The Wall Street Journal Punts on Election Integrity

Estimated Reading Time: 3 minutes

The Wall Street Journal and Investor’s Business Daily have the best editorial pages in the country.

It was with some disappointment we read their main editorial in the WSJ on December 31, 2020.

Like many in the “legacy” Conservative movement, they just want to sweep signs of election fraud under the rug and move on with a Democratic President. They don’t seem to appreciate that fully half or more of the country believes the results were fraudulent.

Election fraud is serious stuff. It is more important than any legislative act because election fraud undermines faith in the entire democratic system we have. Why engage in politics at all, if the whole game can be rigged?

We readily admit the process to solve this is quite complicated and we urge readers to sit through the entire interview conducted by The Epoch Times and reproduced in our video section.

Perhaps Democrats should have appreciated all this before they launched their fraudulent actions.

What we don’t buy is the insinuation by the WSJ that there is nothing to the charges of fraud. We think they are substantial enough to warrant some kind of judicial inquiry, Congressional hearings, or commission.

The WSJ passes out the canard that there is nothing to the fraud claims because no court has ruled as such, including some conservative justices. We say canard because the WSJ knows full well that suits have been rejected on technical grounds like standing, or time frames, and no court has actually seen any evidence and ruled on it.

Courts have repeatedly interfered in the election process, but now that they are being asked in this case to interfere, they act like this is something they should never get involved in. Gee, you can’t have it both ways, can you? Some legal consistency from the courts would be appreciated.

So, if the courts demur, then the Congress has to be involved. That is what Trump is calling for.

The WSJ says Republicans should be embarrassed “by Mr. Trump’s Electoral hustle.”

How do we know its just a hustle unless evidence is developed and then presented? As we have suggested before, if Trump has this all wrong and there is no evidence, then shame on him. However, the WSJ has resources to investigate. That is part of their job. Why do the resent citizens who have developed evidence and are begging for their case to be heard?

Near the end of their piece, they drop what may be the real reason legacy media and some Republican officials shy away from demanding election integrity.

“…what do Republicans think would happen if Mr. Pence pulled the trigger, Mr. Biden were denied 270 electoral votes, and the House chose Mr. Trump as President? Riots in the streets would be the least of it.”

So, let’s see if we get this straight. Democrats systematically cheat (or not, depending on the evidence), but we should not use the Constitutional and Judicial processes we have, because the outcome would cause Democrats to riot.

There is no right to riot. Why is only one political party given a pass on the use of violence to advance their political agenda? Why is the use of violence permitted at all?

Likely because they noticed that Democrats were rioting most of the summer, devastating cities like Minneapolis, Portland, and Seattle.

Democrats will have their say in court and they will have their say in the Congress. Why the assumption that violence will be the outcome? If the claims of election fraud are a “hustle”, Democrats will easily prevail in the process. That should be a reason they should support the process.

Further, what do they mean that rioting “would be the least of it.” Do they mean like packing the court, enlarging the Senate, or perhaps impeaching a President based on opposition party research? Democrats are quite brazen right now and capitulating would seem only to encourage them. What makes them think that looking the other way on electoral cheating and street violence will promote better behavior from Democrats?

We cannot let stand election fraud. We cannot let stand acts of violence by political parties to advance legislation or determine electoral outcomes.

We cannot accept violence as a way to get what you want. If we do, our republic will be badly damaged.

Let us have a peaceful process to determine whether or not fraud took place.

But let’s have the process proceed and not act like nothing was strange in the last election.

Reflections on Christmas 2020 and 1968

Estimated Reading Time: 3 minutes

Whether they were atheist, Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Confucian, or anything else, one of the most moving experiences of humanity was the message of the Apollo 8 astronauts on Christmas Eve, 1968, as they left lunar orbit and headed for the blue and white planet of Earth, which stood out in the blackness of space.

It is estimated that quarter of the world’s population heard the message live.

Frank Borman, Jim Lovell and Bill Anders took turns reading the first words of Genesis from the Bible. Historical photos of Mission Control in Houston show engineers in short-sleeve white shirts with tears in the eyes. Likewise, old films of scenes from around the world show people of all nationalities and races looking up at the sky in the same emotional state.

That could never have happened in 2020.

First, amazingly, when Borman had asked NASA what they should say on Christmas, officials responded that they should say something appropriate. It is unimaginable that they would’ve been given that much freedom today.

In 2020, the message would’ve been drafted by multiple committees at NASA, run past the agency’s office of diversity and inclusion, sent to the State Department for review, and from there to the White House for final revisions. After being chopped, diced and sanitized, the message would’ve been something like this:

Greetings from space. We look forward to returning to Earth to lead the fight for social justice, racial and gender equity, income equality, equal outcomes, and green energy—and as white men of European descent, to atone for slavery, colonialism, imperialism, capitalism, and fossil fuels. We pledge that astronauts on future lunar missions will be representative of all races, all ethnic groups, all genders, all sexual orientations, and all family arrangements.

We’re sorry to break it to our wives and children this way, but in that spirit of enlightenment, Frank has decided to become Francine, and Jim and Bill are going to marry each other—in a civil ceremony, of course. We hope to be chosen for the lunar landing and the planting of the United Nations flag on the moon.

With that message, tears of joy would be flowing down the cheeks of residents of San Francisco, Greenwich Village, Portland, and faculty lounges across the land.

Fifty-two years ago, all of the astronauts were white males, and almost all of Mission Control was the same. This was due to cultural norms at the time and to the GI Bill after WWII, which was a way of compensating returning soldiers for their years of service, by offering them a free college education. The bill had the unintended consequence of filling the engineering pipeline with males, to the exclusion of females.

Now, more women than men graduate from college, although not necessarily from engineering programs. And the number of African-Americans with college degrees has increased dramatically. As a result, in a positive development, if Apollo 8 took place today, Mission Control would not look like Mission Control of yesteryear.

For the men, crewcuts, pocket protectors, and slide rules would be out. Untucked shirts and scraggly beards would be in, except for those who wanted the androgynous look of android Mark Zuckerberg.

To make a statement about not wanting to be treated like sex objects, the women in Mission Control would be wearing tight yoga pants, revealing every nook and cranny of their Peloton bodies.

Woman and men, and everyone in between, in a display of their independent thinking and refusal to go along with fashion trends, would be sporting tattoos, piercings, and nose rings.

Instead of NASA’s parking lot being full of Chevy, Ford and Chrysler station wagons, it would be full of Teslas, Priuses, Subarus, and SUVs the size of the command module.

There has been lots of good news for the nation as a whole since 1968. For example, income has increased significantly from 1968, even for those at the bottom of society. In inflation-adjusted dollars, income for the bottom quintile of Americans has increased 45% over the last 52 years.

There has been lots of bad news, also. Paradoxically, for example, the percent of single-parent families has more than doubled since 1968; the suicide rate has increased 35% over the last 20 years; deaths from drug overdoses are at a record high; less than a third of Americans now say that most people can be trusted, versus the half of Americans who said that in the early 1970s; racial tensions and political divisiveness are as high as they were in 1968; record numbers of homeless are being left to live and die on city streets, and China, where COVID-19 was hatched, is demonstrating that its brand of authoritarianism and its anti-diversity policies just might prevail over America’s liberal democracy and diversity.

If current trends continue, future astronauts will be reading from Mao’s Little Red Book on Christmas Eve.

That will bring tears of joy to the residents of San Francisco, Greenwich Village, Portland, and faculty lounges across the land.

A Feel Good Story to End a Challenging Year

Estimated Reading Time: 3 minutes

The year 2020 most people would love to erase from the calendar. A worldwide pandemic caused shutdowns and premature deaths. Then there was our year-long contentious national election. Let’s end the year with a story that will bring a smile to your face and possibly a tear to your eye. While it recently came to my attention, it is not new so you may have heard the story. Regardless, it is well worth reading as we launch ourselves into a much brighter 2021.

It is about a poor Mexican American kid who grew up in a Southern California household with 14 family members. He struggled in school and had meager success learning English. He left formal education in the fourth grade and went to work at odd jobs and on farms for years. Then he had a chance to get a job that was a step up.

His wife had to fill out the application because of his weak English skills. He got a janitorial position and a big pay boost to $4 per hour (this was back in 1970s). His grandfather understood something I taught my children as young adults. No matter what job you are doing be the best at it. Be proud of the job you do. His grandfather told him “make sure that floor shines. And let them know a Montañez mopped it”.

Richard set off to become the best janitor the company ever had. When he wasn’t mopping and cleaning, he started to learn about the international company for which he worked. He learned about all the company’s products, how they manufactured and marketed them and other aspects of the company. He badgered salespeople to tag along and watch them sell.

A sales slump hit the company a decade after he started there. The world-famous CEO called on all 300,000 employees to “Act like an owner.” He empowered them and Richard took that to heart.

While riding along with a salesperson, Richard noticed there was a shortcoming with one of the major products of the company. It has some varieties, but none that really appealed to the burgeoning Hispanic population. While visiting a store in a Latino neighborhood, this product was placed next to Mexican spices on the rack, but none of those spices were used. He thought Mexicans like spicy and there were no spicy or hot options.

He went home with some of the product from the plant and started testing. He started putting a homemade chili powder on the product. He gave samples to friends and family who found it be a winner. The product was ready to present. Richard just had to get the nerve to make the call.

When he was ready, he called the CEO’s office.

“Mr. Enrico’s office, who is this?”

“Richard Montañez, In California.”

“You’re the VP overseeing California?

“No, I work at the Rancho Cucamonga plant.”

“Oh, so you’re the VP of ops?”

“No, I work inside the plant.”

“You’re the manager?”

“No, I’m the janitor.”

Mr. Enrico took the call. He loved the initiative. He instructed Richard to prepare a presentation and set a meeting two weeks hence when Enrico was planning a visit to the plant. Richard went about studying marketing.Then the day for the meeting came.

The janitor walked into the room with the head honcho together with his support team. After taking a deep breath he started telling the people what he had learned about the company and what he had been working on. He presented the bags with his product inside that he had sealed with a clothing iron and hand decorated with a logo on each.

When he finished his presentation the room fell silent. After a few moments the great Roger Enrico looked at him and said “Put that mop away, you are coming with us.”

From that meeting Frito-Lay birthed Flamin’ Hot Cheetos. It became one of the company’s most successful product launches. It became a cultural sensation.


This article is reproduced by permission of the author. It first appeared in Flash Report December 30, 2020.

Hunter and Joe, Plutocrats and Hypocrites Extraordinaire

Estimated Reading Time: 3 minutes

It’s hard to believe, but they even surpass Republicrats and Republicrites in phoniness and laughing at the hoi polloi.

The Wall Street journal recently ran a 2,420 word essay that details the sordid international dealings of Joe Biden’s son Hunter and Joe’s brother, James Biden.

Unfortunately, the article is 2,420 words too long for the tweet generation, which constantly demonstrates the inverse relationship between the time spent on social media and the understanding of complex socioeconomic issues and history.

The article doesn’t say this, but it’s ludicrous to believe that Joe didn’t know anything about the sordid dealings of his son and brother. When Hunter was traveling back and forth to China and the Ukraine, Joe couldn’t have possibly thought that his son was going to China to pick up a carryout order of Kung Pao chicken, and to the Ukraine to buy a bushel of wheat.

The Biden family hypocrisy is extreme, because it runs completely counter to the blather of the Democrat Party about white privilege, income inequality, inherited wealth, and the political power of Wall Street. At least with Trump, every American with an IQ above 80 understood what he was: a flimflam man, a shady businessman, and the host of an inane TV series. Given that he operated in the cesspool of New York real estate, New Jersey gaming, and network TV, how could he be otherwise?

The hypocrisy began with Hunter going to Yale University. No doubt, he got extra admission points because of his last name, just as Ted Kennedy got extra admission points at Harvard due to his last name. This from universities and a political party that espouse diversity and rail against white privilege.

The hypocrisy continued with Hunter working for a Wall Street investment firm that sought investments from oligarchs in China and Russia. Stated differently, someone from the top 1% in America hobnobbed with the top 1% in a communist country and a former communist country.

An acceleration of the hypocrisy occurred with Hunter getting into a financial bed with a Chinese oil and gas tycoon. Hunter must’ve performed very well in bed, for the tycoon gave him a 2.8-carat diamond and gave $5 million to Hunter’s law firm. At the same time, daddy Joe and other leading Democrats were spouting pieties about global warming and slamming the fossil fuel industry.

There are other hypocrisies, but the biggest of all was Hunter trading on his family name. It’s the hypocrisy that should compel Americans to storm the Imperial City in D.C.

Why was it hypocritical to trade on the family name? Because Joe, Hillary, the Cuomo clan, and other two-faced Democrats rail against inherited wealth and favor steep inheritance taxes while making sure that their kids get something more valuable than money: the connections, networks, and influence bequeathed to them through the family name.

This was worth $50,000 a month to Hunter in the Ukraine alone, not counting all the other investment returns accruing from his last name. (For comparison, the median per-capita annual income in the USA is $56,490)

Then there is the popular tax dodge of plutocrats on the left and right: establishing a nonprofit foundation and making their kids officers in the sham charity. The kids get a comfortable salary, invaluable prestige and influence, expense-paid travel and accommodations, and invitations to sit on other boards.

Contrast that with some schlemiel of a plumber without political power but with other people’s excrement on his hands and clothes works. He works ungodly hours to build a plumbing business, with the goal of leaving it to his kids so that they can climb higher in society than he did. But politicians favoring a steep inheritance tax think it is unfair for Joe Palooka to pass on his business. At the same time, in a case of cognitive dissonance or just an ugly double standard, they don’t hesitate in passing on power, prestige, influence and connections to their kids.

The good news is that the plutocrats will be overturned someday. The bad news is that socialists will do the overturning.

Trouble in Murdoch World

Estimated Reading Time: 5 minutes

On November 6, three days after the election, Kathryn Murdoch tweeted in agreement with CNN anchor Jake Tapper on Fox News having “an obligation to put their country above their profits” by making it clear to their viewers “that there is no credible evidence of widespread fraud.”

In other tweets, she commented “We did it!!!!” in reference to Biden’s win projected by the media. She asked her followers, “What will you tell your children or your future self about the part you played in history?” She also retweeted posts mentioning Trump’s “authoritarian antics” and “surviving the gravest threat to our system of government since the Civil War.”

This would be unremarkable except that Kathryn Murdoch is the wife of James Murdoch, the son of media mogul Rupert Murdoch, who founded Fox Corporation (the company which operates all the Fox channels). Rupert Murdoch also owns Wall Street Journal’s publisher Dow Jones & Company, The Sun’s publisher News UK, HarperCollins, and News Corp Australia through his company News Corp.

Liberal Philanthropy Power Couple

In September 2020, James and Kathryn were 13th on the Center for Responsive Politics’ list of major donors in the 2020 cycle, and they are big patrons of Democratic causes in general.

FEC filings reveal that in June 2020 they each donated $615,000 to the Biden Victory Fund, a joint fundraising effort of the Biden campaign. They also made two donations of $106,500 to the Democratic National Committee followed up later that summer by $700,000 between the two of them to left-wing PAC Unite the Country and two $60,000 grants to African-American voter mobilization group Black PAC.

Additionally, this year Kathryn personally gave $1 million to the Democrats’ Senate Majority PAC and $540,000 to Future Forward PAC, while James sent a total of $500,000 to Change Now. The list of their contributions goes on, including previous years when the couple donated to Hillary Clinton.

Unite America and Mail-In Voting

Most interesting about Kathryn’s contributions, however, is the $2.16 million she gave to Unite America, where she is co-chair. Billed as nonpartisan, Unite America is a center-left political action committee that funds various efforts challenging the districting system in states with Republican legislatures, NeverTrumper Bill Kristol’s Defending Democracy Together (DDT), and liberal activist group Represent.Us. But Unite America mainly advocates for election reforms, including making mail-in voting as permanent option, not just during the COVID-19 pandemic.

In a previous blog post, I discussed the serious challenges that vote by mail poses, including election fraud and interference concerns, the increasing centralization of the vote-counting process, and the unlikelihood that absentee ballots arriving in such high volumes could be sufficiently examined for potential violations of identification laws as they have been traditionally.

Unite America found themselves in a convenient spot, though, when the COVID lockdowns gave them the opportunity to promote universal mail-in voting. Partnering with Center for Tech and Civic Life (which received $350 million from Mark Zuckerberg to regrant to jurisdictions throughout the country ahead of the general election), Democracy Works, and Voting Rights Lab—all left-of-center groups—it spearheaded the movement to introduce new voting methods with great success, with over 100 million people voting early by mail or in person in the 2020 general election.

On President Trump’s attempt to fight against mail-in voting, Kathryn Murdoch remarked:

It was a real missed opportunity from the White House. I think they are going to end up harming their own voters because lots of rural people are well served by the postal service and that’s an example of those feelings getting in the way of data and the science.

One can imagine why Kathryn Murdoch, the co-chair and a financial supporter of the main group behind the network of vote-by-mail promoters, would want her father-in-law’s news outlet to promote the narrative that vote-in ballots are completely immune to voter fraud.

Quadrivium, A Liberal Foundation Powered by Murdoch Cash

Kathryn runs the Quadrivium Foundation, which she founded with James in 2014. Besides Unite America, Quadrivium funds several other election reform groups, including the aforementioned Voting Rights Lab, Represent.US, and Democracy Works, as well as the Millennial Action Project. It also appears to be a major benefactor of the NeverTrump movement. In 2018, Quadrivium Foundation conducted a study on which groups it could support to break “gridlock” in Washington. The chosen groups, besides voter participation and environmentalist groups, included Kristol’s DDT (whose 501(c)(3) counterpart publishes the media outlet The Bulwark) and his Republicans for the Rule of Law.

From 2006 to 2011, Kathryn worked for the Clinton Climate Initiative as the director of communications and strategy. She currently sits on the boards of Climate Central, the Environmental Defense Fund (which she funds through Quadrivium), and the Climate Leadership Council, which brands itself as a conservative group that supports climate change policies such as a carbon tax.

Kathryn was initially spurred to get involved with climate change activism after attending a talk by Al Gore in 2006. “I decided to switch everything I was doing,” she told New York Times. “I wanted to be able to look my children in the eye and say ‘I did everything I could.’”

James Murdoch Leaves News Corp Board

All this involvement in climate change activism led James to formally split with his father’s company in August 2020 by resigning from the board of News Corp and from director positions at Wall Street Journal, Fox News, New York Post, and Australian. This was after he received $2 billion from the sale of 21st Century Fox to Disney, which he put toward philanthropic efforts.

In response to questions about his son’s departure, Rupert Murdoch told the press that his company does not deny climate change. “We are not deniers,” he protested.

However, a long history of disagreement over climate change coverage preceded James’s resignation. James had often tried to steer Fox News and News Corp outlets in a more liberal direction, often butting heads with his father’s employees. In January 2020, James and Kathryn released a public statement expressing their “frustration” with the Murdoch media network’s contribution to climate change denial, specifically in regard to News Corp’s coverage of Australian wildfires.

One wonders whether familial pressure from his younger son and daughter-in-law may be influencing the media mogul’s recent executive decisions at Fox News.

Trump Clashes with Murdoch

After Fox called Arizona for Biden earlier than other media networks, Trump and many Trump supporters expressed deep disappointment in the network, which for a long time had been a major voice of the American conservative movement. Trump allegedly screamed at Rupert after the decision, demanding that he retract it, but Murdoch held his ground and refused.

There has been talk that Trump might team up with Newsmax to create a Trumpist media outlet, as Newsmax CEO Christopher Ruddy has been courting favor with the movement. “Fox was very schizophrenic in this previous election in its support and consistency about the president,” Ruddy said in an interview with CNBC. “I think Newsmax was consistently supportive of the president. I think he was very disappointed.” Ruddy also noted, “We have the distribution, now, to compete with them head on.”

Rupert Murdoch seems to be responding to these motions with concern: He is reportedly considering giving Trump a $100 million package including a book deal for a presidential memoir with HarperCollins and a contributor position or even his own show on Fox News.

However, Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal editorial board just expressed their disapproval of Trump contesting Georgia’s election results, arguing that it could harm Georgia’s senate runoff race in January by splitting the party. “If Republicans lose those seats, President Trump will be the main reason, and the main casualty will be his legacy,” they wrote.

Trump has a strong grip over the Republican base. People in the Trump movement have already resolved to boycott Tucker Carlson’s program and became infuriated with him. Not too long ago, he was one of if not the foremost representative of the Trump movement in the mainstream media. Then he questioned the veracity of a Trump lawyer’s allegations of voter fraud.

The outcome of these internecine conservative battles over the next few weeks could decide the political alignment, and relevancy, of Fox News and the rest of Murdoch’s media empire for years to come.


Shane Devine is a Research Assistant at Capital Research Center. Originally from New Jersey, he is a recent graduate of The New School in New York City.  This article was  published on December 22, 2020 by Capital Research Center and is hereby reproduced with permission.

Fifty-Five Years of Denial about Black Lives

Estimated Reading Time: 6 minutes

Daniel Patrick Moynihan was right in 1965 about the black underclass but continues to be ignored or maligned.

Daniel Patrick Moynihan was “woke” about the injustices suffered by African Americans before most of today’s “wokes” were born. He was also right about the root cause of the permanency of the black underclass.

Strangely, however, instead of being remembered for his insights and caring, Moynihan has been maligned by the American intelligentsia through the years and is largely unknown by the new generation of social-justice activists and by the Black Lives Matter movement.

In 1965, Moynihan was a sociologist for the U.S. Department of Labor. He would later become a U.S. Senator. He published a scholarly paper in March of that year for the DOL, a report that contained an N-word in its title, which turns off prospective readers but was the official government terminology of the day: “The Negro Family: The Case for National Action”

Moynihan should be a hero to today’s wokes. With sensitivity, compassion and honesty, he explained that slavery in the U.S. had been especially vile, because, unlike slavery in Brazil and elsewhere, slaves were seen by slaveowners as chattel and not as humans, a belief that resulted in male and female slaves not being allowed to marry, in slaves being separated from their families and sold, and in the establishment of a matriarchal subculture.

Later, during Jim Crow, black men who attempted to protect their families were humiliated or worse. And later still, welfare made black men unnecessary in providing for their families. These developments further entrenched the matriarchal culture and led black men to find counterproductive and self-defeating ways of expressing their masculinity.

Of course, as Moynihan went on to explain, blacks also faced poverty, discrimination, bad schools, and biased law enforcement. So did certain immigrant groups, but not to the same extent as blacks. With the advent of civil rights and voting rights, many blacks did overcome these barriers and rise to the middle-class, but to a lesser degree than disadvantaged immigrants.

Immigrants and poor whites in general had an advantage that blacks didn’t have: a much higher incidence of two-parent families. To that point, Moynihan wrote this:

As a direct result of this high rate of divorce, separation, and desertion, a very large percent of Negro families are headed by females. While the percentage of such families among whites has been dropping since 1940, it has been rising among Negroes.

The percent of nonwhite [black] families headed by a female is more than double the percent for whites. Fatherless nonwhite families increased by a sixth between 1950 and 1960, but held constant for white families.

It has been estimated that only a minority of Negro children reach the age of 18 having lived all their lives with both of their parents.

On a related note, Moynihan provided the following statistics on the welfare program known as Aid to Families with Dependent Children:

The AFDC program, deriving from the long-established Mothers’ Aid programs, was established in 1935 principally to care for widows and orphans, although the legislation covered all children in homes deprived of parental support because one or both of their parents are absent or incapacitated.

In the beginning, the number of AFDC families in which the father was absent because of desertion was less than a third of the total. Today it is two thirds. HEW estimates “that between two thirds and three fourths of the 50 percent increase from 1948 to 1955 in the number of absent father families receiving ADC may be explained by an increase in broken homes in the population.”

A 1960 study of Aid to Dependent Children in Cook County, Ill. stated:

“The ‘typical’ ADC mother in Cook County was married and had children by her husband, who deserted; his whereabouts are unknown, and he does not contribute to the support of his children. She is not free to remarry and has had an illegitimate child since her husband left. (Almost 90 percent of the ADC families are Negro.)”

These excerpts are but a tiny fraction of the sobering statistics in the Moynihan report.

The key message of the report was that the trend of broken black families was going in the wrong direction and would result in a permanent underclass and increased social pathologies, which would not be overcome by civil rights (or by diversity and inclusion today). Indeed, since the report, the percent of one-parent black families has more than doubled, with a corresponding rise in pathologies, especially and most horrendously, the shootings of teens by other teens. This mirrors what Moynihan predicted, as follows:

The family structure of lower-class Negroes is highly unstable, and in many urban centers is approaching complete breakdown.

There is considerable evidence that the Negro community is in fact dividing between a stable middle class group that is steadily growing stronger and more successful, and an increasingly disorganized and disadvantaged lower class group. There are indications, for example, that the middle class Negro family puts a higher premium on family stability and the conserving of family resources than does the white middle class family.

What Moynihan didn’t foresee was that the percent of one-parent white families would also more than double over the upcoming decades, due to changing mores, women entering the workforce, and the feminist movement – a trend that also has resulted in entrenched social pathologies.

Today, tellingly, certain Asian races in America have the highest percent of traditional families and the highest income and educational achievement.

Many middle- and working-class communities have become Potemkin villages, whether white or black. From the outside they look like communities of yesteryear, with nice ranch homes, lawns, and tree-lined streets. But the facades hide a divorce rate of 50%, substance abuse, and despondent, angry children – and in some cities, gangs of teens who sell drugs and prey on their neighbors, which in turn results in a larger police presence and the increased likelihood of misunderstandings or worse between cops and citizens.

The suburb of Ferguson outside of my hometown of St. Louis is a case in point. From the outside, the homes are nicer than the homes in my boyhood working-class neighborhood, but the worst thing my friends and I did as kids in the old hood was soap windows or ring doorbells and run. We didn’t steal from a neighborhood store, or walk the streets in the middle of the night, or fear the cops, who were part of the community and known by name.

Anyway, given that Moynihan has been proven prophetic, why is his report maligned or ignored today? Three reasons:

First, the report used the N-word, which at best is now seen as anachronistic, and at worst, is a trigger for accusations of racism or calls for cancelling.

Second, overly-sensitive feminists misinterpret Moynihan as having advocated for a patriarchal society, because of his concern over fathers being displaced from family life.

Third, his reference to illegitimacy is incorrectly seen as passing moral judgment, when in fact, he did no such thing but simply used statistics that were available at the time and were rough proxies for fatherless families. He knew that unmarried parents were not necessarily irresponsible parents or single parents.

I’ll close on a personal note and retell an anecdote that I’ve written about elsewhere.

At about the same time as the Moynihan report, I was a teen working as the only white on an otherwise all-black clubhouse staff at an exclusive St. Louis country club, where Italians and Jews weren’t welcome as members. St. Louis was the city known for the infamous Dredd Scott case, the infamous Pruitt-Igoe public housing complex, racial tensions and riots, and white flight to the suburbs. Now the city has just a fraction of its former population and one of the highest crime rates in the nation.

Waiters at the clubhouse restaurant were former waiters on Pullman train cars and were solidly in the middle-class. They were the epitome of good manners, personal grooming, and classy dress The same for clubhouse manager Bill Williams, who wore tailored suits and cufflinks, which were two articles of attire that my dad didn’t own.

For extra money on my off-hours, I would wash and wax their big Buicks and Pontiacs, which, unlike our family car, didn’t have rusted-out floorboards, through which the pavement could be seen flying by. Neighbors marveled at the cars and marveled even more when Bill Williams came for a visit.

At the lower end of the class spectrum were the cooks, dishwasher and janitors. A former prize fighter, the dishwasher had a long scar on his face and a violent temper, especially when drunk.

One of my jobs was cleaning the employee restroom in the basement of the clubhouse. After I had finished the chore one morning, the dishwasher walked into the restroom, peed on the floor, and said, “Clean it up whitey.” A young and muscular coworker, who happened to walk by at that moment, threw the dishwasher against the wall and said, “You clean it up, you black motherf _ _ _ _r.” Not wanting trouble, I said, “That’s okay. I’ll get it.”

Despite these class and behavioral differences, and despite the discrimination my coworkers faced in St. Louis, almost all of them were married and took pride in being good family men. They would invite me to their family picnics in Forest Park, where they would cook the best barbecued ribs in the world. Other than skin color and cuisine, the picnics were just like the picnics of Italian families.

Sadly, as Moynihan had warned, much of this family foundation subsequently crumbled, not only for many blacks but also for many whites. Sadder still, wokes don’t know this history and are unaware of the dreadful socioeconomic consequences of fatherless families.

The Moynihan report should be required reading in colleges, but that’s a pipe dream.

School Teachers vs. Restaurant Workers

Estimated Reading Time: 5 minutes

Two groups that have been spoken about often during the 2020 pandemic have been school teachers and restaurant workers. Though both groups have a large number currently not working, the two groups are dramatically different in how they have been treated by our governments. Let’s take a look at the difference and compare/contrast their realities.

School teachers are largely public employees and they principally belong to public employee unions. It is estimated there are more than four million teachers in our country. They are principally represented by two unions – National Education Association (NEA) with 2.2 million members and American Federation of Teachers (AFT) with 1.7 million members. In the well-known ruling (Janus), the Supreme Court made it illegal for these unions to command membership. The unions (in cahoots with state governments and local school districts) have placed significant obstacles in front of anyone wanting to opt out. Teachers have their money taken out of their paychecks beginning the very first day on the job. Those funds are used to buy political influence at the tune of tens of millions of dollars. Some say the teachers’ unions are the largest contributors to Democrats with only meager amounts going to Republicans.

The teacher’s unions have largely stated their members will not work during the pandemic. Initially the California division of the unions stated not only would they stay home but wanted certain public policies to be changed before returning to the classroom. They demanded single-payer, government-provided healthcare; full funding for housing California’s homeless; a shutdown to publicly funded, privately operated charter schools; and a new set of programs to address systemic racism. To pay for all this, they want a 1% wealth tax, a 3% income surtax on millionaires, and increased property taxes on businesses. They also want $250 million from the federal government unions. At least the people of California voted down the property tax increases.

The remainder of policies are in the hands of their hand-picked California legislature and the federal government. At the federal level they have possibly the biggest political harlot in American history, Speaker Pelosi, on their side. She has told the world that it is dangerous for teachers to return to the classroom. She knows that is a lie, but she stands in front of a mic and states it anyway because she is owned by the national unions.

We now have the science that it is harmful for the kids staying home. They have little chance of exposing their teachers to COVID and their teachers have little chance of getting the disease from the kids. Once again the party of science uses it when it is convenient.

The teachers still refuse to return for a couple reasons. The unions are socialist organizations. They insist on treating every teacher the same in compensation despite the variance in their skills. STEM teachers are paid the same as others despite the higher demand and specialized knowledge. The thing that is honored by the unions is seniority. Thus, they refuse to return to the classroom because the teachers who are over 50 years old have a higher level of risk from the disease even though the risk is still extremely low until you reach the age of 70. There are few, if any, teachers at that age because they have retired to receive their government funded pension and rich health care plans.

The second reason they have not returned to the classrooms is the teachers are receiving full pay, health insurance and pension while on this prolonged self-imposed vacation. Some are trying to teach remotely, but that has proven to be an abject failure. The “mask” of the teachers caring about the students has been fully ripped off for everyone to see. They belong to a union that is racist and cares only about its members.

The Los Angeles School system has now been closed down without any science behind it.

Then there are the restaurant workers. There are an estimated 13.5 million of them. The life of many of these workers since March has been go home, stay home, hope your employer gets a PPP loan, wait for a call back, get a call back, shut down again, wait for a call back, try to look for another job, can’t find another job, get a call back, feel fortunate you are one of the few, have to work outside where the seats are far away from the kitchen, customers complain their food is cold because you had to bring it from the kitchen a long distance away, sweat to death because it is 100 degrees outside and you are walking back and forth, then the weather turns and you are delivering the food in 45 degrees. Then you are shut down again. You ask why. Your employer asks why. You get nothing but orders from the health department. You cannot understand. Your employer and you have taken every precaution, but you are sitting at home again hoping to get unemployment benefits that take forever to arrive. Then you find out your restaurant has closed for good. It could not survive the constant turmoil brought on by government edicts and excessive costs to comply.

Small business in America has extremely high favorability rating ranging to near 90%. Despite that elected officials crap on them all the time. A lot of them mouth platitudes about small business during their campaigns then do everything to stall them, harm them and put them out of business.

Two national health officials validated what we knew already — There is no science that outdoor dining is a risk for COVID contraction. Yet California and officials of other states shut down restaurants and their workers.

There were 660,700 restaurants in America in 2018. The National Restaurant Association has estimated that 110,000 restaurants have closed permanently. It has been estimated that 50% of full service restaurants will permanently close. Drive down the street and see the “for sale” and “for lease” signs on restaurant after restaurant. Another shutdown, with no science behind it, will kill off an even greater number as body blow after body blow cannot be endured. They will cause the permanent loss of millions of jobs and people scrambling to figure out how they will support themselves. The workers will not be receiving paychecks nor will they be receiving health insurance and pension contributions like the public-school teachers.

Though people love small businesses and the workers at their restaurants and similar businesses, they keep electing these politicians who make it challenging on a normal day to start and run their businesses and have done so much during the pandemic to harm them. Hundreds of people can walk around a Costco while restaurants cannot even have 25% capacity with significant safeguards for customers and workers. Why is that? Simply a function of money lining elected officials’ pockets.

Public school teachers’ unions have been a blight upon our society for years. In previous columns, we have delineated how racist these unions have become. The problem is largely generated because parents like their kid’s teacher while not acknowledging they enable these racists unions to exist. The parents think their kid’s teacher cares when it has become quite clear they only care about themselves. If you belong to these despotic unions, you are part of the problem, not part of the solution. Stop coddling them. They are not your friend nor your kid’s friend.

Instead, start giving your local busser, server, cook, chef, restaurant owner the love they deserve and demand that your elected officials do as well. If anything, this pandemic has shown they are the people who are there for you, care about you and take the personal risks to make your life better.


Bruce Bialosky is a nationally  known columnist. He was appointed by President Bush to the U.S. Holocaust Commission and is the Founder of the Republican Jewish Coalition of California. This article first appeared 11/13/20 in Flash Report  and is reproduced herein by the permission of the author. Comments can be directed to

Diversity’s Huge Double Standard: Why Walloons aren’t counted as a minority in diversity initiatives

Estimated Reading Time: 4 minutes

Nasdaq recently announced that it was going to require companies listed on its stock exchange to have a set number of racial minorities, women, lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and transsexuals on their boards of directors.

Parroting the official government lingua on race, Nasdaq’s quotas for minorities were in reference to African Americans, Asian Americans and Hispanic Americans. Other minority groups with far fewer people in the U.S. population and on boards of directors were excluded, just as they are excluded in all diversity initiatives.

As a general diversity rule, the smaller the minority group, the less it is counted in diversity initiatives.

Nasdaq is the same outfit that was founded and headed by Bernie Madoff, whose Ponzi scheme defrauded investors out of $50 billion. His buddies at Nasdaq didn’t have enough judgment to recognize that he was a scoundrel but now see themselves as experts in social engineering.

Like so many American institutions nowadays—especially big media, big corporations, big academia, and the big diversity industrial complex—Nasdaq doesn’t even have an objective, science-based definition of “minority.” It simply and thoughtlessly parrots the word willy-nilly and thus doesn’t know what it is measuring. It’s akin to the stock exchange not having a definition of “earnings per share” or “price/earnings ratio.”What is a minority? Is a minority a member of a racial or ethnocultural group that comprises less than 50% of the U.S. population, or that is economically disadvantaged compared to other groups, or that doesn’t have political power, or that has faced discrimination, or that has descended from slaves, or that has descended from natives who were conquered, persecuted and placed on reservations?

African Americans and Native Americans meet most of the above criteria (as groups, but not necessarily as individuals). But things get squishy after that.

Consider all of the diverse groups that are seen as part of the so-called white majority but individually comprise a tiny segment of the U.S. population. There are about 100 such groups, including Walloons, Bosnians, Tatars, Armenians, Kurds, Assyrians, Karakalpaks, Persians, Egyptians, Kashubians, Greeks, Cypriots, Italians, Albanians, Abkhazians, Yakuts, Slavs, Occitans, Lezgins, Kumyks, Turks, Galicians and Moravians.

Although all of those named above are officially classified as white, none are Anglo-Saxon. The same for many other minority groups classified as white. Scores of them have faced discrimination or worse at the hands of Anglo-Saxon Protestants, including being victims in the early 20th century of the Progressive eugenics movement and of anti-immigration laws and nativist hostility. For example, Italians were considered an inferior race in the North and equated to blacks in the South, especially those from southern Italy and Sicily. Eleven of them were lynched in New Orleans.

The economic status of Walloons and the other above-named minorities is largely unknown today. The same for their political power and their representation on boards of directors.

That’s because they aren’t deemed important enough to be separately tracked by those who track such things. By government policy, they are aggregated with all other whites, as if they are homogenous in values, beliefs, ideology, history, religion, experiences, socioeconomic class, and skin shade. Then, due to their assigned race, they are stereotyped by the woke mob as having the same advantages, privileges and political power as blue-blooded, porcelain-white Anglo-Saxon Protestants whose lineage goes back to the nation’s founding, or whose forebears might have passed down wealth from dealing in cotton, tobacco, and sugar during slavery.

The aggregation of these diverse minority groups results in them being treated as if they are in the majority. By contrast, the aggregation of favored racial/ethnic groups into the contrived categories of Asian and Hispanic results in them being treated as minorities. As a consequence, to take two examples, Walloon Americans are not seen as minorities, but Mexican Americans are seen as such, although they vastly outnumber Walloons.

What explains this insulting and insensitive double standard and the associated bad math?

First, Asians and Hispanics had enough political and media clout to be added to the equal rights movement and legislation that had been originally intended for African Americans. This clout has carried over to the diversity movement.

Second, the diversity movement is based on the false premise that only non-whites are deserving of diversity initiatives, because they lack the privileges, power and wealth that have accrued to all whites, including white Walloons.

Never mind that East Indians, Han Chinese, and other racial/ethnic groups classified as “Asian” exceed whites, on average, in income and education. Never mind that many Hispanics are white and wealthy descendants of Spanish aristocrats. And never mind that plenty of whites are impoverished descendants of indentured servants and tenant farmers.

Another false premise is that an Asian or Hispanic on a board of directors, or in the executive suite, or in a college classroom, is representative of all Asians and Hispanics and thus can speak for everyone else. Under this convoluted thinking, a Japanese is the same as a Korean, is the same as a Cambodian, is the same as an East Indian, is the same as a Filipino, and so on. Likewise, a Mexican is the same as a Columbian, is the same as a Guatemalan, is the same as a Nicaraguan, is the same as a Cuban, and so on. And a Boston Brahmin is the same as a Walloon, is the same as a Kashubian, is the same as an Armenian, is the same as an Abkhazian, and so on.

Universities have not only bought into this gross corruption of sociology, anthropology, history, and math but have led the descent into the scientific malpractice.

Too bad for male Walloons. Because they are classified as white they won’t be counted as a racial minority in Nasdaq’s quotas. But at least they have other ways to be counted: They can change their gender or claim that they are gay, bisexual or transsexual.

“People of Color” is a Brainless Term

Estimated Reading Time: 3 minutes

The Democrats are always coming up with snappy new terms to describe their political antics. “Medicare for All,” “Public Option,” “Democratic Socialism” and “Progressives” are samples of current nomenclature. The terms typically replace a prior term that has failed to capture public acceptance. The press simply follows suit, never questioning the new terms and phrases as they become commonly used by the press. Soon the rest of us are forced to use terms du jour or we are scorned. It is not clear who came up with the term “People of Color,” but there is not a more deceitful and manipulative term than this.

The term basically divides everyone into two groups – White people and everyone else. It treats each group as if it were homogenized. The usage of “people of color” has been traced back as far as 1796. That was really when there were two non-white groups: Blacks and Native Americans. Today that has radically changed.

It is foolish to state that all Whites are just that – people of the same ilk. There are many White Americans with whom I have zero in common. There are many Jewish White Americans I believe live on another planet which Is not part of this solar system. In addition, the fact that there are European Jews (Ashkenazi) and Sephardic Jews who are non-white doesn’t even put all Jews in the same place, but the people who use these terms group all Jews as White.

While Hispanics are often grouped with Blacks politically, they seem to have different political leanings. Hispanic men voted for Trump twice as frequently as Black men and Hispanic women voted for Trump four times as often as Black women. These groups have little in common. While many Black (and some Whites too) were out looting and rioting this past summer, you did not see a lot of Hispanics jumping on board. Part of it is so many Hispanics have a European (White) heritage. Recently a large population of Colombians relocated to Miami as their country was riddled with drug wars. This group has little in common with people here from Central America. Likewise, Cubans have little to do with the Puerto Ricans. Then there are the Dominicans. While they arrived from Spanish speaking countries, these groups have as much in common as the English do with Bulgarians. And they have little in common with Blacks and Asians.

Then there are the Asians. People of Asian extraction gravely dislike being grouped with everyone else that might have a similar look. My friend Michelle Steel, who recently was elected to Congress, told of how some members of the press addressed her as if she were Chinese despite being of Korean heritage and also speaking Japanese. The Koreans do not like the Chinese and certainly the Taiwanese have no affection for mainland Chinese. Then there are the Asians from Thailand, Vietnam, India, Laos and Singapore. Gosh knows the people of Hong Kong who are Chinese do not like the mainland Chinese. They are all “People of Color” who are supposed to all think alike. Not even close.

Not even all Blacks think alike. American-born Blacks are distinctly different from Blacks who have immigrated from Africa in recent generations. It became well known recently that Nigerian Americans are a particularly successful group. Why would they relate to a Black American who thinks the country really started in 1619? In fact, African American immigrants act just like every other immigrant group. They want to succeed in America and not be grouped by “well-meaning liberals” as people of color.

These groups realize this hoopla about “people of color” is nothing more than an attempt by white liberals to appease their self-imposed feelings of guilt or “privilege.” These groups want the government out of their way so they can earn a living, get ahead, raise their children and make sure the next generation is more successful than they are. That is why as a whole immigrants are more successful than native-born Americans and have a higher home ownership rate.

The supposed “people of color” realize that the average American does not really care about their skin shade or native country. They realize we ask they only do two things: Learn to speak English and become an American citizen. Experience shows that these people appreciate this country at a higher level than native-born Americans. They have seen what life is like elsewhere and how fortunate we are here.

People of Color do not exist. It is a stupid and insulting term. There are only two kinds of Americans: ones who love this country and understand what a gift it is to live here, and those who do not.


This entry by Bruce Bialosky at Flash Report was posted on Sunday, December 6th, 2020 at 2:00 am and is filed under Blog Posts.

Are You Surprised They Think You Are Stupid?

Estimated Reading Time: 4 minutes

There is a lot of talk about how we don’t have enough civility in our public discourse. Mr. Biden has called for unity and reaching across the aisle. Many people would like to blame President Trump. Though he adds to this situation, this has been going on for years. Previously, I have delineated that Democrats think Republicans are evil. I have also delineated that every Republican President since Eisenhower has been called stupid except Nixon who was called evil. Democrats (not all) think most Republican supporters are just beyond understanding societal concepts.

Recently, I had a discussion with a gay friend. Over dinner he said he did not want to engage in political discourse because it just leads to bad feelings. Even though we have different political beliefs I always want to listen to what others say so I can learn how others are thinking.

At a further time, I told him he was wrong to have that thought. I then told him a story. I had been on the forefront of accepting gays; the Best Man at my wedding in 1986 was and is gay. I could not give a hoot about whether someone is gay.

When gay marriage became a hot topic before any court ruling, I told my gay friend I heard arguments in support of gay marriage and found them lacking substance. Then one night while the Beautiful Wife and I were having dinner with a gay couple, one made an argument that stuck with me. He said he wanted to have a wedding. He wanted to experience that. You know — when one person commits to love, honor and cherish the other for the rest of their lives. That argument made sense to me. That made me reconsider my position on the subject. Because of honest discourse between parties with different opinions, sometimes opinions change.

After conveying the story of how my opinion had changed, I switched topics. I told my friend that I still believe the ideal situation for children is to be raised by a female and male couple. We had a back and forth where he made the typical arguments such as a child raised in a household by a loving gay couple is better than a dysfunctional straight couple. We went around and round as I batted back every argument, he made and stuck to the fact I believe a child having a male and female parent is best for both a female and male child. That does not mean that single parents or gay couples are not sometimes better, and significantly better than a child with no parents at all.

Then he offered his last point. While he could accept my rationale, he believes my argument is “dangerous” because some people would not understand like “those folks in Mississippi.” Stating others who you don’t know may not have the mental capacity to comprehend an argument is never a convincing position. He had accepted me as a mental peer, but thought the rest of people who might hear what I said were heathens who would twist my arguments in a vulgar way.

This is not a new experience for me. I hear this regularly. I believe the ordinary American can intelligently come to conclusions — especially made to them in plain English. They can make up their own minds. When I argued for parental notice for minors having abortions, I was told the reason to not have parental notice was not about me. Of course, I would treat my daughter properly. It is the other guy who would act irresponsibly because so many parents would act tragically with a teenage daughter who is pregnant. Thus, we must step in and protect that daughter from her parents because ‘we’ know better.

Reflecting on this, does it surprise you at all that the now infamous interlude happened on CNN’s The Don Lemon show? Three talking heads disparaging people who would deem to think Donald Trump was a responsible president, one being the host laughing uproariously. Afterward, he attempted to explain that he was not really laughing at a large portion of the American public, but at a joke line. We know who he was laughing at. Us.

There is a great divide. There are as many smart people who do not want to control people’s lives as there are that want to micromanage our lives because they believe we cannot manage on our own. Many people have fallen into this mode of thinking. They take decisions out of the hands of others and it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy that people can no longer make decisions for themselves by reason of they have not made any decisions and thus lost that ability. The COVID period has validated that.

People attempt to define the divide in America. The divide is simply this. The people who believe Americans can and should make decisions for themselves and those who think others are incapable, i.e., because ‘they’ are smarter and wiser, decisions should be made by them. Pick your side. I believe in Americans. They don’t.

P.S. If Mr. Biden wanted to show some leadership and bring us together, he could give a speech and tell his supporters who have suggested retribution against Trump supporters to stop it. He should make clear their behavior is atrocious and un-American. That speech would go a long way toward legitimizing his desire to reach across the aisle.


This entry by Bruce Bialosky was originally posted at Flash Report on Sunday, November 29th, 2020 at 2:00 am and is filed under Blog Posts.