Monday, May 30, 2016

A New P.R.I.M.E. Directive: Self-Defense Because "We Can't Police Our Way Out of This."

In September 2014, the District of Columbia City Council was all abuzz.  The Mayor of DC, Vincent Gray, had thrown some raw meat into the Progressives' Cage.  Already thirsting and hungering for liberal justice following the "suicide by law enforcement" of Michael Brown, Mayor Gray offered a bill challenging the Second Amendment Rights of District Citizens.   According to the legislation, Citizens would have to prove to the Chief of Police that they are in imminent danger and thus, confirmed eligible to carry a concealed tool of defense.  The bill was passed unanimously and the newest statute is submitted for your review:

Title 24 Chapter 23 2332.1 A person is eligible for issuance of a license to carry a concealed pistol (concealed
carry license) only if the person:
(a) Is at least 21 years of age;
(b) Meets all of the requirements for a person registering a firearm pursuant to the Firearms Control
Regulations Act of 1975 (the Act), effective September 24, 1976 (D.C. Law 1-85; D.C. Official Code
§ 7-2501.01 et seq. (2012 Repl. & 2014 Supp.));
(c) Possesses a pistol registered pursuant to the Act;
(d) Does not currently suffer nor has suffered in the previous five (5) years from any mental illness or
condition that creates a substantial risk that he or she is a danger to himself or herself or others;
provided that if the person no longer suffers such mental illness or condition, and that person has
provided satisfactory documentation required under § 2337.3, then the Chief may determine that this
requirement has been met;
(e) Has completed a firearms training course, or combination of courses, conducted by an instructor
(or instructors) certified by the Chief;
(f) Has a bona fide residence or place of business:
   (1) Within the District of Columbia;
   (2) Within the United States and a license to carry a pistol concealed upon his or her person
   issued by the lawful authorities of any State or subdivision of the United States; or
   (3) Within the United States and meets all registration and licensing requirements pursuant to
   the Act;
(g) Has demonstrated to the Chief good reason to fear injury to his or her person or property or has any other proper reason for carrying a pistol; and
(h) Is a suitable person to be so licensed.

A good reason?  Suitable?  The Second Amendment is not good enough?  Not to the Council of Wise Elders that challenged the Founding Fathers on the Human's Natural Right to Protect Him or Her Self.  So what is a good enough excuse to protect oneself.  I mean if you live in a "war zone", as some politicians refer to Wards 7 and 8, the poorest and most crime ridden communities in the City, I am certain that liberals would see the need for "the least, the last and the lost" to protect themselves.  Right?

Title 24 Chapter 23 2333 Good reason to fear injury to person or property
2333.1 A person shall demonstrate a good reason to fear injury to his or her person by showing a special need for self-protection distinguishable from the general community as supported by evidence of specific threats or previous attacks which demonstrate a special danger to the applicant’s life.
2333.2 For the purposes of satisfying the specifications of § 2333.1, a person shall allege, in writing, serious threats of death or serious bodily harm, any attacks on his or her person, or any theft of property from his or her person. The person shall also allege that the threats are of a nature that the legal possession of a pistol is necessary as a reasonable precaution against the apprehended danger.
2333.3 The person shall provide all evidence of contemporaneous reports to the police of such threats or attacks, and disclose whether or not the applicant has made a sworn complaint to the police or the courts of the District of Columbia concerning any threat or attack.
2333.5 The fact that a person resides in or is employed in a high crime area shall not by itself establish a good reason to fear injury to person or property for the issuance of a concealed carry license.

As you see, it is to say you care for the least, the last and the lost when you have the power to maintain the terror they face.  How is it maintained?  We will give you food stamps but, we will not honor your right to protect yourself.  By eliminating the possibility of self-defense, the poorest and most threatened are subject to the devices of those that control their income and wealth and to those with evil intentions that have undeniable access to their children and their property.  When I know my enemy is weak.  I will attack.  If I am caught then, when given the opportunity, I will retaliate.  Why is their such fear?  There are no conservatives that prize the Second Amendment on your City Council.  The Progressives that you choose believe that the provision of police is security enough for "the least the last and the lost".  Why would we give "them people" the Right to Conceal Carry?  Can you imagine them in our neighborhoods with that Natural Right?  Amazing how many in the most crime challenged areas believe that last question is from the lips of a conservative.  Nawh, baby, that was a progressive!

The most frightening issue about those with an unconstitutional pursuit is how fascist and belligerent they can become in pursuing such a course.  Yes, I said fascist--a political theory advocating an authoritarian hierarchical government; - opposed to democracy and liberalism.  Fascism is evident in Jim Crow, Jim Crow law, Nazism, anti-Semitism and apartheid.  The District has never had a US Congress or Republican or Conservative Mayor that sought to guarantee a republican form of governance in respect of the Constitution.  The City Council has been pursuing the United Nation's Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) since it's origins in 1977.  As a One Party Dictatorship, the Democrat-Socialists hold on the Citizen's Rights are unquestioned and often unchallenged.  Thank God U.S. District Judge Richard Leon’s recent order blocked the city from enforcing a key provision of its gun laws.  Unfortunately, it takes a jurist to do what Congress and DC Citizens won't do for themselves.  I digress.

Former Mayor Vincent Gray veiled his unconstitutional challenge in the vim and vigor of a Stalinist on the Streets of Leningrad.  He calmly declared "suitable firearms owners who can show they have a legitimate need for it to obtain a permit to carry a weapon in public in a concealed manner” would receive this civil right.  Yes, civil right when men graced in their own elegant benevolence extend a consideration unto ordinary men rather than a natural right where men acknowledge and honor the Rights Granted from God.  Gray's current City Council member Challenger, Incumbent Yvette Alexander, was in lock step with the dictatorial designs of the man seeking permission slips for those subscribing to the Second Amendment.  Her fiery rhetoric against those that pursued the protections of privacy rather than public persecution were seemingly unmatched.  “Who cares about the confidentiality of a gun owner?  We don’t want it, so expose yourself,” she said.

I care.

Let me, focusing on just the women's folk, acknowledge a few that were not gun owners but maybe should have been.

Tracey Louise Cooper , 45, who was killed on the driveway leading up to her duplex on Monday, May 16, 2016, at approximately 3:48 PM.  Yes, that's PM not AM.  Done in Broad Daylight!  Apparently, families were beefing and they got the drop on her.  Police Chief Cathy Lanier and Mayor Muriel E. Bowser (D) held a news conference late Monday near the scene of the latest fatal shootings in an attempt to ease community concerns. “We are horrified by what we saw today,” the mayor said.  Killed on May 16.  Quick drop onto the Unresolved Homicide List on May 17.

Ivy Tonett Smith, 39-year-old, killed in a drive-by shooting at a bus stop near Naylor Rd. and Alabama Ave., SE Sunday afternoon.  Yes, that's PM not AM.  Done in Broad Daylight!  I suppose sitting at a bus stop is another acceptable example of "being in the wrong place at the wrong time".  A Church van was used as the escape vehicle for the individual that chose to take her life.  "We don't believe that this was a random act of violence, but we're investigating that," D.C. police Capt. Anthony Haythe said. "I don't think that these individuals involved were just riding around randomly shooting out of a vehicle."

Maybe a Good Samaritan should have obliged the Right to Protect herself.  Seeking to escort a woman home safely, she became the lamb for the "power" pursuits of a few sick men.  Raped by shotgun point, the woman was sexually accosted over and over and over and over again.  The cowards escaped by foot and by car.  She never had a chance to protect herself.  The victim was treated at a local hospital.

Maybe if they were gun owners with conceal carry power, the outcomes would have been different.  Maybe.  We will not know how women will even the odds with more powerful men when they can not carry a taser or a gun to protect themselves.  No worries from the DC Council.  You can still buy weed.  There's your justice.  There's your peace.  We may not be able to "police our way out of this" but maybe we should add the approach of self-defense to curb so many fatal and malicious actions.

I attended the 2016 Texas State GOP Convention in early May.  Over 12,000 attendees in Dallas, Texas, the Lone State's Most Liberal City.  A Large Majority concealed carry self-defense tools.  There were no accidents.  There were no injuries.  There were no threats.  There were no murders.

Outside, in Liberal Dallas, public safety was not as peaceful:

At least 10 people have been slain in shootings across Dallas in a bloody week that comes about two months after the Dallas Police Department created a task force of 170 officers to combat violent crime.

However, some had a chance against their predators and culprits.

About 11:50 p.m. Thursday, the four arrived at the home of 61-year-old John Horton, police said, and Raul Sanchez and Marino Sanchez entered with shotguns. 
Horton was killed during an exchange of gunfire.
Jones, who police said was supposed to distract Horton during the robbery, hid in a closet before running away.
Police said a witness heard the gunfire and went outside, where Raul Sanchez pointed a gun at him. The witness fatally shot Sanchez.
Marino Sanchez then ran out of the house and got into a vehicle, police said. The witness shot at the vehicle, hitting it and Sanchez.

Grandpa Horton had a chance against his assailants.  The witness had a chance against the escaping assailants that saw his life as valuable to them as the one that lay dead on the trailer floor.

Imagine if every person that suffered domestic violence were given a firearm, ammunition and firearms training--not by government intervention but, by private foundation.  Imagine how much safer the public would be.  Imagine how much safer she would be in her home, her neighborhood, her place of work and her place of worship.  Imagine how much safer her children would be and how much anxiety would be removed from the home environs.

Since Judge Leon's decision, there has been a jump in requests for conceal carry licenses.  Per the Washington Times, " Applications for concealed carry permits have spiked in the District since a federal judge ordered the city to stop requiring gun owners to prove they have a “good reason” to carry a firearm in public, according to documents filed as part of an ongoing legal challenge to D.C. gun laws."  It would be wise for citizens and voters in Wards 7 and 8 to apply for a conceal carry license.  If Grandma and Grandpa could keep a shotgun in their home during the worst of the Democrat Jim Crow Days, why is it that you are so dangerous that you can not protect yourself and your family in the same manner?

I personally would love to partner with Second Amendment Groups to liberate "the least, the last and the lost" from the remaining Jim Crow attack on Urban America.  I can imagine safety that is not reliant on police alone or the political will of a chosen few.  As God ordained since the ebb and flow of time, it is the right of mankind to protect itself from those that wish to cease their living.

The Real War on Women, The Real War on the Poor and Immobile, The Real War on God's Elect is the persistent resolve of Jim Crow Patriots seeking to separate men from their most natural God given Right: to defend oneself.

Self-Defense is Our New Old P.R.I.M.E. Directive.

Saturday, May 14, 2016

Open Heart / Close Case: A Cultural Crusade; A Movement of Faith

When we are at the worst times of our lives, when we are battling with something, or struggles, whatever it may be, when we are at our highest point as well, when things are going really well, we want somebody to comfort us and be there for us and to say, 'Well done.' 

That's Jesus! 

Russell Carrington Wilson
American football quarterback for the 
Seattle Seahawks of the National Football League.

In the midst of grief and recovery at the murder of our daughter, 
we have been comforted by the Invisible Hand and Visible Hands of God. 
In the midst of the storms, He has been there for us. 
We thank Him for Loving Us with an Exceedingly Gracious Love. 
It is a Love that we pray that even our enemies would someday know for themselves.

Many of you know what my wife and I have suffered.
Not because you read it. Not because you heard about it on the news.
You know the suffering because you have lived it.
Your weren't seeking the fame or even desired the emptiness of burying your child before your appointed time. Some of you have held your child to your bosom as their final breath escaped between their clinched teeth. 
Blood spilled upon the pavement as if water from a spring. 
Seemingly, East of the River, Just Another Life Gone.

To you, it's your baby.

When the cameras are gone and the funeral over, 
the door closes and the darkness falls. 
All you know is Jesus.
We ask at this time that everyone to please stand with each Representative of an 
Unresolved Homicide East of the River. 
Please extend your love to all of these families.

For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.Ephesians 6:12 King James Version (KJV)

We face a challenge that seems to evade a solution.
With over 3,500 unresolved homicides in the District of Columbia, 
there seems to be a loss of purpose in satisfying the cry of victims and their families. 
The cry is as startling as the response to it is mute.
The cry is for justice.
The response is silence. 

While we attempt to find resources in an over $13 Billion City Budget to build dirt bike parks, families of unresolved homicides must be satisfied that the number of Cold Case Detectives have fallen from 8 in 2015 to 7 in 2016.  There is no political will in an election year to salve the wounds of broken families and distressed neighborhoods.  Only the call to pander to those that defy the law, terrorize the City and demand tribute in order to stay their prosecution of those that abide the laws.  While families bury their murdered children, elected leaders meet with the parents and riders of "illegal" dirt bikes to provide a "safe place" for them to ride.   

One elected leader, so smitten with their abilities, is willing too vouch for the character of an entire group merely upon meeting them.  What a confidence one should have when a murder is unresolved and political and administration leaders are negotiating deals for building dirt bike parks rather than hiring more detectives to solve cases.  If elected leaders nullify the laws of the City through closed door pursuits, maybe it is time for Citizens to nullify legal challenges and restrictions to their ability to protect themselves through open door quests.

The will to appease the desires of the socially discontented supersedes the Will of the People to enforce and prosecute the law to the fullest extent.  What does one do when a city's elected representatives lack the political will to protect those that ceded power to them in exchange for security and protection.  We watch as victims are blamed for being in the "wrong place at the wrong time" and culprits are offered per diem for promising not to be bad anymore.  My bad!  As long as there is social justice, natural justice is acceptably denied.

While we know that we face a human trafficking problem in the City that puts our must vulnerable population—children--at risk, Our City Council's Judiciary Committee seems to be unable to find time to schedule a hearing to consider the Proposed Relish Rudd Law

Summer has not yet dawn, even with the attentions paid to the matter of murder and mayhem in the City, homicides are higher in comparison to last year. 
In 2015 at this time, there were 40 homicides. 
Today, there are 42.
Violent crime is up 8% overall.
The most heartbreaking statistic can be found in the unresolved homicide category. Of the 18, black males represent 15 or 83%.

Much work must still be done.

Although I end my tenure as Chairman of the Public Safety Arm of the Anacostia Coordinating Council, renamed the Open Heart Close Case Campaign in memory of Charnice Milton, I believe that we can offer solutions.

For the Faith Community, there are three recommendations requiring immediate attention.

Each of the East of the River Churches should host a Prayer Event Regarding Violence and Reach Out to Victims' Families to Provide Comfort and Support.

Each of the East of the River Churches Should Have A Representative that Serves As A Clergy Ambassador to the United States Department of Justice.

Demand A Public Hearing of the DC City Council Judiciary Committee--Councilmember Jack Evans, Councilmember Mary M. Cheh, Councilmember Kenyan McDuffie, Councilmember LaRuby May, and Councilmember Anita Bonds--to discuss:

(A) The Few Personnel Involved in Unresolved Homicides and Contracting Private Detectives to Assist in Resolving Such Cases;
(B) Passage of The Relisha Rudd Law by the End of the Fiscal Year; and
(C) Fully Funding Victims Services.

Each Pastor and His or Her Congregation Should Contact Kate Mitchell, Committee Director, (202) 727-8275, kmitchell@dccouncil.us to demand this.  Immediately.

As my tenure ends, I extend thanks to our Pastors Eugene and Patrice Sheppard of Living Word Church for nominating me for this post.  Thanks to Phil Pannell and the Anacostia Corrdinating Council (ACC) for accepting me to the post.  Thanks Rev. Donald Isaacs, Sr., Director of the of the Mayor's Office of Religious Affairs, and Perry J. Moon, Executive Director, Far Southeast Family Strengthening Collaborative, Inc. for their support and encouragement.

We will continue our work privately through Open Heart/Close Case to resolve homicides, find missing persons and recover exploited children.  As He has comforted us in our dimmest moments and raised us from our prostrate leanings, we will not stop, cease or desist or surrender our will to do His Will for all of those that suffer.  We will, alone or in collaboration, labor with those that are willing to pursue justice and resolution for all that are weary from their losses.  
We are no longer a campaign.  
We are a movement.  
We are a cultural crusade.

Thank You and God Bless.

Sunday, May 8, 2016

A New P.R.I.M.E. Directive: Eliminate the Bureaucracy that Impoverishes the Poor

Many poor persons seek to escape their confinement through the off ramp of entrepreneurial pursuit.  They don't lack from ideas.  They have spent years, in relatively threatening neighborhoods, toiling over laws and mathematics to garner a degree in a field of study.  They have taken the risks of public transportation, even leaving the care and education of their children in the hands of progressive captors, to gain the skills essential to building a modest enterprise.  Through the collective of sincere and loving capitalist investors--yes, family and friends, these future Wall Street tycoons have yielded their minds, bodies and souls to the perils of discovery and small free market engines that will spur economic growth and employment.  Yet, these angels of prosperity face a stranglehold that is greater than the application for a commercial loan.  It is an enemy that seeks to wage continual warfare on the profits of their ideas and the investments of the ones that they love.  Their enemy is so emboldened that it will even use their sometimes skill lacking employees against them to spur economic surrender.  It seems the great dishonor amongst these wizards of overcoming lack with providential resolve and stubborn will is that they did it without a government program.  For this, they will pay handsomely.  Beyond tax and fee liberalism, the stranglehold on those seeking to escape poverty through entrepreneurial pursuit is bureaucracy.  Relief of the poor will not come from a monthly subsidy but capital investment, hard work and profit.  We must overcome poverty by eliminating the bureaucracy that sustains it.  Those with People Reinvesting In Marriage and Economics (P.R.I.M.E.) interests must consider this our next Directive. 

Former Anti-Integration Democrat South Carolina Governor James F. Byrnes once quipped, "The nearest approach to immortality on earth is a government bureau."  It was an observation well understood by a man who surrendered his post as Associate Justice of the Supreme Court to become Head of the Office of Economic Stabilization for President Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR).  It was created under the Stabilization Act of 1942 to regulate taxes and control prices, wages and salary increases.  He understood the access, power and influence of operating a Congressionally approved bureau.  Nine months after slowing the economic growth of the American economy by over-regulating private enterprise, FDR made Byrnes Head of the Office of War Mobilization, an independent agency created by Presidential Executive Order 9347.  Its purpose?  It was created to oversee all government agencies involved in the war effort including managing the construction of all new factories, the utilization of all raw materials, hiring civilian and military personnel and the transportation of military personnel.  The REAL POWER that he possessed is revealed in the McNair Papers: 

"...to formulate ,and develop a comprehensive national economic policy relating to the control of civilian purchasing power, prices, rents, wages, salaries, profits, rationing subsidies, and all related matters--all for the purpose of preventing avoidable increases in the cost of living, cooperating in minimizing the unnecessary migration from one business, industry or region to another, and facilitating the prosecution of the war. To give effect to this comprehensive national economic policy the Director shall have power to issue directives on policy to the Federal departments and agencies concerned.

The Bureaucrat Byrnes would become known as "The Assistant President".  His agencies would be disbanded by executive orders under later presidencies.  However, the FDR initiatives of price controls and rent controls lives eternally in modern government bureaus like the Department of Treasury and the Department of Housing.  

With the extensive power to regulate public and civilian life, one must ask, "Did the New Deal work?"  Let us hear the words of an expert observer:

"We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong … somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises. … I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started. … And an enormous debt to boot."

So Ken, who was that?  Ronald Reagan?  Thomas Sowell?  Dr. Brooks Robinson?  No.  No.  No.  The US Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau, Jr. who was uniquely responsible for funding the unfulfilled promises of FDR's New Deal.  How effectual were they?  The effect so measurable that there seemed only one option: Raise Taxes!  

We have never begun to tax the people in this country the way they should be..... I don't pay what I should. People in my class don't. People who have it should pay.

Rather than cutting budgets, spending and taxes, FDR sought to regulate, tax and spend more.  

FDR sought a 100% Tax, by executive order, on persons earning more than $25,000 net income.  Adjusted for inflation, 1942's net income of $25,000 in 2015 dollars is $358,446 net income.  Let's put this in perspective.  According to Sokanu.com, the Average Entrepreneur Hourly Wage in the United States is $82.50 and median salary of $171,610 per year.  Today's entrepreneur earning the FDR hated $358,446 net income would pay nearly $96,000 in federal income taxes.  We are not talking state taxes, insurance and other benefit costs.  Imagine 100%!  This is negative to the individuals' desires to make wealth from their ambitions and ideas.  Moreso, when the entrepreneur is stymied by government, the business is stymied to grow jobs in the free market.  According to the Kaufman Foundation, "New businesses account for nearly all net new job creation and almost 20 percent of gross job creation, whereas small businesses do not have a significant impact on job growth.  Companies less than one year old have created an average of 1.5 million jobs per year over the past three decades."  So who losses?  Most new businesses take greater risks on less skilled employees to produce the profit necessary to expand the business, grow revenue, increase salaries and hiring more labor.  The less skilled, less educated worker is the loser.  

These three shifts—from an industrial economy to an information one, from a producer society to a consumer one, and from a participatory culture to a spectator one—have come together in an extreme way to politically immobilize the very group that is the poorest in the United States—African-Americans. Relatively well-employed in manufacturing industries, they have little employment in information companies. Consequently, the majority of young African-American males are now found either among the unemployed, within the underground economy, or in prison. They are certainly not found in social movements, including the long-moribund civil-rights movement. This does not prevent them, however, from being totally absorbed with conspicuous consumption and with spectator sports. Ironically, there had been more involvement by young African-American males in social and political activities back in the bad old days of segregation.

The greater the government intervention, the less likely "the least, the last and the lost" are, not apply but, actually find an employer for the lower skills.  The groups the suffer the most: Hispanics and Blacks, especially the young in each.  A government program does not replace the modern skill sets lost from the absence of participating in the free market.   Bureaucracy that seeks to morally justify regulations, taxation and spending actually must falsely explain why "white people" or "capitalism" has deprived them of their well being.  In addition, they offer a solution.  Vote for the representatives that persist in promoting the New Deal philosophies that keep "the least, the last and the lost" broke, busted and disgusted.

Ludwig von Mises is the acknowledged leader of the Austrian School of economic thought--grounded in verbal logic which provides a relief from the technical mumbo jumbo of mainstream economics.  His frame of references was Nazi Germany during its origination in the 1930's.  In "Bureaucracy", Mises asserts, "THE main issue in present-day social and political conflicts is whether or not man should give away freedom, private initiative, and individual responsibility and surrender to the guardianship of a gigantic apparatus of compulsion and coercion, the socialist state."  He advised that the government that depended on a well-educated, powerful bureaucracy to instigate financial growth rather than depending on free market capitalists doom their economy and their state.  

The New Deal Workings extended a depression, originated in 1929 under Republican Herbert Hoover's Presidency, from 1933 to it's end about 1948.  The poor did not escape the throes of poverty and the rich were not denied their skill to make wealth.  However, in exchange for security that utterly leaves men and women dependent on the State and impoverished, these subjects have been given the assurance that if ever poverty becomes too tough then, someone will be there to care.  Probably a Democrat will offer the care of more government dependency because Republicans only care for the rich.  Whether you weave hair in Anacostia, seek an urgent care center in Barry Farms or train individuals on Microsoft technology in Northeast DC, it is important for you to fight against any and all bureaucracy or red tape that will distort your God-given ability to make wealth and to create the vessel that most assures the well being of your community: employment.  We must overcome poverty by eliminating the bureaucracy that sustains it.  Those with People Reinvesting In Marriage and Economics (P.R.I.M.E.) interests must consider this our next Directive. 

Monday, May 2, 2016

A New P.R.I.M.E. Directive: Strengthening Families Financially Through Marriage Rather than Subsidy Dependency

America's Election Season has focused much attention on the number 1,237.  The vibrant and competitive Grand Ole Party (GOP) Republican Presidential Election has all eyes on the numbers to propel either Billionaire Donald J. Trump or Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) to the Convention Nomination in Cleveland.  If you listen to the "Trumpinistas", Cruz should exit stage left from Indiana and head home to the US Senate.  The "Cruzites" assure us that it is impossible for Trump to win the majority of remaining primaries and that they will win the Second Convention Vote.  On the Mathematically Exclusive Delegate argument, Robert Eno makes it very clear.  They are all excluded of wining the GOP Nomination on the First Ballot.  Eno writes."The analysis above showing that Cruz would most likely win on a third ballot, at the latest, is why Indiana has become so pivotal to his chances at the nomination.  If Cruz does not stop Trump in Indiana, the likelihood is that Trump will attain 1,237 delegates before the convention, making this analysis an exercise in futility."  With the Gurus of Statistical Analysis, modern cable television commentators, jockeying for prognosticator honors, there are other numbers that those seeking to institute a New Urban P.R.I.M.E. Directive should concern themselves.   

For the District of Columbia, the numbers are 16,000 and 6,000.  Prior to the November 2016 DC General Election, the City will implement, if they don't delay another year for essential political public relations, a five (5) year ban on Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) which provides cash assistance to needy families with dependent children when available resources do not fully address the family's needs and while preparing program participants for independence through work.  Adults with dependent children receiving TANF must meet financial and technical eligibility requirements.  Conditions of eligibility include cooperation with child support, participation in work activities and compliance with substance abuse provisions. Earned and unearned income cannot exceed the benefit level paid for the assistance unit size and assets are limited to $2,000.00.  Sanctions may be imposed for program noncompliance.

What dastardly Republican legislators would introduce such a prudent conservative idea on one of the Nation's most Progressive Cities?  They are Marion Barry (D-Ward 8), posthumously, and Yvette M. Alexander (D-Ward 7).  Yes, two of the City's most liberal politicians thought it wise to end dependency on government after over 100 years of legislative intervention.  "We have to break the cycle," Barry said. "Part of the purpose of the bill is to start a dialogue about how ineffective our current system is."  In 2010, when the ban became law, over 40% of the 17,000 persons receiving subsidy had done so for more than 5 years.  The cost was $35 million annually with an average payout of $370 per month.  So how do we define progress with a conservative concept?  In 2016, the City delayed implementation of the ban for a year, spent $42 million on "employment" and "behavioral health services" for at-risk families and increased average payout to $444 per month.  What remained?  There are 17,000 persons receiving subsidies.  We ask what was the purpose for a ban begun at the federal level by America's First Black President, William Jefferson Clinton (D), in 1996. and, finally, instituted by the Human Rights laden City Council in 2010?  Alexander put it this way, "For far too long, we have cradled a large part of the population, and our cradling has actually handicapped people.  Many of our residents view government assistance as a way of life, and in my opinion, we are actually hurting our residents instead of helping them."  So how will the City help those made most at-risk by government intervention?  Mayor Muriel Bowser (D) has proposed a FY 2017 budget that funds Families that have received assistance for 60 months or more will continue to receive just $154 a month for a family of three.  Under the 2017 budget, all families would lose income and employment assistance in October 2017, regardless of their circumstances.  

In testimony before the City Council, Nina Smith, a single mother affiliated with the Southeast Ministry, a nonprofit job-training and study program, advised that her return to the TANF program was forced by her lack of access to child care which led to her resigning from her job.  She advised, "I'm back on, not because I want to be but to support my household.  I am asking you not to pass this because if you do, a lot of us will be cold, homeless and hungry and our kids will suffer because we won't have the money to support them."  This is the mark of indictment on a noble intention that has supplanted the scope of marriage and resolve of family.  The dependence on subsidy so great that the only option seemingly available is the visible hand of government, both federal and local.  As the Nation's Capital moves steadfastly towards the October 1 deadline, it is urgent that Faith, families and neighbors assemble to discuss how the bane of poverty can best be defeated  without obscuring the individuals' needs to make decisions that will prosper their households.  We must be willing to accept the limitations of government and the unlimited potential of the individual.  In the confines of marriage, not government programs, we are assured a more prosperous society.  Generational Welfare limits the individual's assent to either a "Pathway to the Middle Class"--as some are content to restrain--or to the Founding Father's Assurances of Life, liberty and the Pursuits of Happiness.  We should never feel comfortable that any American is so chained to the State that they can not imagine life or liberty without its financial allowances.

Class warfare agents have long understood the prolific political power as a return of investment for demonizing one side of the aisle and uplifting the other in the $22 Trillion Dollar "War on Poverty".  Political Machines in early Urban America were organized to provide social services and jobs in exchange for votes.  Such unhealthy collusion maintained political dominance, especially among the Progressives.  It fit well with the liberal philosophy of creating a welfare state.  The flaws to such noble intentions: time and money.  The benefit: one can say that they care for people in exchange for their continued political allegiance and economic submission.  As early 20th century private organizations surrendered the support of the poor and needy to well accessed non-profit organizations and political operatives, their came greater demand of local governments to raise taxes to cover this interest.  Eventually, local and state systems of public relief were simply unprepared to cope with the volume of requests for help from individuals and families without jobs.  Hence, it was time to move to the next level: federal intervention.

The Democrats refer to the Father of the Third Bill of Rights, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt (D), as the sovereign grantor of the civil rights of security.  However, before Roosevelt, President Herbert Hoover (R) signed the Emergency Relief and Construction Act (ERCA) on July 27, 1932.  Intended as a temporary assistance to business and labor, Hoover provided one of the first federal interventions of relief of the poor and the needy.  How did Hoover pay for it?  He raised taxes!  The impact?  Hoover's federal revenue decreased and added anxiety to the economy.  Yes, he decided that in order to save capitalism he would have to try socialism.  Where have I heard that before?  He opened the door as well to FDR's New Deal policies.  Immediately after assuming office in 1933, FDR proposed and then signed the Federal Emergency Relief Act (FERA), which, in its first year enabled the national government to distribute more than $1 billion to the states to shore up their existing public relief programs.  Thank You, Mr. Hoover!

We should not be so critical of Hoover as he attempted in every way possible not to involve federal intervention.  According to the The Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History, Hoover sought to maintain a Republican form of governance in spite of calls to submit to socialism: 

"As the Depression became worse, however, calls grew for increased federal intervention and spending. But Hoover refused to involve the federal government in forcing fixed prices, controlling businesses, or manipulating the value of the currency, all of which he felt were steps towards socialism.  He was inclined to give indirect aid to banks or local public works projects, but he refused to use federal money for direct aid to citizens, believing the dole would weaken public morale." 

What was the reward for his audacious offense against the arguments of Keynesian politicians and New Deal promises?  He lost the Presidential election against FDR.  

It was the Progressives' intent to express the Keynesian notion that America would always have the financial resolve to provide for the welfare of its citizens.  This provision even at the dissolution of the family code of ethics and the move of traditional marriage "from an institution to a companionship".  However, as fiscal budgets tighten, the absolute truth is what von Mises would advise.  You eventually run out of other people's money.  At once, you must decide if it is reasonable to persist in maligning the dependent few in order to stoically proclaim a Pyrrhic ideological victory.  

Marriage is our New Urban P.R.I.M.E. Directive.  If DC would be so bold as to declare financial independence from Congress then, it should be even bolder to encourage those affixed on the promises of the Democrat and Republican progressive machines to declare financial independence.  However, as these families and households lose the financial inducements and regulatory control of the state and federal governments, the Faith communities should take the helm in creating neighborhood councils that encourage marriage and family life.  Dr. Linda Malone-Colon, Executive Director of The National Center on African-American Marriages and Parenting at Hampton University, and other men and women of reason would advise that marriage is the greatest means of reducing poverty.  Dr. Malone-Colon, in National Summit on Marriage, Parenting and Families advises, "There are many parents today who grew up in fatherless households because of the requirements that made it unlawful for recipients to have a man in the house. The lack of fatherhood is associated with negative outcomes many of which perpetuate the absent father problem."  The Heritage Foundation reports, "Over a third of single-parent families with children are poor, compared to only seven percent of married families. Overall, children in married families are 82 percent less likely to be poor than are children of single parents. The strong impact of marriage in reducing poverty still appears when married and non-married families of the same race and education level are compared."  Time and money are running out on these at-risk families.  The Government has exhausted our wealth and its patience in meeting the needs of the poor and needy.  Faith leaders and families have a unique responsibility to taxpayers and society in general to create the environment in which families can be restored to the institution that would best preserve their wealth and well-being.   Marriage should be on the agenda of every cultural institution in DC by October 1, 2016.  Preach it!  Our financial independence depends on it.