are spread out all across these United States. I even have relatives living in Alaska. The fact of the matter is, with all the family I know of, I cannot think of one of them that has ever been on welfare! Believe me there have been a few of them who would have qualified at one point or another in their lives.

If being on welfare was the pandemic within the Black community, some would have you believe, how is it that my extended family has existed for all these years unscathed by this ethnic predilection to government handouts? No, I am not saying that there are no Black people on welfare, I’m merely pointing out how odd it is that I don’t personally know any.

On the first day of my Statistics course at the University of Washington, my professor addressed the class and made the following statement which has stayed with me all these years. “Figures lie. Liars figure. Sometimes it is difficult to determine which is doing what.”

What is “welfare?” When you mention the word “welfare” we have been conditioned – inaccurately – to see an unwed Black or minority female with 4 or 5 kids, getting a government check and living in public housing. We have further been indoctrinated to feel that the money she is receiving is coming directly out of our pockets.

How many times when the subject of “welfare” has come up have you pictured in your mind a poor white family living in a trailer park? I suspect, very few ever think of a welfare recipient as being white. Ironically, a welfare recipient is much more likely to be white than any other race.

How many times when the subject of welfare comes up, do you think of military families where the husband is overseas fighting and the wife is at home trying to feed their children and maintain a household in his absence? How many times do you think of large corporations who are receiving billions of taxpayer dollars in the way of Federal subsidies?

It is almost like the ending of “The Wizard of Oz.” “Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!” Before we tackle the issue of providing for needy families, perhaps we should ask why Oil Companies receive billions of dollars in federal subsidies? Do you think they need it? Maybe we should ask why Koch Industries – the 2nd largest corporation in the United States – is given billions of dollars in taxpayer funded subsidies? While you’re at it, ask why a person can work full time at Walmart and still qualify for federal assistance. Their business plan – successful – involves you and I, the taxpayers, making up the difference in what they ought to be paying their employees. Of course, if you’re not serious about reforming “entitlements” and basically are content to use racial stereotypes to explain away our economic issues, then I suppose the truth really doesn’t matter to you anyway, right?