Black Clergy, Petitioning Government, and The Failure of Black Responsibility

si

Prior to last week’s election, an ad hoc group of black clergy led by Jacqueline C. Rivers- executive director of the Seymour Institute for Black Church and Policy Studies in Boston, and recently elected Bishop, Frank M. Reid III, former longtime senior pastor of Bethel A.M.E. Church in Baltimore, MD., delivered a letter to Hillary Clinton’s campaign headquarters in Brooklyn.

Heavily anticipating a win against Donald Trump, the open letter questioned how Clinton’s administration might have addressed various problems within black communities- high rates of abortion, police brutality, and the lack of quality education and economic opportunities.

The 25 signatories, self-identified Democrats and “Independents,” reminded Clinton of the importance of the black vote, and insisted Clinton not ignore the “69,000 black churches in the US.” They also demanded that Clinton “accord the Black Church the same respect that would be conferred on wealthy white donors.”

Good luck with that because it’s never going to happen. Blacks have neither the financial nor political capital to demand they be considered equal to white donors (or any other demographic), let alone taken seriously when they do. As black voters, we haven’t earned that kind of respect.

The coalition of black faith leaders concluded the letter by requesting a meeting with her during her first 100 days in office to discuss these and other issues in more detail.

Unfortunately for these concerned black faith leaders, there will be no meeting with the Clinton administration because there will be no Clinton administration. Donald Trump was elected as the 45th president of the Untied States.

That there was no letter delivered to president-elect Donald Trump’s headquarters is symptomatic of the black dependence on Democrat policies to solve black crises.

As representatives of black Christianity, the signatories should be commended for having brought attention to several important issues complicating the quality of life for too many black Americans.

However, this letter was counterproductive. Why are black clerics still trying to persuade Democrats to take black concerns seriously? The constructive criticism isn’t of these black religious leaders, necessarily, but with the habit of outsourcing black responsibility and the preoccupation with the government to solve the calamities in black society.

Democrats have deliberately taken the black vote for granted since black folk decided en masse to compliantly give their votes to the Democrat party while asking for nothing respectable in return for their faithfulness.

Democrats see no obligation to earn black votes but still receive them; Republicans observe blacks being politically snubbed, its apparent acceptability, and simply don’t see a reason to bother. Though Donald Trump has expressed some interest and sympathy for the concerns of black society, there’s no guarantee that as president, Republicans will act on that interest, meaning the bipartisan habit of ignoring black voters will most likely continue.

Both political parties being indifferent to black problems is a reality but blacks alone are responsible.

Aside from rightly petitioning the government to pass legislation that addresses education- improved quality, school vouchers, and parental choice- and economic issues- reduced regulation, encouraging enterprise zones, and minimizing minimum wage costs to make blacks more employable, black religious leaders shouldn’t plead with politicians to resolve black moral pathologies that can and must be primarily challenged by local churches in their respective communities.

To be certain, the majority of the issues raised in this correspondence are moral problems.

The missive’s full-throated condemnation of the devastating effects of abortion on black communities is spot-on. The catastrophic impact of abortion in black communities and the rates in which black women have abortions is addressed, noting that, “Blacks account for roughly 38% of all abortions in the country though we represent only 13% of the population.” That’s racial self-extermination.

The letter also affirms that because people are “created in God’s image,” innocent human life deserves protection against the “deliberate destruction… in its most vulnerable state.”

Yet the cosigners questioned Clinton (and the inquiry has to be rhetorical considering the topic, whom they addressed) as to what her administration might have done to mitigate the high numbers of black abortions. Hillary Clinton was the recipient of an award named after racial eugenicist Margret Sanger and is an enthusiastic supporter of abortion up to the point of birth. Democrat party devotion to abortion is religious in nature, and it ain’t changing.

Black church leaders are much better suited to confront the abortion issue- not only because it’s a moral problem- but because of their proximity to the problem. The women having these abortions are members of their local churches and religious institutions. The problem and solution of reducing high abortion rates comes down to moral redemption and black responsibility, and that starts with local church leaders redeeming theologies of life that flatly denounce sexually-destructive behaviors (including abortion as birth control) and encouraging productive ones; not government intervention.

The same goes for the disproportionately high black crime rates that encourage police presence in black neighborhoods.

The delegates of black Christianity were correct in highlighting black criminality, a “calamity” as they called it, but they sought action and resolution from the wrong person, party, and medium.

Though effective policing and commensurate sentencing for criminality are needed, black churchgoers must deliberately and resolutely rebuke the depravity of black thugs pursing death and devastation or more blacks- particularly the innocent- will suffer the predictable consequences. Black churches must reject the tradition of silence regarding this issue. Black reticence condones the very community-destroying behaviors these black Christians were spotlighting.

If blacks want to reduce the occurrences of lethal police encounters, black churches must vociferously repudiate the cultural disorders and criminal stereotypes that draw the eye and ire of law enforcement. Black churches would do well in reviving and emphasizing a religious temperament that includes family stability, fatherhood, self-respect, personal responsibility, and the love of neighbor and self to minimize black criminality and tension-filled police responses. Black churches need to maximize the gospel and other resources that are instrumental in changing lives and overcoming the negative aspects of black culture.

Blacks must control the things that are within our power to control. We must stop preserving the posture of weakness and helplessness, depending on politics to save us.

The issues raised by these black church leaders are significant, and more blacks need to honestly confront what’s destroying black society, painful as it is. We must candidly identify the defeatism in black society and confess the fact that we’re sabotaging ourselves.

Black faith leaders have been called and entrusted to bear witness to the transformative nature of the Christian gospel on the lives it touches. Petitioning the altar of government for restoration implies that the gospel of Christ is pragmatically insufficient when compared to the gospel of big government.

Salvation is from God, not the government.

Advertisements

Democrats Don’t Want Poor Kids To Have A Good Education

120610_barack_obama_education_605_ap

Barack Obama and his party continually pitch themselves as the defenders and the political party of the poor. To look at the picture they paint, only they are looking out for the best interests of those living in poverty.

Conservatives and Republicans on the other hand- again based on the political and moral picture painted by Democrats- are said to hate the poor. They not only hate the poor, they want to keep the poor, in poverty. Read what’s been said by Democrats about Republicans since last week regarding the quality of life of the residents in Baltimore. Even though Baltimore hasn’t had a Republican mayor since the 1960’s, Republicans were still blamed for not addressing- or not having solutions to- the poverty-plagued pathologies that contributed to last week’s riots and mayhem.

But any cursory look will pull up numerous attempts- some serious, others not- by Republicans and conservatives to address and alleviate the effects of poverty. One issue that conservatives repeatedly bring up as a way to help the poor is the policy of educational reform and school choice. Conservatives believe that one of the sure fire ways to equip the poor- and give them the foundation needed to help escape the bowels of poverty is to allow them access to a good education. Part of that access is giving poor parents the opportunity to choose the kind and quality of schools their children attend in addition to the quality of teachers their children should have. This opportunity should be extended to all Americans, but particularly poor Americans. Forty years ago economist and Nobel prize winner Milton Friedman said that the most important thing we can do to help the (black) poor is to implement the school voucher system to combat the lifelong effects of poor education that leads to fewer opportunities for the poor to improve their economic conditions. This is precisely why conservatives are in favor of school vouchers which enable school choice.

But the Democrats want nothing to do with poor people having that choice, and they diligently and enthusiastically prevent parents from having the freedom to choose what school their children attend. Why are Democrats/Progressives so vehemently against school choice? Barack Obama enjoys the freedom and liberty to send Sasha and Malia to Sidwell Friends- a private school that costs more than $37k- per student, per year, but he and his party steadfastly refuse to extend that same freedom and opportunity of school choice to the poor parents in his adopted hometown of Chicago- or other poor parents across the country.

In my opinion, that’s morally and politically indefensible.

Democrats talk a lot about economic ‘fairness’ and “justice” for the poor, but conveniently avoid talking about educational ‘fairness’ or educational justice. Democrats talk incessantly about a “woman’s choice” when it comes to abortion, but they don’t allow a woman who chooses life to “choose” where her children go to school. This is because Democrats have a vested interest in keeping poor people poor in the same way they have a vested interest in keeping blacks perpetually preoccupied by racial boogeymen- to keep both groups solidly voting for Democrats.

Look at a recent Wall Street Journal article highlighting the benefits the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program continues to have for poor- mostly black- children- and how Barack Obama continues his efforts to defund the program.

The D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program, which George W. Bush signed into law in 2004, has so far funded private-school tuition for nearly 5,000 students, 95% of whom are African-American. They attend religious schools, music and arts schools, even elite college-prep schools. Last month at the Heritage Foundation in Washington, I met with about 20 parents and children who participate in the program. I also visited several of these families in their homes—which are located in some of the most beaten-down neighborhoods in the city, places that in many ways resemble the trouble spots in Baltimore.

These families have now pulled together to brace for a David vs. Goliath fight to save the program. For the seventh straight year, President Obama has proposed eliminating this relatively tiny scholarship fund, which at $20 million accounts for a microscopic 0.0005% of the $4 trillion federal budget.

The parents and students point out that the scholarship program has extraordinary benefits—they use phrases like “a godsend for our children,” “a life saver” and “our salvation.” One father, Joseph Kelley, a tireless champion of the program, says simply, “I truly shudder to think where my son would be today without it.”

[Virginia Ford] tells me that “kids in the scholarship program have consistently improved their test scores, have higher graduation rates, and are more likely to attend college than those stuck in the D.C. public schools.”

The numbers back her up. An Education Department-funded study at the University of Arkansas recently found that graduation rates rose 21 percentage points—to 91%, from 70%—for students awarded the scholarship vouchers through a lottery, compared with a control group of those who applied for but didn’t get the scholarships. For all D.C. public schools, the high-school graduation rate is closer to an abysmal 56%.

“If you’ve got a program that’s clearly working and helping these kids, why end it?” asks Pamela Battle, whose son Carlos received a voucher and was able to attend the elite Georgetown Day School. He’s now at Northeastern University in Boston. She says Carlos “almost surely wouldn’t have gone to college” without the voucher. 

[A]mazingly, these energized parents are opposed by almost every liberal group, even the NAACP, and nearly every Democrat in Congress—including Eleanor Holmes Norton, who represents the District of Columbia in Congress but opposes a program that benefits her own constituents... Mr. Obama won’t even meet with these parents. A few years ago the voucher supporters held a rally with 3,000 minority and disadvantaged families in front of the Capitol to protest President Obama’s proposed elimination of the program for all new students. Republicans in Congress, including House Speaker John Boehner, one of the program’s strongest supporters, stood in solidarity with the families, while Nancy Pelosi and her Democratic colleagues were nowhere to be seen.

Interestingly enough, I’d be very curious to know how many of these parents who’re desperately fighting to save the voucher program their children benefit so wonderfully from actually voted for Barack Obama and the Democrat party the last several election cycles. Though I sympathize with these parents, they can’t complain about a problem- the lack of school choice, in this instance- if they are directly contributing to the problem- voting for the very party that stands in the way of education reform and school choice.

So, Obama diligently and immorally continues his efforts to end school choice for poor black children in Washington, D.C. for no good reason. In addition, Obama’s Justice Department, led by then Attorney General Eric Holder, sued the state of Louisiana to try and prevent the implementation of a voucher program that would also allow poor black children a chance to escape failing schools.

The Justice Department is trying to stop a school vouchers program in Louisiana that attempts to help families send their children to independent schools instead of under-performing public schools.

The agency wants to stop the program, led by Republican Gov. Bobby Jindal, in any school district that remains under a desegregation court order.

In papers filed in U.S. District Court in New Orleans, the agency said Louisiana distributed vouchers in 2012-13 to roughly 570 public school students in districts that are still under such orders and that “many of those vouchers impeded the desegregation process.”

The federal government argues that allowing students to attend independent schools under the voucher system could create a racial imbalance in public school systems protected by desegregation orders.

Jindal — who last year expanded the program that started in 2008 — said this weekend that the department’s action is “shameful” and said President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder “are trying to keep kids trapped in failing public schools against the wishes of their parents.”

Desegregation orders? Really? In a state where 88 percent of public school students are black, claiming desegregation is the hight of foolishness and shows they truly have no defense for that which cannot be defended.

Another progressive, Bill deBlasio- the socialist mayor of New York City tried to limit both funding and expansion of successful charter schools immediately after he was elected to office. He also wanted to increase the rents of these schools which would’ve forced them to divert resources away from deserving students.  Like D.C. and Louisiana, the majority of the students who benefit from school choice in New York City are black and increasingly Latino.

In light of that, look what USA Today had to say about the results many New York City charter schools are achieving-

Earlier this year, Stanford’s Center for Research on Educational Outcomes (CREDO) revealed that in just one school year, the typical New York City charter school student gained about five additional months of learning in math and one additional month of learning in reading compared with students in traditional public schools.

These gains, repeated year after year, are helping to erase achievement gaps between urban and suburban students. A rigorous 2009 study from Stanford professor Caroline Hoxby found that students who attend New York City¹s charter schools from Kindergarten through 8th grade will make up 86% of the suburban-urban achievement gap in math and 66% of the gap in English.

What makes these results so impressive is that charter schools are not elite private schools. They are tuition-free public schools, funded by taxpayers and open to any student.

New York has roughly 70,000 students enrolled in public charter schools, and the numbers are on the rise. This school year alone, 14,000 new students in the city enrolled in charter schools ­ with the vast majority in low-income neighborhoods.

All of these aggressive efforts (and many, many more) to limit school choice for the poor are from the very same political party that claims to have the best interests of the poor in mind. Keeping kids trapped in failing schools is good for the poor how, exactly? How does anyone who self-identifies as a Democrat, politician or otherwise, morally defend the status quo of forcing poor children to stay in failing schools that deliver substandard education?

Since many of these poor children also happen to be black, how do Democrats- who also claim to be the party that has the best interests of blacks in mind- morally or politically defend the idea that it’s acceptable to disservice poor black children when it comes to educational access and academic opportunity?

That Barack Obama is so ardently against school choice is one reason why his most recent weekly address was so unnerving. Talking, again, about the great benefits of education, Obama discussed his new initiative to have “libraries and major publishers provide more than $250 million in free e-Books for low-income students.”  Obama went on to issue a challenge to “mayors, libraries, and school leaders to help every student get a library card, so they can expand their horizons in a place like this.”

That’s his new plan to help children from poor families get a “great education”? This program expands the horizons of low-income students more than access to better education in higher-performing schools?

He continues-

In a global economy, we’ve got to help ensure that everyone, of every age, in every zip code – urban and rural – has the chance to learn the skills that lead directly to a good job.

That’s also why I’ve put forward a plan to make two years of community college as free and universal for every American as high school is today.

First, as most people should be aware, high school isn’t free and neither would two years of community college. Taxes in various and overwhelming forms fund this so-called free, subpar education.

That aside, Obama wants to give poor people more access to- and more resources at- public libraries, but less access to quality public education, as if this is some great fete to be applauded. All of this obstruction and window dressing comes at the expense of poor children who’ll continue to lack the proper educational foundation for the foreseeable future – minimizing future academic and economic opportunities, including economic mobility.

If this is what the Democrat party does when they have someone’s best interest in mind, imagine what they do when those “best interests” aren’t even considered.

This issue is perfect for conservatives and Republicans- politicians and otherwise- to continue to address and advocate for. This is a civil right that should be defended. But conservatives and Republicans have to craft a clear, easy-to-understand message and draft the right messengers if they want any chance of being successful. And as we’ve seen time and again, conservatives and Republicans- particularly the latter- are their own worst enemy.

Who’s Racist Again?

I recently had the privilege of conducting a course for Prager University entitled, “Who Are the Racists: Conservatives or Liberals?” in which I argue against the notion that conservatives and conservative policies are racist. I also detail- while discussing affirmative action and voter-id laws- that in fact, the preoccupation with race and condescending views of blacks are held predominately by the Left. I regard this as evidence that- at the very least- the Left, including many of their positions are racist.

And as luck would have it, several recent examples involving Democrat politicians and potential politicians prove my case. The midterm elections are a week away and Democrats are hoping for the best but expecting- and already lamenting- the worst. They anticipate that voter turnout will be low, and have admitted that black turnout – or lack thereof- decides the Democrats’ political fate. Faced with the growing prospect of losing seats in the House of Representatives and losing majority control of the Senate, Democrats have resorted to… being Democrats. In these cases, they’re ginning up racial fears among black voters to manipulate- excuse me, motivate- blacks into voting for them, saving their political hides.

Of course this is nothing new for Democrats. They do it well and they do it often. Earlier this year, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Steve Israel said some of his fellow Republican congressmen were racist and the GOP base was “animated by racism.”

Last year, Florida Democrat Rep. Alan Grayson distributed a fundraising flier that had a burning “t”- a symbol of the KKK, saying, “Now you know what the ‘T’ stands for.”

During the presidential election in 2014, Vice President Joe Biden- while speaking at a campaign rally attended primarily by blacks- said, “We got a real clear picture of what they all value… Look at what they value and look at their budget and what they’re proposing. Romney wants to let the — he said in the first hundred days he’s going to let the big banks once again write their own rules, ‘unchain Wall Street.’ They’re going to put y’all back in chains.”

A sitting vice president of the United States had the temerity to lie like this, publicly, as a way to frighten black voters to the polls to re-elect Barack Obama- and Biden himself, by extension.

Subsequently it’s no surprise that Democrats will manipulate and use racial fears as a political tool to facilitate their elections and re-elections. Recently, to jumpstart interest among black voters, Democrats and Democrat supporters have either played the race card or released several racially despicable political advertisements in multiple states, hoping to scare blacks into action- rewarding undeserving Democrat candidates with political victories.

For example in Maryland, black gubernatorial candidate Anthony Brown- with the help of the Maryland Democratic Party- mailed out multiple versions of pamphlets attempting to connect Brown’s political race to Ferguson, Mo, poll taxes, and to the 1963 March on Washington. An alternate version of this pamphlet has an old photo of white protestors near a poster suggesting that blacks “go back to Africa.” Rather than run on the merits of his candidacy, Brown prefers a mixture of racial fear mongering, racial empathy and racial solidarity.

brown, bs

brown, bs 2

A Democrat.

One of the more disgraceful, racially provoking attempts to frighten and lure blacks to the polls is a flyer distributed by the Georgia Democratic Party invoking the Michael Brown shooting in Ferguson, Missouri. The emotionally-manipulating flyer details the shooting of Brown- whose “body [was] left in a pool of blood in the street for four hours”- by officer Darren Wilson. The flyer then notes the racial demographics of Ferguson- 67 percent black, juxtaposing it against the racial makeup of the mayor, city council and the police force being predominately white. The flyer then asks, “What are you going to do about it?”

demflyer3 Georgia

Really?

To be sure, Ferguson has nothing to do with Georgia’s elections. Period.

Further, the two people who this ad is intending to benefit- the Democrat nominee for Senate, Michelle Nunn, and Democrat gubernatorial candidate Jason Carter, grandson of former president Jimmy Carter- are both… white. Thus the Georgia Democrat Party wants blacks to do in Georgia what they reject in Ferguson.

Gotcha.

More to the point, the flyer is reprehensible because it uses the images of two black children holding signs that read, “don’t shoot,” referring to motto “hands up; don’t shoot” used by Ferguson protestors falsely attributed to Michael Brown in his encounter with officer Wilson. It also uses a photo, presumably of a Ferguson protestor, of a person on his/her knees with hands raised- again in the ‘hands up; don’t shoot’ mold with the caption “Vote; it’s up to you to make change happen.” Again, that the Democrat party in Georgia views this as acceptable- improperly connecting Ferguson to Georgia while inappropriately playing on racial fears to generate needed black turnout- is a clear indication of their anything goes, ends-justifying-the-means mentality. Rather than supporting the merits of Democrat policies past and present, and the candidates that hold them, the Georgia Democrat Party would rather employ scare tactics of the lowest sort- in this case, making the election about race/racial discrimination rather than the substance of the candidates.

demflyer1 Georgia

demflyer2 Georgia

These are Democrats, not conservatives.

Another repugnant example of Democrats racially manipulating blacks is in North Carolina. Democrat nominee Kay Hagan is in a close race with Republican nominee Thom Tillis to be the next U.S. Senator from North Carolina. To persuade blacks to vote for Hagan, flyers were distributed to black churchgoers that contained a picture of blacks being lynched with the inscription “Kay Hagan doesn’t win! Obama’s impeachment will begin!”

lynching photo

The flyer in Georgia is no doubt intentionally disingenuous and inappropriate. But this flyer is not only misleading, it’s disgusting. A group calling themselves Concerned Citizens of Cumberland County is responsible for the ad. I suspect that the members of this group aren’t conservatives.

It’s just a hunch.

Though Hagan claims no knowledge of this group saying, “I don’t know anything about the group or flier. We don’t coordinate with outside groups,” she hasn’t to my knowledge, denounced the flier as repulsive nor shamed the group for creating and distributing the flier. Hagan also hasn’t distanced herself from it either, which directly impugns her character. A person who doesn’t immediately condemn tactics like this is unfit and undeserving to be leader anywhere, especially in the U.S. Senate.

Another Democrat.

More still, a Democrat political action committee (PAC) linked to former aides of Sen. Harry Reid, has created an ad in support of Hagan’s campaign, that- among other things- blames her opponent for the Trayvon Martin shooting.

More Democrats.

I could do this all day. It should be more than obvious that Democrats are the ones preoccupied with race- who will use any tactic that emotionally manipulates blacks, racially inciting them to the polls and hoping for a political payoff. The charge that conservatives are racist is a very bad joke when compared to the outright, shameless attempt of Democrat politicians and their supporters to play various versions of the race card in an attempt to achieve and maintain political power.

But what is breathtakingly shameful is that Democrats are trying to link conservatives to the disgraceful, racist history of the Democrat party as proof that conservatives, today, are racist. It was the Democrat party that legislated Jim Crow segregation with its accompanying poll taxes and other intentions to suppress the black vote. It was Democrats who engaged in and approved of lynching. It was Democrats who created, and supported the KKK- up to and including having had a former Klansman, Robert Byrd, in the U.S. Senate up until four years ago. Blacks marched on Washington because it was Democrats who prevented them for accessing and experiencing equal access and socio-economic opportunity.

Democrats were and still are the racists that blacks need to be concerned with, not conservatives.

That this has to even be said is indicative of how effective Democrats have been in slandering and vilifying conservatives and how utterly ineffective conservatives have been in not only defending themselves against such baseless charges, but demonstrating how the Democrats repeatedly use race as an instrument of manipulation to solidify and maintain political power and influence.

It’s always and everywhere, at the expense of blacks.

To be sure, racism exists above and apart from politics.  As long as we’re on this side of heaven, racism will always exist.  However, the Left and the policies that those on the left support are by far, more racist and condescending to blacks than even the mere charges of racism that’s projected onto conservatives.

* Update.

Yet another Democrat has joined in the raced-based, fear mongering and political manipulation for votes, strategy.  Mary Landrieu told Chuck Todd that among other things, the South is an inhospitable place for blacks or women. This is definitely a curious statement considering that Landrieu herself has been elected numerous times during her 30-plus year career in… Louisiana. It’s also curious that the her state has an Indian American, Bobby Jindal, as governor. And what about the all the black mayors Louisiana has? How do inhospitable people continually vote for the very people that they take umbrage with?

Again, this charade is stupid, it’s based on lies and it’s immoral. If the substance of Democrat politicians and their policy positions had any political or intellectual capital whatsoever, or had net benefits to the states in which they’re from or the country at large, these sorry politicians would be trying to defend the merits of what they’ve accomplished over the last several years.  But they aren’t.  They’re trying to appeal to blacks through the lens of “racism” which is a very clear and tacit admission that not only do the policies they support stink, but they have failed and will continue to fail.  Which is why they’re silent in regards to them.

America, we can do better.

*Update no. 2.

Even more Democrats have joined in the cynical, race-baiting, exploitation of blacks in ever more transparent and cynical efforts to scare blacks to the polls on Tuesday.

Alabama mailer, racist

In Alabama, fliers were distributed in black communities that tied lack of voting to land “being given to extremist groups to honor klansmen.”  Again, the Democrats are trying to tie the KKK- long known to be part of Democrat political history- to Republicans.

This reeks of desperation.

If this is all that Democrats have, as I said above, doesn’t this acknowledge that there’s no real reason to vote Democrat?

Another flier in Milwaukee shows a picture of three black men- Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown and Dontre Hamilton- who were killed by police officers (sans Martin), with the caption reading “Don’t let anyone silence your voice. Vote Nov. 4th.”

Milwaukee flier, racist

Wow. No words.

But as PJMedia says this is particularly troubling and misleading because,

All of this comes against a background of rising chaos in the inner city: killings have risen sharply, along with all of the urban pathologies which feed and fuel them: drug and alcohol dependency, homelessness, joblessness, a failing school system (the only one in the state of Wisconsin to receive a failing grade from the state Department Public Instruction), and so on.

The reason that this particular flyer, which obviously seeks to portray the Democrats as the saviors of the urban community, is a perversion of reality in Milwaukee in particular is revealed by one simple fact: The last Republican mayor of Milwaukee left office in 1908. Since then, the city has had a succession of Democratic mayors, broken only by the times that Socialist mayors have been elected (the last of these, Frank P. Zeidler, left office in 1960). So, even if the Socialists were benign in the city’s history, the Democrats have owned Milwaukee, and with Milwaukee, all of Milwaukee’s ills, for an unbroken 54 years and counting.”

Pitiful.

*Update no.3. 

What would race-baiting be without Rep. Charlie Rangel’s (D-NY) thoughtless input. The morally-corrupt tax cheat who’s been charged by the House of Representatives’ ethics committee with numerous ethical violations, weighed in on the gubernatorial race in New York. True to form, Rangel accused Republicans of not only hate, but racists who still believe slavery continues (it does, actually- in Africa).  Rangel said, “They [Republicans] don’t disagree — they hate. They think if you didn’t come from Europe 30 years ago, you didn’t even make it. Some of them believe that slavery isn’t over, and they think they won the Civil War.”

What? Can anyone decipher Rangel’s verbal, intellectual, ahistorical mishmash? Only a dumbed down society can elect and re-elect a charlatan like this. Rangel is who he is- rotten to the core, but this is a very poor reflection of the New Yorkers who re-elected him after knowing about his lies, tax cheating and corrupt politicking.

No wonder people demonstrate such cynicism and apathy with politics and politicians.