Wednesday, December 31, 2014





George W. Bush has been retired as the most despised villain and the cause of all the evils that plague the world. Bush has been replaced by the Koch (a Dutch name, pronounced “Coke”) brothers, who are often maligned by the left for their pecuniary influence in politics. Since those on the left are not equally malevolent toward George Soros, who does the same thing, it’s clearly not the money in politics that bothers them — it’s the ideology.

The Washington Post’s Pulitzer Prize winning Fact Check granted a “Four Pinocchio” rating to Reid’s latest round of attacks. The Post says Reid is “setting a high standard for deceptive speech,” and concludes that Reid’s party is “reaching blindly” for someone to cast the blame of their own failures on. The paper, critical of the falsity of Reid’s claim, chides him with, “If you want to join a gun fight, don’t fire blanks.”


David and Charles Koch are brothers who run Koch Industries, an oil refinery business that is the second largest private firm in the country. The brothers are tied at number 6 on Forbes top billionaires list with personal net worth of about $41 billion each. They’ve expanded and maintained their fortunes by successfully providing the refined product that keeps America moving – oil.

George Soros is chairman of Soros Fund Management, a hedge fund company. Soros is number 27 on Forbes list with a net worth of $23 billion. He’s made his fortune in large part by selling short against international currencies and collapsing financial institutions. In 1997, he was dubbed “the man who broke the Bank of England”; and he was blamed by the Malaysian Prime Minister for collapsing their currency during the Asian financial crisis. He was also convicted of illegal financial dealings in France. His big bet now is collapsing the U.S. dollar and the free enterprise system.

Economist Paul Krugman has been critical of Soros and others like him, “who not only move money in anticipation of a currency crisis, but actually do their best to trigger that crisis for fun and profit. These new actors on the scene do not yet have a standard name; my proposed term is ‘Soroi’.”

The Koch brothers and Soros spend lavishly in politics. They support individual candidates, contribute to political party campaign funds, lobby politicians, bankroll political action committees, and have established foundations and think tanks to influence politics.

The Kochs spend by far the most, but the bulk of it goes to lobbying. The Open Society Institute is one of George Soros’ organizations, and they provide part of the funding of; so even realizing that their data may be skewed toward a more pejorative coverage of the Kochs, I’m going to rely on their data. According to Open Secrets, the Koch brothers have spent (or as liberals typically describe it, “invested”) over $50 million in lobbying from 1998-2010. During that same time, Soros and his primary Lobbying organization, the Open Society Policy Center, spent about $13 million.

Donations to federal candidates, parties, and political action committees give a smaller advantage to the Kochs. They invested $2.58 million vs. Soros’ $1.74 million from 1989 to 2010. When extended to include the past four years, the Koch brothers have contributed $18 million in political donations. This sounds like a great number, until we look at the 58 organizations ahead of them, including 18 different unions, according to Open Secrets. Those unions’ political contributions total over $638 million, almost all of whose funds go to liberal candidates, and is more than 35 times what the Kochs donate. Among those are the American Federation of State, County, & Municipal Employees ($60,667,379), the National Education Association ($53,594,488), the United Auto Workers ($41,667,858), and the Service Employees International Union ($38,395,690.)

But from here, the money for political influence gets a little more shady. From 2001 to 2010, the Koch brothers invested $1.5 million in other political groups, called 527 organizations, compared to Soros’ whopping $32.5 million.


The proliferation and expanded influence of 527s was made possible by the problematic McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform of 2002, so named because of the tax code, Section 527, that they fall under. As described by Benjamin Dangl, the groups “operate as shadow political campaigns working indirectly for or against a particular candidate.” Once contributed funds get to these groups, they can go anywhere; and the audit trail is virtually non-existent. Some are run totally above board and are very straightforward in their objectives. Many others are not. As Dangl says, “Prominent think tanks and campaign finance reform lobbyists say 527s are ‘illegal loopholes’ that enable the privatization of political campaigns.”

The groups that these men contribute to tell an even more significant tale than the sheer dollar volume they pump into our dysfunctional crony-capitalist, or corporatist, political system. Since the Koch brothers are ideological libertarians, they’re driven by the classical-liberal Jeffersonian philosophy that America was founded on. Perhaps nothing defines this self-defined mission for the brothers better than the mission statement on the Cato Institute website, which states, “The mission of the Cato Institute is to originate, disseminate, and increase understanding of public policies based on the principles of individual liberty, limited government, free markets, and peace.”

The Cato Institute, the Koch’s crown jewel, was established 40 years ago with seed money from Charles Koch, and his brother David still serves on the Board of the organization. Cato is recognized as the sixth most influential think tank in the nation, and number 14 internationally, with its scholarly and empirically documented research.

They also have contributed significantly to the Reason Foundation, publisher of Reason Magazine, applying reason and logic to economic and personal liberty issues. Nobel laureate Milton Friedman strongly supported the Foundation. And with a grant of $30 million, the Koch brothers were instrumental in the establishment of the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, with similar objectives.

George Soros runs the Open Society Institute and the website; and he contributes heavily to many organizations that ideologically are aligned with leftist causes, including He is reviled abroad for his shady efforts to foment revolution and collapse currencies. His foundations have been accused of shielding spies and breaking currency laws, and he’s invested over $400 million in institutions of higher education to promulgate and teach his extremist ideology.

In short, the Kochs and Soros are heavily invested in politics and are, by all standards, prototypical “one percenters” in income, net worth, and political influence. And it would appear, at least ostensibly, that all three are playing the influence-for-money game according to the rules established by Congress. There is near universal contempt for the crony capitalism and corrupt corporatism that has tainted our political institutions and politicians (and adulterated our free-market system). But Congress has created the rules these players play by. Blaming the Kochs and Soros for using their resources to buy influence is like blaming collegiate athletes for the rules established by the NCAA.

Since most of the Koch’s political money goes into lobbying, their funds are well documented, as required by congressional accounting rules. With most of Soros’ political “investments” going into 527s, the funds are less traceable and has earned Soros the dubious honor of being dubbed the “Godfather to the left.”

The classical-liberal principles of individual freedom and free markets that are so fully embraced and advanced by Charles and David Koch are the very principles the nation was founded upon. They are the principles that made America great. The progressive socialistic agenda advanced by Soros is antithetical to America’s founding precepts; and it is heavily invested in the failure of not only the U.S. dollar, but the collapse of the U.S. economic system.

As distasteful as the pay-for-influence system is, the ideological objectives and uses of that influence should be of even greater concern. Should we fear those who support the ideals that made America great, or the one who seeks to destroy and fundamentally transform the country?









Happy New Year from John Gaultier

To My Good Friends and Patriot Family:


Tomorrow it will be the dawning of a New Year.. 2015. I WISH IT WERE A "HAPPY" NEW YEAR.. BUT WE STILL HAVE WORK TO DO.

Yet I am glad for my Faith, my Family and my Friends. 

10 Years ago I never would have believed our country would be where it is today.
I pray that we will see the end of the planned destruction of our GREAT NATION in 2015. I continue to work outside of this Social Media to rally Patriotic Americans to our CAUSE.

Thanks to ALL of you who share the info....and yes I do use the John Proteus' page to voice my opinions often.


Sic Semper Tyrannis.
John Gaultier

Monday, December 29, 2014



In an 1856 letter to his wife Mary Custis Lee, Robert E. Lee called slavery "a moral and political evil." Yet he concluded that black slaves were immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, socially and physically.The fact is large numbers of free Negroes owned black slaves; in fact, in numbers disproportionate to their representation in society at large. In 1860 only a small minority of whites owned slaves. According to the U.S. census report for that last year before the Civil War, there were nearly 27 million whites in the country. Some eight million of them lived in the slaveholding states.



“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

The census also determined that there were fewer than 385,000 individuals who owned slaves (1). Even if all slaveholders had been white, that would amount to only 1.4 percent of whites in the country (or 4.8 percent of southern whites owning one or more slaves).     

In the rare instances when the ownership of slaves by free Negroes is acknowledged in the history books, justification centers on the claim that black slave masters were simply individuals who purchased the freedom of a spouse or child from a white slaveholder and had been unable to legally manumit them. Although this did indeed happen at times, it is a misrepresentation of the majority of instances, one which is debunked by records of the period on blacks who owned slaves. These include individuals such as Justus Angel and Mistress L. Horry, of Colleton District, South Carolina, who each owned 84 slaves in 1830. In fact, in 1830 a fourth of the free Negro slave masters in South Carolina owned 10 or more slaves; eight owning 30 or more (2).
According to federal census reports, on June 1, 1860 there were nearly 4.5 million Negroes in the United States, with fewer than four million of them living in the southern slaveholding states. Of the blacks residing in the South, 261,988 were not slaves. Of this number, 10,689 lived in New Orleans. The country's leading African American historian, Duke University professor John Hope Franklin, records that in New Orleans over 3,000 free Negroes owned slaves, or 28 percent of the free Negroes in that city.
To return to the census figures quoted above, this 28 percent is certainly impressive when compared to less than 1.4 percent of all American whites and less than 4.8 percent of southern whites. The statistics show that, when free, blacks disproportionately became slave masters.
The majority of slaveholders, white and black, owned only one to five slaves. More often than not, and contrary to a century and a half of bullwhips-on-tortured-backs propaganda, black and white masters worked and ate alongside their charges; be it in house, field or workshop. The few individuals who owned 50 or more slaves were confined to the top one percent, and have been defined as slave magnates.
In 1860 there were at least six Negroes in Louisiana who owned 65 or more slaves The largest number, 152 slaves, were owned by the widow C. Richards and her son P.C. Richards, who owned a large sugar cane plantation. Another Negro slave magnate in Louisiana, with over 100 slaves, was Antoine Dubuclet, a sugar planter whose estate was valued at (in 1860 dollars) $264,000 (3). That year, the mean wealth of southern white men was $3,978 (4).
In Charleston, South Carolina in 1860 125 free Negroes owned slaves; six of them owning 10 or more. Of the $1.5 million in taxable property owned by free Negroes in Charleston, more than $300,000 represented slave holdings (5). In North Carolina 69 free Negroes were slave owners (6).
In 1860 William Ellison was South Carolina's largest Negro slaveowner. In Black Masters. A Free Family of Color in the Old South, authors Michael P. Johnson and James L. Roak write a sympathetic account of Ellison's life. From Ellison's birth as a slave to his death at 71, the authors attempt to provide justification, based on their own speculation, as to why a former slave would become a magnate slave master.
At birth he was given the name April. A common practice among slaves of the period was to name a child after the day or month of his or her birth. Between 1800 and 1802 April was purchased by a white slave-owner named William Ellison. Apprenticed at 12, he was taught the trades of carpentry, blacksmithing and machining, as well as how to read, write, cipher and do basic bookkeeping.
On June 8, 1816, William Ellison appeared before a magistrate (with five local freeholders as supporting witnesses) to gain permission to free April, now 26 years of age. In 1800 the South Carolina legislature had set out in detail the procedures for manumission. To end the practice of freeing unruly slaves of "bad or depraved" character and those who "from age or infirmity" were incapacitated, the state required that an owner testify under oath to the good character of the slave he sought to free. Also required was evidence of the slave's "ability to gain a livelihood in an honest way."
Although lawmakers of the time could not envision the incredibly vast public welfare structures of a later age, these stipulations became law in order to prevent slaveholders from freeing individuals who would become a burden on the general public.
Interestingly, considering today's accounts of life under slavery, authors Johnson and Roak report instances where free Negroes petitioned to be allowed to become slaves; this because they were unable to support themselves.
Black Confederates and Afro-Yankees in Civil War Virginia (University Press of Virginia-1995) was written by Ervin L. Jordan Jr., an African-American and assistant professor and associate curator of the Special Collections Department, University of Virginia library. He wrote: "One of the more curious aspects of the free black existence in Virginia was their ownership of slaves. Black slave masters owned members of their family and freed them in their wills. Free blacks were encouraged to sell themselves into slavery and had the right to choose their owner through a lengthy court procedure."
In 1816, shortly after his manumission, April moved to Stateburg. Initially he hired slave workers from local owners. When in 1817 he built a gin for Judge Thomas Watries, he credited the judge nine dollars "for hire of carpenter George for 12 days." By 1820 he had purchased two adult males to work in his shop (7). In fewer than four years after being freed, April demonstrated that he had no problem perpetuating an institution he had been released from. He also achieved greater monetary success than most white people of the period.
On June 20, 1820, April appeared in the Sumter District courthouse in Sumterville. Described in court papers submitted by his attorney as a "freed yellow man of about 29 years of age," he requested a name change because it "would yet greatly advance his interest as a tradesman." A new name would also "save him and his children from degradation and contempt which the minds of some do and will attach to the name April." Because "of the kindness" of his former master and as a "Mark of gratitude and respect for him" April asked that his name be changed to William Ellison. His request was granted.
In time the black Ellison family joined the predominantly white Episcopalian church. On August 6, 1824 he was allowed to put a family bench on the first floor, among those of the wealthy white families. Other blacks, free and slave, and poor whites sat in the balcony. Another wealthy Negro family would later join the first floor worshippers.
Between 1822 and the mid-1840s, Ellison gradually built a small empire, acquiring slaves in increasing numbers. He became one of South Carolina's major cotton gin manufacturers, selling his machines as far away as Mississippi. From February 1817 until the War Between the States commenced, his business advertisements appeared regularly in newspapers across the state. These included the Camden Gazette, the Sumter Southern Whig and the Black River Watchman.
Ellison was so successful, due to his utilization of cheap slave labor, that many white competitors went out of business. Such situations discredit impressions that whites dealt only with other whites. Where money was involved, it was apparent that neither Ellison's race or former status were considerations.
In his book, Ervin L. Jordan Jr. writes that, as the great conflagration of 1861-1865 approached: "Free Afro-Virginians were a nascent black middle class under siege, but several acquired property before and during the war. Approximately 169 free blacks owned 145,976 acres in the counties of Amelia, Amherst, Isle of Wight, Nansemond, Prince William and Surry, averaging 870 acres each. Twenty-rune Petersburg blacks each owned property worth $1,000 and continued to purchase more despite the war."
Jordan offers an example: "Gilbert Hunt, a Richmond ex-slave blacksmith, owned two slaves, a house valued at $1,376, and $500 in other properties at his death in 1863." Jordan wrote that "some free black residents of Hampton and Norfolk owned property of considerable value; 17 black Hamptonians possessed property worth a total of $15,000. Thirty-six black men paid taxes as heads of families in Elizabeth City County and were employed as blacksmiths, bricklayers, fishermen, oystermen and day laborers. In three Norfolk County parishes 160 blacks owned a total of $41,158 in real estate and personal property.
The general practice of the period was that plantation owners would buy seed and equip~ ment on credit and settle their outstanding accounts when the annual cotton crop was sold. Ellison, like all free Negroes, could resort to the courts for enforcement of the terms of contract agreements. Several times Ellison successfully sued white men for money owed him.
In 1838 Ellison purchased on time 54.5 acres adjoining his original acreage from one Stephen D. Miller. He moved into a large home on the property. What made the acquisition notable was that Miller had served in the South Carolina legislature, both in the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate, and while a resident of Stateburg had been governor of the state. Ellison's next door neighbor was Dr. W.W. Anderson, master of "Borough House, a magnificent 18th Century mansion. Anderson's son would win fame in the War Between the States as General "Fighting Dick" Anderson.
By 1847 Ellison owned over 350 acres, and more than 900 by 1860. He raised mostly cotton, with a small acreage set aside for cultivating foodstuffs to feed his family and slaves. In 1840 he owned 30 slaves, and by 1860 he owned 63. His sons, who lived in homes on the property, owned an additional nine slaves. They were trained as gin makers by their father (8). They had spent time in Canada, where many wealthy American Negroes of the period sent their children for advanced formal education. Ellison's sons and daughters married mulattos from Charleston, bringing them to the Ellison plantation to live.
In 1860 Ellison greatly underestimated his worth to tax assessors at $65,000. Even using this falsely stated figure, this man who had been a slave 44 years earlier had achieved great financial success. His wealth outdistanced 90 percent of his white neighbors in Sumter District. In the entire state, only five percent owned as much real estate as Ellison. His wealth was 15 times greater than that of the state's average for whites. And Ellison owned more slaves than 99 percent of the South's slaveholders.
Although a successful businessman and cotton farmer, Ellison's major source of income derived from being a "slave breeder." Slave breeding was looked upon with disgust throughout the South, and the laws of most southern states forbade the sale of slaves under the age of 12. In several states it was illegal to sell inherited slaves (9). Nevertheless, in 1840 Ellison secretly began slave breeding.
While there was subsequent investment return in raising and keeping young males, females were not productive workers in his factory or his cotton fields. As a result, except for a few females he raised to become "breeders," Ellison sold the female and many of the male children born to his female slaves at an average price of $400. Ellison had a reputation as a harsh master. His slaves were said to be the district's worst fed and clothed. On his property was located a small, windowless building where he would chain his problem slaves.
As with the slaves of his white counterparts, occasionally Ellison's slaves ran away. The historians of Sumter District reported that from time to time Ellison advertised for the return of his runaways. On at least one occasion Ellison hired the services of a slave catcher. According to an account by Robert N. Andrews, a white man who had purchased a small hotel in Stateburg in the 1820s, Ellison hired him to run down "a valuable slave. Andrews caught the slave in Belleville, Virginia. He stated: "I was paid on returning home $77.50 and $74 for expenses.
William Ellison died December 5, 1861. His will stated that his estate should pass into the joint hands of his free daughter and his two surviving sons. He bequeathed $500 to the slave daughter he had sold.
Following in their father's footsteps, the Ellison family actively supported the Confederacy throughout the war. They converted nearly their entire plantation to the production of corn, fodder, bacon, corn shucks and cotton for the Confederate armies. They paid $5,000 in taxes during the war. They also invested more than $9,000 in Confederate bonds, treasury notes and certificates in addition to the Confederate currency they held. At the end, all this valuable paper became worthless.
The younger Ellisons contributed more than farm produce, labor and money to the Confederate cause. On March 27, 1863 John Wilson Buckner, William Ellison's oldest grandson, enlisted in the 1st South Carolina Artillery. Buckner served in the company of Captains P.P. Galliard and A.H. Boykin, local white men who knew that Buckner was a Negro. Although it was illegal at the time for a Negro to formally join the Confederate forces, the Ellison family's prestige nullified the law in the minds of Buckner's comrades. Buckner was wounded in action on July 12, 1863. At his funeral in Stateburg in August, 1895 he was praised by his former Confederate officers as being a "faithful soldier."
Following the war the Ellison family fortune quickly dwindled. But many former Negro slave magnates quickly took advantage of circumstances and benefited by virtue of their race. For example Antoine Dubuclet, the previously mentioned New Orleans plantation owner who held more than 100 slaves, became Louisiana state treasurer during Reconstruction, a post he held from 1868 to 1877 (10).
A truer picture of the Old South, one never presented by the nation's mind molders, emerges from this account. The American South had been undergoing structural evolutionary changes far, far greater than generations of Americans have been led to believe. In time, within a relatively short time, the obsolete and economically nonviable institution of slavery would have disappeared. The nation would have been spared awesome traumas from which it would never fully recover.

1. The American Negro: Old World Background and New World Experience, Raymond Logan and Irving Cohen New York: Houghton and Mifflin, 1970), p.72.
2. Black Masters: A Free Family of Color in the Old South, Michael P. Johnson and James L. Roak New York: Norton, 1984), p.64.
3. The Forgotten People: Cane River's Creoles of Color, Gary Mills (Baton Rouge, 1977); Black Masters, p.128.
4. Male inheritance expectations in the United States in 1870, 1850-1870, Lee Soltow (New Haven, 1975), p.85.
5. Black Masters, Appendix, Table 7; p.280.
6. Black Masters, p. 62.
7. Information on the Ellison family was obtained from Black Masters; the number of slaves they owned was gained from U.S. Census Reports.
8. In 1860 South Carolina had only 21 gin makers; Ellison, his three sons and a grandson account for five of the total.
9. Neither Black Nor White: Slavery and Race Relations in Brazil and the United States, Carl N. Degler (New York, Macmillan, 1971), p.39;
     Negro Slavery in Louisiana, Joe Gray Taylor (Baton Rouge, 1963), pp. 4041.
10. Reconstruction: America's Unfinished Revolution, 1863-1877, Eric Foner (New York; Harper & Row, 1988), p. 47; pp. 353-355.(THIS ARTICLE IS COPYRIGHTED AND IS PROVIDED HERE COURTESY OF THE BARNES REVIEW)


We’ve Spent $22 Trillion on War on Poverty. What Have We Achieved?

Since President Lyndon Baines Johnson declared “war on poverty,” U.S. taxpayers have spent $ 22 trillion on so-called anti-poverty programs—a figure slightly less than the national debt.

"These Negroes, they're getting pretty uppity these days and that's a problem for us since they've got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we've got to do something about this, we've got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference... I'll have them niggers voting Democratic for the next two hundred years".

In 1969, just 2.8 million Americans received food stamps. Today, over 47 million Americans are on food stamps. One contributing factor to the massive expansion of the food stamp program is the crony capitalism that has cropped up around the anti-poverty program.

Soda makers, for example, bag an estimated $4 billion a year in taxpayer money through the food stamp program. Efforts to kill the so-called “soda subsidy” have been met with fierce resistance and lobbying by the soda industry.

In Florida, State Senator Ronda Storms (R-Valrico) introduced a bill last year that would keep taxpayer-funded SNAP benefits from being spent on non-essential items like sodas, candy, chips, ice cream, and other junk foods.

“The biggest opponents I have right now are Coca Cola, the soda companies, the chip companies and the convenience store operators,”

“We are talking about a government benefit,” said Wood. “And therefore, in my mind, we can restrict how that benefit is utilized.”

Companies that administer Electronic Benefits Transfer (EBT) cards profit when the welfare rolls swell. Since 2004, for example, JP Morgan, which donated $808,799 to Barack Obama in 2008, has made at least $560,492,596 running EBT programs for 18 states.

Despite the $15 trillion U.S. taxpayers have spent since the war on poverty’s inception, poverty in America is largely unchanged. This week, figures from the U.S. Census Bureau revealed that nearly 50 million Americans live below the federal poverty line.

It’s been 50 years now since the federal government launched its “War on Poverty.” But the numbers just released by the Census Bureau suggest we’re in a losing battle.

The poverty rate now stands at 14.5 percent. That’s a drop from the previous rate of 15 percent. But don’t celebrate too quickly. The new rate is almost exactly the poverty rate we had in 1967, only three years after President Lyndon Johnson announced his war.

To put it in further perspective: The poverty rate in 1950 was 32.2 percent. It dropped steadily throughout the ’50s, and had been nearly cut in half before the War on Poverty began. After that, the rate declined slightly, then leveled out.

More than 100 million — about one third of the U.S. population — receives aid from at least one welfare program.

That was $22 trillion ago. That’s right, trillion with a “t.” A 22 with 12 zeros behind it. To understand how much that is, if you laid a trillion $1 bills end to end, they would reach the sun. Now multiply that by 22. That’s enough for 11 round trips.

In short, it’s a lot of money. Yet the poverty rate is essentially the same as it was 50 years ago.

The federal government runs more than 80 means-tested welfare programs that provide cash, food, housing and medical care to low-income Americans. Federal and state spending on these programs last year was $943 billion (not counting Social Security, Medicare or unemployment insurance).

This money is going to a lot of people. More than 100 million — about one third of the U.S. population — receives aid from at least one welfare program. The average cost per recipient in 2013? $9,000. If converted into cash, current means-tested spending is five times what’s needed to eliminate all poverty in the United States.

So how can the poverty rate be practically the same? You have to understand two things.

One is that, incredibly, the Census Bureau counts almost none of the $943 billion in yearly welfare spending as family “income.” It acts as though that money doesn’t exist. And because the government counts a family as poor if its income falls below specified thresholds, a lot of people are being, in essence, mislabeled as poor.

That leads to the second thing we have to understand. When most people hear that a family is living in poverty, they naturally picture people suffering from significant material deprivation. They imagine people without enough food or clothing, or without a decent roof over their heads.

Sadly, of course, such conditions do exist for some Americans. But government surveys show that many of those officially designated as poor are surprisingly well-off.

Less than 2 percent are homeless, and only one in 10 live in mobile homes. The typical house or apartment of the poor is in good repair and uncrowded. Indeed, the typical “poor” family has air conditioning, cable or satellite TV, and a computer in the home. Forty percent have a wide-screen HDTV. Another 40 percent have Internet access.

So should we consider War on Poverty to be a success? Hardly. It was designed, according to Johnson, to increase self-sufficiency. Individuals and families who needed a hand up would get it, but the ultimate goal was to shrink the welfare rolls and transform the poor, Johnson said, from “tax-eaters” to “taxpayers.”

“Judged by that standard, the War on Poverty has been a colossal flop,” writes poverty expert Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation. “The welfare state has undermined self-sufficiency by discouraging work and penalizing marriage.”

Fifty years ago, only 7 percent of children were born outside of marriage, which remains the single greatest weapon against child poverty. Today, it’s 41 percent.

Yet President Obama plans to spend $13 trillion over the next decade on welfare programs that discourage work and marriage.

It’s time to turn this around. According to Mr. Rector, able-bodied recipients of cash, food and housing should be required to work or prepare for work as condition of receiving aid. Welfare’s penalties against marriage should be reduced.

In short, it’s time to return to Johnson’s original vision to “replace their despair with opportunity.”


DO YOU KNOW THAT OVER $22 Trillion HAS BEEN SPENT and THERE IS NOTHING ..... YES Nothing to Show for It!

They have taxed and borrowed and stolen Money from American Tax Payers to prop up this CON!!

Twenty Two trillion dollars: That’s how much American taxpayers have forked over in the name of helping the poor since 1964. And what do we have to show for it? A poverty rate that has barely budged, an entrenched bureaucracy, and a population — like that of Greece and Portugal, two welfare-state basket cases — increasingly dependent on government handouts.

These are the conclusions of a recent Cato Institute report on the American welfare state by Michael Tanner, Cato’s director of health and welfare studies and author of The Poverty of Welfare: Helping Others in Civil Society. It is hardly an encouraging read, to say the least.

When President Johnson declared war on poverty nearly half a century ago, writes Tanner, “the poverty rate in America was around 19 percent and falling rapidly.” Increasing prosperity brought about by the free market, coupled with strong civil institutions such as churches, charities, and fraternal organizations, was already accomplishing the unthinkable: making poverty, the general condition of mankind throughout most of history, a rarity in the United States. A rising tide, as Johnson’s predecessor observed, does indeed lift all boats.

The man at the helm of the ’64 ship of state, however, decided the tide wasn’t rising quickly enough and so he would help it along by filling buckets with water from the port side of the ship and emptying them on the starboard side. Not surprisingly, this strategy failed to increase the water level. Thus, despite $12 trillion in federal welfare spending and $3 trillion in state and local government welfare spending over the past 48 years, says Tanner, “the poverty rate never fell below 10.5 percent and is now at the highest level in nearly a decade” — 15.1 percent and climbing. “Clearly,” he adds, “we have been doing something wrong.”

Of course, that all depends on how one defines success in the war on poverty. For those on the receiving end of government handouts — not just the poor but also those paid to provide services to them, such as doctors and landlords — success is getting more taxpayer dollars every year; and by that standard, the war has been a remarkable achievement. “Government spends $20,610 for every poor person in America, or $61,830 per poor family of three,” Tanner reports. “Given that the poverty line for that family is just $18,530, we should have theoretically wiped out poverty in America many times over.”

The war on poverty has also been a rousing success for the bureaucracy. At the federal level alone there are now 126 separate anti-poverty programs administered by seven different cabinet agencies and six independent agencies. Then there are the hordes of social workers and government employees who administer the various programs. All of these people have a vested interest in the programs’ continuation and expansion. As a result, “anti-poverty programs are usually more concerned with protecting the prerogatives of the bureaucracy than with actually fighting poverty,” Tanner avers.

Needless to say, taxpayers have been the big losers in the war. Federal welfare spending has risen 375 percent (in constant 2011 dollars) since 1965. Total welfare spending has climbed almost as much: Governments are now disbursing $908 billion a year to alleviate poverty, up from $256 billion (also in constant dollars) in 1965. Moreover, notes Tanner:

Over the last decade the increase has been even more rapid. Federal welfare spending increased significantly under the Bush administration, but President Obama has thrown money at anti-poverty programs at an unprecedented rate. Since taking office, the Obama administration has increased spending on welfare programs by more than $193 billion.

While some of the spending hikes under Obama can be attributed to the recession, Tanner writes, “part of the program’s growth is due to conscious policy choices by this administration to ease eligibility rules and expand caseloads.” This, he points out, “undid many of the incentives contained in the 1996 Clinton welfare reform, which helped states to reduce welfare rolls.” As a result, the administration projects that “combined federal and state welfare spending will not drop significantly once the economy fully recovers,” with the annual tab reaching $1 trillion in 2014 and the 10-year total hitting $10.3 trillion — an amount that, Tanner calculates, comes to “$250,000 for every American currently living in poverty, or $1 million for every poor family of four.”

If all that money could really eradicate poverty, perhaps it would be worth it (constitutional and moral issues aside). Unfortunately, as we have seen, the massive amount of money already spent on that objective has failed to make a dent in the poverty rate. “In fact,” observes Tanner, “the only appreciable decline [in the poverty rate] occurred in the 1990s, a time of state experimentation with tightening welfare eligibility, culminating in the passage of national welfare reform.” The poor, despite the unprecedented redistribution of wealth in their favor, have been losers, too.

“The vast majority of current programs are focused on making poverty more comfortable — giving poor people more food, better shelter, health care, and so forth — rather than giving people the tools that will help them escape poverty,” Tanner remarks. “The best way to create wealth,” he explains, “is not through government action, but through the power of the free market.”

That means that if we wish to fight poverty, we should end those government policies — high taxes and regulatory excess — that inhibit growth and job creation. We should protect capital investment and give people the opportunity to start new businesses. We should reform our failed government school system to encourage competition and choice. We should encourage the poor to save and invest.

We should also set about shrinking all government transfer payments, not just those directed specifically at the poor. One of the ways politicians have bought off middle-class voters who oppose welfare for the poor is to offer those voters their own form of welfare such as Social Security and Medicare. Because of this, “government payouts, including middle-class entitlements, now account for more than a third of all wages and salaries in the United States,” according to Tanner. “Worse, if one includes salaries from government employment, more than half of Americans receive a substantial portion of their income from the government.”

“Any way that you look at it, we are rapidly becoming a society where more and more people rely on the government for their support.”

This is why our government is already nearly $18 trillion in debt with many more trillions of dollars in unfunded liabilities as far as the eye can see. It is also why European welfare states are in their current precarious positions.

The grip of government dependence must be broken not just for the poor but for everyone. It is the only way to save both our dignity and our country’s financial future.






Bill de Blasio

Was an ardent supporter of Nicaragua's Marxist Sandinista government in the 1980s
Describes himself as an advocate of “democratic socialism”
Was executive director of the New York branch of the pro-socialist New Party
Served as the New York/New Jersey regional director of the Clinton administration's Department of Housing and Urban Development from 1997-99
Was campaign manager for Hillary Clinton's 2000 U.S. Senate bid.
Served on the New York City Council from 2001-09
Was elected as New York City's third Public Advocate in 2009
Was deeply influenced by liberation theology
Was elected mayor of New York City in 2013

Mayoral candidate Bill de Blasio’s wife Chirlane McCray, is a "former lesbian"

Chirlane McCray, 58, said her relationship with de Blasio was made possible “by putting aside the assumptions I had about the form and package my love would come in.”

The interview, with Essence magazine, comes 34 years after McCray penned a groundbreaking 1979 essay for Essence entitled, “I Am a Lesbian,” about coming out as a gay black woman.

A dozen years later, in 1991, McCray met de Blasio while she worked for the New York Commission on Human Rights and he was an aide to then-Mayor David Dinkins.
See proof:


Early Life and Name Change

Bill de Blasio was born Warren Wilhelm Jr. on May 8, 1961 in New York City and grew up in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Shortly after graduating with a bachelor's degree from New York University in 1983, he legally changed his name to Warren de Blasio-Wilhelm, adding his mother's maiden name to his identity. In 2002 he changed his name for a second time and became Bill de Blasio.

Radical Parents

Historian Ron Radosh describes de Blasio as: (a) "a far left radical whose ancestors are the New Left and the Communists"; and (b) "a bona fide red diaper baby" who, "like many of his generation ... kept his parents' ... pro-Communist politics not far from his heart." Both of de Blasio’s parents were far leftists—most likely, members of the Communist Party USA or some of its numerous front groups. His mother, Maria de Blasio, worked in the early 1940s at the Office of War Information—a U.S. government agency staffed largely by pro-Soviet leftists who depicted the USSR in a positive light.


In 1983, while he was still at NYU, Bill de Blasio toured parts of the Communist Soviet Union. This was a period of significant Cold War tension between the United States and the USSR, as the Soviets were attempting to permanently solidify their nuclear superiority over the U.S. Notably, de Blasio at one time served as an organizer with the anti-nuclear, anti-American organization Physicians for Social Responsibility.

De Blasio took his first job in 1984 with the NYC Department of Juvenile Justice. Three years later, having recently earned a master's degree at Columbia University's School of International and Public Affairs, he was hired to work as a political organizer by the Quixote Center (QC), a Maryland-based, Catholic social-justice organization with Marxist leanings.

In 1988 de Blasio, an ardent supporter of Nicaragua's Marxist Sandinista government—which was backed by the Soviet Union, Cuban dictator Fidel Castro, and Yasser Arafat's Palestine Liberation Organization—joined a number of his QC colleagues in a ten-day trip to Nicaragua to help distribute food and medicine to people who had been affected by the violent revolution that was raging there. (The Reagan administration, meanwhile, was giving financial and military aid to the Contras, who were seeking to overthrow the Sandinista regime.)

Upon returning home from Nicaragua, de Blasio began working for a New York-based nonprofit organization dedicated to improving health care in Central America. Continuing, moreover, to support the Sandinistas in whatever way he could, he joined the Nicaragua Solidarity Network of Greater New York, an organization that held meetings and fundraisers on their behalf. De Blasio also subscribed to the Sandinista party’s newspaper, Barricadda. He continues to speak admiringly of the Sandinistas to this day, lauding the “humble” and “really inspirational” blend of “youthful energy and idealism” that they brought to the task of “trying to figure out what would [make their society] work better.” “I’m very proud to have been deeply involved in a movement that rightfully thought U.S. policy toward Central America was wrong-headed and counter-productive and not in line with our values,” de Blasio said in September 2013. “I’m proud to have been involved in the effort that was challenging that.”


David Dinkins

In 1989 de Blasio served as a volunteer coordinator for the NYC mayoral campaign of Democrat David Dinkins. Following Dinkins' victory, de Blasio became an aide in City Hall.

The New Party

When asked in 1990 to describe his political views, de Blasio replied that he was an advocate of “democratic socialism.” In the mid-nineties, he served as executive director of the New York branch of the New Party, a pro-socialist, ACORN-affiliated entity to which Barack Obama likewise belonged.

Charles Rangel; Cuba

In 1994 de Blasio managed New York Congressman Charles Rangel's re-election campaign. When de Blasio married former lesbian activist Chirlane McCray that same year, the couple honeymooned in Fidel Castro's Cuba, in violation of the U.S. ban on travel to that country.

Bill Clinton & Al Gore

In 1996 de Blasio ran the New York state operation for the Clinton-Gore re-election campaign.

Andrew Cuomo

From 1997-99 de Blasio served as the New York/New Jersey regional director of the Clinton administration's Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), where he served under HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo. During that period, said HUD inspector general Susan Gaffney, de Blasio's region lost approximately $23 million to scams perpetrated by public-housing officials, mortgage companies, and nonprofit groups that received grants from HUD. The New York Times, meanwhile, reported that in 1998-99, several people had defrauded HUD of $70 million in federally insured loans on more than 250 New York properties.

Hillary Clinton

De Blasio left HUD in 1999 to become campaign manager for Hillary Clinton's 2000 U.S. Senate bid.


From 2001-09 de Blasio served on the New York City Council, representing District 39 in Brooklyn.

Honoring Robert Mugabe

In 2002 de Blasio joined a number of fellow legislators—mostly from the City Council’s Black, Hispanic, and Asian Caucus—in a City Hall ceremony honoring Robert Mugabe, the openly anti-white, Marxist dictator of Zimbabwe.


In 2009 de Blasio was elected as New York City's third Public Advocate. His candidacy was supported by the SEIU, UNITE HERE!, and the pro-socialist Working Families Party.

Supporter of ACORN

In September 2009, when the community organization ACORN was engulfed in several major scandals involving voter-registration-fraud, embezzlement, money laundering, and racketeering, de Blasio wrote a letter to ACORN's leaders reaffirming his support for the organization, though noting that he was “troubled” by the recent revelations.

Opposed the Citizens United Supreme Court Decision

De Blasio was a vocal opponent of the January 2010 Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission, which: (a) struck down a ban on corporations and labor unions using money from their general funds to produce and air campaign ads in races for congressional and presidential races, and (b) overturned a prohibition against corporations and unions airing campaign ads during the 30 days immediately preceding a primary or the 60 days preceding a general election.

Supporter of Occupy Wall Street

In the fall of 2011 de Blasio expressed solidarity with the anti-capitalist Occupy Wall Street movement.


Support from Prominent Leftists

In January 2013 de Blasio announced his candidacy for Mayor of New York City. His campaign received endorsements from such notables as Alec Baldwin, Harry Belafonte, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Howard Dean, Jerrold Nadler, Barack Obama, Sarah Jessica Parker, Susan Sarandon, Charles Schumer, George Soros, Kathleen Turner, and many others. After de Blasio won the Democratic primary that September, it was announced that he would also be the nominee on the Working Families Party line in the general election.

Patrick Gaspard, a former New Party staffer and Obama administration official with significant ties to ACORN, is a close friend of de Blasio and played a key role in shaping the latter's mayoral campaign.

In August 2013, de Blasio received the endorsement of the billionaire financier George Soros, who contributed the legal limit of $4,950 to the campaign. Soros’ relationship with de Blasio actually dated back to 2011, when Soros had given $400,000 to de Blasio’s Coalition for Accountability in Political Spending.

After de Blasio's primary victory in September 2013, longtime ACORN leader Bertha Lewis, who said that her political and ideological ties to de Blasio “go back a long time,” predicted a comeback for ACORN’s successor group in New York—New York Communities for Change—under a de Blasio administration. According to a Democratic insider, “ACORN’s long-range plan since 2001 was to elect de Blasio mayor. De Blasio was a big ACORN project.”

A Self-Described "Progressive" Influenced by Liberation Theology

As he pursued the office of NYC mayor, de Blasio was a self-described “progressive” whose political views represented a blend of European social democracy, Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal, and liberation theology. (The latter was a Soviet KGB creation in the late 1960s, designed to infiltrate Christianity with Marxist principles.) “I’m ... very deeply influenced by liberation theology, which I learned a lot about in the years I worked on Latin America,” said de Blasio.

Openly Advocating "The Heavy Hand of Government"

Several weeks before the mayoral election, de Blasio delivered an hour-long presentation to some of the city’s largest real-estate developers. Describing how he planned to govern, he stated flatly: “Everything you heard about me is true.... I am not a free-marketeer.... I believe in the heavy hand of government.”

Lauding Al Sharpton

In early October 2013, de Blasio made a campaign appearance at Al Sharpton's National Action Network in New York. In the course of his remarks, the mayoral candidate said “we do need to tax the wealthy ... to be able to fix our schools,” and added: “The voices that speak so passionately about addressing inequality head-on are in fact the greatest patriots in our nation, and none greater than Reverend Sharpton.”

Settling a Lawsuit by Defendants in the Central Park Jogger Case

Also during his campaign, de Blasio called for New York City to settle a $250 million lawsuit filed by five black males whom Sharpton had defended a quarter-century earlier, when they were convicted of the 1989 rape of a white female jogger in Central Park. That conviction, however, was overturned in 2002 when another man, Matias Reyes, who was already serving a life prison sentence, confessed to having committed the crime alone. The New York Post provides some additional background on that case and the five men in question:

"The five, teenagers at the time, were convicted largely on the strength of their graphic and detailed confessions, which they later recanted but which were captured on videotape in the presence of their parents or guardians. Some repeated their confessions years later at parole hearings. And even Morgenthau [District Attorney Robert Morganthau, who vacated the convictions after Reyes's confession] himself concluded that, contrary to the five’s later allegations, there had been no coercion or misconduct in the way their confessions had been obtained."

For explicit details about the confessions of the five youths in question -- and about their obvious involvement in the 1989 assault -- click here.

In accordance with de Blasio's instructions, the case was eventually settled for $40 million, dwarfing past wrongful-conviction payouts by New York City.

Real Estate Impropriety

In October 2013, the New York Post reported that de Blasio, who owned two row houses in New York City worth over $1.1 million apiece: (a) had not registered his two-unit Brooklyn rental property with the city’s Department of Housing Preservation and Development as required by law, and (b) had failed to report his rental income in his annual financial-disclosure filings, as also was required by law. Said the Post, de Blasio "has not disclosed any rental income on filings dating back to 2007, according to records from the city’s Conflicts of Interest Board." In response to the Post's revelations, de Blasio campaign spokesman Wiley Norvell said: "He declares the property as an asset on his filing, but the property has a negative income when you add up the depression of water and upkeep." Crain’s reported that de Blasio’s 2011 tax return showed $47,500 in rental income and $62,200 in deductions for the property.


Election Victory

On November 5, 2013, de Blasio was elected mayor of New York in a landslide victory that saw him capture 73% of all votes. At a post-election celebration, he told a group of supporters:

“My fellow New Yorkers, today, you spoke out loudly and clearly for a new direction for our city. Make no mistake: The people of this city have chosen a progressive path, and tonight we set forth on it, together.”

CPUSA Celebrates De Blasio Victory

De Blasio's election was welcomed by the Communist Party USA publication People's World, which celebrated the "joy of a new day for New York"; stated that "the De Blasio victory has offered new hope that a national progressive shift on tackling the wealth and racial inequities plaguing our country's cities is in the making"; and noted that "the crisis of the cities is rooted in capitalism."

"Talking Transition"

In the immediate aftermath of de Blasio's election victory, a George Soros-funded project known as Talking Transition sprang into action to promote the mayor-elect and to invite New Yorkers to communicate their ideas and concerns to him.

Lauding Al Sharpton

In one of his first speeches as mayor-elect, de Blasio again visited Al Sharpton's National Action Network and stated: “Every year Reverend Sharpton is becoming stronger as a leader, is reaching farther as a leader. You never have to wonder if he will remember where he came from, and he’ll be the first one up to stand up for justice. I gotta tell you guys, he’s a blessing for all of us. Let’s thank Reverend Sharpton.”

Defending the Welfare State

As he prepared to take the reins of New York City government, de Blasio made it clear that he rejected virtually every key element of welfare reform. For example:

He derided the notion that able-bodied, childless welfare recipients should work (or at least look for work) in exchange for their benefits, as an “ideological hang-up” that blocked a “path out of poverty.”
He vowed to “stop efforts” by city case workers “to divert individuals from accessing cash assistance” rather than seeking employment.
He planned to use Obamacare outreach workers to enroll more New Yorkers on a multitude of government welfare programs.
He stated that New York's total of 1.9 million food-stamp recipients—21% of the city's population—was at least 250,000 too low.
He condemned eligibility-verification measures such as finger-imaging and in-person interviews of welfare applicants—practices designed to combat welfare fraud—as “stigmatizing.”
Rejecting an ethos of personal responsibility and self-sufficiency, de Blasio's mayoral blueprint declared: “Providing basic income and food security to all New Yorkers [is] a key responsibility of government.”


Bill and Hillary Clinton both attended de Blasio's swearing-in ceremony as New York City mayor on January 1, 2014. Mr. Clinton, in fact, officially administered the oath-of-office to de Blasio, using a bible once owned by President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

At de Blasio's inauguration, a prayer was delivered by prison chaplain Askia Muhammad, a former Nation of Islam member and a supporter of Louis Farrakhan. Also at the inaugural ceremony, Sanitation Department chaplain Fred ­Lucas Jr. prayed that "the plantation called New York City" might be transformed into "the city of God." New York Public Advocate Letitia James lamented that “we live in a gilded age of inequality where decrepit homeless shelters and housing developments stand in the neglected shadow of gleaming multimillion-dollar condos.” And de Blasio himself declared:

“When I said we would take dead aim at the tale of two cities, I meant it. And we will do it. I will honor the faith and trust you have placed in me. And we will give life to the hope of so many in our city. We will succeed ... as one city.... We will require big developers to build more affordable housing. We’ll fight to stem the tide of hospital closures. And we’ll expand community health centers into neighborhoods in need, so that New Yorkers see our city not as the exclusive domain of the 1 Percent, but a place where everyday people can afford to live, work and raise a family. We won’t wait. We’ll do it now.”

Appointing a Sharpton Ally

In one of his first moves as mayor, de Blasio appointed Zachary W. Carter as Corporation Counsel for the City of New York. Carter had previously represented Al Sharpton in his tax fraud case, and once moderated a panel titled “Closing Guantanamo: Terrorism and Civil Liberties in the Age of Obama” for Sharpton’s National Action Network.

Denouncing the "Inequality Crisis"

At a U.S. Conference of Mayors meeting on January 23, 2014, de Blasio said that the U.S. was "in the midst of an inequality crisis." He added that because Washington, DC "has been gripped in a frustrating paralysis," Americans were looking "to the mayors of this country to address the root causes of inequality."

Illegal Immigrant Rights

In his first State of the City speech on February 10, 2014, de Blasio spoke forcefully on behalf of the rights of illegal immigrants:

"We will protect the almost half-million undocumented New Yorkers, whose voices too often go unheard. We will reach out to all New Yorkers, regardless of immigration status — issuing municipal ID cards available to all New Yorkers this year — so that no daughter or son of our city goes without bank accounts, leases, library cards ... simply because they lack identification. To all of my fellow New Yorkers who are undocumented, I say: New York City is your home too, and we will not force ANY of our residents to live their lives in the shadows."

Legal Intervention on Behalf of Pastor Who Was a Key Political Supporter of De Blasio

On the night of February 10, 2014 (at 11:21 pm), Bishop Orlando Findlayter, a politically connected Brooklyn pastor who had played a key role in galvanizing black voters to support de Blasio's 2013 mayoral campaign, was driving in East Flatbush (Brooklyn) when he was pulled over by police for making a left turn without signaling. The officer at the scene then ran Findlayter's license number and discovered two outstanding warrants, issued nearly four weeks earlier, for failure to appear in court for prior arrests (which were made at public protest demonstrations). Thus Findlayter was arrested on the spot and was charged not only for the traffic violation, but also for driving without a license. Because his arrest came at an hour when it was too late to be arraigned, he should, by law, have spent the night in jail.

But Findlayter's clergy friends, upon learning of the incident, quickly reached out to Mayor de Blasio, who in turn called top police officials and arranged for the bishop to be released immediately. Just hours later, on the morning of February 15, Findlayter sat with de Blasio at the head table at a Bedford-Stuyvesant breakfast, where Al Sharpton was a guest speaker.

Ed Mullins, president of the Sergeants Benevolent Association, subsequently objected to how the Findlayter matter had been handled: “If a guy has a warrant, you don’t let him go. Period. There is no ‘discretion.’ What if you release him [and] he drives a block, blows a red light and runs somebody over and kills him?... He [de Blasio] just confirmed that it really is a ‘tale of two cities’”—a reference to de Blasio’s oft-repeated campaign slogan.

DeBlasio Vehicle Is Filmed Speeding Through NYC Streets

On February 18, 2014, de Blasio publicly announced a new “Vision Zero” plan designed to eliminate traffic deaths in NYC by reducing traffic speeds within the city from 30 mph to 25 mph, and by cracking down aggressively on speeding by cab drivers. “The likelihood of a fatal crash, and this statistic is very powerful, the likelihood of a fatal crash drops significantly for speeds below 30 mph,” said de Blasio. “If we get those speeds down, it will be the difference between losing a life and saving a life.” “We’ve put a very bold plan before you,” the mayor emphasized, “and we want the public to know we’re holding ourselves to this standard—and we intend to achieve these goals.”

Just two days later, however, a CBS news crew filmed a two-car caravan that included de Blasio’s SUV (in which the mayor was riding in the front passenger seat) speeding through the streets of Queens, blowing through two stop signs without even tapping the brakes, and changing highway lanes without signaling.

At various points, de Blasio's car was clocked going 40 to 45 mph in a 30 mph zone, and 60 mph in a 45 mph zone. CBS News's Marcia Kramer reported that if a police officer had been following the mayor's car, and had issued tickets for each of the various infractions that had been committed, the lead driver would have racked up 13 points on his license—more than the 11 points necessary for a license suspension.

Appointing Radicals to His Administration

In January 2014, de Blasio selected the NYC Department for the Aging's then-deputy commissioner, Bill Chong, a former member of the Communist Workers Party, to serve as commissioner of New York's Department of Youth and Community Development. Chong had previously been board president of Asian Americans for Equality and had worked on Jesse Jackson's 1984 presidential campaign.

In the spring of 2014 de Blasio appointed a woman named Kicy Motley, who had been a volunteer coordinator for his 2013 campaign, as a new mayoral aide. Motley had a history of publicly tweeting controversial -- and sometimes obscene -- messages regarding what she perceived to be matters involving racism, injustice, corporate greed, and police misconduct. For example:

On August 11 2012, after NYPD officers had shot and killed Darrius Kennedy, a 51-year-old, knife-wielding black man on Seventh Avenue, Motley wrote on Twitter: "NYPD fatally shoot knife-wielding man in Times Square. (VIDEO) F–k. The. Police."
On another occasion she derided the NAACP for siding with soft-drink manufacturers against NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s ban on the sale of large sodas. Wrote Motley: "@NAACP aka corporate d–k riders. Standing with soda makers for a few bucks."
In February 2013 Motley came to the defense of a deranged, black Los Angeles police officer named Chris Dorner, who at that time was the target of a massive manhunt because he had recently killed four people in a shooting rampage motivated by his belief that the LAPD had fired him because it was a racist agency. Motley tweeted: "There’s a part of me rooting for #Dorner. This racist, imperialist country gets the best of people sometimes. It makes some snap. #lapd."

Lauding Al Sharpton

On April 9, 2014, de Blasio spoke on the opening day of the National Action Network's annual conference in New York, saying: "I just want everyone to know I am proud to stand with Rev. Sharpton. Because to borrow a phrase from our youth, Reverend, 'you're the real thing' ... [Sharpton's] work gets more powerful with every passing year: He reaches more people, he has a greater impact."

Disbanding the NYPD Unit That Monitored Local Muslim Communities

On April 15, 2014—the first anniversary of the deadly Boston Marathon bombing—the de Blasio administration announced that it was disbanding the NYPD's Demographics Unit, which had been tasked with tracking the daily lives of Muslims in an effort to detect terror threats. As USA Today reported: "[The Unit] assembled databases on where Muslims lived, shopped, worked and prayed. Plainclothes officers infiltrated Muslim student groups, put informants in mosques, monitored sermons, and cataloged Muslims in New York who adopted new, Americanized surnames."

De Blasio characterized the termination of the Demographics Units as "a critical step forward in easing tensions between the police and the communities they serve, so that our cops and our citizens can help one another go after the real bad guys."

De Blasio's Small Income-Tax Payment

Also in April 2014, the Daily Caller reported that de Blasio, who in 2013 had earned $165,000 as the city’s public advocate and another $52,000 in rental income, had paid only 8.3% of his total income in federal taxes for that year. At the time, he owned two row houses in New York City worth over $1.1 million apiece.

Rolling Back Welfare Reform

In May 2014, New York City's Human Resources Administration (HRA) announced that it was requesting—in compliance with Mayor de Blasio's campaign pledge—a waiver from a federal law that required able-bodied, childless adults to work or to participate in a work-placement program for 20 hours per week in order to remain eligible for food-stamp assistance. In short, food stamps would now become an entitlement without any conditions.

The HRA also stated that, starting that summer, it would forbid food-stamp recipients in New York from seeking the assistance of job-placement agencies, even voluntarily.

The Municipal ID Card Program for All New Yorkers, Including Illegal Immigrants

In July 2014, de Blasio signed into law a municipal ID-card program allowing all New Yorkers -- including the estimated 500,000 illegal immigrants residing in the city -- to access public services requiring identification. The mayor, who had consistently claimed that such a program would "bring dignity and peace of mind to many fellow residents currently living in the shadows," now re-emphasized: “We want all New Yorkers to feel very comfortable working with the police. We want them to be very able to identify themselves to police and do it in an atmosphere of safety. This is going to play a crucial role in deepening the relationship between police and community, including a lot of our immigrant communities.”

New York City Council member Daniel Dromm, the Democrat who authored de Blasio's ID-card legislation, acknowledged that the cards could possibly be used to allow non-citizens to vote. “It is a possibility that it may be a way we can have people for the first time when they come in to vote, if they are non-residents, non-citizens,” said Dromm in February 2014.

Lauding Al Sharpton

At Al Sharpton's 60th birthday celebration at the Four Seasons restaurant in New York City on October 1, 2014, de Blasio characterized Sharpton as “a blessing for this city,” adding: “The more people criticize him, the more I want to hang out with him.”

"Centuries of Racism": De Blasio Smears the Police

On December 3, 2014, a Staten Island grand jury decided not to bring a criminal case against a white New York City police officer who, five months earlier, had tried to arrest a black man named Eric Garner. But the encounter ended tragically when Garner died from what a medical examiner subsequently described as an interplay between the officer’s chokehold and Garner’s multiple chronic infirmities. In response to the grand jury's decision, de Blasio said: “This is now a national moment of grief, a national moment of pain and searching for a solution. And you've heard in so many places, people of all backgrounds utter the same basic phrase. They've said, 'Black lives matter.' And they said it because it had to be said.... It should be self-evident. But our history, sadly, requires us to say that black lives matter. Because as I said the other day, we're not just dealing with a problem in 2014. We're not dealing with years of racism leading up to it, or decades of racism. We are dealing with centuries of racism that have brought us to this day. That is how profound the crisis is."

Added de Blasio: "We have to have an honest conversation in this country about a history of racism, we have to have an honest conversation about the problems that have caused parents to feel that their children may be in danger in their dynamics with police, when in fact police are there to protect them....We have to retrain police forces in how to work with communities differently, we have to work on things like body cameras that will provide a different level of transparency and accountability.... This is something systemic and we bluntly have to talk about the historical racial dynamics underlying [it]."

Moreover, de Blasio told ABC that he feared for the safety of his own teenage son, Dante, who is black, if the latter were to have an encounter with police. "What parents have done for decades with children of color, especially young men of color, is train them to be very careful, when they have a connection with a police officer, when they have an encounter with a police officer," said the mayor. "It's different for a white child, it's just a reality in this country. And with Dante, very early on, my son, we used to say, look, if a police officer stops you, do everything he tells you to do, don't move suddenly, don't reach for your cellphone, because we knew, sadly, there is a greater chance it might be misinterpreted if it was a young man of color. There's that fear that there could be that moment of misunderstanding with a young man of color, and that young man may never come back."

In response to de Blasio's comments, the Patrolmen's Benevolent Association (PBA) instructed both the mayor and and City Council Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito (who likewise had been critical of police) not to attend the funerals of any officers killed in the line of duty. A letter posted on the PBA websites stated that de Blasio and Mark-Viverito's "consistent refusal to show police officers the support and respect they deserve" would make their attendance an "insult."

The mayor and the speaker, in turn, released a joint statement saying: "This is deeply disappointing. Incendiary rhetoric like this serves only to divide the city, and New Yorkers reject these tactics."


On December 20, 2014, a black gunman/Islamic jihadist named Ismaaiyl Brinsley shot and killed two uniformed NYPD officers, Wenjian Liu and Rafael Ramos, execution-style as they sat in their marked police car on a Brooklyn street corner. Brinsley's motive was to avenge the recent deaths of Eric Garner and Michael Brown -- the latter of whom was a black teenager who had been shot and killed by a white police officer four months earlier when Brown assaulted the officer and tried to steal his gun. Just three hours prior to carrying out his double murder in Brooklyn, Brinsley posted the following message on Facebook: “I’m Putting Wings on Pigs Today. They Take 1 Of Ours…Let’s Take 2 of Theirs.” He used the hashtag #ShootThePolice, along with two other hashtags that referenced Garner and Brown.

When de Blasio entered Brooklyn's Woodhull Hospital to pay respects to the two slain officers, police who filled the hallway silently turned their backs to the mayor as he walked by. Later that night, Ed Mullins, president of the Sergeants Benevolent Association, said in a statement to his union members: “Mayor de Blasio, the blood of these two officers is clearly on your hands. It is your failed policies and actions that enabled this tragedy to occur.... Ever since this mayor took office there has been a sense of lawlessness that is rampant in every borough.” Patrick Lynch, head of the Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association, concurred: “That blood on the hands starts on the steps of City Hall in the office of the mayor. When these funerals are over, those responsible will be called on the carpet and held accountable.”

“We’re all in this together,” de Blasio at one point told the grieving officers, prompting one of them to reply: “No we’re not.”

Also in response to the assassination of the two NYPD officers, an email was widely circulated among the city's police which said: “At least two units are to respond to EVERY call, no matter the condition or severity, no matter what type of job is pending, or what the opinion of the patrol supervisor happens to be. IN ADDITION: Absolutely NO enforcement action in the form of arrests and or summonses is to be taken unless absolutely necessary and an individual MUST be placed under arrest. The mayor’s hands are literally dripping with our blood because of his words actions and policies and we have, for the first time in a number of years, become a ‘wartime’ police department. We will act accordingly.”


De Blasio, who won the Democratic primary on a campaign platform of ending income inequality, caused a stir with his illegal Havana honeymoon and revelations that he traveled to Nicaragua in 1988 at age 26 to bring food and medicine to the Sandinistas.

His 18-year-old daughter, Chiara, said she learned of the Cuba jaunt only when the question was raised during a lightning round of a televised debate in June.

At that time, de Blasio was the only candidate on stage to say he had visited the country.
In an interview this month with New York magazine, Chiara said "They had always told me they went to Canada. They actually flew out of there to go to Cuba, but they’d never told us.

In an interview published by the New Yorker on Friday, de Blasio doubled down on his defense of his trip to Nicaragua.
Provided with a a chance to call it a “youthful indiscretion,” de Blasio went the other direction.
“No, it’s not a youthful indiscretion,” he said.
“I was involved in a movement that I thought made a lot of sense, and it began, and the reason I got involved, was because of United States foreign policy.”