Christie Announces his 2016 Presidential Run

New Jersey Gov. Christie formally launched his 2016 campaign for President of the United States today from the auditorium of his alma mater high school in Livingston, N.J.

A WABC-NY radio cheerleader declared that Christie was a Conservative Republican.

What?  In their Socialist Democrat dreams.  The Democrats must fear Christie’s run more than we thought if their ordering the cheerleaders to introduce Christie as a Conservative.  Ask anyone in New Jersey.  Even the New Jersey Democrats will tell you that Christie is as purple as Barney the Purple Dinosaur.

Christie won the New Jersey gubernatorial race both times by running as a Moderate.  Everybody here in the Garden State knows that.  Although the Internet apparently has been carefully scrubbed of the notorious photo of him sharing an ice cream come with Obama on the Point Pleasant Beach boardwalk in 2012, the sight still gives us Conservatives the shudders.

But then we knew what he was.  Christie can give a good Conservative talk when it suits his purposes.  However, he’s all about Moderation and has always said so.  In his defense, he doesn’t have much choice in New Jersey, which is as blue as Maine blueberry.  We have numerous suburban pockets that are red, but not enough of them.

Of Christie’s faults and blunders, Bridgegate is way down the list, if it was a fault at all.  Bridgegate was never about Democrat versus Republican politics, nor Liberal versus Conservative, or even Moderate.

Christie is all for regional planning, as well as Common Core, and making friends of Muslims (he appointed a Muslim state attorney general and he’s said to be good friends with Jordan’s King Abdullah II).  However, the borough of Fort Lee has an estimated population of 37,000 people living on 2.5 square miles of land.  That’s 13,910 people per square mile.

A vast number of those people are living in a number of high-density, high-rise apartment complexes, the newest towering 37 storeys over the George Washington Bridge.  Fort Lee’s former mayor, Mark Sokolich, wanted additional lanes added in Fort Lee, presumably in exchange for endorsing Gov. Christie.

Private suspicions in New Jersey are that when Sokolich’s endorsement was not forthcoming as promised, instead of adding lanes, Christie did, in fact, close lanes instead.  Christie would not be blamed by Republican or Conservative New Jerseyans for closing the lanes.  Given Fort Lee’s reputation for one-way streets that added to its own miseries and the addition of its own towering high-rise complexes, with no mass transit to relieve the congestion, the idea of sympathy for Fort Lee was laughable.

In the minds of right-minded Garden Staters, especially northern New Jerseyans who’ve been stuck on the Route 80/46/4/PSP/Turnpike extension traffic jams, if Christie ordered the lane closures, or if his minions did, good for him.

The problem is getting the rest of the Conservative and Moderate country to understand that.  Especially the Moderates.  If Moderates across the country understood the Fort Lee/Bridgegate issue properly, they’d be more inclined to vote for Christie, and that worries Democrats mightily.

So the New Jersey newspaper of record on all things Bridgegate, The Bergen (or New Jersey) Record, has been playing up the “shame” of Bridgegate, the real shame belonging at the feet of Fort Lee’s planning board for allowing so much construction on so little real estate, with no plans to alleviate the traffic congestion.

Still, as Christie is not popular with Garden State Conservatives for numerous, valid reasons, you won’t hear much from Conservatives on Bridgegate, even though they know it’s all a lot of hoo-ha about a Democrat town that got what it deserved (my apologies to good friend Agent K).

If you’re going to bash Christie, bash him for leading the way (as the head of the Board of Governors) on Common Core.  Bash him for appointing a Muslim as State Attorney General.  Bash him for supporting Regionalization.  Bash him for his Man-Date with Obama after Hurricane Sandy (we don’t care how badly the state might have needed federal aid; the spectacle with Obama was positively nauseating).

Something you can’t and shouldn’t blame him for is the state of New Jersey’s economy.  The state legislature – solidly Democrat – is to blame for the heavy taxation and regulation of businesses in the state, which caused companies to flee, taking what was left of the Conservative vote with them.  I know of what I speak – my former company was one of those companies that fled, taking my job with it.

After the company’s announcement, it was said that Christie panicked and was immediately on the phone with the company’s executives.  However, there was nothing he could have done.  The company’s plans, shall we say, were firmly set.  Nothing was going to change their minds.  They’d just had enough of New Jersey and its politics.

Many other companies felt the same way.  I could take you on a tour of all the empty office building dotting Northern New Jersey.  Perhaps I’ll take photos of all the many abandoned office parks so you can see for yourselves.

That’s what you get for voting in a Democrat-Socialist legislature, New Jersey.  Maybe next time, you’ll pay more attention to the state elections when they come up, instead of blowing them off for your kid’s soccer game, an early evening of Dancing with the Stars, or posting photos on Facebook.

But to whom am I writing?  Most of New Jersey left long ago for the Carolinas, Georgia or Texas.  All we have left are the unemployed, the retirees, the Welfare Whelps of our blighted cities, the College and Post-College Commies, the latter two of whom all gladly voted for Obama.

Take Christie at his word.  He will gladly reach out to those two groups of voters.  He’ll do whatever he has to do to win the election, just as he did what he felt he had to do to get the Federal aid after Hurricane Sandy.

Even if it means sharing another ice cream cone with Obama.  That will be good news to Republicans and alarming news to Democrats.  They need a distraction.  Traffic cones versus ice cream cones, at twenty paces.

So, start chanting, Democrat Cheerleaders:  “Bridgegate!  Bridgegate!  Bridgegate!”

Published in: on June 30, 2015 at 4:43 pm  Leave a Comment  

The Supreme Court’s Ruling on Marriage: F&*# God’s Will?

According to Business Insider, “Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts stressed his view that the Supreme Court’s 5-4 ruling legalizing gay marriage nationwide lacked a constitutional basis, writing one of the court’s four dissents on Friday.

“The majority’s decision is an act of will, not legal judgment. The right it announces has no basis in the Constitution or this Court’s precedent,” Roberts writes in his dissent. “Just who do we think we are?”

“Writing that he has ‘no choice but to dissent,’ Roberts made it clear that his decision was based in the ‘restrained conception of the judicial role,’ rather than a personal view of the definition of marriage. As he writes:

Understand well what this dissent is about: It is not about whether, in my judgment, the institution of marriage should be changed to include same-sex couples. It is instead about whether, in our democratic republic, that decision should rest with the people acting through their elected representatives, or with five lawyers who happen to hold commissions authorizing them to resolve legal disputes according to law. The Constitution leaves no doubt about the answer.

“Not only is the Constitution clear on the matter, Roberts argues, but also that ‘This Court’s precedents have repeatedly described marriage in ways that are consistent only with its traditional meaning.’

Additionally, Roberts invokes the founders of the U.S. Constitution, writing, “Those who founded our country would not recognize the majority’s conception of the judicial role … They would never have imagined yielding that right on a question of social policy to unaccountable and unelected judges.’”

According to Webster’s New International Dictionary, 2nd Edition (1937), marriage is defined as the “state of being married, or being united to a person or persons of the opposite sex as husband or wife.”

Even as late as 1989, The New Merriam-Webster Dictionary defined the word “marry” as “to join as husband and wife according to law or custom.”

Following is an etymology of the word “marry”, as well as the “-gamies” as in “monogamy” and “polygamy”.

Sanskrit:

Maryatas –   “individual from or among men or suitors.”

            Maryasri –  “adorned as a lover or suitor”

Marya – [originally something clear or shining] a mark, limit, boundary

marya – “a young man; attached to, true, devoted, dear, suitor.

            Mark, maryada –        “2.  The bounds or limits of morality and propriety, rule or custom

  1.    a covenant, agreement, bond, or contract.
  2. a kind of ring used as an amulet

Maryadabandha – keeping within limits

Maryadavyatikrama – overstepping bounds or limits

Gem or geme – “to marry; to be related”

Gene  or genHi – “to give birth

Copula [Indo-European] – “to be” from PIE root, hes – Eng “is” Ger – “ist”, Latin “est”,

Sanskrit “asti”

Greek:

Meirax – “a young girl or lass”

Maryas – “ a young man”

Gamos – marriage; a sexual union or reproduction; sexually united – thus, such English

words as “monogamy” and “polygamy”.

Koinonia – (m.g. -) marriage’ fr. Koinonos, “common”; “partnership”. “a sharer”,

“companion”

Hedna – “betrothed wife”

Engyesis – “betrothal”

Hebrew:

Laqah – loose term for marriage, but not most common word

Baal or bawaal – “to marry; to rule over”

Latin:

Marita – “a married woman; a wife”

Maritus – “a married man; a husband;” also, adj. “matrimonial; nuptial”

Marito (vt) – “to marry”

Copulo (masc. vt) –   “to couple; join; to unite”

Copula (fem. n) – “cord; string; rope; leash; (fig.) tie, bond

The Ancient Greek legislators considered marriage to be a matter of public interest. This was particularly the case at Sparta, where the subordination of private interests and personal happiness to the good of the public was strongly encouraged by the laws of the city. One example of the legal importance of marriage can be found in the Spartan governing laws, the laws of Lycurgus of Sparta, which required that criminal proceedings be taken against those who married too late (graphe opsigamiou) or unsuitably (graphe kakogamiou), as well as against those who did not marry at all (graphe agamiou). These regulations were founded on the generally recognized principle that it was the duty of every citizen to raise up a strong and healthy progeny of legitimate children to the state.

The woman consecrated the marriage by moving into the suitors living quarters.[34] Once the woman stepped in the house the sunoikein, ‘living together’, legalized the engysis that the suitor and the kyrios made. A dowry was given to the husband from the wife. She often did not have any possessions to give, the father or the kyrios provided a dowry, which was important for the couple

Just what “-gamy” word to the five Supreme Court justices propose to use to describe a homosexual marriage?  It can’t really be defined as a “union” in the sexual sense since both partners possess the same reproductive organs.  Yet that’s exactly the purpose of a homosexual union – the joining of two people of the same sex.

In one day, at the behest of a small, aggressive group of socialist activists representing, at best, 2 percent of the population of the United States, 5 judges overturned the most fundamental and ancient understanding of marriage, one that predates written language.

The most any homosexual “couple” could accomplish is a legal partnership.  More power to them.  But the notion that they could “marry” in the normal sense of the word is absurd.  They could live together, they could carry on a sexual relationship after their fashion.  But they cannot produce off-spring on their own.  Not even modern medical techniques can assist them – one part of the embryo must come from outside their partnership.

The gay activists cited Article IV, Section 2, Paragraph 1 of the U.S. Constitution:

The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several states.

Having already ensured this Civil Right in the main body of the Constitution, the Framers (that’s what they’re generally called, People) were still not satisfied and after the Civil War, included Amendment XIV in the Bill of Rights, specifically Section 1:

…No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

That’s how the activists, both the Gay Activists and the Judicial Activists got away with it; by declaring marriage a “privilege.”  But privilege is defined as (as Rush Limbaugh noted on his radio program this afternoon): “a right or immunity granted as an advantage or favor especially to some and not others.”

A “privilege” is not a “right”.  Did The Framers trip themselves up?  Why would they write such a thing?  A privilege is also something to be granted or taken away, as opposed to a natural right.  Perhaps they didn’t want to see certain rights abused and regarded certain institutions (like marriage, employment, property ownership) a privilege so that Society would not be burdened by plaintiffs seeking collective redress for an equal right that did not exist but was the responsibility of individual to merit on their own.

The government allowed states to individually regulate the licensing of marriages in order to avoid incestuous unions, underage marriages, and polygamy (which is a very expensive proposition; just ask any Arab), as well as other Biblical abominations and the spreading of sexually-transmitted diseases.

Marriage was intended as a protection for the off-spring of the couple.  God thinks about as much of divorce as He does homosexual unions.  The Bible declares that divorced couples are adulterers.  Well, that’s what it says.  If homosexuals feel isolated, they’re not as alone as they think they are in the eyes of Jesus Christ (apparently).  “God hates divorce; He only permitted it because you’d hardened your hearts,” Jesus told His followers.

But that’s another story.  Right now, the issue is who gets to define words and concepts.  The Supreme Court?  Communists?  Socialists?  Fundamentalist Christians?  The President?  Congress?  The Mainstream Media?  The publishers of the Merriam-Webster Dictionary?  The publishers of Penthouse, Playboy and Hustler magazines?

According to my college training in English and Communications, and particularly the study of the history of dictionaries, usage is said to determine meaning.  However, during The Enlightenment, as Johannes Gutenberg’s invention became more and more popular, academics and scholars discovered a problem in the written word:  the English language was a “modern” Tower of Babble.

There were no rules for clear communications.  English was a muddle of various spellings, confusing punctuation (or lack of), and mixed tenses.  Other countries were finding the same problems and established official schools or academies of language, where linguists laid down the language laws.

Today, the debate still rages.  What defines language:  usage or traditional rules.  Ultimately, usage wins out.  We couldn’t begin to read Old English without substantial college training and Middle English is the bane of every English major who’s ever had to read Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales in the original Middle English.

Still, marriage, up until last Friday, retained its traditional meaning, any other meaning being physically impossible.  For those who bewail the prospect of polygamy, unfortunately, that type of marriage does come under the heading of marriage, where a homosexual union does not – and could not, no matter how many times the Supremes bang their gavel.

Polygamy is not going to fly here in the United States; not with a population in which women constitute a 51 percent majority.  Polygamy will probably be considered legalized adultery here in America.  Will women stand for it?  Probably not.

But then again, women fall for living together, jumping into bed sometimes on the first date with no thought as to the consequences to their relationship – and possible children.  Men will have no reason to produce an engagement ring (which is probably what they had in mind all along when they seduced the woman into this most disadvantageous arrangement).

Homosexual partnerships (i.e., marriages) and polygamy will be the last nail in the coffin of civilized society.  All weekend long, we were treated to a rainbow parade of victorious deviants cheering the ultimate demise of civilization, morality and God.

By chance, I was working on downloading a recording of Cabaret, both the Broadway cast recording and the film soundtrack.  Around the same time, I had ripped down a recording of Frank Sinatra’s rendition of Mack, the Knife.  Researching the background of Mack, I discovered it was written by none other than avowed Communist Bertholt Brecht in Berlin in 1928, as part of the Threepenny Opera.

On Youtube, I found an original recording of Brecht singing Mack, the Knife in German.  He sounded remarkably like Joel Grey, of the play and the movie.  So, then I researched (and ordered) the book on which Cabaret was based:  The Berlin Diaries, by homosexual author Christopher Isherwood.  Isherwood’s book begins in 1929, when Brecht flourished as a playwright, author, and opera producer.

Mack the Knife was what was known as a moritat or  “murder ballad.” A moritat (from mori meaning “deadly” and tat meaning “deed”) was performed by strolling minstrels in the Middle Ages.  “Die Moritat von Mackie Messer,” [Mack the Knife] was composed by Kurt Weill with lyrics by Brecht for ‎The Threepenny Opera, or in German, Die Dreigroschenoper.

In The Threepenny Opera, the moritat singer with his street organ introduces and closes the drama with the tale of the deadly Mackie Messer, or Mack the Knife, a character based on the dashing highwayman Macheat in John Gay’s  The Beggar’s Opera (who was in turn based on the historical thief Jack Sheppard). The Brecht-Weill version of the character was far more cruel and sinister, and has been transformed into a modern anti-hero.

Did Isherwood attend Brecht’s Die Dreigroschenoper (The Threepenny Opera)?  I was wondering if I might find a reference in his book of short stories, The Berlin Diaries.  Since the books only arrived today, I have not yet discovered any coincidence.

But I did encounter something else in the introduction to the book by writer Armistead Maupin (who refers to a man named “Christopher” as his “husband”; it was unclear whether he meant Isherwood or some other man).  Maupin wanted to interview Isherwood for a 1985 article in The Village Voice.  By that time, Isherwood was dying of cancer.  This is what he told Maupin regarding the AIDs epidemic (then ravaging Isherwood’s home city of San Francisco):

“Though struggling with cancer himself,” Maupin wrote in the intro to The Berlin Stories, “he offered fighting words to the legions of young men already dying of AIDS:”

They’re told by their relatives that it’s God’s will and all that sort of thing.  And I think they have to be very tough with themselves and really decide which side they’re on.  You know, fu*& God’s will.  God’s will must be circumvented, if that’s what it is.

Maupin went on to add:

It was just that kind of ‘straight’ talk that made Isherwood so loved.  It embarrassed some of his more “discreet” Hollywood friends (most of them younger than he) but it was a battle cry for some of us – and for once, miraculously, it was coming from an elder.  More than anyone of his generation, Isherwood reminded us that gay self-respect came with its own noble lineage.

So that’s what it comes down to, the Gay Pride, Supreme Court ruling “rainbow” message about marriage:

F— God’s Will?

That’s some message.  When it comes time for them to be judged, what do the Supremes think God’s ruling on them will be?

Published in: on June 29, 2015 at 5:38 pm  Comments (1)  

Goodbye to Decency – Belle’s Blog

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

Kofels, Austria – site of the Sodom and Gomorrah asteroid strike

Today, in a 5 to 4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court declared that same-sex marriage is legal.

The ramifications of this completely political and entirely immoral ruling will be felt for decades.  Let us hope that ultimately the ruling meets the same unpopular fate as Roe v. Wade, although even Roe has yet to be struck down by Congress, much less the Supreme Court.

What the Supreme Court declares legal, it appears, cannot be undone by any methods known to American-kind.  The Supremes declare that they are being faithful to the Constitution, yet defy every precept that made the document possible.

Yesterday, they declared that Obamacare was also constitutional and that if we wanted the legislation to be reversed or not to be written at all, then vote for legislators who would do our will.  No one has proven that same-sex marriage is universally accepted by Americans.

Now that the Supreme Court has declared homosexual unions legal by fiat, none dare oppose the ruling without an army of lawyers to support them.  The butcher, the baker and the photographer must comply with the ruling and be prepared to make the celebration of homosexual marriages possible, no matter how many other service providers are perfectly willing to help host a gay wedding.  If you refuse to do it, you’ll be in hot water with the government and it is you the gay activists will target.

In a generation, we’ve gone from tolerance and compassion to totalitarianism and compliance.

The religious considerations of those forced to acknowledge the governmental legitimacy of homosexual marriage have been overthrown in favor of a small minority of Americans and even smaller, but vocal, minority of activists.

Three hundred million and some odd people cannot overpower the monstrous sound speakers of the Mass Media.  They cheerlead all manner of deviation – homosexuality, drug and alcohol abuse, gambling, prostitution – in stereophonic splendor.  Reporters announcing the ruling were overflowing with glee at this victory over the Christian church.

Some pastors will not surrender.  They will go to jail in defense of their churches and congregations rather than submit to practices the Bible clearly condemns.  The residents of Sodom were not the Welcome Wagon.  They didn’t pound on Lot’s door so they could “know” the visiting strangers in any peaceful manner; they were there to gang rape them.  Their intentions were clearly sexual as evidenced by Lot’s offer of his own virginal daughters.

God didn’t destroy Sodom and Gomorrah because their residents were ill-mannered.  If that were the case, He’d have destroyed Manhattan ages ago.  No; God destroyed the two towns (and other neighboring villages) because they were filled with evil, wicked people who defiled themselves and God’s ordinances.

We’ve been browbeaten into not acknowledging that evil exists, that Satan roams the Earth seeking to divide God from His creation, Man, and that, in our human weakness we can be deceived and exploited by him.  His treachery runs through the marrow of our bones.  Yet we dare not speak his name (anymore than we may speak the name of Jesus).  If we do, we run the risk of being declared “judgmental.”  We will be guilty of “discrimination” and subject (now) to the full force of the laws of the United States.

How did we come to this?  How did we go from “the love that dare not speak its name” to the God whose name we dare not speak?  That is Satan’s goal:  to convince Man that he doesn’t need God, that God will never hurt us, and in fact, that God doesn’t exist at all.

The other day, those Millennials who spoke at the Tea Party admitted that it was hard to know how to reach out to Millennials who overwhelmingly support the legalization of drugs, gay marriage, and illegal immigrants.  How does the Tea Party reach out to these Magnanimous Ones without offending their sensibilities?  So supercilious are they, that they have even abandoned Facebook, lest the cautionary words of their elders penetrate their ears and pierce their eyes.

They remind me of the time when they were small and they did something naughty.  They covered their eyes at the words of shame and cried, “Don’t look at me!!”  But of course, the adults towering over them could see them and laughed at their naiveté.

Above is a photo of Kofels Mountain in Austria, where some scientists say the asteroid struck on June 29, 3123 B.C.  Some scientists say it was simply a coincidence of a natural phenomenon.  According to the theory, after the asteroid truck, it sent a fiery arc of debris flying south as far as the Levant, laying waste to the Valley of Siddim on the southeastern side of the Dead Sea (known in those times as the Salt Sea).

Now that we’re so smart, now that our fat heads are safely cocooned against anything resembling the truth outside of our own reasoning powers, we no longer believe that God can, would, or ever did, send down balls of fire to punish the wicked.  God would never do that to us, we think.  God’s just a great, big lovable and loving teddy bear (a notion against which Jesus, the son of God, warned us).  Or worse:  there is no God, so we don’t have to worry about what we do or don’t do.  We’re just balls of nothing circling aimlessly around an empty, uncaring void.

Uh-huh.  You go right on believing that, if you want.  Yet when The Government tells you you’re evil, as in Climate Change Denial, or believing that homosexuals can be cured, or that individual freedom is better than collective slavery, you quake in fear, lest you be deprived of your livelihood, your property, and your freedom (such as it is).

That is the evil against which the Bible warns:  the subjugation of men by other men; the worship of Satan, the Eternal Liar.

Spaceweather.com provides a list of near-future passes of all known asteroids larger than 100 meters that pass closer to Earth than 0.05 AUs (astronomical units).  The “Miss Distance” is counted in LDs (Lunar Distances – the distance between the Earth and the Moon, or 384,401 kilometers).  Depending on where the Moon and Earth are located in their respective orbits and the size of the asteroids, we can experience some pretty close calls.

The current worry on NASA’s list is Asteroid 2015 HM 10, which will pass by Earth at a distance of 1.1 LD (384,401 kilometers give or take 38,000 kilometers or 22,000 miles, if I’ve converted kilometers to miles properly).  220,000 miles – that’s a pretty far distance.  You’d have to drive your car about 15 to 20 years to put that many miles on it.

An 81 meter piece of rock – 3,1887 inches or 265 feet (a hundred feet short of a football field) – speeding towards Earth (it’s unclear from space weather’s data just how fast it’s going), will pass within Earth’s orbit, about as near to Earth, or just hair’s breadth out, as the Moon is.

Even that close, it would be difficult to see without a telescope.  There have been much closer calls but fortunately for Earthlings, the asteroids have been even smaller than this one.  However, if this asteroid were to deviate from its projected path or if the astronomers are wrong and it did hit Earth, the consequences could be devastating.

HM10 is no stranger to our solar system; it first visited Jupiter in June 2001.  This trip, it will first pass the Earth and then the Moon before heading out.  If it’s already one lunar distance out from Earth, just how close is this thing going to come to our Moon?

That’s something for those celebrating today’s Supreme Court decision to consider.  By the way, gay activists have a lot of nerve using God’s rainbow as their standard.

Published in: on June 26, 2015 at 5:06 pm  Leave a Comment  

The Race War That Will Never End

The Race War That Will Never End

“Racism; we are not cured of it. And it’s not just a matter of it not being polite to say ‘nigger’ in public,” Obama commented in an interview for the podcast, WTF with Marc Maron.  “That’s not the measure of whether racism still exists or not.

“It’s not enough just to feel bad. There are actions that could be taken to make events like this less likely.  And I don’t foresee any real action being taken until the American public feels a sufficient sense of urgency and they say to themselves, this is not normal; this is something that we can change, and we’re going to change it.”

Hillary Clinton soon added her own venom to accelerate the disease of divisiveness.

“On the heels of delivering an impassioned speech on race relations last weekend,” reported The  Washington Post, “Hillary Rodham Clinton condemned the shooting of nine people at a church in Charleston as ‘an act of racist terrorism,’ and called for the removal of the Confederate flag from public spaces nationwide.

“’I appreciate the actions begun yesterday by the governor and others in South Carolina to remove the Confederate flag from the statehouse, recognizing it as a symbol of our nation’s racist past that has no place in our present or our future,’ she said. ‘It shouldn’t fly there, it shouldn’t fly anywhere.’

In this, Hillary is correct, at least in terms of public property.  Whether individuals decide to display on their own private property, on their cars, on their persons, or wherever, is another matter, one in which the government should not interfere.  By all means, allow these Neanderthals to self-identify as racists so we know to shun them.

Then Hillary, like Obama, went on to play the race card, a tactic first publicly begun by O.J. Simpson lawyer Johnnie Cochran back in the 1980s.  He used it in a jury trial where he defended a black-skinned Hispanic from charges of assault and battery by a bus-driving white-skinned Hispanic.  The case was lost on lack of witnesses and a presumption that the defendant should be found not guilty by reason of 400 years of oppression.

“’Despite our best efforts and our highest hopes, America’s long struggle with race is far from finished,’ Clinton said at the annual Conference of Mayors on Saturday. ‘I know this is a difficult topic to talk about. I know that so many of us hoped by electing our first black president, we had turned the page on this chapter in our history. I know there are truths we do not like to say out loud or discuss with our children. But we have to.’”

Oh there are certainly truths the Democrats don’t care to say out loud, such as the fat that more black men are killed by black men than by white men and that the underlying cause for the murders is drug and gang violence rather than racism.

But Obama and Hillary are determined to tear up every room in America to find those hidden, White supremacist racist cockroaches lying under they want us to believe is hiding under every rug and inside every wall.  Better that than to address the real issues such as the lack of solid families (meaning homes with employed fathers), drug abuse, children born out of wedlock into homes with numerous half-siblings and absent fathers, and woefully poor educational standards (the answer:  to lower the test scores of their better educated suburban neighbors so there will exist a statistical equality).

At a local Tea Party meeting this week, Americans for Prosperity representative Jordan Chester noted that millions had been spent on Abbott school districts (Abbott districts are school districts in New Jersey that are provided remedies to ensure that their students receive public education in accordance with New Jersey’s state constitution. They were created in 1985 as a result of the first ruling of Abbott v. Burke, a case filed by the Education Law Center) to no avail; these districts’ scores and graduation rates are abyssmal.

Obama and Hillary are following Pres. Lyndon Johnson’s mandate to ‘keep those [n-word people] voting Democrat for the next 200 years.’  The coalition of Blacks, Hispanics, Jews, women and assorted other minorities is ready source of votes for the Democrats.

Like Hester in The Scarlet Letter, Democrats are determined to make sure Republicans, Conservatives, Libertarians and anyone else who opposes their Big Government agenda keep on wearing that placard bearing the letter “R” (for Racist) until the Rapture.

Every shooting by a police officer, every riot, every effort to block raising the minimum wage is ammunition in their Racist cannon/canon.  They particularly rub their hands in secret glee over the massacre of nine (9) Black Christians in a Charleston, S.C., church by a genuinely racist white man.  It just doesn’t get any better.  The shooting will deliver them bundles of political advantage and an unlooked-for advantage to legitimately race the issue of racism.

No one disputes the fact that Dylann Storm Roof was a racist.  He said so himself as he pulled out his legally-bought gun to kill the Black people in the church.  His crime was horrific.  Allegedly, he said that his divorced parents objected to his having black friends.

Democrats are drooling over that legally-owned gun, which will provide (if you’ll excuse the expression) ‘ammunition’ for the next salvo against our Second Amendment gun rights.  Gun rights are now racist, thanks to this incident.

No one is speaking the “D” word, however.  “D” for “Drugs” not “Democrats.”  Why aren’t Republicans hanging a placard with the letter “D” around Democrats’ necks?  This guy was a nut-case thanks to the drugs he was taking, both illegal and recreational.  He also burnt the American flag.

Mr. Chester and his co-presenter, young Morris County Freeholder Hank Lyon had come to speak to the Tea Party group about pensions.  But they also spoke about the Millennials, a demographic of which they are both members.  I wanted to ask them about the Millennials’ lax and even droll acceptance of drug use.

Like same-sex marriage, they consider it to be no big deal.  But drugs do kill.  Drugs make killers of dealers and users alike.  Wars are fought in the inner cities over drugs.  Drug addiction can cause the break-up of marriages and families, the loss of productivity, and eventually the loss of jobs.

Worse still, it makes Democrats out of otherwise reasonable young voters.  The drugs make a mish-mash of their brain cells, relying on the conceit of the user to obfuscate the real damage taking place.  Democrats depend upon the pacifying effects of pot, as well as stronger drugs, and beer, to brainwash young voters and turn them into what Rush Limbaugh calls “skulls full of mush.”

Collective peer pressure insures that young high school and college students will give the stuff a try.  Addiction or abdication of one’s senses only takes one puff.  ‘Just give it a try; it won’t hurt you,’ the dealer urges the reluctant potential user.  So to be polite and not be anti-socialist, they do try it and the game is over.  No harm is done that the young voter turned user can see.

Yet we’re legalizing marijuana all over the place.  The kids are also raiding the medicine cabinet the way kids in other days used to raid the liquor cabinet, making them targets for heroin dealers.  You can follow their trail all around our town and up into neighboring towns.  Candy manufacturers, since the police finally found the trail, are now offering wrapper-less candy to their youthful customers.

No; racism is not going to be cured.  The disease is simply too useful to the Democrats.  Racism helps spread divisiveness, suspicion, and hatred between races, between rich and poor, between young and old, between men and women, and between Christians and the rest of America.

Democrats will play the race card to the very end of the race, when only they will govern a Socialist America where no debate will be permitted to take place, no criticism of their government, and certainly no expressions of individuality branded as “hatred.”

No sensible wants to be “united” under the Confederate flag.  But no one will be “united” under a Socialist flag.  You will only be absorbed into the drugged, brainwashed collective, where resistance against immorality will be unthinkable, futile, and illegal.  You will be permitted, and even encouraged, to keep your drugs.

But not your guns.

Published in: on June 24, 2015 at 2:27 pm  Leave a Comment  

The Civil War is Over

Attention anti-American South Carolinians, racists, white supremacists, and other assorted knuckle-draggers:  the Civil War is over.  Get over it.

The Battle of Appomattox Court House, fought on the morning of April 9, 1865, was one of the last battles of the Civil War. It was the final engagement of General Robert E. Lee’s Army of Northern Virginia before it surrendered to the Union Army under Lt. Gen. Ulysses S. Grant.  Lee, having abandoned the Confederate capital of Richmond, Va., after the ten-month siege of Petersburg of Petersburg, retreated west, hoping to join his army with the Confederate forces in North Carolina. Union forces pursued and cut off the Confederate retreat at the village of Appomattox Court House. Lee launched an attack to break through the Union force to his front, assuming the Union force consisted entirely of cavalry. When he realized that the cavalry was backed up by two corps of Union infantry, he had no choice but to surrender.

The signing of the surrender documents occurred in the parlor of the house owned by Wilmer McLean on the afternoon of April 9.  On April 12, a formal ceremony marked the disbandment of the Army of Northern Virginia and the parole of its officers and men, effectively ending the war in Virginia. This event triggered a series of surrenders across the south, signaling the end of the war.

Initially, Lee did not intend to surrender, but planned to regroup at the village of Appomattox Court House, where supplies were to be waiting, and then continue the war.  Grant chased Lee and got in front of him, so that when Lee’s army reached Appomattox Court House, they were surrounded.  After an initial battle, Lee decided that the fight was now hopeless, and surrendered his Army of Northern Virginia on April 9, 1865.  In an untraditional gesture and as a sign of Grant’s respect and anticipation of peacefully restoring Confederate states to the Union, Lee was permitted to keep his sword and his horse, Traveller.

On April 14, 1865, President Lincoln was shot by John Wilkes Booth, a Southern sympathizer. Lincoln died early the next morning, and Andrew Johnson became the president.  Meanwhile, Confederate forces across the South surrendered as news of Lee’s surrender reached them.  President Johnson officially declared a virtual end to the insurrection on May 9, 1865; the fleeing Confederate President Jefferson Davis was captured the following day, May 10, 1865 in Georgia.

On June 2, 1865, in an event that is generally regarded as marking the absolute end of the Civil War, Confederate General Edmund Kirby Smith, commander of Confederate forces west of the Mississippi, signed the surrender terms offered by Union negotiators. With Smith’s surrender, the last Confederate army ceased to exist, bringing a formal end to the bloodiest four years in U.S. history, although on June 23, 1865, Cherokee leader Stand Watie was said to be the last Confederate General to surrender his forces.

In Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1869) the United States Supreme Court ruled that Texas had remained a state ever since it first joined the Union, despite claims that it joined the Confederate States of America; the court further held that the Constitution did not permit states to unilaterally secede from the United States, and that the ordinances of secession, and all the acts of the legislatures within seceding states intended to give effect to such ordinances, were “absolutely null” under the Constitution.

The war produced about 1,030,000 casualties (3 percent of the population), including about 620,000 soldier deaths—two-thirds by disease, and 50,000 civilians. Binghamton University historian J. David Hacker believes the number of soldier deaths was approximately 750,000, 20 percent higher than traditionally estimated, and possibly as high as 850,000.  The war accounted for roughly as many American deaths as all American deaths in other U.S. wars combined.

Based on 1860 census figures, 8 percent of all white males aged 13 to 43 died in the war, including 6 percent in the North and 18 percent in the South.  About 56,000 soldiers died in prisoner of war camps.

Union army dead, amounting to 15% of the over two million who served, were broken down as follows:

  • 110,070 killed in action (67,000) or died of wounds (43,000).
  • 199,790 died of disease (75% of which was due to the war, the remainder would have occurred in civilian life anyway)
  • 24,866 died in Confederate prison camps
  • 9,058 killed by accidents or drowning
  • 15,741 other/unknown deaths
  • 359,528 total dead

In addition there were 4,523 deaths in the Navy (2,112 in battle) and 460 in the Marines (148 in battle).

Black troops made up 10% of the Union death toll, they amounted to 15% of disease deaths but less than 3% of those killed in battle. Losses among African Americans were high, in the last year and a half and from all reported casualties, approximately 20 percent of all African Americans enrolled in the military lost their lives during the Civil War.  Notably, their mortality rate was significantly higher than white soldiers;

Incomplete Confederate records list 74,524 killed and died of wounds and 59,292 died of disease. Including Confederate estimates of battle losses where no records exist would bring the Confederate death toll to 94,000 killed and died of wounds.

A conservative estimate puts the number of Civil War deaths – on both sides – at roughly one million soldiers.  Whether that number includes the 50,000 civilian deaths is unclear.

The Supreme Court’s 1869 decision would indicate that officially flying any flag other than the U.S. flag (excepting state and military flags) would be unconstitutional.  Still, in the wake of the June 17 Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church killings in Charleston, South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley has ordered the Confederate Flag to be removed from statehouse grounds, and probably any other state government facilities.

Certain Southerners are still fighting the Civil War.  They are determined that the slave-owning South will rise again.  They have associates in the North who agree.  Why are they permitted – and should they be permitted – to wave the Confederate flag a century and a half after the Civil War ended?

For the same reason Liberals are allowed to burn the American flag:  First Amendment rights.  Some of us believe the First Amendment should not extend to burning the flag that stands as a symbol for individual liberty.  Burning the flag defeats the purpose.  Nevertheless, that is why Glenn Beck and his crew studiously avoided the enormous Confederate flag at his Washington rally, Defending Honor.

The Confederate flag bearer (I saw him; a bearded guy in a tattered hat) may have been a genuine racist.  Or he may have been a mole, planted there by Glenn Beck’s enemies.  In any case, the Confederate was on the Washington Mall, a public space.  Had the event organizers had him removed, Glenn Beck may well have been subjected to a First Amendment lawsuit.  Instead, the camera crews and still photographers studiously avoided him.

Dylan Storm Roof, according to reports, had also burnt the American flag, and there were photos of him posing with the Confederate flag.  Clearly, he also hated America, almost as much as he hated black people.  Why did he choose the church instead of the college he initially told a friend he planned to attack?  In addition to its being an historic Black church, it was quite simply, a church, where attendees were unlikely to be carrying guns.

The Confederate flag, while historic, is not an official flag of the United States.  Quite the opposite, in fact.  Therefore, there is no legal reason why any state should be required by a minority of the public to fly it on public property.  As a matter of fact, it is (if I read the 1869 Supreme Court decision properly) illegal to do so.  The Confederate flag flew for four years as a separate, and ultimately illegitimate, country.  Or would-be country.

The Confederate States of America were defeated in their effort at secession from the United States.  The Confederate’s leading general official surrendered at Appomattox and subsequent generals followed suit.  With no Army to protect him, the Confederate president, Jefferson Davis, was captured by the Union Army.  In short, they lost, their general surrendered, their president taken prisoner, and their flag taken down and replaced by state flags and the flag of the United States of America.

The time has come to make it clear to these sore losers, who defy America’s greatest principle – freedom – that their cause is, in fact, lost, as some scholars have termed it.  The war is over.  Freedom triumphed.  From that time, in the Spring of 1865, to this, no one has had to be chained in servitude to a master (some would claim we labor in voluntary servitude, but that’s another matter).

No white person in the 21st Century and in their right mind sympathizes with Confederate racism or white supremacy.  That civilized, moral society is being overrun is obvious.  But that is a political threat, not a manifestation of some outmoded natural theory.  Ignorance is as prevalent on one side of the extreme as it is on the other.  In the middle are hapless victims of every race and color, unsure what peaceful means can be used to combat this scourge of racist hyperbole, immoral decadence, and political corruption.

We are beginning to question adherence to our own, legal flag, behind which hide opportunistic Communists, a traitor-in-chief and his minions, and corporate moguls like George Soros whose agendas will enslave us all.

We’re certainly not going to pledge allegiance or even recognize a flag that represents a long-lost cause that has been buried by history.

The Confederacy is dead; long live the Republic.

Published in: on June 23, 2015 at 2:13 pm  Leave a Comment  

Kindness and Courage Suspended at Lodi High – Abridged Version

An outspoken 18-year-old Lodi, N.J. high school valedictorian who is bound for Harvard with a 4.3032 grade-point average, has been banned from giving the valedictorian speech at his high school’s commencement tomorrow night for being too outspoken in defending a classmate who was being mistreated by a substitute teacher.

Lodi High School officials notified Solanki earlier this month that he wouldn’t be giving the valedictorian address due to prior disciplinary issues, including talking back to a substitute teacher who he said was rude to a fellow student.  Solanki said the principal told him it was tradition, not policy, to have the No. 1-ranking student address his peers.

When mass emails, letters, and student protests failed to persuade the school officials to change their “policy”, Solanki out his guidance counselor to help him mediate the dispute.

“I walked into the guidance office and said, ‘I’d like to resolve this peacefully,’” said Solanki.  “I guess she took it as an ultimatum or an ‘or else’ statement. Her official words were, I threatened her.”

According to NBC 4 New York, “Solanki passed a school-ordered psychiatric evaluation and returned to school to find the superintendent waiting.

“’He decided that regardless of being cleared by my mental evaluation, my alleged threat deserved a five-day suspension,” which runs right through graduation, he said.

School officials didn’t return NBC 4 New York’s calls for comment Friday, and Principal Frank D’Amico has declined comment in the past, saying he couldn’t discuss student issues.

Solanki told NBC, “I guess they were afraid I’d use the speech to try to get back to them, further my personal agenda, but they never took the time to look at the speech. They would see that I’m very aware that the speech at graduation is not the time to do that.”

Devan’s father passed away eight months ago and Devan’s mother, Nayana, said the family even delayed their trip to India to spread her husband’s ashes, so they could attend Devan’s graduation.

“Solanki’s sharp tongue managed to make him some enemies during his few short years at Lodi High School. And as I see it, it’s plain that administration and faculty are using the last month of Solanki’s time as a student to teach him a lesson. Whatever the ‘lesson’ is supposed to be, here, it’s an awful one to teach a child. It isn’t right, it isn’t fair; above all, it’s petty and vindictive.”

Speaking truth to power is a dangerous occupation.

Young Mr. Solanki, once he has his Harvard degree in hand, probably won’t be haunted by his youthful past.  Still, the world doesn’t love the truth, much as it clamors for it.  The world does not love provocateurs.  The villagers of Nazareth tried to throw Jesus off a cliff.  Make sure you save up a substantial amount of money before embarking wholesale upon this career path, young man.

Yet standing up for the weak, the unlucky, the unprotected has its rewards, if not in money, at least in integrity and a clear conscience.  Once you get over the daunting prospect of being poor and unemployed, provoking cruel or abusive people can be quite a pleasure when you return home from your day’s work.

Commodities such as kindness, patience, friendliness, understanding, empathy, and forgiveness are in woefully short supply, particularly in our business environment.  Cruelty, stupidity, stubbornness, short-sightedness, anger, retribution, ruthlessness, and mindless obedience have replaced them.

Clearly, these latter qualities are being inured at Lodi High School.  A fine example they’re setting for a future authoritarian state where absolutism will be the rule.  Respect for teachers will be replaced by suspicion and anxiety.

Had Mr. Solanki protected his classmate from the bullying of another classmate, he’d probably have been given some sort of certificate of merit tomorrow night.  But because he spoke up to authority (twice), he’s been publicly cast down by the authorities from his rightful place.

This young man thought he was using the right words in applying the phrase, “resolve this peacefully.”  But he was using the Leftist’s (and undoubtedly, these teachers and administrators are precisely that) words against them and they took immediate offense and went on the defensive, suspending the student for insubordination.

They were going to teach him a lesson is exactly right.  He who owns the microphone owns the stage.  Lodi High considers the commencement microphone and stage their property and they control the messages that are delivered upon it.

Evidently, the message of love and kindness, courage and valedictorian valor, will be delivered only by a messenger of their choosing, not a messenger of merit like Mr. Solanki.

Published in: on June 23, 2015 at 11:34 am  Leave a Comment  

Kindness and Courage Suspended at Lodi High

An outspoken 18-year-old Lodi, N.J. high school valedictorian who is bound for Harvard with a 4.3032 grade-point average, has been banned from giving the valedictorian speech at his high school’s commencement tomorrow night for being too outspoken in defending a classmate who was being mistreated by a substitute teacher.

School officials notified Solanski earlier this month that he wouldn’t be giving the valedictorian address due to prior disciplinary issues, including talking back to a substitute teacher who he said was rude to a fellow student.  Solanki said the principal told him it was tradition, not policy, to have the No. 1-ranking student address his peers.

When mass emails, letters, and student protests failed to persuade the school officials to change their “policy”, Solanki out his guidance counselor to help him mediate the dispute.

“I walked into the guidance office and said, ‘I’d like to resolve this peacefully,’” said Solanski.  “I guess she took it as an ultimatum or an ‘or else’ statement. Her official words were, I threatened her.”

According to NBC 4 New York, “Solanski passed a school-ordered psychiatric evaluation and returned to school to find the superintendent waiting.

“’He decided that regardless of being cleared by my mental evaluation, my alleged threat deserved a five-day suspension,” which runs right through graduation, he said.

School officials didn’t return NBC 4 New York’s calls for comment Friday, and Principal Frank D’Amico has declined comment in the past, saying he couldn’t discuss student issues.

Solanki told NBC, “I guess they were afraid I’d use the speech to try to get back to them, further my personal agenda, but they never took the time to look at the speech. They would see that I’m very aware that the speech at graduation is not the time to do that.”

Devan’s father passed away eight months ago and Devan’s mother, Nayana, said the family even delayed their trip to India to spread her husband’s ashes, so they could attend Devan’s graduation.

“Solanki’s sharp tongue managed to make him some enemies during his few short years at Lodi High School. And as I see it, it’s plain that administration and faculty are using the last month of Solanki’s time as a student to teach him a lesson. Whatever the ‘lesson’ is supposed to be, here, it’s an awful one to teach a child. It isn’t right, it isn’t fair; above all, it’s petty and vindictive.”

Speaking truth to power is a dangerous occupation.  I did it myself as young as four years old.  At five, I threw my soda at a bigger girl who was teasing myself and another child for wearing hand-me-down clothes.  My kindergarten teacher slapped me for criticizing her teeth, after she told me I had to be more lady-like, like the other little girls who flapped their little wings, lavishing her with praise to get her attention and approbation.  In the first grade, I wrestled my best friend to the ground when she tried to shoplift some item in a pharmacy.  She later “unfriended” me and after that, I was just as willing not to have any more to do with her than she with me.

In high school, my projects were always about the progress of Communism in our schools.  I urged my Junior English classmates to beware of the “gatekeepers” of publishing, who made the decisions on how the news, school textbooks, and magazines would be skewed.  I participated in the American History Revolution of 1976, protesting the Communist teachings of our U.S. History teacher (who was actually angling to have the next level of history – World History – made mandatory for all students, so he could legitimately teach students the “glories of Communism.”

I stormed out of a college philosophy class whose professor insisted that we admit that Jesus Christ was a fraud.  Slamming the door, I marched directly to the Registrar’s office and dropped his class.  I was denounced by another professor for refusing to cheat on a test.  Out in one of the college parking lot, I urged a girl who was being beaten up by her boyfriend to get out of his car.  He ordered me to leave them alone and drove off.

Having thus embarked upon my career of provocateur, I speedily made great advancements.  In my very first working world blunder, I dared to tell a superior that he used a word incorrectly.  A shocked hush fell over the office and the enraged executive stormed into his office, raging at the notion that a 24 year-old had the nerve to tell him how to write.

At my next job, when I told some magazine advertising executives that one day they would have portable computers like briefcases, I wasn’t fired but merely laughed at.  But the magazine had a changeover in management and the magazine’s very nice advertising manager was peremptorily fired for telling its new publishers that notwithstanding the fact that the magazine dealt with psychology, the fact was that without the cigarette advertising, the magazine would have no money.

The next job, my superior was an absolute harridan.  Co-workers shook at the thunder of her voice.  I didn’t shake (surprisingly; perhaps because I was still so young) and she didn’t like that.  During a bomb scare, she ordered me to get away from the window where I was talking with the cops five stories below to ask if they could bring me some lunch and get back to work:  she wasn’t paying me to flirt with the bomb squad, she complained.

I hated her.  I really hated her and wasn’t worry when my position was terminated.  I went back to work in New Jersey.  At my next job, I got to learn all about the oil industry.  I spoke with tanker captains out at sea, met others who had been students of my grandfather (I came by my outspokenness honestly), and helped make oil maps out of coffee stains with my co-workers, who sang silly songs.  Those were merry days.

My curiosity was indulged in my job in the security department, where I did filing work in the security library.  I was allowed to read the recent Department of State security warnings and learned all about someone named “Osama Bin Laden.”

Trouble did come in the form of an oil spill.  The company was not forthcoming in its regret for the accident (and that’s all it was, plain and simple – an accident; the media seemed to think that tanker captains were like CEOs:  board room meetings, power lunches, and the occasional golf game.  Uh – not.)

We all complained to our supervisor that the company’s public relations department – to which we were vaguely attached in some way – was making a huge mistake.  You just can’t pretend you don’t see a vast oil spill in the middle of a bay in Alaska, we argued.  We were told to sit down and be quiet.  Ditto when an executive was later kidnapped and murdered.

By now in yet another department, I drew what’s known as a horary chart for a co-worker who was curious about metaphysics and the like.  ‘This is where they’ll find him, after a period of time,” I told her.  She asked if he’d be alive.  I said one always tries to be positive in practicing astrology.  But I said that if I’d interpreted the chart correctly, no.

Meanwhile, one of the secretaries warned me that I was being followed by company security.  My co-worker said Security had taken too much of an interest in the chart and she erased it.  I returned a few months later for another assignment and hailed as an astrological heroine for my accuracy.  The whole company had heard about it.

The executive in question, by the by, had opposed a merger with another oil company, with a third company, a Russian company (whose call, ironically, I had received by mistake while working in a different department – the head secretary was furious with me; to this day, I have no idea why) lurking in the background.  After the executive’s death, and a decent number of years, the merger went ahead.  The executive said the company was already making enough money and that the merger would cost their jobs.  Did his opposition cost him even more dearly?

After a return to college of one year to get my second bachelor’s in English (my first was in Communications), I went to work for an actually book publisher.  As bad as the New York job was, this was truly the low-point of my career as a provocateur.

My co-workers were truly horrid.  The very first day, I was invited by one to criticize another’s attire.  I declined and never had lunch with them again.  These girls, all at least 10 years younger than myself, were vicious, cruel, and prone to gossip.  From the day I arrived till the day I left, I was harangued and mocked by this crew.

But I was determined not to leave without leaving a permanent, positive mark.  Morale throughout the building was generally as low as mine.  Customer service was a nightmare.  When my young superior put me on customer service duty for failing to be as productive as was required, I put up with a lot of screaming customers.  I made the mistake of pointing out to her that no customer who had accepted an invitation to place their listing in one of our directories wanted to learn from an ad on the back cover that their listings were being sold to third-party mass-mailing companies.

She scolded for speaking out of turn, for criticizing company policies and products, and for taking up her time.  However, I was not going to be bested by her; at least not yet.  Recently, I had come across an Elvis doll (in mint condition, I might add).   She was an Elvis fan.  I gave her the doll and watched her and her companions play with thing like the children they were.

Meanwhile, I had begun a campaign movement of sorts for a better newsletter for this particular building.  The company had many locations and those employees received glossy, four-color magazines.  This group, for all their harassment, received a meager, four-page black and white newsletter with no photos.

The company president realized they had a morale problem, even if my department manager didn’t.  He began holding town hall meetings to allow the employees to ask questions and vent their frustrations.  At every opportunity, I got hold of the microphone and made suggestions to improve the working conditions, including my campaign pitch for a newsletter.

By the time I left the company (escorted by a security guard), I was the heroine of the building.  In fact, the day I left, I received a call from the company president asking to meet with me.  Pity for the employees that shortly after I hung up with the president’s secretary, my computer shut itself down (always an ominous portent with which I was, by now, all too familiar), and the phone rang, this time from a very different department.

Back on the temporary secretary trail, I was assigned to one company where the manager would take out his frustrations on his cabinets.  The entire company, however, used the copying machine as the office goat, stomping up to it, slamming its lid to make their copies, and then marching off again on their stiletto heels.  My desk was nearby.  I used to cringe every time someone came back there to make copies. The copy machine repairman was a frequent visitor.

I remarked to him that the employees were abusing the machine, which is basically an expensive camera inside a cabinet with a glass top, and that he should caution them about being too vigorous in their copying.

“I’m not telling them anything!” the young man replied.  Guess their abuse kept his paychecks coming.  So I told the president about the ineffectiveness of abusing a $10,000-plus.  He turned purple with rage, pointed to the door, and told me to get out.  As I left, I carried with me my next company’s secret.

Which I wisely kept.  Approaching 40, wisdom was finally growing in.  Still, injustice irked me and I simply couldn’t keep my mouth unopened when:  employees on our floor were forbidden at times from using their own break area because it was a popular atrium for meetings and parties, even though the law clearly states that you cannot forbid employees the use of their break area; a consultant urged our sales representatives that the company was on its way out; I was read the riot act for 45 minutes for featuring a sales representative whom the company considered unproductive, even though he initially checked out; when corporate public relations came to tell us that dealings with a certain community organizing organization whom the president of the company had forbidden association with was kosher; and finally, when those same public relations people declared that the company’s former one big happy family culture was over and that it was no ‘no more Mr. Nice Guy.’

Yet, I never betrayed the company.  The only person I told about my knowledge of the location of the new building (and the reasons for choosing it) was my boss, who urged me to say nothing of the matter.  When we moved into the new building, I never told anyone at all what the vice president said about the fate of that building the very first day – and its employees.  Why would I do something that cruel?

I said nothing when by accident, I learned the identity of an employee who died of mysterious illness and warned my co-worker, in the most careful terms possible, to contact the public relations representative handling the matter before publishing the deceased employee’s photo.  I felt terrible for the employees whose lives and careers were about to be turned upside-down by a reorganization.  My then-supervisor told me that the employees had two transfer options and if they chose the wrong one, well, they’d be looking for another job.  I never spoke a word to anyone about it, though I was deeply concerned for my friends heading happily in that direction.

To the very last, my direct co-workers thought they would be spared.  I knew otherwise.  In other companies, departments like ours were cut to the bare bones.  There were too many of us and we lived in the most expensive area with the highest salaries.  Of course we were going to be laid off permanently.

Being the eldest of the group, I advised each one of them on the career road best calculated to ensure their future success.  I was right on every count.  Yet, ironically, I’ve failed to find a situation for myself.  Caught between my success as a writer, the current dearth of writers (who generally must be in possession of a master’s degree in communications, and the reality of having to take a lower-paying situation as a secretary or administrative assistant, I have too much experience in the former and am lagging behind in the skills for the latter.

Young Mr. Solanki, once he has his Harvard degree in hand, shouldn’t have as checkered a career as I’ve had.  Still, the world doesn’t love the truth, much as it clamors for it.  The world does not love provocateurs.  The villagers of Nazareth tried to throw Jesus off a cliff.  Make sure save up a substantial amount of money before embarking wholesale upon this career path, young man.

Still, standing up for the weak, the unlucky, the unprotected has its rewards, if not in money, at least in integrity and a clear conscience.  Once you get over the daunting prospect of being poor and unemployed, provoking cruel or abusive people can be quite a pleasure when you return home from your day’s work.

Commodities such as kindness, patience, friendliness, understanding, empathy, and forgiveness are in woefully short supply, particularly in our business environment.  Cruelty, stupidity, stubbornness, short-sightedness, anger, retribution, ruthlessness, and mindless obedience have replaced them.

Clearly, these latter qualities are being inured at Lodi High School.  A fine example they’re setting for a future authoritarian state where absolutism will be the rule.  Respect for teachers will be replaced by suspicion and anxiety.

Had Mr. Solanki protected his classmate from the bullying of another classmate, he’d probably have been given some sort of certificate of merit tomorrow night.  But because he spoke up to authority (twice), he’s been publicly cast down by the authorities from his rightful place.

This young man thought he was using the right words in applying the phrase, “resolve this peacefully.”  But he was using the Leftist’s (and undoubtedly, these teachers and administrators are precisely that) words against them and they took immediate offense and went on the defensive, suspending the student for insubordination.

They were going to teach him a lesson is exactly right.  He who owns the microphone owns the stage.  Lodi High considers the commencement microphone and stage their property and they control the messages that are delivered upon it.

Evidently, the message of love and kindness, courage and valedictorian valor, will be delivered only by a messenger of their choosing, not a messenger of merit like Mr. Solanki.

Published in: on June 22, 2015 at 3:29 pm  Leave a Comment  

Preying Versus Praying

Dylann Storm Roof.  That’s the three-name nom de guerre of the latest mass murderer to open fire on innocent, unsuspecting victims.  The 21 year-old killer bought a gun with his birthday money.  Then, on Wednesday, he sat in a pew at Charleston, South Carolina’s Emanuel AME Church during a Bible study.

After nearly an hour, Roof almost turned aside from his evil mission.  They were, he admitted, exceptionally virtuous people.  Then, he shot nine of them because, he said, Black people were “taking over America.”

CNN.com reported, “According to a CBS News report, earlier this year when cops searched Roof after he was acting suspiciously inside a Bath and Body Works store, they found “orange strips” that Roof told officers was suboxone, a narcotic that is used to treat opiate addiction. Suboxone is a habit-forming drug that has been connected with sudden outbursts of aggression.”

Roof stated that his intention was “to start a race war.”

At his pre-trial hearing, victims’ family members said they forgave him.  Another said that forgiveness was granted only on condition that he repent.  The Black guard standing behind Roof (understandably) rolled his eyes.

Some blame this massacre on easy access to guns.  I don’t know what South Carolina’s gun laws say, but how did Roof legally purchase a gun when he had been arrested for drug possession?  Did someone miss his prescription for the notorious drug suboxone which, according to readers posting on CNN’s article site, claim that it almost instantly transformed loved ones into violent maniacs?

Before we get the guns off the street, why don’t we try getting the drug pushers – and their customers – off the streets first?  Why don’t we rescind the legislation legalizing recreational drugs and make doctors more accountable for the prescriptions they write?  Why don’t we education parents on the need monitor the Prozac, Paxil and other drugs used for depression and anxiety in their medicine cabinet?

Paxil isn’t dangerous when used properly.  But it is addictive and can cause serious withdrawal reactions if patients suddenly stop taking it, without informing their doctors.  Prozac is easily the most available depression medication, popular since the Nineties.  These medications act as sedatives which can cause depression in young people.

Drugs.  Guns.  Video games.  We’re doing something wrong as a Society when so many people, especially young people, are either so depressed that they want to commit suicide or so angry that they want to commit murder.

We still haven’t learned much about Roof’s background.  Someone – either on television or the radio – stated that their child went to school with Roof and that he was disturbed back then.  Some childhood friends said he only recently began espousing racist views.

Why did he choose to stalk his prey in a church?  An historic church, as it turns out.  Was that why he selected that locale (being a local); because it was the first African-American church in the United States begun by former Black slaves?  Was he making a statement and wanted to fire the first shot of his personal war in the aisles of this particular church?  Who really wants to explore the mind of a mass murderer?

All those who truly follow Christ are God’s sons and daughters, regardless of their race, nationality, or sex.  Roof disturbed the peace of one of God’s holy places and shed innocent blood on sacred ground.  Blacks have historically sought sanctuary from oppression in the shelter of Jesus Christ.  That is what the Christmas song, O Holy Night, states:  “And in His Name, all oppression shall cease.”

“Jehovah will become a secure refuge for the oppressed, A secure refuge in times of distress.”  Psalm 9:9

“From oppression and from violence he will rescue them, And their blood will be precious in his eyes.”  Psalm 72:14

“I am the door [the sheep door]; whoever enters through me will be saved, and that one [shepherd] will go in and out and find pasturage.  The thief does not come unless it is to steal and slay and destroy.  I have come that they [his sheep] may have life and have it in abundance.   I am the Good Shepherd; the good shepherd surrenders his life in behalf of the sheep.  The hired man, who is not a shepherd and to whom the sheep do not belong, sees the wolf coming and abandons the sheep and flees – and the wolf snatches them and scatters them – because he is a hired man and does not care for the sheep.  I am the Good Shepherd.  I know my sheep and my sheep know me, just as the Father knows me and I know the Father, and I surrender my life in behalf of the sheep.  And I have other sheep, which are not of this fold [of Israel]; those too I must bring in, and they will listen to my voice, and they will become one flock, [with] one shepherd.”  John 10:9-16

Roof considers himself a race warrior.  The families of his victims have forgiven him for a crime for which he has not yet (and probably never will) repented.

If Roof does not repent, a day will come when he’ll be sorry; for all the good that contrition will do him then, having once boasted of slaughtering God’s lambs.

Published in: on June 19, 2015 at 5:32 pm  Leave a Comment  

Trump for President

The Donald has announced his candidacy for president.  Already, Conservative pundits are wagging their heads.  ‘He’s too egotistical,’ is their number one complaint.  ‘He has no political experience.’  Obama had the minimum and his attendance record was questionable.  ‘All he cares about is making money.’  ‘He speaks well as a Conservative, but that doesn’t make him presidential material.’  And, ‘He’s a Birther.’ (Glenn Beck).

Not only is he a Birther, but he also wanted to rebuild the Twin Towers.  While his heart was in the right place, he hadn’t considered how horrible such a sight might be to the survivors and the families of those who perished.  Unless Trump could somehow perform a miracle and resurrect the 2,700 who perished in New York on 9/11, then the Towers couldn’t be rebuilt anyway.

That aside, there are some pros and cons to Trumps candidacy.

1. He’s rich.  He’s successful.  He’s an excellent executive businessman – a CEO – who knows how to delegate.  He’s faced bankruptcy in the past, which occurred shortly after his best executive team was killed in a helicopter accident in Atlantic City in the late Seventies or early Eighties, back when Atlantic City was a going concern.

We could be sure that Trump would surround himself with the best advisors and that he would listen to them.  He listened to the helicopter guys – that’s how he became so successful – and his business fell off after they died.  He can see what’s happening to the American economy.  As a businessman, he recognizes that there’s a severe and unfair balance in our trade with China.  His declared intention is to bring back some of the jobs we’ve lost overseas.  He hasn’t made any unrealistic promises (that I know of).  He doesn’t say that there won’t be any foreign trade.  Some foreign trade is essential to a country’s economic health and I’m sure, good businessman that he is, Trump knows that.

Why have we lost those jobs, especially in the manufacturing industry?  High corporate taxes, onerous regulations, and excessive union wages and pensions.  He would make an excellent economic chief executive in the same way Mitt Romney would have (if only anyone had listened to common sense) – without Romney’s soft-hearted leaning towards illegal immigration.

If there are any cons to the financial side of Trump, it’s difficult to see what they are.  How can you argue with success?  Not every rich business person wants or should be President of the United States.  Usually, the failure begins with them not really wanting the responsibilities of the office.  This guy clearly does.  Then again, not every politician should be President of the United States, either.

Being rich means he has the means to be a player in a field where money buys advertising and votes.  He’s still not as rich as George Soros.  George Soros is a rich man who doesn’t want to be President; he wants to be the man pulling the strings of the President of the United States.  That’s what we have to face in the upcoming election.  We need someone willing to fight.  Trump is not alone in this attribute:  Scott Walker would be willing, if the GOP would support him, which they won’t.  Ditto, Ted Cruz.  Piyush “Bobby” Jindal (who was born here in America) is a little soft on marijuana, although he advocates medical marijuana as a doctor.  That still might turn off the Conservative voters.  Jindal is in favor of spending cuts.  As for the rest of the field, the GOP candidates mostly purple, meaning they would ‘negotiate’ with the other side.

Therein lies a “con” for Trump.  He wrote a book entitled, “The Art of the Deal.”  He prides himself on being a negotiator.  So did George W. Bush.  That could win Trump some Moderate GOP votes.  But will money talk and will he shake hands with the Democrats on the other side of the aisle?  That, more than egotism, is what could cost him the nomination and/or the election.

2.  He’s pro-American.  You can be sure Trump will not bow to foreign potentates.  Is he egotistical? Obviously, but so is Obama.  Trump wants to be our hero, our champion.  We can’t say that of the current White House occupant.  A large part of the 16-member GOP field of candidates wants to be the hero of the mythical Hispanic vote, no matter how much of our taxpayer money it takes to buy their votes.

Not only is Trump strong on a strong America economically, but a strong American military as well.  Colt, the gun manufacturer, has just declared bankruptcy.  Colt built the M-16 rifle, the prime weapon of our infantry.  The loss of the M-16 is not just a loss for Colt but a loss for the U.S. Army as well.  This bankruptcy is another indication of Obama’s plans to minimize our military, and thereby, our security.

Trump said in his announcement that ‘America needs a cheerleader’ and that he will be America’s Cheerleader.  He also said that he would be the greatest American president ever.  If he expects to be elected, he needs to tone down the self-boasting.  A few less “I’s, Me’s and Mine’s” in his speeches would suit his ambitions better and reassure Americans that he really cares about him.  We’ve had enough of those from Obama to last us all a lifetime.  We need another George Washington, another Ronald Reagan, not another Barack Obama.

Such bombastic boasting is his trademark, which was fine when he was simply the King of Atlantic City and Manhattan.  He must be willing to declare himself our servant, for he is running for a public servant office.  He can rest assured that he would still be the boss if elected.  But it would be his own Cabinet he would be bossing around, not us.  The Constitution allows only a limited power to boss Congress around.  So long as he distinguishes between the title of “King of Atlantic City” and “President of the United States,” he could make a good leader.  That’s another thing we’ve had enough of these last two elections – tyrants.

Still, promoting is his forte.  As long as he can remember he’s supposed to be promoting the country, not himself (except during the campaign, and even there, he should tone down the personal pronouns in his speeches.  Not altogether, but by about roughly two-thirds.  Personal examples of his success as a businessman and stories about other patriotic people he knows are okay), we could trust him to act in the nation’s best interests.

3.  He’s not Ross Perot.  Even Ross Perot wasn’t Ross Perot.

Ross Perot was initially a candidate in the Republican primary of 1992.  When he lost to George H.W. Bush, who was running for re-election, he ran as an Independent candidate who drew off the vote of Conservatives disgruntled with Bush’s “negotiations” with the Democrats.  As a result, Perot was blamed for Bush losing the election.

We’ve learned a thing or two about the Republican Party since then.  That was now a long time ago, but Conservatives still remember why they voted for Perot in the primaries.  We were tired then of pandering to the politically-correct Democrats.  Bush went against an important campaign promise – “Read my lips:” said he, “No more new taxes.”  The Democrats had agreed only to pull the rug out from under him.  They even had the nerve to sneer at his pledge.  Conservatives concluded that the “W.” in his name stood for “Weak” or “Wimpy.”

The GOP should have heeded the warning before the 1992 primaries that the Conservatives were not going to vote for this man again, and stay home or vote for a Third Party candidate instead.  But the haughty Republican Party insisted it knew best.  Bush ran and Clinton won.  The GOP blamed Perot and the Conservatives for the defeat rather than looking to their own strategy to see whether they’d made an error in underestimating the Conservative vote.

Elections became a battle between who was going to govern the party:  the Party Heads or the Voters.  To the Party Heads, Conservatives were a discounted, discredited minority.  They pointed to the loss of Barry Goldwater, who was undermined (as it turns out) by the Liberal – Liberal, mind you, not even Moderate – and very wealthy Nelson Rockefeller (of Standard Oil lineage).  Rockefeller was a rich feller, too, like Trump.  And he lost anyway.  Let’s face it:  after Kennedy’s assassination, the sympathy was going to go towards his successor, Johnson.

We had no forum to express our concerns back then, though.  Only Bob Grant voiced the Conservative perspective (on the radio – the three-network television was a lost cause in the Sixties and Seventies).  After the Reagan Years, only Rush Limbaugh was available to speak up for us.  Even Limbaugh thought Third Party candidates were a mistake and would only serve to splinter our own party and hand a victory to the Democrats.

The Media are leaning towards Jeb (John Ellis) Bush for President.  If his father’s middle initial stood for ‘Weak’ or ‘Wimpy’, Jeb’s “E” must stand for “Entitlements.”  He’s solidly in favor of granting illegal aliens citizenship status, which will mean Welfare for All.  He’s a proponent of Common Core system for education.  He is pro-Life, unlike brother George.  However, having someone who admits to being emotional to the point of being weepy is no better than having a president who bows to foreign potentates.

The Media’s apparent endorsement of Bush is a sure sign that he is not the candidate for us.  It must be someone else they’re afraid of, possibly Scott Walker or Ted Cruz.  Look for the candidate at whom they spit the most venom.

Unfortunately, Donald Trump won’t be one of them.  As an oversized personality, he’s given the Media plenty of ammunition in the form of late-night comedy fodder.  Prepare for a barrage of late night skits skewering his hair, his marriages, his Birther beliefs, his self-boasting.  Moderate Republicans will squirm uncomfortably in their chairs (they were squirming when he made his announcement) at the thought of Trump campaigning amidst this barrage.  One friend predicted that the GOP would never countenance Trump as a candidate for this reason, and my guess is that he’s right.  In any case, the GOP has pretty much already made its choice, primaries or no primaries.  They will throw their money at Bush because they think the Media approves him.

People forget – or weren’t around yet – when the Media attempted to eviscerate Ronald Reagan.  The former governor of California simply smiled and took it all in stride.  Yet Reagan was a tough guy and took tough stances as governor and later as President.  He had the right stuff to deem the Soviet Union “The Evil Empire.”

Even his own staff criticized that term as a critical error.  But Reagan stood firm and the Berlin Wall came tumbling down.  The Media never let up on their vicious barrage of Reagan.  Every morning was a study in cringing, listening to the New York City deejays verbally slap him up one side and down the other.  This being the metropolitan New York area, it was no surprise.  But the rants were horrible.

Before running for office, Reagan was a B actor whose co-star was a chimp named “Bonzo.”  Clips of the film fed late-night talk show circuit’s desire for satire for months on end.  Nobody could believe a one-time actor (never mind that he’d served as California governor first) would be elected president.  But he was.  Democrat Conservatives followed him and Republican candidates flocked to him and he won a landslide victory over Jimmy Carter.

4. Trump may be a negotiator but he’s also a fighter.  He’s not afraid of anyone; he’s just as fearless as Reagan.  The trouble isn’t that there aren’t candidates courageous enough to stand up for individual liberty, Capitalism, and limited government; the real trouble is there just aren’t any in the Republican hierarchy.  No Conservative can get past the GOP gatekeepers.  They scorn the Tea Party – the grassroots Conservative movement seeking a courageous, outspoken leader – and remain stubbornly committed to treading the middle of the political road.

Trump could and would buck them.  But these Moderate Republicans constitute the majority of the GOP Congress.  They’re as bad as the Democrats themselves.  Conservatives know they can’t be trusted; Moderates don’t care.  As long as Moderate politicians keep the peace and quiet, these voters are content.  In fact, thanks to the Media’s decidedly unbalanced portrayal of stand-up Conservatives, Moderates cringe at the idea of any outspoken Conservative politician.  They’ll make trouble.  They’ll discriminate against women and minorities.  They’re in bed with Big Business (actually, it’s the Liberals who are in bed with Big Business, not the Conservatives).  They’re loud, obnoxious, and stubborn.  “Nothing” gets done when they’re in office.

Nothing on the Liberal agenda, that is.  When Liberal Progressives wail, the Media is right there with cameras and microphones to amplify their angst, distress, and frustration, like a crying infant that needs its bottle or its diaper changed.  Just as the Media was on call every time former Pres. Ford (a former football player), they’ll be waiting for Trump to display what they regard as his boastful belligerence.  That’s the way they’ll make it appear to the public.  That’s partially what Republicans are afraid.  Then again, what isn’t the GOP afraid of these days?

Trump is no more likely to win the GOP nomination than Perot was.  If he hopes to secure that nomination, then he must beging campaigning for it immediately.  One thing he has that Perot lacked was name recognition.  There’s no problem there.  Trump’s job is to make sure Americans can trust that name to deliver.  Like any good businessman would, he must advertise, advertise, advertise.

He must prove to Americans that he will make a good chief executive.  He has experience there.  Trump could do no worse than Romney in advertising his business bona fides, for all the good it did Romney; the Media simply painted Romney as an evil Capitalist.  Trump had the good luck to run casinos, which he could turn to his advantage.  Everyone wants to be rich; that’s why they play the lottery (and, it must be noted, lose).  He’s already used that line, to good advantage.  He’s gotten the attention of average Americans who are angry at seeing their jobs disappear.

Now he must go out and make friends with those Americans.  He should do what I’ve always advised my political candidate friends to do – in fact, the very same thing the insurance agents I used to interview did – go out and shake as many hands as possible.  Visit big and little businesses all across America.  Find companies who have legislative programs.  Ask them to invite him to speak to the employees.  Listen to their stories and tell those stories to his audiences of potential voters.  Now’s the time, while the primaries are still far enough off for him to build a base.

Trump should practice his speeches, replace some of the I’s with imagery – for instance, “Looking across America, I see so many empty, dark office buildings and idle factories and I wonder:  where are all the people, where are all the dedicated workers?  Looking down from this stage, here you are.  The time has come to turn on the lights of those office buildings, restart the machinery, and rebuild America with American workers.”  He should also dwell on the positive changes he’ll make, not the negative situation we’re facing.  Allude to the negative, perhaps, but always finish on the upbeat.

That’s something you’ll never hear from the Republican candidates.  Certainly not Jeb Bush.  He’d fill those offices and factories with illegal immigrants who “identify” American but, in fact, are not.  If Trump is nothing else, he’s genuine, funny-looking hair and all.  Being Big Government bureaucrats, not the servants of the American people, the Republicans probably have never heard the saying:  “Give the customers what they want.”

Trump knows the saying – or he wouldn’t be so successful.

Published in: on June 17, 2015 at 3:24 pm  Leave a Comment  

Hillary is “Yesterday’s” News

Hillary is “Yesterday’s” News

In the Harry Potter movies, after You-Know-Who returns, Harry asks or is told whether what the characters of Hogwarts and environs experienced the “first” time is the same as what is happening to them presently.

Various characters reply, “It feels like it did before.”  Hagrid says so in the very first film.

Hillary “What Difference Does It Make” Clinton, in announcing her bid for the Democrat presidential nomination in 2016, noted, “There are some new voices in the new presidential Republican choir.  But they are still singing the same old song… a song called, “Yesterday.”

She even quoted the Beatles’ lyrics for youngsters who might not have heard of the Beatles.  Mercifully, she didn’t sing them or the remaining Beatles might have sued them.

“Yesterday, all my troubles seemed so far away.  Now it looks as though they’re here to stay.  Oh, I believe in yesterday.”

She couldn’t have put it more precisely or accurately.  Quoting that particular song seems more like a taunt – and a pretty stupid one, at that.  That’s exactly the way we Conservatives would put it.

The front-running Democrat contender for the presidency quotes a song from the Sixties – when America’s problems began (or renewed themselves, even older Americans would claim) – then accuses Conservatives of nostalgic longing, presumably for racist attitudes which actually belonged to the Democrats more than to Conservative Republicans.

Our troubles have, indeed, returned.  The reawakening is apparent everywhere from culture to education to politics.  For the last decade, young girls have been wearing their hair long, straight, and parted in the middle, as girls did in the late Sixties and early Seventies.  Mini-skirts are back in fashion, along with love-beads, platform shoes, fringed smocks, and long boots.  Guys have adopted the Beatnik look (not to be confused with the Beatles look, in which the Fab Four cut their hair in the style Middle Age pageboys or troubadors.)

Even Afros are said to be making a come-back.  Worst of all is the widespread popularity of the peace sign.  Darned fools.  Stupid kids.

We’ve seen it on television beginning with the series “Mad Men.”  Television ads are using old pop tunes (at least the ones they can get the rights to; not all the old Marxist musicians are willing to aid and abet commercialism and Capitalism).

The Hippies (that’s what we called them in the original Sixties) are considerably over 30 and they’re in charge of everything from university classrooms and department chairmanships to advertising to corporate public relations.  They’ve been in charge of the Media (called “The Press” back in the Old Days).

They haven’t been entirely successful in bashing the military the way they did back in the Sixties, throwing bags of feces at soldiers returning from Vietnam and screaming at them, “Baby killers!”  But they have done a credible job of defunding the military and engaging us in decidedly wrong battles and decrying the right ones.

Hillary Rodham-Clinton grew up from being a Flower Child/Hippie to a Progressive lawyer, who played a minor role in the Watergate scandal as an aide to the prosecutors.  They kicked her out, though.

Then the Democrats suffered a crushing setback when Ronald Wilson Reagan was elected President of the United States in 1980.  They hissed.  They yelled.  They defiled his name.  They fairly seethed with rage.  They even tried to get him impeached for the Iran-Contra scandal.  Reagan just smiled and when on to be re-elected, earning him a beloved place in the hearts of Americans.

Conservatives wonder why we can’t find another Reagan.  They can’t find that person because they’re looking in the wrong place.  They’re looking with the middling ranks of the Republican party.  Reagan was a converted former Democrat.  That conversion gave Reagan all the credibility as a Conservative he needed to trounce the Democrats.

What worse message, what worse enemy could they have than a message of Conservatism from a defector from their own ranks?  Those are the days we Conservatives long for.  Conservatism without the Democrat-created racism, angst and division.  America prospered, for the most part, in the Fifties, and even in the early Sixties, and again in the Eighties.  That’s because whether the presidential candidate is a D or an R, so long as they at least practice fiscal conservatism, the country will do well.

However, the country will not prosper if it falls apart morally and socially.  When families fail, so does the economy.  If we don’t produce enough workers to make doing business in this country economically feasible for businesses – a higher population of workers necessarily lowers the wage rate.  We can weep for the loss of wages.  But if we’re not competitive, businesses will take their business elsewhere.  Or bring the workers from elsewhere here.

That is what Disney is doing.  Disney is forcing its current employees to train their replacements, who are more than willing to work for lower wages.

Big Government advocates like Hillary will certainly clamor for “tolerance” when it comes to illegal immigration, same-sex marriage, single mothers, and abortion.  These things are all weapons against Capitalism.  Once Capitalism collapses, rather like the Twin Towers on 9/11, the government will simply step in and take over lives, at the cost of our freedom.

Unwed mothers are not unique to our times.  They have been legitimized and underwritten by the hapless taxpayer in our times.  That’s what we get for “tolerance.”

In researching my genealogy, I found my family was rife with unwed great- and great-great grandmothers and philandering great- and great-great grandfathers.  One of my great-grandmothers was buried with her second husband’s mistress.

One grandmother was never issued a birth certificate because her father, the year of her birth, married another, much younger pregnant girl.  He had a choice of applying for a birth certificate or a marriage license:  he couldn’t do both without arousing the suspicions of the authorities and his wife.  Another great-great-grandmother never even listed the father of her baby nor did the child have a middle name, since she couldn’t be baptized in the church.  Another great-great married at 16 and gave birth at 17.

My parents, of the Greatest Generation – stood like islands amidst all this familial, social chaos.  They were aghast at the casual way in which their grandparents and great-grandparents flouted morality and custom.  So much for the Victorian morality of the 19th Century (carried a third of the way into the 20th).

Yet my great grandmother had the chutzpah to lecture my poor mother about the evils of wearing red shoes.  I guess she knew of what she spoke.

Looking over the birth records there were many such instances of unwed mothers, their poor children dying in infancy.  My great-grandmother’s mother remarried.  Nonny was left to live as a little maid in the home of either strangers or very distant relatives at the age of 5.  She came twice America to see her mother, only to be sent directly back to Germany again.  She returned again at the age of 14, to stay.  Two years later, she was married, and the next year directly, had her first child, my great uncle (who carried on the family tradition), as did my grandfather.

I don’t know about my paternal grandfather, but it’s said that while he may not strayed off the marital path, he certainly strayed off the path of morality, to say no more.

Sorry to be rattling the family skeletons.  If it seems like “too much information,” consider this:  my mother’s parents separated (though never divorced) in 1934 and sent her to live with that self-same grandmother who had, by then, remarried to yet another unfaithful spouse.  For a time, she was sent back to live with her mother (her father was a merchant seaman) and there, she starved, chewing on shoe leather to stave off the hunger pangs, before my grandfather came back home on leave and sent her back to live with his mother.

My great-grandmother hated my mother because she hated her daughter-in-law.  Let us say it was well-known in the family whose daughter my mother really was and my great-grandmother was livid.  My legal grandfather never made it an issue to my mother:  as far as he was concerned, she was his daughter.  My great-grandmother took her in because she was still her granddaughter.

But she was exceedingly cruel to my mother, hurling verbal abuse at her and neglecting her emotionally.  She hired my mother out for labor (housework), just as she had been.  How many other children, even today, suffer this and worse in the midst of illegitimate families, being raised by drug-addicted mothers, or living with resentful grandparents?  How many of them would starve, if not supported by a government which has all but legalized drug abuse, turns a blind eye to alcohol abuse, condones immoral conduct, and unwittingly lends support to child abuse by supporting young, unwed mothers and not holding the fathers to account?

I grew up in a stable family in the suburbs.  My parents may have had problems financially (who doesn’t?).  She hated her in-laws.  Everyone, that is, but my unfortunate grandmother.  As my paternal grandmother had not had a birth certificate neither did she get a headstone for her grave.  Her elder son took the money assigned for that purpose and did who knows what with it.

She now has a headstone thanks to my older brother, who happened to be in that part of the country on business and sought out her grave.  He phoned my mother to tell her about the negligence.  My mother then sent the money to place a headstone on the grave of her mother-in-law who, on my parents’ wedding day, wore black to the ceremony (because my mother wouldn’t raise us Catholic; therefore, they were married in a Lutheran, not a Roman Catholic, church).

A sad story, isn’t it?  And there are so many others.  All because we think we’re being “modern,” more tolerant, more enlightened and, dare I say it, more “progressive” when we lay aside adherence to traditional moral values, picking up where Adam and Eve left off.

I can still remember seeing Hippies – dirty, barefoot, and drugged – back in the Sixties.  I was a child of the Sixties and I’m getting old now.  But not addled.  I can still see the television coverage of the Watts, Haight-Ashbury, and Newark riots.  I remember passing by Newark as we went south on the Garden State Parkway towards the Jersey Shore.  It was summer and you could smell the stench of burnt buildings.

I can remember war protestors burning my beloved American flag and how they were confronted by enraged construction workers.  I remember television footage of pagan priests setting themselves ablaze.  I can remember still the day in kindergarten when we were forbidden to publicly pray to God.  I can remember praying anyway, when I was about to enter, yet again, the pit of Hell – my 5th grade classroom – to be tormented by the class bully and the door bursting open, in answer to my prayer, revealing my mother, coming to my rescue.

I can remember the Communist lessons student teachers tried to teach us about God and how He didn’t answer prayers because He didn’t exist.  I remember being taught the incomprehensible, mathematical grammar of Noam Chomsky and the equally incomprehensible arithmetic methods.

Now, here we are, some 50 years or so later, and we have Common Core and a confusing war, this time in the Middle East.  We have a Communist-in-Chief for president, we have former war and civil rights protestors expanding upon an already impenetrable bureaucracy (begun by FDR).

Cities are burning.  Cops are being called names, being murdered, and charged with brutality against a notoriously criminal element.  We now have the gay marriage which the Hippies failed to institute in the Sixties.  Marriages are in shambles, the middle class is disappearing, the carefully laid out suburbs of the Fifties, Sixties and Seventies are on the verge of being demolished, thanks to the predation of the Affordable Housing program.  Our suburban towns are surrounded by a trail of filth, garbage, drugs, and higher taxes – and we have nowhere to go.

Our parents were similarly beset and besieged back in the Sixties.  It feels the same as it did before.  That time, evil was defeated.  Now it’s back.  It ran for President in 2008 and won and was reelected.  Now it’s preparing to run yet again, in one form or another.  It controls our cities and is seeking – and in many cases, winning – control of the suburbs.

Everyone has their favorite “Yesterday.”  But some of us remember Hillary’s “Yesterday” differently.  That’s not someplace we want to go.  That’s where she’ll lead us, though, where the Hippies did strife and anger sow.  Now the flowers of their collective garden grow and the fruits of their labors will be ice and snow.

Published in: on June 15, 2015 at 2:10 pm  Leave a Comment