Time To Get Tough Part 3

Even as Obama is busy degrading our military might by slashing the defense budget by a crippling $400 billion, the Communist Chinese are laughing their heads off and using the billions they make off us each year to jack up their military spending by 13 percent-every year for the last twenty years!5 Of course, because China's leadership is sneaky and underhanded, they significantly underreport their actual defense budget and technological advancement. It's actually part of their culture. As I mentioned earlier, they follow the words of Premier Deng who said China must "hide our capacities and bide our time." So they lie about their military spending and downplay their military sophistication every chance they get. For example, China claims its defense budget is just $78.6 billion a year. The Pentagon, however, believes the real number is over $150 billion. And when you factor in the purchasing power parity exchange rate, the real Chinese military budget is closer to $300 billion (the second largest in the world)-an amount that is identical to the amount they rip us off every single year.6 China is also a master at head faking us when it comes to their weapons development. After the head of the People's Liberation Army (PLA) delegation, General Chen Bingde, visited America's National Defense University, he said, "To be honest, I feel very sad after visiting, because I think I feel, and I know how poor our equipments are and how underdeveloped we remain."7 Only a fool would fall for such garbage. As the Wall Street Journal has reported, "Beijing has the most ambitious missile program in the world-including an anti-ship ballistic missile that threatens U.S. aircraft carriers."8 We also know that China is busy building a fleet of nuclear submarines so large that it will soon overtake ours in size, is planning to build numerous aircraft carriers, and has significantly ramped up its cyber-warfare program and anti-satellite weapons. "If the United States can light a fire in China's backyard," said Colonel Dai Xu of the PLA, "we can also light a fire in their backyard."9 Then, in 2011, just one week before Chinese President Hu Jintao visited America, the PLA successfully tested its new stealth fighter jet, the J-20, an advanced medium bomber that the Obama administration thought the Chinese were still years away from flying.10 As one defense expert put it, "It was a middle-finger welcome salute to Defense Secretary Robert Gates,"11 who was then in China on an official visit. And what did Obama do? Not wanting to mess up his chance to bow down to yet another foreign leader, the president did what he always does when our enemies take a swipe at us-nothing. Instead, he let Hu Jintao waltz into our country the very next week and make a total joke out of us and showcase Barack Obama's weakness. Worse, Obama groveled at the feet of the Communist he depends on to loan him the money to fund our president's disastrous spending programs. As Hillary Clinton put it privately, "How do you deal toughly with your banker?"12 Here's my answer: you wake up and realize that money is itself a weapon. Hu Jintao gets that. Most Americans get that. But the clueless bunch in the White House seems not to understand that, or maybe they just don't care. Either way, the Communist Chinese know that collecting our debt allows them to hold us hostage with the threat that they will dump our debt and send interest rates skyrocketing. That's also why China is s.n.a.t.c.hing up minerals, oil, and food in Africa, South America, and the Middle East.13 When you combine this economic "weaponry" with China's aggressive military buildup, it's crystal clear that America should be strengthening our military muscle, not weakening it. Specifically, defense experts believe that meeting China's military challenge will require that we deploy more submarines, more 5th generation aircraft like the F-22 Raptor and F-35 Lightning, bolster our anti-submarine and anti-mining capabilities, add missile and cruise-missile defense systems, beef up our cyber-warfare technologies, sharpen our reconnaissance platforms, and add longer-range precision-strike platforms.14 Will Barack Obama do those things? Fat chance. We need a president who will.

RUSSIA.

Obama's popularity in America may be at rock bottom levels, but I know one place his ratings are likely sky high: the Kremlin. Russia's leaders can hardly believe their luck. Never in a million years did they think America would elect a guy as ineffective as this. Obama's pretty-please diplomacy and endless American apology tours have served Russian interests extremely well. Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, of whom I often speak highly for his intelligence and no-nonsense way, is a former KGB officer. No sooner did Obama move into 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue than he began making concessions and sacrificing American power on the altar of "improving relations" with Russia.

According to Barack Obama's favorite newspaper, the New York Times, within weeks of being sworn in as president of the United States, Obama sent a top U.S. official to Moscow to hand deliver a secret letter to Russia's then-President Dmitry Medvedev. According to the Times, the secret letter said that Obama "would back off deploying a new missile defense system in Eastern Europe if Moscow would help stop Iran from developing long-range weapons." It's so outrageous I hardly believed it until I read it myself. Obama had barely moved his stuff into the White House residence and already the guy was just itching to start degrading America's power and undermining our allies.

Not surprisingly, Putin was ecstatic: "The latest decision by President Obama . . . has positive implications," said Putin. "I very much hope that this very right and brave decision will be followed by others."15 But it gets even worse. Incredibly, the Obama administration made the decision to throw our friends Poland and the Czech Republic under the bus and leave them naked to missile attacks "despite having no public guarantees" that Moscow would help crack down on Iran's missile programs. 16 Many in the intelligence world were baffled by Obama's reckless and foolish move. U.S. senators piped up too. "This is going to be seen as a capitulation to the Russians, who had no real basis to object to what we were doing," warned Republican Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. "And at the end of the day you empowered the Russians, you made Iran happy and you made the people in Eastern Europe wonder who we are as Americans."17 What was Barack Obama's response? "If the byproduct of it is that the Russians feel a little less paranoid and are now willing to work more effectively with us to deal with threats like ballistic missiles from Iran or nuclear development in Iran, you know, then that's a bonus."

The results of Obama's pandering to the Russians have been a total disaster. In 2010, the Russians outsmarted Obama by promising to play nice and not sell Iran anti-aircraft missiles. The administration proudly hailed the announcement as a big success and praised Medvedev for having "shown leadership in holding Iran accountable for its actions, from start to finish." Then, even as Obama was busy cheerleading the Russians' actions, the Los Angeles Times reported that "Russian diplomats were quietly recruiting other countries . . . to undercut tougher penalties imposed on the Islamic Republic."18 It was an incredible coup for Russia: they got Obama to give up missile defense for absolutely nothing in return and stuck it to America by secretly convincing other nations to back Iran.

Putin has big plans for Russia. He wants to edge out its neighbors so that Russia can dominate oil supplies to all of Europe.19 Putin has also announced his grand vision: the creation of a "Eurasian Union" made up of former Soviet nations that can dominate the region. I respect Putin and the Russians but cannot believe our leader allows them to get away with so much-I am sure that Vladimir Putin is even more surprised than I am. Hats off to the Russians.

IRAN.

Obama's plan to have Russia stand up to Iran was a horrible failure that turned America into a laughingstock. Unfortunately, our current foreign policy toward Iran has been just as embarra.s.sing and disastrous.

First, there was the epic and inexplicable failure of Obama to speak out strongly for freedom during Iran's so-called "Green Revolution." As the world watched, Iranian college kids and dissidents took to the streets to peacefully protest for democratic reforms and human rights, only to be violently suppressed by the regime's thugs. What did Obama do? As incredible and outrageous as it might seem, he sat silent. We're talking about an Iranian regime led by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a guy who has declared Iran's desire to see one of our greatest allies, Israel, "wiped off the map." But did Obama stand up for the voices of freedom and against the anti-Israel forces of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard? Not a chance. Had Obama stepped out to help the protesters early, the regime could have easily been overthrown and we would not have our biggest problem today. When it comes to defending human rights in the Islamic world, Obama shies away because he thinks America should be apologizing to Muslim countries rather than speaking out. It's a disgrace.

The greatest outrage, however, has been Obama's unwillingness to stand strong in the face of Ahmadinejad's nuclear weapon ambitions. Iran is the most sanctioned member of the United Nations. Since 2006, Iran has been the focus of five Security Council resolutions demanding that it stop its uranium enrichment.20 And yet, knowing all this, Obama continues to concoct his kindergarten-style "solutions" for dealing with the Iranian threat. For example, even as the adults in the intelligence world are wracking their brains about how to stop Iran from developing an operational nuclear weapon, Barack Obama proposed something so childish I'm almost embarra.s.sed to write about it. Obama wanted to create a telephone hotline between America and Iran. I kid you not. Obama's solution to thwarting a nuclear Iran is to set up a little telephone line that our military can use to talk nicely with the Iranian terrorist regime that threatens to destroy America.

As pathetic and ridiculous as that is, here's the most humiliating part: Iran laughed at him and rejected the plan outright. Worse, once they heard Obama's proposal and realized what a joke the guy is, they were emboldened to get tough. "In addition to rejecting the hot line," reported the Wall Street Journal, "Iranian military officers have threatened to deploy Iranian naval forces in the Western Hemisphere, including potentially the Gulf of Mexico"21 (emphasis mine).

How did the White House respond? Obama sent his press secretary out with this message of strength: "We don't take these statements seriously, given that they do not reflect at all Iran's naval capabilities."22 How rea.s.suring!

The point isn't that Iran's navy is incapable of anchoring its ships off the coast of Florida. The point is that Iran's government has so little fear, so little respect for America's leadership, that it feels free to make the threat. The Iranians know our president will sit back and do nothing, just like he did during Iran's Green Revolution. They know Obama's instincts are to apologize, grovel, and retreat. As the Wall Street Journal pointed out, "Tehran appears to be taking a more aggressive posture in the Persian Gulf, in part as a response to the scheduled drawdown of American forces in Iraq and Afghanistan."23 In other words, because Obama made the horrible decision to announce a date of withdrawal, Iran now feels emboldened to throw its weight around. By the way, in 2011, U.S. defense officials reported that there have been several "near-misses" between Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) speed boats challenging U.S. and allied war ships.24 Way to go, Mr. President.

America's primary goal with Iran must be to destroy its nuclear ambitions. Let me put this as plainly as I know how: Iran's nuclear program must be stopped-by any and all means necessary. Period. We cannot allow this radical regime to acquire a nuclear weapon that they will either use or hand off to terrorists. Better now than later!

At the end of his second term, President George W. Bush authorized a covert program to "undermine the electrical and computer systems" at Natanz, Iran's uranium enrichment facility.25 What came out of that initiative was the creation of the world's most advanced cyber-weapon ever. With technical support from Israel, as well as technology from other allies, the Stuxnet cyber worm was unleashed against Iran's nuclear centrifuges and made them spin so fast they destroyed themselves. The operation was very successful and destroyed roughly one-fifth of Iran's centrifuges. No one knows for sure how many months or years we put back on Iran's nuclear clock. Some a.n.a.lysts say six months, others one or two years. But that's the point: the clock is still ticking.

Many experts believe the only way to eliminate the Iranian nuclear threat is to bomb their facilities. Israel has used airstrikes to knock out nuclear facilities twice: once in 1981 on an Iraqi nuclear site, and again in 2007 to destroy a nuclear bomb plant in Syria. It's clear that Iran is preparing itself for this possibility. In September 2011, Iran moved its most important nuclear fuel production to a "heavily defended underground military facility" to guard their supplies from a possible air or cyber-attack. The White House spokesman for the National Security Council said the move was a direct violation of the UN security requirements and was "another provocative act."26 But, as usual, Obama will do nothing. He's too busy trying to get reelected, going to fundraisers, and vacationing.

Worse, we know Obama's instincts on Iran are horrible. On May 18, 2008, during a campaign speech then-candidate Obama made this breathtakingly ignorant statement: "I mean, think about it. Iran, Cuba, Venezuela-these countries are tiny, compared to the Soviet Union. They don't pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us. . . . You know, Iran, they spend one-one hundredth of what we spend on the military. If Iran ever tried to pose a serious threat to us, they wouldn't stand a chance. And we should use that position of strength that we have, to be bold enough to go ahead and listen." Then, after his advisors told him what a moronic statement he'd made, Obama went out two days later and reversed his stance: "Iran is a grave threat. It has an illicit nuclear program, it supports terrorism across the region and militias in Iraq, it threatens Israel's existence, it denies the holocaust."27 Once again, the guy's initial instincts are always wrong. And in this case, they endangered America and our ally Israel.

Obviously we must listen to our intelligence experts to decide the best way to thwart Iran's nuclear ambitions. But here's the reality: because the clock is ticking down, the next president America elects will in all likelihood be the president who either stops Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon or who sits back and lets it happen. Given Obama's track record of weakness, that's not a risk America can afford to take.

PAKISTAN.

When our tremendous Navy SEALS took out Osama bin Laden, they didn't find him in some obscure hole in the ground or in a remote mountainside cave. No, they found him in Pakistan right next door to one of Pakistan's most prestigious military academies. What does that tell you? It tells me that Pakistan knew where Osama was all along.

Get it straight: Pakistan is not our friend. We've given them billions and billions of dollars, and what did we get? Betrayal and disrespect-and much worse. When one of our helicopters was downed during the Osama bin Laden raid, Pakistan handed it over to China so that Chinese engineers could study it and steal the technology we spent billions of dollars developing. The Pakistanis think we're a bunch of dopes. They don't respect us and they never will as long as Obama is our commander in chief. And it's much, much worse than just disrespect. In May 2011, Pakistan actually fired on American Apache helicopter crews. As one military official stated, "We're not allowed to return fire to coordinates inside the Pakistan border. We know it's the Pakistani military in many cases. Pakistan has been instigating."28 The fact that our rules of engagement (ROE) don't allow our military to defend themselves and return fire is absolute lunacy. We need to remove the handcuffs and get tough. You shoot at our troops, our troops shoot at you. End of story.

But there's an even graver threat emerging out of Pakistan. I'm talking about the rise of the so-called Haqqani Network, a terrorist network estimated to be 15,000 fighters strong. The Haqquani Network is closely allied with al Qaeda. The Haqqanis originated in Afghanistan but have now holed up in Pakistan. They are considered bigger and better funded than al Qaeda. Here's the worst part: Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) is helping the Haqqanis. Former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Michael Mullen has worked closer with Pakistan than most. He says that the Haqqani Network has become "a strategic arm" of Pakistan's intelligence agency and is responsible for the attacks on the U.S. emba.s.sy in Kabul, the Inter-Continental Hotel in Kabul, and the truck bomb attack that injured seventy-seven U.S. soldiers.29 And get this: according to intelligence experts, "Pakistan is preparing to replace the billions of dollars of critical military aid it has been receiving from the U.S. by courting China and soliciting help from Islamic ally Saudi Arabia."30 When are we going to wake up and realize that we are funding our enemies? And when are we going to let our troops. .h.i.t back? Right now we ban our forces from using Predator drones inside the city of Miram where the Haqqanis are headquartered. The reason? Obama didn't want to "offend" the Pakistanis. That's absurd-they're killing our soldiers! We need to get tough, give our troops permission to return fire, and tell Pakistan that we will sever all economic activity with them until they cut ties with the Haqqani network. If the Pakistani intelligence services work with terrorists, we should declare their military a terrorist organization.31

LIBYA.

Obama ran for president on a platform that he wouldn't start any more "illegal wars." Guess what? He started an "illegal war." He never went before Congress to ask for a declaration of war with Libya. Instead, Obama launched one by himself and thrust America into a b.l.o.o.d.y civil war. Isn't that what Obama bashed George W. Bush for doing, even though Bush got rid of Saddam Hussein?

Now Qaddafi is dead and gone. So what? We have spent more than $1 billion on the Libya operation. And what are we getting in return? A huge bill, that's what. It's incredible how foolish the Obama administration is. Libya has enormous oil reserves. When the so-called "rebels" came to NATO (which is really the U.S.) and asked for help to defeat Qaddafi, we should have said, "Sure, we don't like the guy either. We will help you take out Qaddafi. But in exchange, you give us 50 percent of your oil for the next twenty-five years to pay for our military support and to say thank you for the United States doing what you could never have done on your own." The "rebels" would have jumped at the offer and said yes. After all, they didn't stand a chance-they were being routed-it was over. But did we do that? No. Our leaders are too brainless to negotiate a deal like that.

Imagine the amount of oil we could have secured for America. Think about how much economic relief we would have secured for our people and our businesses. A deal like that would have been so easy to broker. But our diplomats are pansies. They don't want to "offend" anyone. Guess what? The American people are offended! Our policy should be: no oil, no military support. No exceptions.

Even with Qaddafi gone now, unfortunately, the price we will pay for our stupid Libyan policy may end up being far more expensive and dire than the billion dollars we've already blown there. In September 2011, up to 20,000 shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles went missing in Libya. According to the left-leaning group Human Rights Watch, the reason this happened was because Barack Obama refused to provide proper protection to guard the weapons stockpiles.32 When weapons went missing in Iraq, the liberal media made a ma.s.sive story out of it and used the issue to try and defeat George W. Bush. But now, on Obama's watch, 20,000 shoulder-fired missiles-the kind that can take down a commercial jetliner-are nowhere to be found, and the mainstream media yawns.

There's no telling how much money those missiles will be sold for on the black market. But there's one thing you can bet your bottom dollar on, and that's every terrorist organization will be standing in line to buy them. We know that al Qaeda is already in Libya. Former White House counterterrorism advisor Richard Clark says that the probability of al Qaeda successfully smuggling the missiles out of Libya is "pretty high."33 When the story surfaced, as usual, the White House shrugged its shoulders. "We have ... worked closely with the [Libyan rebel leaders] as well as NATO in investigating and dealing with the issue of conventional weapons in Libya," said Press Secretary Jay Carney. "We are exploring every option to expand our support."34 Nice!

Now here's the worst of it: guess who "discreetly" provided the Libyan rebels with "humanitarian aid" before the fall of Libya's capital, Tripoli? That's right: Iran. When the rebels seized the capital, Iran "congratulated the Muslim people of Libya."35 Like everyone else, I'm glad Qaddafi is gone. But if we had been smart and negotiated shrewdly, we would have taken 50 percent of Libya's oil for twenty-five years before we spent mountains of American money. Once again, Obama has proven to be a horrible negotiator and an expert at missing huge opportunities for America. And guess who gets much of that oil from Libya-that's right, it's China, not the U.S.

Americans have been too busy fighting the ravages of the Obama economy to notice what a colossal disaster the community organizer has been as our commander in chief. The damage Obama has done to our military and to our standing in the world can only be repaired by electing a new president, one who respects our men and women in uniform and pursues a national security doctrine that puts America first.

SEVEN.

A SAFETY NET, NOT A HAMMOCK.

Continued dependence upon relief induces a spiritual and moral disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fiber. To dole out relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit.

It is inimical to the dictates of sound policy.

It is in violation of the traditions of America.

-President Franklin Delano Roosevelt,

1935 State of the Union

In 1964, President Lyndon Baines Johnson declared "War on Poverty." Guess what? Poverty won. Big time.

Since Johnson launched his mythical quest for a government-run utopia, welfare spending has skyrocketed 13 times the amount spent in 1964 (in inflation adjusted dollars). Back then, welfare spending accounted for 1.2 percent of GDP. Today, it's almost 6 percent.1 That means taxpayers have paid-are you ready for this?-a jaw-dropping $16 trillion on public-a.s.sistance programs.2 That's a totally outrageous sum-until you realize what Obama wants to spend over the next decade.

In 2011, Obama jacked welfare spending up 42 percent over 2008 levels. This huge increase means America is paying $953 billion a year on welfare.3 America is flat broke. We cannot afford to spend $10 trillion over the next decade on dependency-inducing welfare schemes that have created an undercla.s.s, demoralized it, and drained taxpayers who are paying for programs that not only make poverty worse but that are notoriously rife with fraud and abuse.

You want an example? In 2010, the Los Angeles Times reported that welfare recipients in California were using their welfare cards to get cash from ATMs at strip clubs. Taxpayers should not be paying for some guy's lap dance!4 And over in Virginia, taxpayers were outraged when it was revealed that their tax dollars were going to subsidize welfare recipients living in luxury apartments, complete with "resort-style swimming pools with fountains and heated spas, billiard rooms, granite counter tops, indoor basketball courts, and stainless steel appliances." "These are resort-style amenities that the majority of the taxpayers that are subsidizing it don't have in their own [homes]," said supervisor Pat Herrity. "Luxury has no place in subsidized housing."5 Look, I believe deeply that America must maintain a st.u.r.dy safety net. We have an obligation to take care of those who can't take care of themselves, whether due to age or illness. Our country has a big heart. And it's a point of national pride that we take care of our own. It's one of the things that makes us so great. And certainly our people need a lot more help given that President Obama has been such a total disaster. Today, under this administration, more people than ever in America's history-a staggering 46.2 million-live under the federal poverty line. Many of these individuals are out of work. They need temporary a.s.sistance as they search for the few jobs that remain in the Obama economy. We should help these folks and their kids, no question about it. But it is counterproductive and cruel to allow America's safety net to morph into a hammock. It is simply immoral for the government to encourage able-bodied Americans to think that a life on welfare, of being supported by taxpayers, is an acceptable lifestyle.

Our Founding Fathers understood that self-reliance is the axis on which freedom spins. The American work ethic is what led generations of Americans to create our once prosperous nation. The idea that working hard was a spiritual act of doing one's work "as unto the Lord" spurred us to give our very best day in and day out. And because we believed that work was a virtue, we produced ma.s.sive wealth, plentiful jobs, and a self-sufficient society.

That's what I find so morally offensive about welfare dependency: it robs people of the chance to improve. Work gives every day a sense of purpose. A job well done provides a sense of pride and accomplishment. I love to work. In fact, I like working so much that I seldom take vacations. Because I work so hard, I've been privileged to create jobs for tens of thousands of people. And on my hit show The Apprentice, I get to work with people from all walks of life. I'm known for my famous line, "You're fired!" But the truth is, I don't like firing people. Sometimes you have to do it, but it's never fun or easy. One of my favorite parts of business is seeing how work transforms people into better, more confident, more competent individuals. It's inspiring and beautiful to watch.

America became a powerhouse because of our deep belief in the virtue of self-reliance. As Thomas Jefferson said, "I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them." Government wasn't created to take care of us. Generations of Americans believed they should be responsible for themselves. When hard times. .h.i.t, churches and neighbors pitched in and pulled together to help. But in the end, the Founders believed that government should only do those few things individuals couldn't do for themselves. We are rapidly losing that self-reliant spirit that made America great.

Proper Perspective on Poverty

Real economic pain exists in America. No doubt about that. And we need pro-growth, pro-jobs policies. But it's also important for us not to lose sight of the bigger picture. Obama tries to justify his ma.s.sive spending programs in part based on the idea that they're needed to eradicate poverty in America, but as Dinesh D'Souza, author of the bestselling book What's So Great about America, points out, America is one of the few places in the world where a "poor" person can still be obese.6 "Poor" is a relative term. By global standards, poor people in America are rich. And even by American standards, poor people today are better off than average people were in our parents' lifetimes. According to a Heritage Foundation study, "Today, poor boys at ages 18 and 19 are actually taller and heavier than boys of similar age in the general U.S. population in the late 1950s. They are one inch taller and some 10 pounds heavier than GIs of similar age during World War II."7 Poor people in America have comforts most of the world's poor have never seen, as the Heritage Foundation reports: * 80 percent of poor households have air conditioning. In 1970, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.

* 92 percent of poor households have a microwave.

* Nearly three-fourths have a car or truck, and 31 percent have two or more cars or trucks.

* Nearly two-thirds have cable or satellite TV.

* Two-thirds have at least one DVD player, and 70 percent have a VCR.

* Half have a personal computer, and one in seven have two or more computers.

* More than half of poor families with children have a video game system, such as an Xbox or PlayStation.

* 43 percent have Internet access.

* One-third have a wide-screen plasma or LCD TV.

* One-fourth have a digital video recorder system, such as a TiVo.8 Does this mean that poor Americans aren't in need of help, most especially a job? No, of course not. But it does mean that Americans should never lose sight of the fact that we are incredibly blessed to live in a nation where 97 percent of those considered poor own a color television and have the electricity to power it.9

Childhood Poverty Is a Tragedy

The innocent bystanders of American poverty are kids. Yet two-thirds of childhood poverty in America is absolutely preventable if individuals did just one thing: get married before they have children. As someone once put it, "Marriage is the greatest 'anti-poverty' program G.o.d ever created."

An out-of-wedlock child is six times more likely to live in poverty than a child born in a two-parent home. The reason for this is painfully obvious: two paychecks are twice as much as one. This isn't brain surgery. Two people working full-time at Walmart puts a family above the federal poverty line (defined as a family of four earning less than $22,314, not including in-kind benefits). The key thing is for the father to stick around, which is what marriage is meant to ensure. Both parents don't necessarily have to hold down a job. One paycheck from a gainfully employed dad, with mom at home taking care of the kids, is better than a single mother living off welfare.

The explosion of out-of-wedlock births in America is staggering. This is a total departure from American history-one that is reshaping our country, and not for the better. Back when LBJ began engineering his "Great Society" and declaring his "War on Poverty," only 7 percent of kids were born out of wedlock. Today, 40 percent of all births in America are to unwed mothers. Government is now the "father" in far too many homes. But here's the thing: kids don't just need a wallet-they need a dad who will teach boys how to be responsible men and show daughters what it means to be respected and protected.

Out-of-wedlock birth rates are not only one of the greatest generators of poverty but of inequality in America. Twenty-nine percent of white children are born to a single mother (a figure that's far too high), but 72 percent of black children are born out of wedlock. Beyond the economic consequences, we know that kids without a dad are also exponentially more likely to abuse drugs, drop out of school, commit crime, and be incarcerated.10 Kids who grow up in homes where a magic check appears each month from the government believe there's nothing wrong with sitting at home doing nothing while taxpayers bust their humps working to fund them. For an entire generation, government welfare programs are eradicating the virtues of responsibility, hard work, and self-reliance that built America.