Читать книгу SEXY BRILLIANCE - Kevin Jackson - Страница 4
The Worst Kind of Criminal
ОглавлениеPaul is an acquaintance of mine and a native of Chicago—the South Side of Chicago; where Bad Bad Leroy Brown got into a ruckus and ended up looking like a jigsaw puzzle with a couple of pieces gone. That was the South Side back in the ‘70’s. It’s much worse now.
I enjoy my conversations with Paul. He lives a life that I could have lived as I discussed in my first book. God saw to it that I avoided that life. Paul was not as fortunate, however. The streets got him, and eventually so did the criminal justice system.
Paul reminds me of my Uncle Ray who did time in the joint as well. I have to admit I have a fascination with the lives Paul and my Uncle Ray led. Make no mistake about it, I’m happy I avoided the penitentiary; but there are very few black kids who don’t have some level of intimacy with prison; too many second-hand and way too many more first-hand. That closeness to prison life may be part of the allure for young black men.
Paul brings to our talks both street wisdom and the wisdom that comes with Paul having made lots of mistakes. It’s difficult to describe, but he brings a rawness that makes our talks fresh every time.
One day Paul and I were discussing his conversion from being a lifelong Democrat to becoming an Independent, and he said to me,
“You know Kev, when I was in the joint, I had a cellie[1] who was a serial rapist. The dude told me that he was the worst kind of criminal, because he would rape a woman, and then convince her that it was her fault.”
I said to Paul, “I believe the worst kind of criminal is the guy who rapes a woman, and makes her believe that somebody else did it.”
***
It’s not whether you win or lose; it’s where you place the blame.
I won’t belabor the point that slavery was the beginning of black victimization[2], because that’s obvious. For almost a century Democrats raped blacks literally and figuratively.
However, there was a time around the 1950’s when the Democrats were losing the battle to control black people. Black people were building and growing businesses. We had strong families, and education and character were stressed.
Democrats did all they could to demoralize blacks, with all sorts of onerous rules and laws, even corralling black people into certain urban areas, in an attempt to demoralize us. It didn’t work. Back then, black people were strong of body and mind, as fit as Navy SEALs. We relied on our belief in God, and that right would conquer might. We believed in excellence.
Democrats found out that the black “cities within cities” were thriving.[3] Business was booming, as blacks had to be self-sufficient. Some people say this was the unexpected benefit of Jim Crow.
Black kids today might find it hard to believe that there was a time when blacks owned the businesses in the neighborhoods where we lived, which at the time were called “the black side of town.” Today the black sides of towns are entire cities like Detroit, Compton, Philadelphia, and Newark.[4]
This independence that was happening in the black community had to be derailed. The policies were in place, like welfare, and so on, however that was not enough. Blacks needed more dependence on government, to see government as their best, if not only alternative to a good life. All that was left for the Democrats to acquire was a boogeyman.
Around the 1960’s, Democrats established the profile of the boogeyman. He was that guy who was always trying to help black people by interfering with Democrat policies. Republicans were the guys shooting the rope with which Democrats were trying to hang black people.
“Hey, whatcha doin’ shootin’ at that Nigra man,” Democrats exclaimed. “You OK boy? This hangin’ thing we was about to do to you, well that was just bidness; but that Republican, well he was showly tryin’ to shoot you, and for no reason!”
There you had it. The Goldwater Effect[5] Democrats began pointing the finger at Republicans as the perpetrators of all past heinous crimes against blacks, and they set the stage for the future demonization of Republicans and Conservatives of today.
***
It took almost a century for Democrats to get all their ducks in a row. It began with Democrats deconstructing Reconstruction.[6] I don’t think most people really understand Reconstruction and its impact on the white community, past and present. You read that right, I did say that Reconstruction had a major impact on whites.
Imagine a group of people who had been treated like animals for decades finally getting a seat at the table. Black people literally went from the fields as slaves to Congress in a few short years. There were 21 black congressmen and two senators during the Reconstruction era—all were Republicans. Can you even imagine the discipline that people who were slaves brought to the white community?
And like a man being released from prison because of new DNA evidence, blacks had little animosity about slavery. They were just glad to experience freedom. Because of strong belief systems, black had toughened in all those years of adversity, discipline taught by slavery. Long days with no pay, but actually accomplishing something.
If Reconstruction had lasted longer[7] and the work ethic of blacks had been allowed to permeate Congress, just imagine what the production of Congress would be today. We certainly wouldn’t have a group of people who believe they deserve salaries that make them “rich”, along with multiple paid vacations, fat pensions, limos, taxpayer funded private jets, federally funded staffers,[8] and war chests that allow them to repeat the process.
Blacks were in Congress to teach whites what it was like to do an honest day’s work with little or no compensation, and for the good of the Republic. Democrats weren’t about to let blacks ruin the cash cow. Democrats got very crafty and implemented all kinds of legislation to stop hardworking blacks from showing up the white workers. This brings me to a discussion of unions.
***
The growth of labor unions in the US really hit stride just after the end of Reconstruction, because America had a huge labor force, black people, former slaves who had no idea how to price their work. The timing couldn’t be worse for the unions with this harder working, less needy labor force hitting the scene.
Unions were fighting for better working conditions, and rightfully so for the time. Issues like limited work days, short work breaks, and certain job protections. Nevertheless, conditions for white workers were nothing in comparison to working conditions blacks had endured for decades. The black worker could potentially set the labor unions back to the mid-1850’s. It’s easy to see why white folks were unnerved, because many blacks were willing to work under much worse conditions than the unions were under at that time; and they worked like they could be fired at any time.
So whites formed unions that had very discriminatory practices. These unions made sure that the good jobs went to whites, while the “jobs nobody else wanted to do” went to blacks, jobs like cooks and waiters.
Unions continued to discriminate against blacks for some time, until the light came on for John L. Lewis of the United Mine Workers. Lewis understood that in the event the UMW wanted to strike they would have little leverage if a company decided to use this pool of very capable, hard-working blacks.
Union leaders, including John L. Lewis, Walter Reuther, and Sidney Hillman, head of the garment workers union eventually withdrew from the AFL and formed the Committee for Industrial Organization,[9] or the CIO for self-preservation.
Unions formed not to help black people, but to exploit them.
Now Liberals will make the same argument for unions that they have for the racist past of Democrats, which is, “That’s all in the past.” Not true. In spite of the damages that unions have done to black workers, unions take their loyalty for granted. The unions don’t even bother trying to keep their manipulation of the black community a secret anymore.
Senior VP of SEIU Gerry Hudson in arguing for the unions support of granting amnesty to illegal immigrants, admits there is a reasonable groundswell against illegal immigration, and he offers this advice to the union leadership in how to deal with problem union members both black and white.
“It doesn’t take a whole lot to argue African Americans, at least to another place…not a whole lot. And I’ve spent not a lot of time doing it, but I’ve had some success. I think we need to spend more time doing it, trying to find out what’s the best ways to get the work done…I think on white workers, I think we’ve got some real problems. I’ve spent a lot of time in Wisconsin and places like that where I have heard some of the most anti-immigrant sentiments around. It’s also, and this is where you get the black workers first…it’s so f*cking rabidly racist…’til black people get scared.”
Where else but the Democratic Party can you insult the people you need so badly and have them keep returning to you? Black Democrats have Battered Woman Syndrome, and their black leaders remind me of Ike Turner smacking up Tina, then asking, “Why ya make me do dis to ya, Baby?!”
Hudson was saying that he has black union members in check; however he still had work to do in order to get his white union members to get with the program. The white union members are smart enough to realize the ruse of allowing illegal immigration, and they will have to be dealt with. Hudson’s way of dealing with his white union members is the way Liberals deal with all things: Call them racists.
That’s why Hudson was hired into union leadership. Hudson must keep his blacks in check, or else, and he has the added ability to intimidate white union rank and file with proper use of the race card. Hudson was the union’s very own Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton of the SEIU. Hudson’s job to point the finger of racism towards anybody who would go against the union, even if that finger points at white union members.
The ultimate goal of SEIU is to grow their membership and income by having a whole new crop of people to take advantage of, in this case mainly illegal immigrants from Mexico. The unions need Latinos, because as Hudson informed, the unions already control blacks.
With Democrats getting 96 percent of the black vote, blacks are now in maintenance mode. The union’s strategy must shift, if they don’t want to see the continual decline that has been happening in their membership since the ‘80’s. The unions needed a scapegoat.
Niger Innis wrote in Big Journalism that on an NAACP teleconference, Larry Cohen of the Communications Workers of America (CWA) attacked the Tea Party movement, saying the movement advocates slavery, and “We don’t need 19th Century capitalism.”
Dana Milbank of the Washington Post wrote about the conference call:
Communications Workers of America President Larry Cohentried to make the case that the Tea Party’s economic policies, too, are evidence of “hate” in the ranks. “It’s an economic agenda that is hateful against workers,” he reasoned. “Most of the proponents that we’re talking about in this report also renounce things like minimum wage and collective bargaining rights…. Whether it’s glorifying slaveryor glorifying a managerial system where workers have no voice, the Tea Party is a throwback.”
Leave it to a union Democrat to use slavery as an example given the unions’ support of the institution of slavery. Today’s union won’t admit to condoning slavery, but they do want to take away one of workers most precious rights: The right to vote on unionization. It should be inconceivable to think that unions want to remove the very same right that blacks and women fought to get. Unions want to find a host in every company, then spawn automatically once there.[10]
Along with workers losing their right to vote on unionization, if the unions get their way, workers will be locked into contracts with no ability to vote or retain their right to strike. Workers are currently forced to pay dues or be fired. The union apparently believes that all its workers are rich, because the union has threatened and fined members for exercising their freedom to continue to work during strikes. Maybe they expect Obama to pay their workers’ mortgages and car notes.
And like the slave owners of the past, if a “worker” doesn’t want to follow the rules, beatings can occur. There is plenty of historical evidence of union thuggery against people crossing picket lines, and against workers brought in to replace striking union workers, both groups just trying to earn a living. Yet it is the unions who act as if they are innocent victims of oppressive capitalist companies.
I suggest that Larry Cohen put down the rocks and put on a robe, because we can all see that he lives in a glass house. Whether it’s SEIU or CWA, the truth about unions is they are about union leadership gathering enough people together to become a force for enriching unionleadership. The common thread with Liberal coalitions is to pretend that your membership is of one mind, when in fact that is a farce. The objective of the coalitions is to create group-think, even if they have to beat it out of you.
Ken Gladney learned about SEIU beatings first-hand. His union crime? Being black and Conservative.
Unbeknownst to Gladney, he was a union member of Black Liberal Local 13. While vending Gadsden flags at a townhall meeting, Gladney was singled out by two SEIU thugs for not recognizing that Gladney was black, and therefore obligated to be union-backing Democrat. His punishment was an SEIU-style beatdown.
The two SEIU thugs, one black and one white could not have been a better metaphorical representation of the new thug in the White House. It was as if Obama wasn’t sure which part of his ethnicity to dispatch to kick Gladney’s butt on behalf of the unions. The Gladney beatdown was a warning to all black Conservatives to know their place, particularly since Gladney was the only black at the event.
But the unions have recognized that they can’t win this battle with just “blue collar” workers, so their new recruits are now the government workers themselves, as Tim Pawlenty, Governor of Minnesota points out:
Much has changed. The majority of union members today no longer work in construction, manufacturing or “strong back” jobs. They work for government, which, thanks to President Obama , has become the only booming “industry” left in our economy. Since January 2008 the private sector has lost nearly eight million jobs while local, state and federal governments added 590,000.
Federal employees receive an average of $123,049 annually in pay and benefits, twice the average of the private sector. And across the country, at every level of government, the pattern is the same: Unionized public employees are making more money, receiving more generous benefits, and enjoying greater job security than the working families forced to pay for it with ever-higher taxes, deficits and debt.
How did this happen? Very quietly. The rise of government unions has been like a silent coup, an inside job engineered by self-interested politicians and fueled by campaign contributions.
Public employee unions contribute mightily to the campaigns of liberal politicians ($91 million in the midterm elections alone) who vote to increase government pay and workers. As more government employees join the unions and pay dues, the union bosses pour ever more money and energy into liberal campaigns. The result is that certain states are now approaching default. Decades of overpromising and fiscal malpractice by state and local officials have created unfunded public employee benefit liabilities of more than $3 trillion.
Over the last eight years in Minnesota, we have taken decisive action to prevent our problems from becoming a state crisis . Public employee unions fought us virtually every step of the way. Mass transit employees, for example, went on strike for 44 days in 2005—because we refused to grant them lifetime health-care benefits after working just 15 years.”
Sounds like a good trade to me; work 15 years and get health care for life. Many unions get their members a paycheck for life, along with all other benefits, like pensions, profit-sharing and so on. This is like a farmer who doesn’t plant a crop expecting to get paid with nothing to harvest. Who wouldn’t want that deal? It’s the ability to manipulate the system for personal gain, no matter the outcome, like the union’s actions during the East-coast blizzard at the end of 2010.
In deadly blizzard conditions, Union workers deliberately slacked off so they could work longer hours and get more overtime pay. A New York City councilman confirmed that the workers responsible for clearing the roads drove with their blades pulled up high, to necessitate repeated plowing of the same areas. In addition to the cost to taxpayers—both in undue wages and lost work for the New Yorkers not lucky enough to work for the city—their selfishness also cost at least one life. The snow forced one Brooklyn mom to deliver her baby in a building lobby, where she waited for nine hours for an ambulance before her baby died. Somebody in the union should go to prison for this fiasco.
Contrast that with the mean private sector that sent people and equipment to Chile to save otherwise doomed Chilean miners? Given the choice on whom I’d depend, unless U.S. Special Forces are involved, give me the private sector.
We have been trained to believe that corporations are cruel and make profits by denying workers basic safety on the job, better working conditions, and so on. In order to stop this capitalist oppression, workers needed solidarity. Once the union served its purpose of getting workers rights, their work was essentially done, so the game needed to change. Recall when companies were offering all types of incentives to attract the best employees? Unions decided that it was not enough to simply have the opportunity for a safe, stable job, but it would get workers a piece of the action. They got corporations to offer sweetened stock incentives, as well as benefits packages, and salaries exploded. The best companies offered child care, telecommuting, flexible hours, and eventually profit-sharing.
It was in labor’s interest to be a “good parasite,” so the host had to be kept alive and healthy. On management’s side, it had to balance the company’s financial health against the happiness of the worker. Give them too much, and the future of the company was threatened by the ongoing expense; too little, and workers may strike. Both parties had the company’s financial health in mind, as neither would benefit from the death of the source of the money, which is the business itself.
The union was done. Corporate America was onboard, and began sweetening the pot themselves. The private sector offered the union little growth opportunity. The only frontier left unexplored was the public workers’ unions.
For many generations the obvious conflicts of interest inherent in such a system made public workers’ unions impossible to legalize. Even now they are not legal in about half the states, existing mainly in heavily Democrat-controlled states, such as Illinois, California, Michigan, New York, New Jersey, to name a few. But the conflict is obvious.
In public employees’ unions, there is no business to generate money for either party. Labor is government workers. Management is the government’s political leadership. Who generates the money? The rube, better known as the taxpayer. There are no “profits” to be divided up between the “company” and the workers. Therefore there is no natural interest on either side to be economically prudent or practical. There is no natural restraint for either side to try to preserve financial health, as there is no company to keep alive. The taxpayers are just there, helpless cows to be milked, a seemingly endless supply of money which only requires a bit of rhetorical persuasion and the keeping of some secrets in order to access it.
As Jason Ivey[11] points out,
“When the price of a postage stamp goes up, are you getting more for your money? No. If anything, the price of a stamp should go down because we’re all corresponding with each other electronically these days…It would be understandable, perhaps, for package and freight rates to rise depending on certain external factors, like gas prices, volume, and other things. But a stamp always rises in price, because efficiency [by the postal service] is not even an objective.”
In other words why does the postal service need to look for ways to cut back? They are going to get their money regardless, and there is no competition for sending letters. The cost of sending packages and overnight postage by the government has suffered, because of Fed-Ex, UPS and DHL, who offer competition. The Postal Service has responded with more competitive rates, though most people still prefer private sector alternatives. Fed-Ex, UPS, and DHL remain the lower cost package transporters, so why can’t Fed-Ex, UPS, or DHL carry our letters?
The Fed would tell you it’s a matter of national security. The mail could contain “stuff.” Well can’t overnight packages contain the same “stuff”? The fact is there is no reason for the Fed to be in the business of delivering letters. Fed-Ex, UPS, or DHL would be monumentally more efficient in delivering regular mail, as they essentially do it every day in the form of larger mail called packages. But the postal union would have a conniption. Management is normally an adversary of labor at the negotiating table, again trying to preserve financial health and maximize profits for stakeholders. However this is not the case with government unions. Management is actually invested solely in the happiness of the workers, making them both complicit in milking the rube.
In America, the Democrats are embraced and supported by the unions. Public employee unions make huge donations to Democrat candidates, perform get-out-the-vote work for them, and work hand in hand to get Democrats elected at all levels, city, state and federal. Once elected, these Democrat office-holders are then expected to sit down and represent the taxpayer in negotiations against the unions for pay and benefits? It’s pretty antithetical to think politicians would bite the hand that is now feeding them.
Teachers’ unions collect union dues that they funnel to Democrat candidates who then insure that teachers get whatever they want in terms of benefits. So today teachers in primary and secondary schools get tenure within two years in some cases. Teachers are not responsible for social security. Teachers generally get the entire summer off. They complain about the pay, but there are many teachers who make well into the $80,000 plus per year range.
The funds for education are earmarked almost 100 percent for public sector education. Private sector education is funded by parents or private benefactors, for the most part. Homeschooled kids receive nothing, and faith-based schools get little to no public funding. Ironically it is the private sector that produces the best students. Meanwhile the worst schools get all the money.
Jon Corzine former Democrat Governor of New Jersey gave a speech once where he exhorted his audience that he would be out there plugging for them, fighting for their interests, doing everything he could do in his capacity as governor of New Jersey. The bad news is that his audience was not the majority of his constituents, but was New Jersey public employee union members. Not only was the governor not representing the majority of his constituents and the actual employers of the union, but Corzine was actually agitating the union against its employer.
This happens on every level, every day, all across America. Our elected leaders collude with union leaders and happily agree on more increases in the amount of our money these people will get. The unions finally found a self-healing host in the government. Unfortunately they may have milked the cows to exhaustion.
***
Unions in place and blacks in check, the Democrats dropped the next bread crumb on the trail to socialism, the next crisis—the Great Depression. The Great Depression allowed FDR to sell “new deals,” in order to keep America working, but it also solidified the caste system that was in place.
Admittedly there were good things that came from some of FDR’s policies, like federally insured banking deposits, the building of dams and hydro-electric plants, and so on. However many of the policies implemented during that time started benign, but have grown into malignant cancers, like the federal Ponzi scheme of social security.
America would be better served if the government opened a casino, gave black folks our Social Securitymoney and allowed us to gamble our ‘benefits’ in that casino. At least we’d have some fun and we’d have astronomically better odds of getting paid. – Kevin Jackson
The sell of social security was that it would provide a great retirement, and protect the nation’s truly downtrodden, specifically children who lost a parent and the disabled. Believe it or not, at the time the Social Security Act was being debated, one reason given not to pass this legislation was that too many old people might retire in order to get the benefits. Now that’s funny!
When social security began, it was voluntary. Yes, the same thing that is now being demonized—opting out or ‘privatizing’ social security—began as a promise. You no longer have that option, because the government recognized how good it was to just force you into the system, then change all the rules.
By “investing” in social security, you are in effect making the government a loan at an amazing rate[12] for a lot of years. Your reward is you will get a small payout on the back end, should you live long enough. The actuaries factor those rates into the retirement age, which the government can arbitrarily move.
Social Security was tax deductable on the onset. The Clinton-Gore administration took care of that, removing the deduction for social security. Democrat president LBJ moved social security from the “trust” fund to the general fund, thus eliminating the ability to track the funds. Imagine if a bank moved your money into a big unfunded black hole, and just promised you that the money was there.
Are you beginning to follow the bread crumbs on how the government has been slowly stealing the white man’s rights?[13] Yep, the program is racist!
When social security started, most women and minorities were excluded from the benefits of unemployment insurance and old age pensions. Employment definitions reflected typical white male categories and patterns. Job categories that were dominated by women and minorities were not covered by the act. These included workers in agricultural labor, domestic service, government employees, and many teachers, nurses, hospital employees, librarians, and social workers. The act also denied coverage to individuals who worked intermittently.
In 1940 women made up 90 percent of domestic labor, and two-thirds of all employed black women were in domestic service. Exclusions exempted nearly half of the working population. Nearly two-thirds of all African Americans in the labor force, 70 to 80 percent in some areas in the South, and just over half of all women employed were not covered by Social Security.
At the time, the NAACP protested the Social Security Act, describing it as “a sieve with holes just big enough for the majority of Negroes to fall through.”[14]
When my mother died, my brother and I received social security. It was a pittance in comparison to what it took to raise two fast growing boys. But because my mother worked, we got the benefits until we were each eighteen years old.
Today, though the aforementioned inequities have been remedied, the social security program remains racist, as most black men will never get their benefits.
Many black men don’t have jobs and those that do on average do not reach the age of retirement to receive benefits. I’d say it’s a blessing that half the black men are unemployed, so we are not forced to donate money to a program that will never pay us back, but it doesn’t pay our kids either when we die. The same is true to many black women, who instead of working for a living, rely on government welfare programs. In the event of death, their children don’t get the measly social security, and certainly get nothing else, something that is now true for far too many other races as well.
So most of black folks social security money goes to other causes like believe it or not, illegal immigrants. America has Jimmy Carter to thank for providing social security for illegal immigrants, likely just looking for a new group to oppress.
Give a Liberal something easy to exploit, and they strike. Hey little girl, wanna buy some candy?
***
Liberals’ new victims are illegal immigrants. And the indoctrination has begun. Liberals tell illegal immigrants,
“You are in this situation because of the Republicans. Republicans don’t want you here, trying to earn a living, so you can support people back in your country. Republicans are the reason you live life in the shadows, and can’t openly contribute to the country you illegally entered.”
No, Republicans are the people who want America’s immigration laws enforced, as these laws are enforced in all other countries. Republicans see that rewarding illegal immigrants with social security encourages more illegal immigration, and will eventually bankrupt the country. Liberals see enforcing immigration laws as preventing Liberals from having new victims. So Republicans must be stopped, no matter the cost.
To accomplish this, Liberals bring out the big guns, the Sharptons, Jacksons, and the Gerry Hudsons, all vying for the position of HNIC[15] for leading black folks over the cliff. These pimps want those slots, because it pays well.
Sharpton was summoned to visit Arizona to demagogue the law Arizona passed to start enforcing the state and Federal laws against illegal immigration. Sharpton was happy to get the call. Put me in the game Coach!
I can only suspect that Al Sharpton sees himself as the modern day “Sojourner Verdad”,[16] leading Mexicans to freedom via el ferrocarril subterráneo –that’s “the underground railroad” for you Americans too lazy to have learned Spanish, our soon-to-be official language.
As if Sharpton hasn’t done enough damage in the black community, he now desires to spread the cancer of Liberalism to more Hispanics. After all, Mexicans only vote about 68 percent Democrat.
Let’s revisit what the pimping of black America by Sharpton, Jackson, Gerry Hudson, and others of that ilk has accomplished for the black community: Per capita, lowest home ownership, business ownership, high school graduation rates, college entrance and graduation rates.
But there is good news as blacks do lead in a few areas, like number of single parent homes, teenage pregnancy rates, abortion rates, unemployment, and blacks in prison, which coincidentally is not per capita.
As Thomas Sowell wrote:
The black ghettos of America, and especially their housing projects, are other enclaves of people largely abandoned to their own lawless and violent lives, their children warehoused in schools where they are allowed to run wild, with education being more or less optional.
Only in the minds of Liberals is it appropriate for a man who has accomplished nothing of note in the black community to be dispatched to ‘help’ Mexicans in Arizona.
Who was Sharpton helping? The rancher who was shot by an illegal immigrant? Was Sharpton helping the couple who were beaten and robbed by illegal aliens trespassing on that couple’s property? It seems Sharpton was there to help everybody but American citizens. I say to the Mexicans, “With friends like Sharpton, is there a word for sodomize in Spanish!”
Sharpton was in Arizona to help criminals—people who have illegally entered our country and the political criminals who need those other criminals to vote. But for Liberals, like Clinton going to North Korea to free those two female journalists, or Jesse Jackson going to Libya to free hostages, Sharpton is another on the long list of Liberal humanitarians. Forget the 1.2M people who wait every year to enter the US legally. How stupid arethey!
My history may be a bit foggy on this, but I do not recall Mexicans being forced to come to the U.S., like say…the African slaves? However, during Sharpton’s visit to Arizona, straight from the Liberal’s racist playbook, Sharpton hearkened back to the days of civil rights for blacks, saying at the time:
“The Arizona Immigration Bill is an affront to the civil rights of all Americans and an attempt to legalize racial profiling…I am calling for a coalition of civil rights organizations to work with those in Arizona to resist and overturn this state law that violates the rights of Americans in that state.”
Prior to going to Arizona, Sharpton compared Arizona’s law again to Jim Crow laws of the South, apartheid in South Africa, and Nazi Germany. Sharpton conveniently overlooked the fact that his constant references to the violation of civil rights of blacks, Jim Crow laws, and so on are a reflection of the racist policies of the Democrat Party.
Forget that Arizona was merely enforcing the state and Federal laws—laws the Federal government was unwilling to enforce, laws already on the books. According to Sharpton, asking for proper identification by law enforcement when confronting a person accused of violating a traffic law is now considered “racial profiling.” Given that America is the melting pot, aren’t we all being racially profiled if pulled over for a traffic stop?
Sharpton’s beef with Arizona was that it has the nerve to enforce its laws? I was certainly confused. There was no logical reason for Sharpton to make a pilgrimage to Arizona, except for Liberals to make something racial out of something obviously non-racial.
Sharpton had no business in Arizona to advocate allowing millions of illegal immigrants to become legal in America, thereby taking jobs from Americans. With reported unemployment in the black community at 31percent,[17] allowing millions of illegal immigrants to take jobs from Americans should have been sacrilegious.
If Sharpton’s track record of achievement in the black community is any indication, I suggest the Mexicans call the references on Sharpton’s credentials, because everything Sharpton touches turns to ghetto.
For those who are circumspect, you have to be wondering who is pulling Sharpton’s strings. I suspect Sharpton’s actions in Arizona were the work of high-level, white Democrat operatives, the Liberal Illuminati. Though Sharpton is not the sharpest tool in the shed, I can’t believe he would want for Mexicans what he has helped achieve for blacks.
All that said, there is somebody worse than Sharpton, and that person is Obama. His administration is the one suing Arizona, as we have shut down sovereign US territory, ceding part of Arizona to the Mexican cartels. Is there anybody in America who wants us to become like Mexico? If not, then why do you think Liberals are so accommodating to have the Mexican influx, some say as many as 4000 per day?
“We are not without accomplishment. We have managed to distribute poverty equally.” - Vietnamese foreign minister Nguyen Thatch
***
Social Security isn’t the only Ponzi scheme where Americans get the shaft in favor of illegal immigrants. In the state of CA alone, anchor babies cost taxpayers $7.7B per year—just for education. The children of illegals make up 15 percent of the K-12 population—one of the many benefits to being the second largest state as well as the plethora of sanctuary cities that share a border with Mexico. Is it any wonder America’s schools have become little more than failure factories.
I first heard the term ‘failure factories’ used to describe America’s public school system when watching the movie, Waiting for Superman. The movie explained what we have all witnessed, that over the past few decades our educational system has deteriorated to almost Third World status. It’s no wonder given the pressures to teach a very diverse group of people, which now includes illegals. But that’s exactly what the Liberals want. U.S. schools are not education factories, but are indeed failure factories. We can’t allow “shamnesty” voters to form opinions on their own, so the American educational system creates Liberal group-think. Drones.
Liberals owning the educational system didn’t happen overnight. It took baby steps. Yet again, we find that the real culprit was Jimmy Carter, the guy who started the Department of Indoctrination, or as it is formally known, the Department of Education.
There are a host of reasons given; however as this report from Freeman documents, these are nothing but excuses for the money grab.
“Many so-called education experts believe that class size—the ratio of students to teacher—must be reduced to improve learning. We’ve already tried it. From 1955 to 1991, the average pupil-teacher ratio in U.S. public schools dropped by 40 percent.
These experts also proclaim that lack of funding hamstrings reform, and that the 1980s were a particularly bad time for school finances. Wrong again. Annual expenditures per pupil in U.S. public schools exploded by about 350 percent in real dollars from 1950 ($1,189) to 1991 ($5,237). In only two years during this 40-year period did spending fall: 1980 and 1981. Spending grew by about a third in real terms from 1981 to 1991.
The average salary of public school teachers rose 45 percent in real terms from 1960 (the first year data are available) to 1991. This increase masks a more variable trend. Real salaries rose until 1974, when they began to level off and even decline. The average salary reached a trough of $27,436 in 1982, after which it rose to an all-time high of $33,015 in 1991. Instructional staff in public schools generally saw their earnings increase faster than the average full-time employee—from 1950 to 1989 the ratio of instructional-staff salary to the average full-time salary in the U.S. increased by 22 percent (although it sank from 1972 to 1980). Student performance has hardly kept pace with the dramatic increases in resources devoted to public education. While the percentage of students aged 17 at the beginning of the school year who graduated from high school rose 30 percent from 1950 to 1964, it has leveled off since then. In fact, the 1991 percentage is lower than the 1969 peak of 77.1 percent.
Evidence from the National Assessment of Educational Progress and other performance measures shows how poorly served America’s public school students really are. Just five percent of 17-year-old high school students in 1988 could read well enough to understand and use information found in technical materials, literary essays, historical documents, and college-level texts. This percentage has been falling since 1971.
Average Scholastic Aptitude Test scores fell 41 points between 1972 and 1991. Apologists for public education argue that such factors as the percentage of minority students taking the SAT can explain this drop. Not true. Scores for whites have dropped. And the number of kids scoring over 600 on the verbal part of the SAT has fallen by 37 percent since 1972, so the overall decline can’t be blamed merely on mediocre students “watering down” the results.
Only six percent of 11th graders in 1986 could solve multi-step math problems and use basic algebra. Sixty percent did not know whyThe Federalistwas written, 75 percent didn’t know when Lincoln was president, and one in five knew what Reconstructionwas.”
Simply put, Americans are paying more to get dumber kids. PISA results reinforce that America is losing ground in education despite throwing billions of dollars at the issue.Between what kids are taught in school and what they grow up watching on TV, it’s a wonder anyone grows up with any Conservative values. In Sparta kids were 7 before being sent away to be beaten down in training. Liberals begin our kids’ indoctrination a full year or more earlier, and by one of the most corrupt groups in the entire country, our teachers’ unions.
Instead of training them to love and fight for one’s country like Spartans, our kids are being taught that our Founding Fathers were just a bunch of old white guys who owned slaves.
But if you happen to survive the gauntlet of primary and secondary education, the next step is the scam of “Lower Education”. There are over 18 million students enrolled at the nearly 5,000 colleges and universities currently in operation across the United States, and most of these bastions of lower education should give rebates to their graduates.
There are some great colleges in the U.S., and I believe that the top students still are products of the American education system. A college education can be worth pursuing for those in highly technical or scientific fields, or for those wanting to enter one of the very few fields that is still very financially lucrative, like Medicine, Engineering, Law, and Business. But for nearly everyone else, the college experience is just one big money-making scam for Academia, sanctioned by the government.
College is being sold as a must have, when in fact it is a ‘good education’ that one must have. How one acquires a good education is a whole other issue. If academics were to tell you the truth, it is your paper trail that is most important, not necessarily what you learned. If you don’t believe me, just look at the sexy brilliance Harvard gave to America.
Most kids aren’t even ready for college when they get there, particularly those who are products of government schools. As Freeman reports,
“Another measure of the failure of public education is that almost all institutions of higher education now provide remedial instruction to some of their students. The Southern Regional Education Board surveyed its members in 1986 and found that 60 percent said at least a third of their students needed remedial help. Surveying this evidence of failure among college-bound students, former Reagan administration official Chester E. Finn, Jr., wrote that “surely college ought to transport one’s intellect well beyond factual knowledge and cultural literacy. But it’s hard to add a second story to a house that lacks a solid foundation.”
Yet kids buy into the system. The better perceived the college, the more they can charge. Harvard is therefore better than community college we are told, because community college students don’t usually end up with debt. The more debt you graduate with, the more the government owns you. You must become an immediate producer. You are trapped into the American Dream. The American Dream has now morphed into the American Nightmare, graduates finding that they are now being pimped by the Federal government.
Ironically, kids are forced to become who the government punishes most—the overachiever. Because the kids now need money, and the pimp is going to get his money. The graduates get trapped into productivity, in order to get those loans paid off. But when the loans are done, don’t think the kids are off the track.[18] All that education and hard work just got them off the streets and waiting for the phone to ring.
The call comes when the kids prove that they can produce, and they are assigned wards. One may acquire the shiftless and lazy dude with six kids he won’t take care of, as well as the family of illegals who needs an earner. The government will monitor progress, and assign more wards as the graduates continue trying to get ahead.
The system needs them. College is good, but not necessarily for the students and future taxpayers. The concept of college is not to create thinkers, just earners for the government aristocracy.
There is good news though. Students won’t have to pay for it all. That $50K a year they will pay for their educations will be offset by financial aid.
U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan visited students at T.C. Williams High School in Alexandria, Virginia and encouraged them to load up on college loans. He told kids that there is [pp] “lots of money out there for you. Be sure to pick the best college, because the best colleges offer the best potential for your future.
We have built a system where Americans now owe more than $875 billion on student loans, which is more than they owe on their credit cards. Yet Obama regulated the banking industry. It hasn’t gone unnoticed on me that Obama hasn’t decided to make burgers from the sacred cow called ‘education.’
Since 1982, the cost of medical care in the United States has gone up over 200 percent, while the cost of college tuition which has gone up by more than 400 percent. Is it any wonder that Obama decided to make the rising cost of healthcare a priority over the rising cost of education?
Approximately two-thirds of all college students graduate with student loans, and the Project on Student Debt estimates that 206,000 Americans graduated from college with more than $40,000 in student loan debt during 2008.
After graduation, these students will be greeted with the most anemic economy in their lives, with unemployment in the stratosphere. It is estimated that there are two million recent college graduates who are currently unemployed. In 1992, America had 5.1 million “underemployed” college graduates. By 2008, there were 17 million “underemployed” college graduates in America.
Perhaps America’s under-employed graduates represent the 317,000 waiters and waitresses who have college degrees. Or perhaps they are part of the nearly 25 percent of retail salespersons who have college degrees? Let’s hope that there is some double-dipping and some of these waitresses and retail persons are part of the 365,000 cashiers who have college degrees. Unfortunately, it is pretty unlikely that there is any overlap with the over 18,000 parking lot attendants with college degrees.
CNN references a survey where a staggering 85 percent of college seniors planned to move back home after graduation last May. Many of these soon-to-be graduates are the kids who voted for “sexy brilliance” in 2008.
I argued with a Liberal who informed me that Obama had created jobs during his tenure, and at the time the number of jobs created was argued to be around 508,000 jobs.[19] What my antagonist didn’t realize is the jobs Obama created had average salaries of $9 an hour. It’s no wonder that starting salaries for college graduates across the United States are down in 2010.
Don’t expect Liberals to inform you that there is now a 100 percent online university which costs substantially less, where teachers have to earn their pay and are not eligible for tenure. As the LA Times reported:
“Undergraduate students pay $2,800 per semester. That pays for as many or as few units as they can manage to take. The average graduate pays less than $15,000 for a four-year degree.”
That inexpensive degree may not guarantee that a graduate will have a job waiting after graduation, but she would have just as good an education, a lot less debt, and no pimp.
***
Liberals are fishers of men. They are constantly testing baits. Take Obama’s proposed middle-class tax cut. Obama could care less about cutting taxes for the middle-class; it makes for a nice sound bite though.
Obama, like all good Liberals wants much more taxation of the middle-class than he will admit. Obama’s program is very simply a fishing expedition for the price it will take to buy the middle-class, while simultaneously redefining what middle-class really is. Redefining the middle-class is an absolute necessity, because expectations much be lowered.
Let me explain. $250K is now considered rich, and that’s for two people. So really $125K is considered rich for a single person, but not really. For some reason, the government takes an additional $10K off the definition of single and rich, reducing it to $115K. Don’t bother asking why. But as long as you stay below $115K, the government will allow you to keep most of your earnings.
What is sexy brilliant about Obama’s tax plan is it relied on the middle-class not recognizing that it’s their money Obama used as an inducement. According to this report from ABC news, one of the incentives Obama offered was a tax incentive on child care.
In a day when the average “working American” works through August for the government,[20] the least the government could do is take care of our kids. How else can we produce, if we can’t get somebody to care for our kids?
This tax incentive essentially would rebate part of your money to allow you to continue to work without the hindrance of your children. The incentive would be limited to people who make less than $115,000. $115K may be rich in Afghanistan; but in America, $115K won’t pay Paris Hilton’s monthly wardrobe budget.
Another “incentive” in Obama’s middle-class fishing trip was a $500 tax credit to match your 401(K) savings. What money is Obama planning to use to match your savings? Your money!
This strategy isn’t even the slightest bit clever. Government doesn’t create any money, though they can inflate it by printing more, something Obama has already done multiple times. Think about this in terms of your bank. Imagine the president of Bank of America sending you a note that says:
“Dear Patron, I would like to offer you this new fantastic incentive. If you save $1000, I will give you a credit of $500…using your own money! When you reach the age when you can withdraw your money, I’m going to keep a good portion. Have a nice day!”
A bank CEO would be embarrassed to offer such an “incentive”, but the Boy Wonder had no shame, and was actually proud of his new program. Obama felt like he was truly giving back. And most people took it that way. But getting your own money back, and having the government define your “class,” makes you a mark.[21]
The “good” that was to come from Obama’s incentive was for people to save. If saving is good for ordinary people, shouldn’t it work for the government? I did not attend Harvard, and my alma mater[22] didn’t offer a class in “Stupid Theoretical Ivy-League Economics 101.” But this does sound like something the government should be doing, saving that is. Put another way, the government should not be spending, particularly when we are broke.
The question the America middle-class should ask is, “Am I am bass, a crappie, a perch, or acatfish?” Or perhaps you consider yourself a big fish, a saltwater variety, perhaps a Marlin? Whatever; because a fish is still a fish.
Obama has chartered the boat, has all the gear, and all the bait. The bait is our own money. All he needs to do now is find out the threshold for most people to buy into his vision of communism. Unfortunately for him, due the election of November 2010, the price of communism in America has gone up.
Liberals know the cost of the poor, and they have purchased them, though Liberals continue to sweeten the deal. But the middle-class knows not to take the first offer. I expect Obama to do a bait change, look for new incentives. He will go from the spinner lure to blood-bait.
Because of the Tea Party movement, I predict that Obama doesn’t have enough bait to make this work. With the national debt cresting $13 trillion, the bait keeps getting smaller and smaller. However, when you consider how Republicans fight however, Liberals may still be planning on fish for dinner.
***
[1]Term used by prisoners in referring to their cell mates
[2]Slavery was also the beginning of the victimization of .
[3]Unlike the ghettos of today which represent most black communities.
[4]The idea that America still thinks in terms of “black side of town” speaks to problem of politics. Black corralled into areas where we can be manipulated.
[5]Goldwater was demonized as racist for not supporting the Civil Rights Act of 1964 on its Constitutionality.
[6]Reconstruction is the period where the US was being pieced back together after the Civil War. It could be called the period of a Black Renaissance, because blacks experienced profound gains during this period, much to the chagrin of Democrats.
[7]Reconstruction lasted from 1865-1877
[8]Harry Reid is said to have close to 100 staffers
[9]Later it changed its name to Congress of Industrial Organizations.
[10]Unions want to pass Card Check, disallowing secret ballots in voting for unionization.
[11]Jason Ivey is a friend of mine who works in TV productions.
[12]For the government
[13]I wrote “stealing white man’s rights,” because social security has always been stealing from blacks, that is when it wasn’t excluding us completely.
[14]As you can see, there was a time when the NAACP actually did good work
[15]Head Negro In Charge
[16]Verdad is Spanish for “truth.”
[17]Unemployment in the black community is theorized to be as high as 50 percent.
[18]No longer working a street corner.
[19]The Liberal of course didn’t want to discuss the job losses that Obama had.
[20]In order to pay your annual tax debt, you must work through August.
[21]Forget the conspiracy theory that Obama is truly a Kenyan, as I have my own theory. I’m beginning to suspect that Obama may be Nigerian instead, and the kingpin behind those email banking scams.
[22]Southern Methodist University
