Success in America’s Major Cities

SuccessInAmericasMajorCities  <– PDF version

An examination of the economic situation in our major cities proves that you can’t argue with success.  The success I’m referring to is the political success the Democratic Party has had in winning municipal elections and controlling the economic future of our major cities, mostly in the Northeastern states.  The economic policies that have been implemented over the past two generations are laughable; the disasters are evident to anyone with even a teaspoon of common sense.  But the Democratic Party parties on in these places, continuing the same economic policies that turned industrial giants into pathetic basket cases.  Here is a list of major U. S. cities, and the durations over which the Democratic Party has been in control:

Baltimore, MD:  Continuous Democratic Party control since 1967 (48 years)

Boston, MA:  Continuous Democratic Party control since 1930 (85 years)

Buffalo, NY:  Continuous Democratic Party control since 1966 (49 years)

Chicago, IL:  Continuous Democratic Party control since 1931 (84 years)

Cincinnati, OH: Continuous Democratic Party control since 1984 (31 years)

Cleveland, OH: Continuous Democratic Party control since 1990 (25 years)

Detroit, MI: Continuous Democratic Party control since 1962 (53 years)

Erie, PA: Continuous Democratic Party control since 1966 (49 years)

Newark, NJ: Continuous Democratic Party control since 1962 (53 years)

Pittsburgh, PA: Continuous Democratic Party control since 1934 (81 years)

Philadelphia, PA: Continuous Democratic Party control since 1952 (63 years)

St. Louis, MO: Continuous Democratic Party control since 1949 (66 years)

Washington, DC: Continuous Democratic Party control since 1961 (54 years)

Our largest city, New York, requires a little explanation.  It has been ruled by Democrats continuously since 1970, with the exception of the Giuliani and Bloomberg administrations.  Both of these men were elected as Republicans, but in fact Bloomberg is as hard-core a Marxist as you will find anywhere (now that he made his fortune).  It is fair to say then, that except for the eight years of Giuliani, New York has been run by Democrats for 37 of the last 45 years.

With this list of enormous successes, we can now say for sure what the benefits of socialism amount to: a) High taxes on nearly everything; b) Stringent regulation on nearly everything; c) Reduction of business opportunities; d) Scarcity of work; e) Poor public services; f) Dangerous streets; and above all, g) An arrogant, incompetent, entrenched oligarchy at the top, living the high life.

Posted in Economics, elections, progressive | No Comments »

On Same-Sex Marriage

PDF version –>  OnSameSexMarriage

1              Background

2              The Objectives

3              What We Can Do

1          Background

The U. S. Supreme Court issued a ruling on 26 Jun 2015 decreeing that so-called “gay marriage” shall be legal in all fifty states, having been recognized previously by state court edicts in 34 of them.  The homosexual lobby and their supporters have claimed that this effort is nothing more than an extension of equality to homosexual persons akin to the civil rights movement of the 1960’s.  The couples lining up for gay marriage certificates are not the problem; as Vladimir Lenin would say, they are merely the useful idiots.  The true objective of the entire gay liberation movement is part of a much larger plan.

Even the most primitive of societies recognize an institution of “marriage” as being between one man and one woman.  All of the major religions also adhere to this common concept, including the dominant religious institutions in America, the Judeo-Christian heritage.  At first, this ruling appears to be nothing more than a change in the dictionary definition of words: while by tradition and religious doctrine, marriage has always meant one thing, and now it means another.  But consider an old joke told frequently by Abraham Lincoln: “How many legs does a dog have, if we agree to count the tail as a leg?”  The answer is of course, four: counting the tail as a leg does not actually make it a leg.  Likewise, calling a legal union of two persons of the same sex a “marriage” does not make it so.  It is simply a moral fiction (although a legal reality); they are gay/fake pseudo marriages, not to be confused with the normal ones.  So far this ruling leaves existing normal marriages unaffected.  If this were the end of it, then those of us who adhere to the traditional definition could say to ourselves: let them have their gay/fake pseudo marriage victory, and be done with it.  The problem is that the homosexual lobby and their funding sources have not declared victory, packed, up and gone home.  The reason is obvious: there is no reason to go home.  This is the first victory for them in a series of planned legal battles.  For them it is only the beginning.

2          The Objectives

The homosexual lobby and their supporters have assured us, along with Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy (who wrote the majority opinion), that the First Amendment protection of freedom of religion is preserved entirely.  But if the Court can redefine “marriage”, surely it can redefine “religious freedom”.  The effort to make gay/fake pseudo marriages a legal reality did not start and end with a few homosexual couples seeking the same legal status as normal marriages.  On the contrary, this was a well-thought out campaign, engineered and funded by a large legal team devoted to the cause.  I suspect the funding came from organizations whose real aim is to intimidate or embarrass religious people into abandoning allegiance to God in favor of allegiance to government.  Since the homosexual lobby and their supporters have nothing to lose and everything to gain, I expect that there soon will be several legal challenges to religion in general and Christianity in particular.

First, there will be a movement to require churches and synagogues to perform gay/fake pseudo marriages, even though their doctrines prohibit it.  They will carefully omit to impose this requirement upon mosques, out of fear of being called Islamophobic.  The claim will be that Jewish and Christian religious institutions (as the dominant ones in America) cannot discriminate against homosexuality any more than commercial businesses can.  They will claim that: a) since marriage is a legal function of the state, and b) since clergy conduct marriages by license from the state; therefore: every member of the clergy licensed to perform marriages must do so in accordance with the legal definition, which now includes gay/fake pseudo marriages.  Those religious institutions that fail to do so will have three choices: a) stop performing all marriages, b) perform gay/fake pseudo marriages on an equal basis with normal ones; or c) lose their tax-exempt status under the tax code.  As can be readily observed, any of those options is a victory for the homosexual lobby and their funding source.  The homosexual crusaders are not going to file suit against the Catholic Church, or the Mormons, or the Missouri Baptist Synod.  Those organizations have the means to fight and win.  No, the crusaders will find some small non-denominational Christian church and make an example of them as small-minded bigots.  A small church will be no match for the legal power of the crusaders.  They will attack Judaism and Christianity, but will make an exception for “recognized minorities” like the Moslems.

The second attack will build upon the first: an attack on the religious texts themselves.  The argument will be that since doctrines concerning marriages are contrary to the now altered legal definition of marriage, adherence to them violates the principle of equality under the Constitution, and is ipso facto, proof of hate speech.  Anyone holding those beliefs will be designated a “hater”, discriminator”, and “enemy of equality”, thus forfeiting their rights under the First Amendment.  Likewise any institution promoting the traditional definition of marriages will be branded a “hate group”.  The lawsuits will pile very high; the goal being to bankrupt both individuals and institutions under the anti-discrimination laws and to cause religious institutions to lose favor and membership.  The end goal is to promote government as a higher class of morality and thus enhance loyalty to government in place of loyalty to God.

The ultimate objective is to get the Bible and Torah banned as “Haters’ Handbooks”.  They will carefully omit any reference to the Koran out of fear of reprisal.  Even the most hardened Marxist proponent of gay/fake pseudo marriages will likely admit the difficulty here.  But Marxists and others who worship government have time on their side, and with courts willing to arbitrarily redefine the dictionary definition of words, religious freedom faces an uncertain future.

3          What We Can Do

The fact that gay/fake pseudo marriages are legal does not mean that individuals are required to believe that they are legitimate.  They are legally recognized, nothing more.  The first thing to be done is to consistently call gay/fake pseudo marriages what we believe them to be: fake and artificial.  Let them prove otherwise.

Secondly, recall that what goes around comes around.  There is no reason why those of us who “cling to our Bibles” cannot play the same game of changing the dictionary definition of words.  Henceforth, the words “gay” and “lesbian” shall not mean “homosexual”; they shall both mean “child molester”.  See how simple that is?

Third, we should try to pre-empt the legal challenges against churches and synagogues by encouraging our state legislators to pass appropriate legislation.  I have taken the liberty of sketching out the legislation:

Whereas the U. S. Supreme Court has seen fit to extend the title of “marriage” to persons of the same sex;

Whereas each State is obliged to permit the establishment of marriage between persons of the same sex, which shall have the same full legal rights as traditional marriages;

Whereas the power to regulate who shall have authority to perform said same-sex marriages falls to each State;

Resolved: same-sex marriages shall be performed only by paid employees of a State, County, or Local government, to wit, Judges, Justices of the Peace and the like — except:

Other persons not employed directly by the State, County, or Local government, but otherwise authorized to perform traditional marriages, may apply in writing to be granted such power to perform same sex marriages.

The regulation shall provide:

a. There shall be no fee for the application;

b. The application shall be immediately granted by the Secretary of State upon receipt;

c. No additional encumbrances shall ensue to holders of the same-sex marriage authority;

d. The same-sex marriage authority shall not be transferable to other persons

e. No person shall be required to make an application so described.

Fourth, and most important, recall that ultimately God is the judge of all things.  It is not our place to judge people for homosexuality, or to judge them for desiring some legal recognition for it.  It is our duty to first practice the faith and secondly to preserve our right to do so under the U. S. Constitution.


Posted in government powers, living constitution, progressive | No Comments »

Senator Harry Reid and Other People’s Taxes

SenHarryReidAndOtherPeoplesTaxes   <  PDF version

During the Presidential campaign of 2012, when former Governor Mitt Romney was running against President Barack “I lied, period” Obama, Senator Harry Reid (D-NV), then the Majority Leader of the U. S. Senate, made a speech on the Senate floor 31 Jul 2012 in which he announced, based on confidential sources, that Romney had not paid income taxes for over ten years.  Reid said, “Let him [Romney] prove that he has paid taxes, because he hasn’t”.

In an interview with CNN’s Dana Bash on 30 Mar 2015, Reid was asked about those comments and admitted that he knew they were false when he said it.  Reid’s justification to Bash was, “Romney didn’t win, did he?”

This is known as “good old-fashioned Democratic hardball politics”.  But it is more than the blatant hypocrisy or more evidence of the high level of partisanship or the “anything to win is justified” attitude that is most damaging to political discourse in America.  The most damaging thing to America is that this episode is one more piece of evidence reinforcing the opinion that “all politicians are lying about everything all the time”.  The Republicans have done similar things, although not quite as blatantly. If that’s the kind of America the two main political parties want, by all means they shall have it.  But we the people better not hear any whimpering from politicians or their hacks about the public’s general lack of trust in government; or more accurately, the public’s active level of suspicion and distrust in everything said and done by any elected official.

The politicians and their hacks will have created it, lock, stock, and barrel.  And they will enjoy it.

Posted in Congress, elections | No Comments »

The Objectives of Tsar Vladimir I

Objectives Of Tsar Vladimir I   <– PDF version

President Barack “I lied, period” Obama seems to be completely mystified by the foreign policy of Russian President Vladimir Putin.  That Mr. Obama should be confused by one of the simplest foreign policies imaginable is a wonder to behold.  Let us review recent events.

1.  In Feb 2014, Mr. Putin ordered Russian Special Forces units to infiltrate eastern Ukraine, occupying several key towns, posing as (what else) “freedom fighters”, ostensibly to protect people of Russian heritage in Ukraine from discrimination by the Ukrainian government.  Only later did Mr. Putin admit that the entire episode was in fact a covert invasion of eastern Ukraine.  The US and many other nations reacted by imposing economic sanctions on Russia, a fact which has thus far not fazed Mr. Putin or his administration.  At this writing, the battle for eastern Ukraine continues, with Ukrainians doing their best to defeat a combination force of Russian military and domestic Russian separatists.

2.  In Mar 2014 Mr. Putin ordered subversive elements of the Russian military to simply show up and occupy the Supreme Council of Crimea, install a new government led by a Russian puppet (Aksyonov), order a declaration of independence followed by a fraudulent election, with the forgone result that Crimea would re-join Russia.  Crimea is now a wholly-owned subsidiary of Moscow, divided into the “Republic of Crimea” and the “Free City of Sevastopol”.  Crimea had formerly been part of Ukraine since 1954, when the Soviet Union granted it to Ukraine (also then a slave state under the USSR).

3. Mr. Putin has been unwavering in his support forIran’s nuclear program.  His policy is partly due, I think, to animosity towards Israel and a desire to obtain indirect power over Iran in order to gain access to warm-water ports. Iran should be careful not to get too cozy with Russia: it was not that long ago (1880 – 1915) when Russia controlled all of northern Iran, until Russia was distracted by the Revolution of 1917, and had to retreat.  But Russia occupied Iran again just after World War II, after which it was forced out only by U. S.pressure in 1948.

Mr. Putin certainly knows his Russian history, and appears to renewing the ancient Tsarist and Communist policy after a 20-year hiatus following the fall of the U. S. S. R.  It is based on territorial opportunism, exploiting every weakness as it comes along.  As Senator Robert Taft [1] observed in 1951:

For two hundred years Russia has been moving forward by going into soft spots.  That has been its policy.  Wherever it thought it could grab something and get away with it, it has done so.  Here was a place [S. Korea] which the Secretary of State [Dean Acheson] and the Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee [Senator Tom Connolly, D-TX] gave the Russians every reason to consider a soft spot.

So what is next for Tsar Vladimir?  That depends on where the next soft spot is.  Now that he has divided the Ukraine, possibly it is time to look westward, especially to Poland.  If there was ever a time for the people of that nation to arm and train it is now, before the Russians walk in and occupy it as they did in east Ukraine and Crimea.  No one doubts the patriotism and bravery of the Polish people, but one must question their government’s sanity by not preparing immediately.  If that day comes, the Polish people will be left to their own devices.  America (under Obama) will file a complaint with the United Nations, Germany and France will call a press conference, and the ever-admirable British will do all they can, but it won’t be enough.

[1] Robert A. Taft, A Foreign Policy for Americans, Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Co., 1951, p. 106


Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »