“Single mothers particularly are automatically Democratic because of the benefits,” Bell said in the interview. “They need benefits to survive, and so that kind of weds them to the Democratic Party.”
Bell went on to say that unmarried women without kids also tend to vote Democratic.
“If you take married women, they aren’t that different from married men. So it’s really a problem with the decline in marriage rates. The Democrats do benefit from that,” he said.
Sandra Fluke, please call your office…
I mean really, how could anyone object to Bell’s statement? Every Democrat since FDR has made it his mission in life to ensure the government handout gravy train is never derailed. LBJ’s Great Society was explicitly created to keep Blacks voting Democrat “for the next 200 years.”
You’re just not supposed to mention that in polite company.
Please go to the plugin admin page to Paste your ad code OR Suppress this ad slot.
Which reminds us of Mitt Romney’s 47 percent moment. Remember when he argued that people were not voting Democratic because they preferred where the party wanted to take this country, or rejected the Republican vision, but because they are paid off with benefits?
Bell’s comment also fits the Republican attitude that it is single mothers — not the men who fail to support them — who are the problem in this country.
Whack that straw man! Single mothers aren’t “the problem.” Policies which keep single mothers dependent on the government, there’s the problem.
Alas, to a liberal it’s never been the Democratic Party’s legacy of failing to solve society’s ills (has anyone seen Camden lately?) That’s always someone else’s fault. Nor can they bring themselves to mention Booker’s unremarkable record as mayor of Newark, where he spent most of his time enriching his cronies while the murder rate soared. Nope, the Real Problem is that Jeff Bell exposed the culture of dependency for what it is, bribery, and that makes him “anti-woman,” as if he wouldn’t promote economic policies that might actually result in women (and men) being better off.
Maybe they don’t want a candidate who would only make their daily struggles more difficult. Harping on the gold standard, Bell’s big issue, doesn’t exactly strike a chord with women who can barely feed their families.
Sheesh. I’ll grant you economics is hard (which is probably why all those guys at the Ledger went into journalism). But try to keep up. We’re now in the sixth year of a presidency that has done nothing but make everyone’s daily struggles more difficult. Obama is printing money like it’s going out of style; more dollars chasing fewer goods means prices keep rising (have you heard what hamburger costs these days?); and with a regulatory climate that destroys good-paying jobs wages have remained stagnant.
Cory Booker wants to continue those policies. Because they include free birth control. Which, come to think of it isn’t working, otherwise we’d have fewer single mothers.
We’re now in the 51st year of the vaunted War on Poverty. Guess what? Poverty won. Einstein said the definition of insanity is to keep doing the same thing while expecting the result to be different. So I’ll ask you, who’s really going to help single mothers? The guy endorsing the same-old, same-old? Or the guy with new ideas?
Jeff Bell for U.S. Senate. Because Cory Booker (and the Star-Ledger) want to keep you poor and stupid.
Please go to the plugin admin page to Paste your ad code OR Suppress this ad slot.
The concept of the government “solving” all the problems of the world has crept into our society over time. With every new program, every new entitlement, the public has gradually become accustomed to the government solving the ills of the world. And what of fact that the government seemed to make all of these problems worse? Well, that’s neglected. After all, the government is taking care of it-I don’t have to worry about it, right?
Starting with the “progressive” movement in the late 19th century and accelerating greatly since the great depression, the government has vastly increased it’s meddling in human affairs. Ignoring the Constitutional limits on its power, the government has expanded its powers and influence to impact everyone’s life, many times, with negative results. This begs the question; does it really work?
While going over every government intervention would require writing a book, it might be prudent to to take an in-depth look at one: public education.
Since 1970, per pupil cost of public education, according to investors.com…
Far from being an engine of wealth creation, the education system is bleeding the economy to death. The U.S. spends 2.3 times as much per pupil in real, inflation-adjusted dollars as it spent in 1970, but the return on this ballooning investment has been less than nothing.
And what is that return? First, let’s take a look at some results of public education over time. Here is the graduation rates in the Us, by state, in 1990.
Next, here are the same figures for 2006
So, all this extra money, and graduation rates continue to drop?
Next, let’s take a look at how much different states spend on education. The next image is from the census bureau.
Utah spent the least per student ($5,257), followed by Arizona ($6,261), Idaho ($6,283), Mississippi ($6,575) and Oklahoma ($6,613). All 10 of the states with the lowest spending per student were in the West or South.
Recent studies reinforce the disconnect between spending and achievement. For example, the American Legislative Exchange Council’s (ALEC) “Report Card on American Education, a State-by-State Analysis 1976– 2000” concluded that “it is clear after studying the data and results that the policies of the past have failed to meet the educational needs of our country’s children. If we continue to spend more money on the existing educational system in an attempt to buy our way to better student achievement, we will condemn another generation of students to mediocrity.” The ALEC study showed no correlation between conventional measures of educational inputs (such as expenditures per pupil and teacher salaries) and educational outputs (such as scores on standardized tests). Simply stated, increased funding does not translate into improved achievement.
An analysis of per-pupil expenditures on a state-by-state basis is illuminating. For example, in the 1998–99 school year, Utah spent $3,807 per pupil whereas Maryland spent $7,059. There is little evidence to suggest that equalizing resources between the two states would equalize achievement. In the 1998 NAEP, 31 percent of eighth graders in both Utah and Maryland scored at proficient or better in reading, despite the large discrepancy in per-pupil expenditures. Also, based on several standardized tests, the ALEC report rated Iowa (ranked 32d in per-pupil expenditures) as having the top-performing public elementary and secondary schools in the nation, followed by Minnesota (14th in spending) and Wisconsin (9th). At the bottom of the achievement ratings were Mississippi (50th in spending), the District of Columbia (5th), and Louisiana (39th).
Expenditures per student have increased over time, and the distribution of the expenditures has been according to popular emphasis: The level of teacher education has increased, teacher experience has increased, and student-teacher ratios have fallen. But the desired outcome—student achievement—has remained flat.
So two of the sacred cows of education do not stand up to scrutiny. Namely, class size and expenditures. Both are mantras of the left, yet neither have any statistical relevance to graduation rate. In simple terms, they have NO IMPACT AT ALL! This however, does not dissuade the left from raising them as issues at any time educational funding is discussed.
This is just one example. There are so many more. For example, the government has run social (in)security into the ground. It’s a ponzi scheme anyway-one that makes Mr. Madoff look like a rank amateur.
They created the fraud and waste infested Medicare and Medicaid programs. They’ve had 40 years to stop the (now, hundreds of) billions of dollars in yearly fraud and waste, with no meaningful results.
They were negligent over obvious warnings and caused the great recession with the CRA and by ignoring all of the warning signs that Fannie and Freddie were about to implode. Instead, at the time, they attacked those releasing the warnings. They now deny their involvement, and instead blame the administration that released multiple warnings over the course of several years. Ironically, the very warnings they ignored.
Even the Post Office is failing! Not a good track record, yet the American people continue to accept these programs, and many ask for more. Based on their record, they’re going to do a great job with health care, right?
As previously stated, as all of these programs are enacted, the people become comfortable with the concept of the government addressing social problems and issues, no matter how badly government performs. But, there is a second, perhaps more damaging aspect to this; that government assistance creates dependency that allows for influence. To illustrate this, let’s go back to the education example. The public school districtsobtain most of their funding either locally, or at the state level (note that this varies greatly by state). However, the federal assistance they receive, as well as the federal funds the states receive, if removed, would cause a “crisis” in the schools. They have become dependent on these funds to provide the services that they have established. Any threat to that funding therefore creates a reaction from the benefiting organization.
It is helpful to remember that the first priority of any bureaucracy is self-maintenance. The stated purpose or task of a bureaucracy is secondary, and is only done to the extent that the primary goal is met. When the primary goal is threatened, there is an immediate reaction. Even surviving at a diminished scale is not acceptable. Protests will be organized, politicians will be lobbied, children & seniors will be exploited, and rent-a-mob will be paid, all in order to maintain the status quo (and influence/power!), even if that status quo is dysfunctional, or even destructive.
In this situation, government is in the position to issue mandates to states, communities, and organizations in order to receive government funding. Government can use its checkbook as a means to push their agenda on the recipient organization. If the government is leftist, the mandates will be to the left-if the government is to the right, the converse holds true. Since the recipient organization is now dependent on the government money to maintain itself and it’s power, it has little choice but to go along with the scheme of the day.
Many organizations, in turn, lobby the government to help craft these mandates, or simply support them with some well-timed contributions and/or PR campaigns. They then have the opportunity to use their influence over government to push their agenda. When so many politicians and organizations are left leaning, is it a surprise that they manipulate us into following some leftist scheme that create more problems, or exacerbates existing ones? The lobbying organizations use their influence over the government to manipulate the government into exerting influence over still others to push an agenda.
To illustrate, let’s again go to the educational arena. With the government having an increased role in society, other groups benefit from the intervention, prompting them to lobby, donate, and otherwise influence the government’s activities. For example, increased spending and decreased student to teacher ratios benefit the NEA. The NEA supports and lobbies for the increased spending and benefits from all of the additional teachers that are hired as a result. More teachers lead to more union dues, which lead to more money with which to influence the government, which leads to more teacher and union dues…you get the point. In the end, powerful groups gain more power by influencing the government’s actions, as well as assuring their own funding stream. Since many of these organizations, and particularly the NEA are leftist, the mandates that the government decrees are increasingly socialist in nature. Here is evidence of the political nature of the NEA. It is a long video, so the part of interest is at 16:00.
The results for public education are seen every day. Violence, pregnancy, poor test scores, and increasing drop out rates have all continued, or even increased, with the advent of increased funding. It actually appears that the social engineering aspect of education is the goal. With the teacher acting as facilitator, the children are guided, mislead, and manipulated to a pre-determined ideological mindset. Again this is all set from Washington, with the left and the lobbyists manipulating each other, and, in the end, you and I.
Additionally, government and its supporters seek to eliminate all functional or ideological competition. Taking the lead of most totalitarian regimes in the last century, they seek to eliminate threats to their eminence and power. Other ideas are poisonous to their plans, so they are banned. For example, home-schooled children do not meet their leftist ideological goals, and perform at a higher academic level. Rather than take what works from this system, the left seeks to ban it. Again, if high scores and knowledge were a concern, they might study the matter. However, the goal is indoctrination, so home schooling must be ridiculed, restricted, and then banned. They have not let this goal drop from their list of priorities, and they are using their influence with the state and federal governments in a schemes to gradually restrict, then ban, home schooling. They can use their influence to write government legislation or regulations to their liking, while the other entities are subjected to the whims of the leftist government, as well as their well-fed supporters. After all, government assistance comes with strings attached!
So, where does this leave us? Caught in the middle of lobbyists, government, interest groups, thugs, goons, and mobs. Each group uses it’s influence over government to enrich and empower itself. in turn government uses it’s “endless” checkbook to fund schools ( and other entities), and makes demands in exchange for the funding. In the end, we all lose.
The solution to this mess is simple; return the federal government to its Constitutional role. When the government does little, as it should, there is no motivation to influence it. If the government has no influence over education, why would the NEA pay off some congressmen or senators? If the federal government stayed out of health care, why would the insurance companies, big pharma, the unions, and any of a number of leftist groups attempt to influence it? If the government didn’t try to control and thereby ruin our energy supply, why would big oil try to influence it? In the end, it is the size of government that creates the problem. A large and powerful central government invites corruption and creates dependency-cutting it down to size solves both problems. Power does corrupt, and the more power the government attaches to itself, the more corrupt it becomes. It matters little if the administration is Democratic or Republican, the size of government, and it’s accompanying corruption, makes victims of us all.
Milwaukee County Sheriff David A. Clarke Jr sees the Liberal policies that have destroyed the black community for what they are, and he’s not afraid to tell you how he feels. His recently penned Op-Ed in the Washington Times lays it on the line and he pulls no punches. He gets it. He knows that big government begets dependency and dependency begets societal breakdown.
Allen West is unique in that he speaks plainly, and cuts through the political nonsense to identify tough truths. I’ve been covering for a long time, that democrats/liberals have not really changed their opinion of the blacks. They are still the party of the KKK, and of Jim Crow. However, their rhetoric and means of oppression have. Instead of segregation, they use welfare and a failed public education system. Instead of lynchings and forced sterilization, they use abortion and prisons. And, in EVERY circumstance, they resist any effort to change it.
In a recent article on RealClearPolitics called The University Utopia, Robert Tracinski, former securities analyst for Morningstar and now the publisher of The Tracinski Letter, tackled a very important question- Why do the young vote for dependency—when the essence of youth is a quest for independence?
…So take a look at the college experience, particularly for a liberal arts major, from this perspective. You study topics in which the answers are subjective, no one is too concerned about whether it has any practical application or economic value, and everyone is pretty much expected to repeat the conventional wisdom. You express abstract concern for the poor and for the starving masses of the Third World, while never actually mixing with anyone from outside the prosperous First World middle class. Someone else, off at a distance, provides for your material needs, paying for your housing, food, clothing, and condoms. But at the same time, no one pokes into your personal life or asks too many questions about who you’re sleeping with, what you’re smoking, or what you do with your free time. Finally, this whole lifestyle is paid for with huge amounts of debt, and it is considered bad form to ask too many questions about how big the debt is or how you’re ever going to pay it all back.
Does any of this sound familiar? Put it all together, and college life is the contemporary left’s ideal. The universities are liberal utopias…
From my own experiences in education (teaching in several school districts around Detroit and Flint and their suburbs), I would also suggest that this same dynamic also applies to students in high school and middle school as well.
High school students, and to a lesser extent middle school students, are cared for and financially supported by their parents, who never talk about how much money it is costing them- the majority of students in my classes can’t even venture a guess at how much their parents make or where the money goes in their family, and asking these questions appears to be discouraged by parents today.
Separated from the reality of money and discouraged from discovering how everything is paid for in their family, they live in an uncomfortable bubble- aware that they are freeloading on the system and guilty because of that, but unable to help out or even know how much of a freeloader they are. Four to seven years of their formative life they are raised in this environment, not having to contribute anything financially to their family and yet eating and sleeping and watching TV and talking on the phone and driving a car paid for by the family. This sort of communism only exists in the family because parents love and care for their children, yet this point is never even made to the children because to voice this sort of reality is apparently not good form anymore in our society.
And after leaving school, students go home, where they can turn on the television or go on the internet or hang out at friends houses and learn about and observe and live in a world where social choices apparently have no consequences. Sleeping around before marriage, smoking pot and doing drugs, engaging in socially deviant behavior, bullying others via facebook or email, and getting caught up in fake drama about fake controversies is the sort of unsupervised freedom that students will continue in college.
I’m not blaming the parents for this- many parents in today’s economy are working longer and longer hours just to make ends meet and even when they get home they have to work on side jobs or freelance contracts or worry about money, and that is time that they can’t supervise and raise their children. And parents are competing for time and attention with a range of competitors. The media is chief of these competitors- with slick marketing and high production values- but teachers are also to blame for the increasingly amount of schoolwork that inefficient and poor teachers send home with children to compensate for their lack of teaching ability. It’s tough for both parents and students today, and in this tough environment students are given increasingly personal freedom without knowing about or anyone ever talking to them about the responsibility that goes along with this freedom.
Children therefore have an utter lack of financial and economic liberty buy yet extensive social and personal liberty. And when you combine these two, you produce a liberal. This is exactly what a liberal is- someone who wants someone else to provide for their economic needs while wanting total freedom to engage in their own personal desires.
To create a conservative child you would need to reverse this dynamic- you would need to teach your child about economic issues and the cost of goods and services and what sort of fiscal challenges your family faces and even how much the parents earn and what the family budget is, while putting limits on and teaching about the consequences of and showing the downsides of total personal freedom and how wrong it is to embrace hedonism.
…A person’s view of life isn’t just influenced from the top down, from the ideas they are taught. It is also learned from the bottom up, from their actual experiences of life. The most powerful combination is when ideas and life experience coincide, and that is what happens in college. Young people learn the same lessons from their professors’ lectures as they do from the lifestyle of the dorm room. This also explains why college graduates tend to move to the right as they get older. They move to the right as they get out into the world, start businesses, start families, and take on the task of becoming truly independent and self-supporting….
…One way we can change the youth culture is to hasten the ed-tech revolution, breaking down the role of the traditional universities in favor of an alternative that, in addition to being a lot less expensive, gets students out of the dorm room and out into the economy sooner. I suspect that this would also hasten the decoupling of scientific and technological education from the humanities, depriving the leftist indoctrinators of the captive audience handed over to them in a traditional university system. It would also help break down the cultural class division between the college-educated and the non-college-educated, and perhaps most important of all, it has the potential to change the educational experience of young people so that education becomes associated, not with a four-year holiday and puttering around in the subjective humanities, but with a young person’s first steps toward real independence in the world of work. It would change the message young people hear from higher education, while also changing the kind of life experience they get….
In order for our nation to become more conservative- and by this I mean productive and creating wealth and understanding the importance of money in shaping choices and values, while at the same time recognizing the important role that society and culture and values and morals play- then we need to start creating more conservative children. And to aid in this, I suggest you read the whole article and start looking after your own children and grandchildren and nieces and nephews and begin to go to work on them teaching them economic liberty and social responsibility.
UPDATE: Another idea that I have on how you can help create a more conservative future is by purchasing the board game The Game of Life. This board game will help teach your children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren important values. Buy it and play it with them at some time and start making a difference.
During President Obama’s recent State of the Union address he mentioned that “our scientists are mapping the human brain” leading to speculation on when the mapping would be done and what would be discovered.
The wait is over. The Brain Activity Map Project, as it is called, has been finished. And what it reveals about the brain has scientist startled.
“We found profound differences in brain activity between Democrats and Republicans” said a neuroscientist involved with the project.
In the interest of the dissemination of knowledge I will now present the government’s findings in two parts. Part One will be dedicated to the findings about the Democratic brain.
The Democratic Brain
What surprised researchers the most when mapping the Democratic brain is the different function played by the Cerebral cortex.
Scientists came into the study convinced that the Cerebral cortex played the major role in awareness, thought, language and consciousness. After viewing the brains of Democrats their findings had to be revised.
“Amazingly we found that the cerebral cortex in a Democrat served only one function” according to a neurologist.
When we asked a Democrat to solve a riddle we found no brain activity. But when we asked that same Democrat if he wanted some free stuff, god his brain activity went off the charts. In fact the Democrats became belligerent until he was provided with said free stuff. I’m writing a paper on it. I call it the “Freeius Stuffius” syndrome. That’s Latin for “free stuff.” What? Okay so it’s not Latin. Cut me some slack. I’m very lonely. Does anyone know you’re here? Touch it. Touch my shame. Just touch it! It’s free!
Scientists also found that in Democrats the Cerebellum, the oldest evolutionary part of the brain that controls motor skills seems to grow over time.
We showed Democrats a PowerPoint presentation of the Federal government. And damn if the cerebellum didn’t grow larger when looking at the presentation. We have no explanation for this. When we stopped the presentation the cerebellum soon returned to its normal size. We also found that repeated exposure to the PowerPoint document permanently enlarged the cerebellum. This was naturally quite dangerous as the cerebellum is supposed to be limited in scope. The larger it got the more it took over other brain functions until it had almost a monopoly on brain activity.
Scientists tried to wean the Democrat brain from dependency on the federal government but were unsuccessful as the brain tended to explode.
While researching one story, I found another. It seems that welfare fraud is not only rampant, but also encouraged, Here is some video coverage…
Waiting for claims that it doesn’t happen, or that these are “isolated incidents.”
5, 4, 3, 2, 1….
Why is it encouraged? Well, if your goal is to make more and more people dependent in the system, and therefore democratic voters, you can’t let a little thing like eligibility and law interfere, can you?
This is an old video, but it does show how the people at OWS display their sense of entitlement and dependency.
You see all the hallmarks…
1. He is uninformed
2. When presented with factual information, he ignores it. To quote our friend Bezmenov, “Facts say nothing to him.”
3. He honestly thinks that society owes him what he wants.
Why go over this? Well, several million people that think like this put Obama back in the oval office. We underestimated their numbers. They are ignorant, entitled, and they vote. And, we’re stuck with them.
‘Welfare Spending Equates to $168 Per Day for Every Household in Poverty’
The amount of money spent on welfare programs equals, when converted to cash payments, about “$168 per day for every household in poverty”…
…welfare spending per day per household in poverty is $168, which is higher than the $137 median income per day. When broken down per hour, welfare spending per hour per household in poverty is $30.60, which is higher than the $25.03 median income per hour.
I don’t think much more explanation is needed. We are now on the slippery slope, and Obama is greasing the skids.
Elections have consequences, and remember to never call dependency on government dependency-it’s bad!
The city of Detroit faces a major financial crisis and one member of city council thinks President Barack Obama should step in and help.
City Council member JoAnn Watson said Tuesday the citizens support of Obama in last month’s election was enough reason for the president to bailout the struggling the city. (Click the video player to listen)
“Our people in an overwhelming way supported the re-election of this president and there ought to be a quid pro quo and you ought to exercise leadership on that,” said Watson. “Of course, not just that, but why not?”
At one time, this would have been considered shameful. Now, it’s openly discussed in public meetings. But, let’s not call it dependency, right?
When you give away free stuff things that other people are paying for, you have to expect some fraud and abuse along the way. For a great example, we need to look no further than the infamous ObamaPhone. But, it seems that people are loving their free paid for by us phones so much, they can’t stop at just one. Liberty News has the story…
Note that Obama’s own minions found that more than 250,000 people have more than one ObamaPhone. I guess it’s probably racist to point that out, right?
The economy is collapsing. Our embassies are being overrun. Our diplomats are being murdered, and our own government is blaming it on the First Amendment. And Obama doesn’t know what to do about any of it, except for his usual plan of lying his ass off. So he and his enablers in the media hope you’ll be distracted by Romney’s “gaffe” of criticizing the Democrats’ strategy. They hope you’ll be offended that Romney pointed out what the Dems have been telling you your whole life: You need the government to provide for you, and you can’t go a single day without a handout. They hope you’re as credulous as the people who voted for them last time.
And, just in case you thought that video was an isolated incident…
As we know, as Mr. Treacher points out, that the Democratic campagn is based on dependency, such as portrayed in the Life of Julia…
The entire presentation is about how Obama does all of these great things for people, and how Romney would take them all away. In other words, Julia is dependent on government, and should Romney be elected, she would have to fend for herself.
In fact, how many times have democrats made reference to Republicans making people “fend for themselves?”
Um, Mitt is just pointing out what the rest of us already know, so where’s the controversy? The Democrats have grown the dependent classes TO be perpetual voters. Just think of it. They ruined the schools, and resist all efforts to fix them. They created the nanny state to keep people dependent on the government. And then, every election cycle, they go out and tell these dependent classes that they better vote for them, or they will most surely die. Their own rhetoric proves candidate Romney correct.
Nearly a decade ago, I was at a training program, when the agenda went off task, and the topic of “white privilege” was discussed. Needless to say, I chose to not play along. Being grounded in reality, I used evidence, both anecdotal and statistical, to argue my point. Of course, that was explained away and denied, but it was a learning experience.
Being a leftist concept, it has continued to grow, in spite of reality. Here is a campaign run at the University of Minnesota at Duluth, via Campus Reform…
The liberal failure is pretty obvious here, but a response has been crafted, via The Blaze..
So then, why the “white privilege” argument? I think the answers are pretty simple. It tells people that hard work and individualism are meaningless. If society is set up for a certain “people,” their only recourse is government dependency. After all, if individual effort cannot overcome the “institutional bias” against them (despite evidence to the contrary), we must have a government powerful enough to steal from the privileged people, and give to the others. And, once the groups are dependent, they will no longer have the will to care for themselves. After all, why try when it doesn’t matter anyway? Just stay on the government plantation. Oh, and by the way, vote democrat!
But there’s even more. The purveyors of this nonsense need to inflict guilt on the “privileged classes” in order for their system to work. They need useful idiots to go along with the nonsense, as well as promote it. Guilt allows the useful idiots to accept the “punishment” for their “privilege.”
However, reality does show that freedom isn’t for white people, it works for all people. But, freedom is antithetical to our leftist friends, so that must be discarded. A free people do not make good sheeple, so freedom must be undermined at every turn.
Of course pointing out that freedom is for all races is probably racist, or something like that.
We’ve often pointed out that it seems that the left wants people dependent on Government for their daily needs. After all, if you get everything you have from the government, you’ll probably vote for the politicians that will keep it coming. The following video from The Center for Freedom and Prosperity explains the personal dangers of government dependency…
I really don’t know where Republicans dredged up their current freshmen class. But I imagine that somewhere in 2008 America, the world’s most boring circus closed down, releasing all their white-collar sideshow attractions into the wild. Then the Republican Party came by, flashed a little cash to lure them into an unused cattle truck, and dumped the whole lot of them in front of the doors of Congress. Get to it, boys!
Rep. Joe Walsh (R-StopCallingMeADeadbeatDad-IL) is of that batch. He’s been in a bit of a meltdown lately, apparently because he realized that he actually had to get re-elected, it wasn’t just a one time thing. Or, equally likely, he’s always been this much of a toad, but nobody gave a damn until the state gave him a national platform from which he could broadcast his toadishness to the rest of us:
“The Democratic Party promises groups of people everything,” Walsh, a conservative freshman from suburban Chicago, said during a Schaumburg, Ill., speech caught on video provided by CREDO SuperPAC, an anti-tea party group. “They want the Hispanic vote, they want Hispanics to be dependent on government, just like they got African Americans dependent on government. That’s their game.”
Walsh goes on to say that civil rights activist Jesse Jackson “would be out of work if [African Americans] weren’t dependent on government.”
The various welfare programs of the 1960’s had a tremendous impact on the African American family. Not long after the creation of these programs, the rates of fatherless families began to rise. They have continued to rise for decades, and now, over 70% of African American children grow up without a father living in the home. That was not the case prior to welfare, and the programs have been identified as the cause for this. As well all know, children raised in fatherless homes are many times more likely to have lower educational achievement, use drugs, and engage in other criminal activities. However, what has been done to correct it? Has the intervention of the government really made it better…or worse?
Or, was it, “…we’ve got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference.”
It is also well know that the educational system has failed our children. We also know that minority children suffer even more.
African American high school students are notably falling behind their white counterparts in graduation rates, dropout rates, literacy rates, and college preparedness rates.
In 2005, only 55 percent of all black students graduated from high school on time with a regular diploma, compared to 78 percent of whites.
In 2005, the on-time graduation rate for black males was 48 percent nationally; for white males it was 74 percent.
Nearly half of the nation’s African American students, but only 11 percent of white students, attend high schools in which graduation is not the norm.
In 2002, 23 percent of all black students who started public high school left it prepared for college, compared to 40 percent of whites.
On average, African American and Hispanic twelfth-grade students read at approximately the same level as white eighth graders.
About half of poor, urban ninth graders read at only a fifth- or sixth-grade level.
The National Assessment of Educational Progress reports that 88 percent of African American eighth graders read below grade level, compared to 62 percent of white eighth graders.
Now, we’ve seen successful alternatives, but “progressives” in the unions attack these, and when President Obama was elected, he shut down the DC waiver program, which greatly benefited mostly poor, African American kids.
Now, these set the stage for economic failure. Statistically, anyone growing up without an intact family, and then being uneducated, has a far greater chance of qualifying for government benefits.
And, what happens whenever anyone suggests correcting these? Massive resistance from Democrats!
Here is an example from Wisconsin. What happens to a school with a mostly African American students send over 80% of their graduates to college? A leftist mob shows up, promising to shut it down!
So, any effort to allow families to escape horrendous public schools is met by a mostly white mob of left-leaning union members, promising to shut the school down.
Of course, we could just listen to LBJ…
“These Negroes, they’re getting pretty uppity these days and that’s a problem for us since they’ve got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we’ve got to do something about this, we’ve got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference. For if we don’t move at all, then their allies will line up against us and there’ll be no way of stopping them, we’ll lose the filibuster and there’ll be no way of putting a brake on all sorts of wild legislation. It’ll be Reconstruction all over again.”
LBJ, Democratic President of the United States.
“I’ll have those n*ggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years.”
Lyndon B. Johnson to two governors on Air Force One according Ronald Kessler’s Book, “Inside The White House”
So, when the Democrats oversee the destruction of minority family structures, make sure than minorities do not get educated, and then offer them more and more benefits in exchange for votes, we couldn’t possibly mean that it’s all intentional. After all, when it’s gone on for decades, and the Democrats resist any efforts to do anything to fix it, it couldn’t possibly be intentional, could it?
Lately I’ve been doing a great deal of thinking on the topic of self-governance and I’m beginning to wonder if we’re capable of self-governance anymore. It you ask the five different people what self-governance means to them you will get five different answers. The most common answer I hear is that self-governance means the people set up our own form of government to be governed by. This response is not only incomplete but totally misses the mark. Self-governance is much more than setting up a form of government and a system of laws to govern us; it’s about the inalienable rights we’re all born with and understanding that each of us is sovereign with the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Governments, if deemed necessary are instituted to secure the blessings of these rights. Have we forgotten this basic truth about the nature of self-governance and the role government plays in our lives? By what I’m seeing these days the answer is yes.
Somewhere along the way in this great experiment we call America many of our citizens have become apathetic about liberty and self-governance. They’re ok with the government whether on the state or federal level telling them what they can eat, what permits they need to set up a lemon-aide stand, what they can build on their own property, how much electricity they should be using, where they can hunt and fish, what kind of car they should buy and so on. Government is the first entity they look to for solutions when a natural disaster occurs or when we experience a major economic downturn. They look for the FEMA trailers or economic safeguards to give them peace of mind. In fact people appear to be perfectly ok with having their lives completely regulated. It absolves them from taking any personal responsibility for their actions and codifies everything they do in a nice of little rule book. It gives them a sense of security in an ever changing environment.
The problem is our lives have become so regulated and so managed by governments on the state and federal level our choices are now becoming limited as more and more regulations are imposed on us by politicians who feel it’s their duty to make life safer for all us. They believe they have some sort misguided responsibility to watch over us like children because we cannot be trusted to make to right choices or the choices they want us to make. Let’s face it we are no longer practicing self-governance under these rules of engagement. We’re living under what Mark Levin calls a “soft tyranny.” This is not the kind of self-governance our Founders were speaking of in their writings.
How is it that this basic truth about self-governance is as foreign to the average citizen as calculus is to me? It doesn’t take a PhD in American History to find this information. It is readily available to all on the internet. I believe it’s because many people have become apathetic about both liberty and self-governance and would rather surrender their liberties to the government for the sake of some type of security. It’s easier this way. The life of a slave requires very little thinking. You do as you are told and hope by the end of the day there’s enough left over to pay the bills and put food on the table. This is rapidly becoming the American reality for many people; depending on the scraps the government throws our way. How sad is that?
My fear is the more people become dependent on the government the less desire they will have to break free from this self-imposed slavery. The government will continue to regulate every aspect of our lives and we will forget how to govern ourselves. This is the end goal of the progressive left. Create a class of non-thinking citizens who are dependent on the government for their basic needs. It allows the government to grant and take away rights as they see fit and it destroys the sovereign individual. This is the vision the progressive left has for America and each of us. Until we get back to the basics and understand our rights are inalienable and nonnegotiable we will continue to march down the path towards tyranny. And for me this is completely unacceptable.
We need to wake up and reestablish the constitution as the law of the land and restrain government as it once was in the past. If we fail our children will be slaves of the state and will never taste the sweetness of liberty.