Intolerance by any other name.....

tol·er·ance

ˈtäl(ə)rəns/

noun

noun: tolerance

1. 1.

   the ability or willingness to tolerate something, in particular the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with

 

Have you ever noticed that words often seem to lose their meanings when politics are in play?

Take for an example the debate surrounding SB1062 in Arizona.  Supporters of the LGBT movement, as well as some others, have long proclaimed themselves as practitioners of tolerance.  Opponents of the legislation have declared supporters to be "intolerant". (see definition above)

I believe them to be 180 degrees out of sync with reality.

Let's compare and contrast the results the opposing sides seek.

 

Pro SB1062 - If enacted the bill would ensure the proprietors of privately owned businesses to refuse service to anyone, except for statutorily 'protected classes', to which they may have a religion based conflict.  In essence it would leave it up to the individual business owner to decide with whom to do business. It would not require anyone to refuse service they wish to perform.

 

In a supposedly free society, it seems to me that this legislation would be unnecessary.  Liberty means allowing people to make their own decisions, does it not?  The right to decide with whom to do business, for ANY personal reason, seems to be fundamental.

 

Con SB1062 - Opposition to this legislation means that the opponents want the government, and/or disgruntled citizens, to be able to use the force of law, on pain of prosecution or lawsuit, to mandate that everyone do things their way.  In other words they want to criminalize business decisions with which they disagree.

 

One side wants to let all business owners decide with whom to do business.  The other side wants to outlaw business practices they personally dislike.  Now, which side is truly intolerant?

The longest journey begins with a single step.

 

 Turn off music player at bottom of screen. 

I hadn't really anticipated hearing this spoken so boldly, but I'm not exactly surprised either.  It fits the pattern thus far.  In the past decade the gay rights activists have progressed from claiming to simply want tolerance, to acceptance, to public endorsement.  Did you really think it would end there?
Some of you will choose not to take this seriously.  After all, she doesn't speak for all gays, right?
That's quite true, but irrelevant.  In any 'movement', it is the activists that set the agenda. While it is surely true that many, most even, gays would be perfectly satisfied with "marriage equality", the activist leaders will not be.  It will be a minor but necessary victory on the march to their eventual goals. 
Movements don't just fold their tents and go away.  I remember very well, 15 or so years ago, that the Arizona legislature was debating the repeal of what were coined "archaic sex laws".  During the debate it was suggested that the proponents wanted to use it as a step toward legalizing gay marriage. Steve May, an openly gay state representative, vehemently denied it.  Look where we are now.
Anyone believing that this movement will come to a stop with gay marriage is either VERY naive or living in denial.

Liberal hypocrisy exposed. Again.

President Obama speaks a lot lately of his devotion to protecting innocent children.  I'd like to challenge that devotion.

For over a month now our nation has been in the throws of yet another debate over gun control.  It's not the first time and won't be the last.  Those in favor of establishing restrictions the types of weapons and ammunition private citizens can own are currently resting their arguments primarily on the devastating attack in Newtown, CT.  The stated motive: protecting our innocent children.

Aside from my belief that banning any type of weapons will do nothing to make us or our children any safer, and that the unintended consequences could actually do the opposite, I was met with a perplexing juxtaposition this week.  In the news of the week was an 'anniversary' of the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision making abortion legal in all 50 states.  Some in our society celebrate this decision, and its anniversary, as a milestone accomplishment.  Oddly, at least in my view, the proponents of strict gun control measures, ostensibly for protecting children, almost unanimously favor abortion.  It is certainly true of the political leaders pressing the effort.  I find those positions to be absurd and irreconcilable.

To illustrate the absurdity of it I offer my point by point comparison of the two.

• The right to keep and bear arms is expressly listed in the Bill of Rights.  The right to an abortion was invented from whole cloth by the Supreme Court stretching to connect it to a right to privacy and based on medical knowledge of the 1960s. (At least one of those justices later stated that his decision was based partly on the perceived need for population control.)
• The Second Amendment was included in the Bill of Rights, as were those in all of the first 6, because the framers understood that they were the rights most likely to be threatened by future tyrants.  They also understood that some would attempt to chip away at this right a little at a time.  Thus the phrase "shall not be infringed", the strongest language found in the Bill of Rights.  Abortion, or anything like it, is never mentioned anywhere in any part of the Constitution.
• Second Amendment supporters are called extremists if they object to encroachments of their liberties that detractors call "reasonable gun control" measures, despite the strong prohibition to such expressed in the amendment.  Abortion rights activists fight against any limitations or even conditions, such as Informed Consent.
• There are millions of the proposed-ban guns currently owned by law abiding, responsible gun owners.  Less than .01% of those guns are ever used in a crime.  EVERY abortion ends in the brutal death of an innocent child.
• Gun control advocates claim the founding fathers could never have imagined the semi-automatic weapons we have today.  Regardless of what technology they envisioned, they intended for the citizens to have parity with their contemporary criminals and potential tyrants, foreign or domestic.  What the founding fathers could not possibly have envisioned is tens of millions of innocent children being ripped piece by piece from their mothers' wombs, and that their mothers themselves would be co-conspirators.
• Abortion supporters claim that prohibiting abortion would lead women "into back alley abortionists" risking their health. This suggests an awareness of the concept of 'unintended consquences'.  Libs are not so willing to acknowledge the unintended consequences of banning semiautomatic weapons.  Dozens, if not hundreds, of citizens defend themselves with firearms every single day.  Most never have to fire a shot, simply making the would-be criminal aware of the firearm does the trick.  Under Fienstein's proposal, those people would likely become part of the violent crime statistics.
• This recent uproar was started by the senseless mass murder of 26 people, including 20 beautiful, innocent children.  That same day nearly 4,000 beautiful, innocent children were killed in American abortion clinics.  Sadly there were another 4,000 the next day.  And the next, And the next. 
• In the estimated 8 minutes in took for the Sandy Hook shooter to kill those 26, and every 8 minutes before and since, 51 healthy babies were slaughtered without being allowed to draw their first breath. (Presuming an average 10 hour/day, 6 day work week.)

The founding fathers warned us that tyrants and despots would attempt to limit our liberties.  In this instant Pres. Obama, Diane Feinstein, et al would have us believe that they attempt to do so as an attempt to save innocent lives.  I cannot accept that motive because their proclaimed devotion to saving the innocent rings very hollow.  They have the blood of millions of beautiful, innocent children on their hands.

Go ahead! Try not to cry.

Scott's Picks

That time has come that I've begun fielding phone calls asking about my picks on the ballot.
I have decided to post them on here this time too as an added resource.
As always remember that I am unabashedly conservative and all these picks come from that perspective. This also presumes that you live in the appropriate districts.
For candidates I will just give names.  No comments where there's only one name on the ballot.
I'll include a brief synopsis for the ballot initiatives. You can ask specific questions in the comments section and I will answer ASAP.

President - Mitt Romney
US Senate - Jeff Flake
US House - Matt Salmon
(9th District - Vernon Parker. Behind the scenes Kyrsten Sinema is an exceptionally vile person)
State Senate - Steve Yarbrough
State House - Tom Forese and J.D. Mesnard.  Remember to vote for both.
Corporation Commission (I know, yawn) Burns, Stump, Bitter Smith
County BOS - Denny Barney
County Attorney - Bill Montgomery
Sheriff - Flip a Coin (I'm no Arpaio fan)
Water Conservation District - Whatever. Just don't vote for Terry Goddard. For anything. Ever.

I always vote NO on all the judges.  Not because I want to kick them out.  What most people don't seem to know is that we cannot vote them out.  If they win the retention vote they are automatically retained.  If they lose the vote it simply puts them up for a review board that will decide based on their individual merits.

PROPOSITIONS (buckle your seat belts)
(FYI - Propositions numbered in 100s are amendments to the state constitution. Those numbered in the 200s are statutory.)

114 - Yes.  No brainer.
115 - Undecided. Some reasonable reforms, but will give more power to the Governor in making court appointments. Sounds good when you like the governor, not so good when you don't.  Of course the current procedures tend to be 'left friendly', so the risk may have more upside than risk for conservatives.  But there is risk.
116 - Vague.  Seems to be a solution looking for a problem.
117 - Yes. If we see quick increases in property values again, this would limit the increases in property taxes to 5% per year.
118 - No opinion
119 - Sounds reasonable.  I haven't studied the precise language to check for possibilities of abuse.
120 - YES. 
121 - NO NO NO NO NO
204 - NO. This is a contentious one. Largely because people will misunderstand the ultimate effects.
This will be a PERMANENT increase in the state sales tax. This proposition will tie the hands of the legislature in unacceptable ways. It is a great example of the rule of unintended consequences, for which Arizona's initiative process has become renowned. The writers of this initiative, in an effort to assure the new revenue would actually increase education funding, have included restrictions that would restrict the legislatures ability to decrease the current sales tax base EVER, and annually increase education funding without being able to exercise discretion.  And thanks to Prop 206 from years ago, the legislature is forbidden from amending any statutes passed by initiative regardless of changing conditions.  It is short-sighted and will result in regret.

That's it folks.  I won't comment on City elections because I don't live in the city and honestly couldn't care less. 

What will we leave our children?

Our founders, having fled the tyranny of an overbearing government, envisioned a nation with liberty as its foundational principle.  This principle of self-mastery and individual sovereignty, designed my God, eloquently expressed in the Declaration of Independence and codified in the Constitution enabled a relatively young nation to become the most productive, innovative, successful and powerful nation in the world's history.  This was due, in no small part, to the struggles faced by the generations: taming the land, expanding our reach, surviving by their wit and industry.  Through difficult eras of expansion, depression, and wars our resolve to our founding principles brought us through. 
But there is a consequence to such prosperity.  Well-meaning people began to forget that it was liberty that crafted our success and struggle that forged our character.  Many people began to believe, and many still do, that it is somehow compassionate to shield their children, and others, from such struggles and instead to ease their burdens.  Our national character suffered.  Now a large part of our population believe that the government should provide security rather than protect liberty.  This has spawned a generation now vying for leadership of the nation that has and fosters an entitlement mentality. Like any other Ponzi scheme it is short-sighted and ultimately unsustainable.
I believe the result will be that future generations, perhaps our children or grandchildren, will have neither liberty nor security.

A propensity for intensity

Personalities don't just come in different types and shapes, they come in different sizes too.
I have a larger than average personality.
Our personalities are not only made of up of individual traits, but how they mix and combine together. 
When you magnify charisma with a big personality, you end up with someone that's "larger than life".  Enlarge a less charismatic personality and you'll often just end up with someone that is "over the top".  I, unfortunately, am the latter.
This is not something of which I am completely ignorant.  But all too often awareness dawns just a little too slowly, leading to regret and remorse. 
With conscious effort I've learned to hold it in check most of the time.  But sometimes it seems to just come pouring out like a salt shaker cap someone failed to secure properly.  The results are similar too: someone ends up with more of my personality than they wanted. Sometimes a LOT more.
To people with normal size personalities, surrounded by other normal people, I can appear stressed, upset, or even angry when I'm not.  They mistake a sudden change in VOLUME of personality as a mood change. This is where the regrets come in because I can make people uncomfortable. That in turn sometimes leaves me feeling somewhat foolish.
I'll continue to work on managing it. It doesn't always fit with my desire to be more Christ-like. Meanwhile I hope those to whom I am close have, or will, come to understand. 

Saving Arizona

For those of us that are troubled and frustrated by friends that cannot yet see through this "most transparent president", isn't it nice to know that because of the Electoral College there is nothing quite so irrelevant as an Obama voter in Arizona?

A tax by any other name.......

President Obama is employing more scare tactics than his economy is people.
The latest is that Gov. Romney's fiscal plan would mean a tax increase for the Middle Class of up to $2000/household/year.  This is patently false of course.  Romney neither proposes nor supports any such increase. It is a complete fabrication.  But as President Obama said himself in 2008, "When you don't have a record to run on you paint your opponent as someone to run from."  A prophetic statement.
He also promised he wouldn't raise taxes on anyone making under $250K/year. (He has directly broken that promise with the taxes to pay for Obamacare.)  He made that promise, obviously, because people don't like paying taxes. (They only like other people to pay taxes)  I believe he has also indirectly broken that promise. I call it the Economy Tax.
Since Pres. Obama took office median household income has dropped over $4,000/year. Before you utter the name Bush here, understand that it has dropped EVERY YEAR since he took office. In addition to that the cost of living has increased rapidly.  Any of you that go grocery shopping or use gasoline are painfully aware of this. (Interesting that when calculating inflation the government excludes fuel and food: the two most necessary items)  As a result of higher fuel costs, the devaluation of the Dollar due to unrestrained printing of money, and increasingly burdensome regulation on businesses, we will continue to see prices of everything that we need go through the roof.  These expenses effect our families just as adversely as does any direct taxation, yet the administration responsible for it largely escapes scrutiny.
Suddenly a $2,000/year tax increase, especially a fictitious one, doesn't seem so scary.

Decoding the DNC

If you watched or listened to any of the Democrat National Convention last week, you likely heard some phraseology that sounded great, but weren't really sure what it meant.  That is by design. The idea is to use buzz words that pluck emotional chords, but leaving the audience feeling instead of thinking. Both parties do it, but the Democrats have mastered the art.
I offer the following to help you find your way through the rhetorical maze.
Glossary of Terms:
Invest -- To spend taxpayer money. Used in conjuction with things that people universally favor. (Education is a favorite.) Rarely, if ever, comes with any details of how it would be spent. Giving details would defeat the purpose by allowing the audience think.
Working people -- (usually coupled with 'fighting for' or 'working for') Particularly cynical term. Intentionally vague. Specifics would only muddy the waters. Most people believe they work hard, so regardless of the actual context they believe the speaker is speaking of them.
Level the playing field -- A focus-group tested phrase designed to capitalize on the fact that most people tend to be envious of others and believe they had some unfair advantage.  To complete the metaphor imagine a field with high spots and low spots. To level it means to take from the high spots to fill in the low spots.  Redistribute, if you will. (Being accustomed to working dirt, I find this metaphor quite accurate. Once leveled the soil in the low spots is soft, with no real foundation but what's left of the high spots is firm. The wind and elements blow away the soft soil leaving the low spots low once again. It's a never ending process that eventually results in soil lost forever and the overall level of the field becoming lower and lower.)
Fair share -- undefined in terms of actual numbers so that everyone can mentally insert their own definition. Always means taking more from someone else. In the same cynical vane as working people. Ironically used to demand more from those that are already paying a higher percentage than the listener.
Play by the same rules --  Appeals to the cynical view that the successful must have cheated. Again intentionally vague to allow the listener to apply their favorite pet peave.
Tax Cut -- this one is a bit tricky because it has an actual definition that differs from how the Dems use it. They refer to "giving" tax cuts. This relies on the paradigm that the money for which you worked belongs, by default, to the government and that confiscating less of it is a "gift" to you.
Spending Cut -- Another tricky one. In the real world it would mean spending less tax money on something than the previous period.  In the Dem universe it means spending less on something than they intended to spend, even if it's more than in the previous period. (Example: Your family spent $100 on entertainment this month. One of your kids proposed spending $200 next month. You decide to spend $125. You have actually increased your entertainment budget by $25, but in Dem-speak you SLASHED entertainment spending by $75. You jerk!)
The Wealthy -- (as intended to be interpreted) The source of all societal ills in America. They are wealthy because they are greedy, have exploited the weak and cheated the system. The only reason you don't have more is because they have held you down.  Also the potential resource to justify all future spending increases.

I'll come back occasionally and add to this glossary, so check back.  For now I need to take a break from writing. I've spent the last hour trying to think like a liberal and don't want the resulting shrinkage in my brain to become permanent.

Liberals say the darndest things

I saw this posted by someone along with the comments that it demonstrates the problem with government getting too big.  Now it is certainly true that government has vastly outgrown its legitimate place in our daily lives, however it is upside-down and backwards thinking to believe that this is the evidence of it. 

Elected officials repeatedly and unapologetically exceed their intended limits in a free society, inevitably sacrificing our liberty.  The latest and most egregious example is Obamacare, which effectively seeks to control over 1/6th of the American economy.  It has become commonplace in politics to simply try to pass a law to 'fix' whatever the politicians think is broken.  Most of which is not the proper role of government.

But it is the proper role of government, in fact the primary role, to protect "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".  When it doubt we err on the side of those principles.

The reason that people oppose abortion is because we believe it to be literally killing a human being.  If one really believes it to be murder, does it become acceptable because it began with rape?  Was the rape the fault of that unborn human being?  Is it somehow possible to remedy one terrible, violent act by committing another?  The rape victim certainly deserves our compassion, but granting license to kill is incompatible with compassion.

(By the way, the poster pictured here is a falsehood.  Romney is in favor of those exceptions.  Obama's "truth" team was rebutted by the Los Angeles Times, (the source they quote) but refused to stop telling the lie.)

 

Obama explains his campaign strategy

In this video Pres. Obama explains why his campaign has been focused on trying to distort Mitt Romney's record, character, experience, etc.
Clearly he truly believes what he said 4 years ago because he is doing exactly what he described.

If there were really any evidence AT ALL, even the slightest little shred that he could puff up and exaggerate, we'd be hearing all about that from him.  We're not because there's not.

Love is as Love does

 A PARABLE: A certain man, as a result of genetic predisposition, was addicted to drugs.  After a time he allowed the addiction to define him as a person.  His friends and family loved him and wanted to help him.  Some of them concluded that because he felt so good when he was on the drugs, and suffered so badly when withdrawing from them, that the most compassionate thing to do would be to supply him with the needed drugs and thus prevent the withdrawal symptoms.  They had been warned that the drugs would eventually kill their friend, but they could only see the short term results.  It made them feel good to shield their friend from the pain and chose not to see that they were in fact harming him permanently.
The others had a longer view.  They believed it was more compassionate to not contribute to their friend's eventual destruction and instead did all they could to dissuade him from using drugs.  They knew the short term pain would blind him and cause their friend to feel victimized and become angry.  Nonetheless they loved him enough to take the brunt of his misplaced indignation, knowing it was best for him and that he would live long enough to eventually be grateful.
Question:  Which group actually loved their friend more?

This post will most likely be regarded as hateful and intolerant by some.  It saddens me that they will choose to ignore the point of my comments because they become defensive.  Labeling people with whom you disagree 'hateful' is intellectual laziness.  My motive is a sincere concern for the welfare, the eternal welfare, of all concerned.

I've recently become aware of a 'movement' made up of members of The Church that are actively supporting legalization of same-gender marriage.  I find this tragic because I wholeheartedly believe these well-meaning church members are shortsighted and that their actions serve to hurt the very people they wish to support.  They are not seeing the big picture.

For the purpose of this discussion I'll concede that same-sex attraction comes naturally to those that experience it.  They don't ask for it and can't help it.  For those conflicted by it I have much compassion.  That said, I believe that makes it no different than other unwelcome temptations faced by all people, except that it has become politicized.  The 'natural man' is routinely beset with temptations which are not welcomed, but that we are nonetheless expected to resist.  What could be more natural than lust, greed, envy, selfishness, pride, hatred, etc. Which should we endorse next?  We all have burdens to carry.  It is a vital component of the growth we came here to experience.
For those of faith that profess to believe in scripture, it is inescapable that those who engage in homosexual behavior will be subject to eternal consequences.  Ignoring this truth does not change the reality of it, disliking this truth does not nullify it, garnering supporters will not alter it.  Defining morality is God's privilege, not ours.
True compassion for those that experience same-sex attraction by people of faith requires that we tell the truth for their long term benefit, even if it means taking the brunt of their misplaced indignation.  I know it's hard sometimes.  Professed followers of Christ that enlist to endorse same-sex marriage simply become well-meaning enablers.  They are in fact harming them badly and permanently.  Good intentions cannot divorce us from the consequences of our actions.

Had enough!

Can I just say that I've had more than enough of the piety of Ron Paul's fanatical supporters?
Is that too harsh?
Just because Paul uses the word Constitution in every sentence doesn't mean he's the master of it.
Just because some of us acknowledge that there is true evil in the world, and would rather prevent being attacked rather than waiting to respond to one, doesn't make us blood thirsty.
I've been involved in politics for many years now, at times very closely. I understand feeling passionately and supporting your candidate(s).
However, I have had it up to here (imagine me holding my hand just above my eyebrows) with many of the Ron Paul supporters misusing scripture, falsly insinuating support of church leaders, and generally acting like anyone that doesn't support him is missing a vital chromosome.
I know we will SOMEDAY see the time when the lion and lamb will lay down together. But RIGHT NOW I pity the lamb that tries it.

My summer of discontent

We've all heard that trials in our lives are, or can be, blessings in disguise. I know that blessings can be trials in disguise. (Parents, can I get an AMEN?)
This year I had a particularly difficult trial that I'd like to share. I'm still trying to wrap my mind around the lessons therein.
Through the summer I had been coping with lower back pain. I had a lot of soreness, stiffness, etc. It was pretty bad at times, and not so bad others. During a week of vacation time while Julie was at Education Week my back was quite sore,(enough to keep me from accomplishing much) and I was having some pain in my right leg. It was enough to be bothersome, but it was only when I was sitting or driving. (Oh yeah, I drive for a living.) The following week, the game completely changed!
On my 2nd night back to work the pain was bad enough that I left work early. Once at home I was walking around, doing things just fine. It still only hurt when I sat. When I awoke the next morning and put my feet on the floor, the closest I can come to describing what I felt would be lightning streaking down the back of my right leg. I fell to the floor and crawled to the bathroom.
I had heard of Sciatica before, but never realized how debilitating it can be. For the next 4 days I only left my recliner to use the bathroom, and had to crawl to do that. I actually chose to go thirsty and hungry in order to reduce the need for those trips. After a few days I was able to stand, stooped way over, to walk very short distances. (50 feet) But it was excruciating to do so.
I was diagnosed with a significantly herniated disc (10mm) that was pinching my Sciatic nerve root. I was advised that the preferred treatment was a combination of pain management, muscle relaxers, therapy, and time. I was prescribed Percocet (narcotic), starting seeing a chiropractor 3 times a week, and began getting epidural steroid injections. This course of treatment would prove ineffective and after 8 weeks I was given a test to check for nerve damage. That test is called an EMG, and would fit right in a torture chamber. It indicated nerve damage and on Oct. 5 I was referred to a neurosurgeon. Every surgeon I called was scheduling new patients for late November to January. (Can you imagine, I would STILL be waiting) Through what I am convinced was Divine Intervention, I was able to schedule an initial consultation for October 18.
During this timeline, much more happened that made this an experience I will never forget, and hope to never repeat.
Percocet contains a high level of acetaminophen, which is hard on the liver. I have a history of high liver functions, and was therefore concerned. About 5 weeks into the ordeal I began feeling 'yucky'. It got steadily worse until I was feeling quite sick much of the time which made the overall experience much worse. On Sunday October 16, while at church, I was not only feeling sick, but experiencing a lot of anxiety and restlessness. I had literally been poisoning myself. It seemed like things were closing in around me and I ended up having an emotional breakdown in the clerk's office while getting a blessing from my bishop and High Priest Group leader.
I decided to stop taking the pain medication, knowing the pain would be intense. What my doctor had failed to inform me of is that even when using narcotics responsibly, which I had been, there would be withdrawal symptoms if quit. For the next 72 hours I had all the pain of the pinched Sciatic nerve, the sickness from the drugs, AND the withdrawal symptoms from having quit cold turkey. I only slept about 3 hours total in that time. The withdrawals made it nearly impossible to remain still and the injury of course made moving around very painful. Those long sleepless nights were the darkest times I can recall. I cried, literally, to the Lord like never before.
I saw the surgeon and he agreed to operate. He had 2 open times in his schedule. One was only 6 days away, and the other would have been month later. Fortunately I was able to get all the pre-operative requirements done in time to schedule for the first one. I had surgery on October 24th that has, so far, been successful.
I've come to believe that it was no accident that all those different factors converged to bring me to rock bottom when they did. I know the Lord's hand was in it. I've spent hours contemplating what I was supposed to learn from this and praying that it wouldn't be lost on me. I have some ideas and feelings with which I'm still wrestling. I also have a strong feeling that there will be an event or experience later on that will offer understanding and clarity.
I know I will be more compassionate to others' suffering. That's a good thing.

Barney Frank to Retire From Congress

Good riddance! 'Nuf said.

Too good to not share.

I LOVE THIS! Good luck not crying.
(You'll need to pause the music player at the bottom of this page)

Why not the horse's mouth?

Has anyone else noticed how many people out there that claim to want to know what Mormons believe are content to get their information from anyone BUT Mormons?

Other than naivete, personal agenda, or a preference for gossip over truth, I can't think of any legitimate reasons for such a practice.

Not all is as it seems

I learned some interesting statistics the other day. I had never heard them before but they really weren't surprising to me. I don't think they should be surprising to anyone that believes in freedom.
I'm afraid I can't give the exact numbers, but I can pass along the idea, which is much more important.
First let's mention the statistics that the proponents of wealth redistribution like to use. Over the past 2 decades the number of Americans in the bottom 1/5th of income has increased, and so has the number in the top 1/5th. This suggests that the poor are getting poorer and the rich are getting richer. A common complaint.
But there is more to the statistics than immediately meets the eye. When digging a little deeper we learn that the individuals that made up the bottom 1/5th in the past are now spread across all five groups, with a substantial number of them now in the TOP 1/5th. Only around 15% of past poor still are poor. Those that now make up the bottom 1/5th are 'new poor', consisting mostly of younger Americans getting started and immigrants. So the oppressed apparently really weren't. Most of them prospered, each according to his/her talents and efforts.
Of course most of us never needed a study to demonstrate this truth, we see it all around us.

Anonymous comment

I received a comment today on my posting "The times they are a changin'" that I chose not to publish because it was submitted anonymously. I won't give stage or audience to writers unwilling to have the readers know their identity.
This unknown author believed I painted the poor of this country with too broad a brush. The posting is still there and you can decide that for yourselves. (I do sort of wish the comment could be seen, as it went on to make some logical leaps and accuse me of apparently wishing to simply rid our nation, by force, of all poor people.)
I would however like to give a limited response because, if the accusation were true, it would be a valid point.
The majority of 'poor' people in this country, I think we all know many, are hard-working people doing the best they can to support themselves. Many work multiple jobs and go about living their lives, minding their business, and probably wishing others would do the same. They are not out demanding anything. They can hold their heads high and I respect them.
My posting referred specifically to a different mindset. Those individuals at the Occupy Wall Street rallies do not represent the majority and have no such honor. (The 99% is a complete misnomer.) There is no honor, however cleverly described as "fairness", to demanding that the government take from others in order to have it for yourself. Take a look at the protesters, listen to what they demand, observe how they are behaving. THOSE individuals, if given their way, will eventually destroy the economic, AND THE MORAL fabric of this nation.
And I stand by that!