THE THRASEA DAIRIES

The Most Corrupt Entity on the Planet - But Where Are the Republicans?

2013-04-03T10:10:00.002-07:00

Republicans somehow have to offer themselves as alternatives to the absurdly poor and corrupt government which is what the Democrats offer when they get entrenched in power.

Nationally when one party does a terrible job it gets voted out - the voters give the other party a chance. But things are changing: Democrats are terrible wherever they govern - there are no examples of good Democratic governance. The Democratic model of governing is deeply flawed, although for Democrats it works perfectly. Democrats destroy whatever they touch - purposely so, since failure, at least "failure" as the accepted definition of the word, leads to more votes not less.

In short, Democrats have learned that poverty, lack of education, single parents families, and most of all corrupt government leads to Democratic politicians getting not simply a majority of the votes, but ALL the votes, since these conditions drive out those who disagree with Democratic governance policies. This lesson has been taken to heart in California where you see the results of Democratic governing. To us it isn't pretty. To Democrats it is paradise.

When voters choose corrupt politics and politicians, it should be an opening for Republicans. But, Democrats have used devices such as political correctness, under which to even mention how bad conditions are is considered racist, as a way to silence critics of the Democratic leadership, especially in the black community. As a consequence, there are no alternatives, the same corrupt government gets re-elected year in and year out. In Newark, New Jersey, for example, even prison for the former mayor doesn't mean that his faction isn't going to be re-elected next year.

A big part of this is the Democratic lock on the media, which allows Democrats to day in and day out set the agenda not only on a national level but on a local level as well. On a national level just think how different the conversation would be if we had a Republican president. The articluated concerns of the country would be completely different. The Democrats still retain enormous power over the media - in fact despite talk radio, Fox, and the internet very little has changed. It is still Democratic media that sets the rules, sets what we talk about, and how we talk about it.

The Democrats call the shots and Republicans always play by the rules that Democratic media sets. Republicans, and Republican/conservative media (even this site) somehow have to stop reflexively talking about whatever Democratic media sets out there, whether it is gun control, immigration etc.

And Republicans have to learn that Democratic media has only one goal - to make Republicans look bad and Democrats look good. It would be helpful if Republican candidates simply avoided Democratic media - the publicity is not worth the shellacking that these candidates get.

In other words, somehow Republicans have to stop being so damn stupid all the time. There are opportunities out there - people don't want corrupt, inefficient government where the object is ONLY to fleece the working man and woman, destroy their families, criminalize their communites, flood it with immigrants and destroy their childrens will to be educated. yet that is what Democrats do, day in and day out, and they never get called on it, no one is ever honest about what's happening even as it goes on right in front of them. I have written some pretty harsh things about Democrats, invited someone/anyone to respond, but by addressing the issue not by pointing the finger at something else which is standard Democratic counter attack.

Because someone has to say what we all know about Democrats - what they are and especially what they have been doing to minority communities. We all think it is none of our business because we have been conditioned to think that way - and those who do speak up are immediately labelled as racists. It's why Democrats want everyone divided - they figure that those outside of a community can't talk about other communities, since they don't share the "experience" of being in that community. But we all have eyes and ears, and we can all see and hear what Democrats are doing to those under their control. Corruption gets rewarded with votes - those who don't like it leave, are replaced by more compliant immigrants, and then you have California - a blue state on its way to the third world.

The corruption outlined in this article are the future of California, and the future everywhere else too. Because sooner or later there won't be any place left to go where these people are not in control. It's a hard lesson, but Republican leaders have to start being mroe honest about what;s going on.

Need I say more - there isn't anyone reading this who doesn't know what;s going on. But, our leaders have become conditioned by Democratic media to stay silent even as their fellow Americans are year in and year out robbed, raped, stripped of their dignity, their children grow up in drug and crime infested communities. Someone has to talk about it.

California offers Democrats the chance to put their policies in place on a state wide level. The local corruption is now all too common, as a result....we are in for some very bad times.

The Democratic Plan for America Starting in California

2013-02-25T09:55:00.001-08:00

People who are interested in keeping businesses in their state do not adopt tax, immigration and regulatory policies as California has done over the past decade or so. This, despite the fact that they had a supposedly Republican governor, someone so inept that they ran rings around him the entire term.

Know this: Democrats in California could care less about keeping businesses in the state and are equally disinterested in maintaining a prosperous, growing economy. In fact, prosperity is directly contrary to the society Democrats are looking to create. The economy is not even on the Democratic agenda in California, or anywhere else that Democrats control.

Democrats understand that the worse the economy does, the better for Democrats.
Prosperity is NOT the goal. Driving out those who disagree with the new society Democrats are creating is one goal - it's part of the reason for the taxation, the environmental regulations, the welcoming of new immigrants to replace those tossed out of the State.

Some people say that this analysis gives too much credit to not very smart people, that Democrats have more or less blundered their way into the terrible place California now finds itself. Wrong. Democrats recognize that they do best when people are poor, reliant on government, and when there is mass immigration, especially of pooor people, since immigrants come in already dependent on government, and therefore ready to vote for Democrats. Immigrants also are unfamiliar with American traditions and are therefore more susceptible to Democratic manipulation, using the tried and true method of suborning the leadership at the expense of the people.

Accordingly, in California the Democratic Party encourages conditions that creates and maintains poverty - especialy anything that results in single parents which leads to a double win for Democrats - a dependent parent and children more likely to be dependent. Along with crime and all the rest of the conditions that are near and dear to Democrats.

On the other hand, Democrats encourage public employee unions since it serves the dual purpose of creating a class of people directly dependant on government, and gives them access to taxpayer funding of Democratic candidates and causes.

Democrats also use public media to promote their candidates and issues, and public media is in turn dependent on Democrats for subsidies. Other media is also depedent on Democrats - a revolving door has been created between Party and government, if not directly than through spouses and other family members.

The new state being built by the Democrats, who are now firmly entrenched in power in California, is based on a model well known to modern history. The new California essentially will have no middle class unless you call government workers and party apparatchiks the "middle class." The rich are those who are well connected or part of the power structure, which is corrupt through and through.

You can't talk about California without talking about the foregoing. As for Democrats being uninterested in prosperity, note that Obama goes from golf game to podium, gives a speech about the economy, but does nothing, and never has done anything on the economy. There is no intent on the part of the Party to improve economic conditions - the Party is uninterested in doing so since it leads to losses in elections. Why would it do otherwise - the constiuency of the Party are the poor, and it does phenomenally well among single mothers who depend on the Party, it's an ally to environmental groups (who now have acess to the public trough) who advocate for means to cause further impoverishment.

Democrats in fact do everything possible to destroy wealth, and its record includes a half a century of utter failure in the cities, and in one community in particular, against who they have committed the worst sort of atrocities.

And, when the "traditional" Americans who have not yet been conditioned object, that's no problem either since Democrats are well on their way to making these people into a minority in their own country.

Sound simple, right? There is no word to describe just how bad these people are - they have destroyed generations, dooming them to poor schools, communities filled with crime and drugs, and children raised by overwhelmed single parents. It isn't any wonder that people ruled by Democrats looked to Obama as their great leader - since their lives are barren,without guidance or foundation, so they were more than ready to lay down and accept someone as their savior, before whom they could kneel, bow and scrape. We are indeed fortunate that Obama appears to be entirely too incompetent to be a real leader - or so it would seem, as these people have shown they were waiting to relinquish their freedom to the first demogogue that came along. Why wouldn't they, since it means so little to them?

Looked at in this light, what is happening in California makes perfect sense

Christopher Dorner and the Tipping Point

2013-02-25T09:48:00.004-08:00

So, the Democratic media wants the public to take the ravings of cop killer Christopher Dorner seriously. This is just another outrage from media that has lost all semblance of objectivity.

That said, the bigger issue seems to be that we have come to the point where there are no consequences when the outrageous happens. Every other day things happen or are said or done that a decade ago would have had grave consequences for the press, for the left, for Democrats, but now seemingly has no consequences at all.

Giving any credence to the ravings of murderous cop killer is something that would not have been done a short time ago. But things have changed, and changed rapidly. We have seemingly reached a tipping point, or some point anyway, where government, the left, Democrats, individuals do and say things that would previously been unthinkable. Why this is, I am not sure - it is likely that Democrats and their supporters in the media view the election and the present disastrous, ineffective, incompetent Republican leadership, and believe that they now have the country, and can do and say what they wish. And the press is using the old method of repeating unfounded assumptions as a way to reinforce conditioning ("of course the Republicans are racist"; "of course Obama is extremely popular"; of course the Republicans hater women") to drum certain concepts into the heads of the public.

In brief, Democrats have written off a substantial part of the electorate (do I have to spell out which part?), and no longer care what they think. The Democratic media has followed right along, doing and saying things that would previously been unthinkable. I am waiting for the day when CBS, NBC, ABC announce that they have abandoned their (phony) standards policies and are now doing opinion journalism. It would be a confirmation of what they have been doing for decades.

There is only so much outrage you can feel, only so many times you can get angry. We all hope that those governed by the left/Democrats will rise up and reject the snake oil the Democrats are selling - we all think that any moron would understand that Democrats are only acting for their own benefit and are doing nothing but harm to the governed. However, I am telling you the bad news that it will never happen - if places like California, Detroit, Washington, Newark prove anything it is that no amount of failure and incompetence, no level of corruption makes a damn bit of difference - especially when the media is right there telling the population over and over again that things aren't so bad, and the problems are not being caused by the Democrats but by someone or something else - the corrupt "system," and/or the Republicans.

And the Republican leadership seem to be hell bent on committing political suicide, despite the efforts of the best on their side, which they see as more of an enemy that the Democrats.

Maybe the response to Dorner isn't a good example. But, am I the only person who is getting that feeling that things are starting to spin out of control? You have to go back to the Carter Administration to recall the last time the mood of the country was like it is today - but back then we were a very different country, and the world a very different place.

New York Times In Pace Reqiescat

2013-01-28T13:28:00.001-08:00

The old gray lady is dead and gone, replaced with something that doesn't in the least resemble journalism. And yes, the Times is that terrible - I squirm just reading the Science Times, which is the only section worth reading these days - the rest of the paper is worthless since there is no way that you can have confidence that the facts are as reported. (Yes, the NY Times has lost its credibility). But, even Science Times is filled to the brim with Democratic assumptions about the world, along with the usual biased reporting.

New York - The End of An Era

2013-01-28T13:26:00.002-08:00

Sometimes you simply have to blame the people - who are not smart, who can't be trusted to make the right decisions and who should stay home and not vote. These people have elected those that appointed the judges, and the politicians that fight the police tooth and nail. Let the city go the way of Detoit, Camden, Newark, East St. Louis and other places where crime has driven away a substantial part of the population.

Some months back I had some work in Camden and looked at all the vacant lots, and got a real vision of how a city can be reduced to just an area of land through the incompetence and corruption of leaders. Without people a city becomes just that, a plot of land. If the people don't want police to do their job effectively, it's what will happen, people will simply go elsewhere when crime gets too bad. Look at Newark's population, look at Detroit, look at other cities under Democrats. The people voted for leaders that adopted policies that caused those who lived there to leave, and now much of Detroit et als are just that an area of land, sans people, a place that used to be a city. Where did the people go? Elsewhere.

History is filled with similar examples but it isn't usually as a result of the policies of the leaders.

Can't happen in New York? Wrong - of course it can - there's nothing that insulates New York from the ills that policians can impose on it. We shall shortly find out if the era of Giuiliani and Bloomberg is a short interlude in the death of the city - what guarantee is there that New York won't immediately resume its 1990 slide to oblivion once a Democratic mayor, heholden to the unoins and the splinter groups, is back in office?

Those who recall the Dinkins era should also recall the drugs, crime, the constant fiscal problems, the crowds of homeless, the sqeegee men, the spray paint all over the place, the inability for government to do something as simple as cleaning up Times Square - despite decades of effort.

If anything ever proved the importance of good government it was how Giuliani saved new York. But New York is also ground zero for the Democratic media and Giuliani never got any credit for saving the city - certainly not in terms of comparison with the frightful mess that had been made of it for years by Democratic politicans. Likewise formerr Republican Bloomberg has never recieved the credit for what he did, not in terms of Bloomberg continuing Giuliani's policies which is what Bloomberg has done.

It is almost fitting that the litigation against stop and frisk is happening now, at the end of the Bloomberg era, and may later been seen as the beginning of the end for the city as the old, corrupt ways resume once we have a Democrat in the Mayor's office. You have to wonder how long it will take for the new administration in city hall to destroy what Giuliani built, and what Bloomberg carried on. it doesn't seem right that the lives of 8 million people are shortly going to be in the hands of those who have shown that they cannot govern, or that thier method of governance leads to such dreadful consequences.

But, the voters have no one but themselves to blame - certainly there have been more than enough evidence of just how awful the Democratic way of governing is - just look at places like Newark, Paterson, New York pre Giuliani and others and it is there for all to see. If the voters see this or should see this, and vote for these corrupt politicians anyway, if they are so conditioned by the Democratic media that they reflexively vote "D" even given the consequences then they have no one to blame but themselves for the result. No one should wring thier hands over what happens - I won't.

California - Still Dreaming

2013-01-28T13:23:00.001-08:00

There is no media in California pointing out there that it new tax policy of "soaking the rich" was a bad idea, there will also be no politican doing the same, and since the Republican Party is so weak what it says doesn't count. Even as the State sinks the citizens of California will never connect higher taxes to anything bad, since the control of the means of communication by Democrats means that no one will be making that connection, at least no one of any significance and reach (sorry to say that).

The traditional American spirit of rugged individualism and independence is DEAD in California - it is dying in the rest of America, along with any hesitation to take benefits from the government - Democrats have used their decades of control of government and media to recreate the citizenry to one that is more conducive to Democratic control. In the new Democratic State of California dependence on government is good, as is being raised by one parent, in a community where high levels of crime is the norm, where government workers make far more than their counterparts in the private sector (hence the jobs are more desirable), and where the only people who have money are those at the very top (the good rich), while the rest (excepting gov't workers and the party apparatchiks) are the hordes of poor, too stupid to know what they have lost - or they came from elsewhere and never knew any different, only that here is better than there, at least for now. After a few years it won't be possible to tell the difference.

Californians will NEVER wake up and realize that soaking the rich is a mistake - the blame for financial problems will always fall elsewhere. Those who leave should leave, but the ulitmate irony is that Californians who do leave bring their voting habits with them. Such is the effectiveness of conditioning by Democraic media.

The sad thing is that competent government works - who would have thought that it would be possible to halve the welfare rolls with competent, conservative reforms, who would have thought that a (for the most part) competent Rudy Giuliani could make crime a non-issue in New York, who would have thought that Ronald Reagan in 1980 could add millions of jobs, and make America prosperous again after Carter destroyed the economy.

California could be great, but because Democrats have access to public funds through public unions as well as control of the means of communication means that it won't be. California is firmly in the hands of the Democratic Party which is rapidly transforming the society to one more amenable to continuation of Democratic control. This means using tax and regulatory policy to convince those who disagree with the new California to leave, importing and making up the lost population (with the help of hapless Republicans who are soon to lose Texas and elsewhere through the new amnesty law) through immigration, legal and illegal, using welfare policies and media to encourage single parenting, which creates dependence on government and a cycle of that dependence, as well as high crime which further induces dependence, and as a side benefit causes low educational achievements so that the citizenry is too dumb to understand how badly they are being used, and finally to keep everyone divided and hence more pliable. It means doing things Democrats do, with the predictable result that California, once so prosperous, is now permanently economically challenged.

The foregoing is all to the good for Democrats, who see the new society as one where they will get ALL the votes, and none of the blame, since they control the means of communication.

"Regret" soaking the rich? It is a laughable concept - anything that happens, albeit detrimental by "old" standards, is all to the good in the new Democratic society being created. No matter how bad it gets, the people of California will never understand why their society is doing so poorly, even as the state becomes economically Detroitified. Tourism will be there maybe, but tourism is the business of the third world.

You wonder what it would take to wake people up in California that their choice of leaders is what's dooming them to future poverty. With media firmly in the hands of those leaders, and the society becoming ever more pliant, with the alternative - Republicans - in the hands of inept, incompetent bunglers like Boehner (a man who is working full time for the position of minority leader in the House), don't look for change - ever, in a million years.

Who would have thought that it was so easy to fool all of the people all of the time?

THE REPUBLICANS AND THE CITIES

2013-01-28T13:20:00.003-08:00

Republicans have essentially abandoned the cities and the result has been catastrophic, not just for Republicans, but for city dwellers - ESPECIALLY minorities who have suffered under Democratic policies that have destroyed their families, criminalized their communities, taken away their will to be educated, impoverished their neighborhoods, and worked on nullifying any semblence of American traditional self reliant individualism in these communities and replaced it with some awful dependence culture unique to history.

It wasn't supposed to be this way. The insanity created by the one party Democratic politics, essentially the ruin of entire cities, has led to Democrats getting all the votes while at the same time delivering nothing to the governed but corruption, misery, hypocrisy, manipulation and double talk. Democratic lock on the media has led to adoption by ALL media of policies that hide the facts underlying the corrupt rule of Democratic leaders, under which these communites act as islands of repression, used as income producing poverty centers, supporting the entire Democratic dominated poverty industry, and subject to every whim of rabble rousing Democratic leaders.

Think I'm exaggerating? Take a look at crime and education rates for certain groups in cities under long term Democratic control, not just generally but as a percentage of the population. Look at disparities in income levels, look at the number of children born to single mothers, which are a critically important indicator of the child's future success in life. Which media led to acceptance of the notion of a single mother raising children? That claimed it as something noble, while at the same time marginalizaing the male role in the family?

It all works out pretty neatly for Democrats - they create the conditions and culture for a community that is perfect for Democratic control and a vehicle for making money for Democratic causes. The resulting statistics in these communities are DISMAL, especially as to the lack of a private sector, but you don't hear a word about it in the Democratic media because of policies adopted for the very specific purpose of protecting the Democratic rulers.

It takes a peculiar form of blindness not to see this from the inside, but then again Democrats have had decades to hone their skills at conditioning. These communities tend to be insular, and anything that is disagreeable to the ruling class is dismissed with either mockery or claimed as racist. The fact that the communities are not doing well under common sense notions of what doing well means is irrelevant - what counts is whether the community is doing well as defined by Democrats.

And since Democats are able to use the community to drain money from everywhere else, and maintain a lock on votes means that these communities are doing well indeed - and Democrats would't change a thing.

In some former time, when one party was an utter failure at governing the people would come to the conclusion that it was time for a change, and the other party would be voted in. But, the creation of entrenched areas of Democratic Party rule in most major cities (New York being a happy - for the people involved - exception as to the mayor's office, although this is temporary, as New York will soon resume the slide to the bottom - as defined by others, for Democrats it is no such thing - that was temporarily interrupted when Giuliani was elected in 1989) has led to institutional corruption at every level, and acceptance of a status quo that would be unacceptable to any reasonable person. But, conditioning by Democratic media, as a result of adoption of journalistic conventions - political correctness - has led to acceptance of what would formerlly have been unacceptable. This in turn has led to not just one party rule, but the belief by the community that the awful conditions that exist are not the fault of the party in charge, but "others' i.e. Republicans, who haven't wielded power in the community for decades, if ever. The lack of any real check on corruption has led to its institutionalization, a natural consequence of of years and years one party rule by a people that were bent on corruption to begin with.

Accordingly, Republican abandonement of the cities has been a disaster - and Romney's decision to focus all of his resources elsewhere means that these people haven't heard from anyone but the Democrats for years. With nothing else challenging them, Democrat's have convinced the people in Detroit, of Camden, East St. Louis, Chicago, Washington and other places to re-elect, year after year, the very people responsible for their being mired in poverty, and used as a vehicle for Democrats enriching themselves.

Those on the outside who see all this happening think that the people involved will somehow wake up and toss out the politicans responsible. But, that will never happen unless someone from the outside comes in and tells the truth - the unvarnished truth - not only about what's going on but how it got that way. Take a look at some of these places - here in New Jersey it can be seen in parts of Paterson, in much of Newark, Irvington, East Orange, Hillside et als. Year after year goes by and places that were at one time centers of prosperity, little crime, high education are mired in the American version of poverty, whatever you want to call it for decades upon decade - even as the rest of the country goes through periods of prosperity. The people involved are subject to a barrage of messages from Democrats blaming everything but the Democratic leadership for the problems, but year after year after year nothing changes - conditions become, if anything, worse. Through it all no one says what's really wrong, even as the state comes up with plan after plan - tosses millions if not billions of dollars down a rathole to be used by corrupt Democrats for very personal purposes, all of which does nothing. In Newark the State opened an arts center - people get there from the suburbs by highway ringed with security, all the way there and all the way back. Very nice, but how does this help the city? It's a bad joke, as bad as when Atlantic City put up "intercept" parking lots on the approaches to the city for so that casino and hotel workers from outside the city could park. It's a bad joke, just like the sports complexes that were built to house a basketball team that soon left, and a hockey (hockey!) team that has almost no chance of staying.

It's now been half a century since the riots in Newark, and that city could be seen as a microcosm of the terrible consequences of Democratic control and Republican abandonment of the cities. I simply do not have the time to list all of the Democratic abuses in Newark, soon to be New Jersey's second largest city, a once prosperous and beautiful center of the nations insurance industry. Thanks to Democratic media conditioning it would be practically unthinkable for Republicans to come to power in Newark - unless somehow Republicans can shake off the media strait jacket and tell the entire truth about what's going on and how it got that way. No doubt Democrats would get hysterical and scream racism, as they always do, but at this point, for Republicans what would they have to lose?

But that's the problem, Republicans, their leadership, are far too timid, far too spineless, far too "go along get along," far too accepting of a secondary role in society to make assertions about conditions that everyone knows about but no one says a word. The Democratic emperor has no clothes (and I am not talking about Obama - he is almost irrelevant to this discussion) but for some reason there is no one on the Republican side brave enough to say a thing about it.

When did Republicans make an agreement with Democrats to not mention certain subjects? - because that's essentially what's going on. How did Republicans decide to say nothing about the Democratic rape of certain city communities, or of entire cities?

So, another generation gets lost, and we all sit by and watch as our nation slides down the drain. The sad irony is that Democrats are extremely vulnerable - the hysteria voiced by Democratic leaders should anyone even hint at any of these issues is revealing of that vulnerability.

We keep waiting for someone in the cities to come out and say what the rest of the country knows, but it isn't going to happen - it will not be that easy. Republicans have waited far too long, and it will take a concerted effort by courageous people.

HOW THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY DESTROYS

2012-12-12T13:28:00.000-08:00

It's happening everywhere, and has been happening in many if not most of the nations major cities for years - the policies of Democratic politicians drive away commerce and destroy public education until you have a city like Detroit, or in my state, Trenton, Camden, Passaic, Newark, Paterson et als. The city becomes a drain on the surrounding areas, which is not what cities are all about. It's happening, has been happening, and will continue to happen and no one says a word about it.

It is a continuum, with places like Detroit and Camden the end result of Democratic policies, and other cities heading toward where theses two cities are. Without a media that points out what's really going on there is no check - the cities die slowly, painfully, with corruption taking the place of good government, and wasting billions on the process.

The lesson to be learned is this: you cannot have a thriving city in a place run by Democrats implementing Democratic policies - it just can't happen, it just won't work, it will never and can never happen - never. Those policies are far too detrimental in every aspect of governance and community life - education, economy, family the whole mishpucha.

In my state the best example is Newark - most of this city died after the 1967 (68?) riots. Despite millions if not billions spent for sports facilities, for commercial and residential buildings, for education, for transportation, for everything you could possibly think of, the city is no better off now than it was 40+ years ago. All that money and you still can't walk down South Orange Avenue at 10 PM.

Furthermore, there is clear connection between Democratic policies and the failure of city government, the failure of communities, and all the rest BUT without a media out there reporting what any rational person knows nothing changes. There will never be a "Frontline" or "60 Minutes" or anything else detailing the failure of Democratic policies in the cities? (I'll leave off commenting on what Democratic policies have done to minority communities). Heck, you can't even find an acknowledgement that it was Republican Rudy Giuliani's policies (slavishly followed by Bloomberg)in New York City that saved New York from where it was headed under Dinkins and prior Democratic administrations - even though any New Yorker who was there knows that Giuliani prevented New York City from complete collapse. (New York will of course go right back to where it was once a Democratic mayor takes over from Bloomberg - it's inevitable). Giuliani's reward as a result of success at what has been called the "second hardest job in America" should have been a shot at the Presidency, but Democratic media prevented this using every mean trick possible, including attacking Giuliani's personal life - a dreadful irony given the same media's support of Bill Clinton, the admitted abuser of a young intern, convicted perjurer, disbarred attorney and accused rapist. The depravity of the the Democratic media is best illustrated by attempts to connect Giuliani's family to the mafia, which really illustrating the just how vile these people really are.

Without major media scrutiny the cities under Democratic control are doomed to a slow death, those who live in these cities doomed to impoverishment. The one party Democratic politics of most major United States cities make "change" an impossibility as these cities go from one incompetent leader to the next, while the communities are fed a constant stream of nonsense by a media that lost its ability to truly understand why conditions never improve - in fact, it's worse than that since major media has adopted a self censorship under the guise of political correctness.

The cities under incompetent Democratic leadership will never know how much better it could be under more enlightened leadership. Take the success of the 1996 welfare reform law which stunned everyone. But, what was truly stunning was that no one in the media pointed the finger at those Democratic miscreants who had doomed two generations to impoverishment and dependence under the old law - and needless to say, the Republicans were never given credit for the vast improvement to people's lives under the new law. In short, you find few examples in the media of how good it is for cities lucky enough to escape Democratic leadership - the still very powerful Democratic media is studiously silent about those examples.

It's a depressing picture, and there isn't much hope for change - in fact, as I've argued in other contexts, change is precisely what Democrats fervently seek to prevent. By staying the course Democrats are fully aware that their policies drive out and silence those who question what is going on, who eventually leave, which consolidates and entrenches power in those remaining.

And when it comes to politics, power, ability to give out patronage, is what it is all about. The difference is that Democrats have no interest in bettering the community - power IS the goal. And I challenge anyone to defend Democratic policies in the cities over the last 40 years without using the standard defense tactic of changing the subject.

THE DISGRACEFUL ONES

2012-11-14T20:15:00.000-08:00

Lately, I've been watching the British Hitchcock films from the 1930's, and it is depressing to think that the culture illustrated in these films is gone - not imply the fashions etc. but the underlying cultural assumptions on which the society has been based for decades is gone. The British stiff upper lip, the dry good humor, the stoicism, has, as you note, been replaced by a nation of louts and sluts.

How did this happen? I've been thinking about that too. There is much truth in the old saying "monkey see, monkey do." In the late 1940's Brits and Americans allowed a device in their homes - the telescreen err television that carried programming created by people who first sought to modify, then when they saw the power of it, sought to destroy the existing culture. These people succeeded beyond their wildest dreams. In fact, based on the looting that took place a year or so ago, it looks like the immigrants in Britain, who are new to the television/loutmaker, haven't been poisoned by it yet. What an irony!

Not just television: look at "Rebel Without a Cause." The lead character, James Dean, who is outside the culture in many ways, is handsome and sexually successful. Compare that to the 1950's television show "Dobie Gillis" where the "beatnik" is unattractive, and sexually unsuccessful.

By the 1960's the loutmaker was enhanced by the introduction of color - the better to reprogram the culture. Those bent on destroying the old culture and remaking went into overdrive, taking a small group of California beatniks and creating/celebrating a "counter culture" that has all but taken over today.

The loutmaker is and has been on the leading edge of this great change. Monkey see monkey do - make a mockery of those who adhere to the old culture, and show those who adopt the new culture as sexually attractive and successful. The louts and sluts are nto doing anything more than imitating what they see on the loutmaker - why should they be anything other than louts and sluts when louts and sluts are celebrated day in and day out? Why would they be anything else?

Plus, when you come right down to it, who do these louts and sluts resemble? Why... rock stars of course. The adherents of the new "counter" culture are nothing more or less than rock stars in miniature - drunk, drug abusing, sexual active, who work when they feel like it ("taking care of business"), if ever, and are never responsible for anything.

Even though it is all but dead, the old culture remains endlessly mocked, portrayed on the loutmaker as unattractive, the persons in it unsuccessful sexually. Religion, which is part of the old culture is subject to the same treatment - except of course foreign religions, which are revered. Family? Old stuff. Work? For losers. Sex? Good, more the better. Commitment? Also for losers. In fact, men, the idea of masculinity, is mocked.

However, the joke is on the louts and sluts, however - the new culture portrayed as positive on the loutmaker is not self sustaining, it is doomed to failure. More ominously this new culture cannot sustain a democratic form of government.

So, sooner or later Britain, and the United States will lose the wealth and government that their ancestors put in place for their undeserving descendents. Who is to say that the citizens of Britain or the United States are entitled to live a first world life style? It takes work to maintain this standard of living, and when the people of the nation aren't willing to work, then what they have will be lost. A nation of louts and sluts will inevitably live in squalor, eking out a living while those who are willing to work build a society that is self sustaining.

It's another old story - the ant and the grasshopper. A nation of grasshoppers soon to be starving in winter - and that's when the Democratic form of government will be lost when people decide to exchange slavery on the promise of bread.

It is very hard to stand by and watch while a nation commits suicide. But, when you come right down to it, in Britain anyway, the old culture died long ago. All we have left is the movies to show what has been lost. There is going to be a certain satisfaction in seeing the louts and sluts get what they deserve, along with (hopefully) those who have programmed an entire nation to self destruct.

rats?

EVENING IN AMERICA

2012-11-05T14:40:00.001-08:00

Oddly enough, despite not being an Obama supporter, at the beginning of his Administration I had sincerely wished that something of his message was genuine, that he really meant to change government, that maybe Obama was the right man at the right time, and his could be a storybook presidency. However, over the first few months, like many Americans I was stunned, not by Obama's activism, but by his overall lack of interest and lack of vision. Obama never gets involved in governing, he never even got to the level of being a cheerleader for what other people were doing. The signature bills of his Administration - Obamacare, Dodd Frank, the stimulus, were all drafted by others - his role was to sign laws that someone else did the hard work to produce.

Obama never seems to have a presence. And what he attempts to do, he does poorly. His foreign policy - what could be called a policy, never goes much beyond apologizing. His bowing before foreign dictators is repulsive. His blaming of the prior administration for his own failures on the economy showed his poor character and penchant for meanness that always seems below the surface.

Obama's Administration is only about politics. But his ineffectual - or non-existent - leadership meant that he wasn't able to accomplish much even on issues that Democrats support. In that respect, Obama's incompetence is a blessing. With 60 votes in the Senate and a majority in the House, Obama could have done far more - at a minimum he could have made Roe v. Wade superfluous, by enacting federal statutory protections for abortion. Likewise for comprehensive immigration reform - it was Obama's for the taking, but he didn't press it.

Of course, a more cynical view is that the Democrats didn't want abortion and immigration to disappear from the national stage, so that they could pummel Republicans. However, what we have seen is that Obama doesn't have the intelligence capability to engage in that kind of strategic planning. The simple answer is that Obama couldn't be bothered.

For the country as a whole Obama's ineptitude is thus a mixed blessing.

And through it all, over the last four years, Americans never really got to know Obama. He is disinterested, and never makes a move unless he absolutely has to. Prior to Obama the terms, "empty suit" and "man in a bubble" were mre political invective. However, both terms perfectly picture Obama.

The real mystery with Obama is why he even ran for a second term. He doesn't want the job. But then again why should he, since he is so very bad at it. And without the protections of a media that has shown itself to be completely incapable of telling the truth about a Democratic President, Obama would be the most hated men in America. But then again, black Americans have fallen hook, line and sinker for the con job that the Democratic party has pulled on them - they are the only ones in America that seem to be unaware of this - see my other articles for a more complete description.

In the final analysis, none of those who voted for Obama were able to make the case that he deserves to be re-elected. Most of what we saw were tired cliche's about Republicans, and talking points about Romney. When pressed on it, Democrats really didn't articulate anything positive about Obama, other than he isn't a Republican, and he isn't Romney. When asked about Romney, what is said is that someone as wealthy as Romney could never made a good President. When pointed out that Democrats in 2004 ran John Kerry, a man who married into enormous wealth, what you get blank stares. So much for the intelligence of the average voter.

On the other hand, Romney was surprisingly good, and laid out lots of reasons why he would make a good, capable president. It's too bad - very bad for America - that we will never find out what type of President Romney would have been.

It's as if Carter beat Reagan, or Dinkins beat Giuliani - we will never get to know the greatness that might have been instead of the mediocrity and incompetence that is.

A blog never changes anyone's mind. But, over the next four years we will find out precisely what type of a mistake we have made. it's too bad we will never find out how good it could have been.

It is indeed evening in America.

A TEST FOR EVERYONE

2012-09-05T13:35:00.001-07:00

A comment (with a few modifications) found elsewhere. If you think this is racist then you really should examine your own standards, and gain some understanding as to how you have been conditioned by a Democratic media that is utterly hostile to the black community:

The black community used to strive to prove its humanity and worth to a white community that was largely indifferent and sometimes hostile to it's plight. When blacks became accepted by much of white society, the black community became largely indifferent and hostile to the values established by the majority culture. The lack of discipline and acceptance of lower standards for blacks on the part of the Democrats who govern most areas with large black populations guarantees that the majority of blacks will fail.

It is truly ironic that bending over backwards by Democrats so as not to appear racist has resulted in damage to the black community beyond even the wildest dreams of the Klan. Democrats have replaced the real chains of slavery and Jim Crow with invisible chains of low expectations and dependence, and then stand back and watch the blacks destroy themselves rather than get their hands dirty doing it as was their practice in the old south.

To top it off, Democrats also claim to be the "good guys" fighting for social justice even as the community is mired in poverty and violence, all as a result of Democrats so called good intentions.

The black community must stop tearing itself apart and realize that its REAL problem is the Democratic devil on their shoulder that has been whispering into their collective ears for the past 50 years.

EUGENE ROBINSON - LAP DOG

2012-08-31T10:47:00.000-07:00

Consider Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post. A columnist who writes a biweekly column that uniformly praises Democrats and blasts Republicans. His peevish views exemplify a lifetime of conditioning by Democratic media, and the man reflects that conditioning like few others in the so called mainstream media.

Robinson's conditioning has made him an apologist for an organization that was responsible for continuing slavery in the South, for forming the Klu Klux Klan, for lynchings, Democratic governors attempted to bar the door to prevent black students from entering universities, and all the rest. And yet, despite all this, 50 years ago black leaders pooled their support into the Democratic Party. We know the result. Democrats promptly enacted laws that have destroyed the black family, led to criminalization of the community, loss of the will to be educated, allowed immigrants by the millions to come into the country and who took jobs and benefits away from blacks - and all this despite warnings from two studies put together by Daniel Patrick Moynihan on urban planning precisely detailing the consequences of enactment of these very policies.

How to understand how someone who appears to be reasonably intelligent supporting an organization that has essentially destroyed a large part of the black community? The answer is conditioning. The Democratic academic and media machine has conditioned people like Robinson into embracing an organization that is bent not on change but on maintaining terrible conditions in the black community, in an effort to ensure continuation of the Party's ability to get votes. I saw this in action in Newark, NJ where the Juvenile Court was like something out of Dickens, in a place where Democrats had been in charge for as long as anyone can remember. Children sans parents sans grandparents being sentenced to the "Youth House" and caught in the maw of the Democratic community destruction machine.

It's like Alice in Wonderland - the entire country knows exactly what the Democrats are doing to the community, but people in the community can't see it. It's disheartening to see people like Robinson falling for the lies, the vicious manipulation, and all the rest. People like Robinson participate in the fallacy, then act like automatons responding to their conditioning by pointing fingers at Republicans as the cause of their problems - as if Republicans have had any say in the community for the last 50 years! No wonder the frustration since the real power is in the hands of people who have absolutely no interest in changing anything since under the present conditions Democrats get all the votes.

In short, the real irony is that change is the last thing Democrats want.

So like a good automaton Robinson participates in the misdirection campaign. Maybe he actually believes what he says, given his lifetime of conditioning. To those on the outside it appears like insanity - how else to explain it? It is a measure of the arrogance of the man that he never shows any doubt, he has lost the ability to question the framework underlying his opinions, and that he thinks he can see in the hearts of those who he blames for the destruction of the community, or a substantial part of the community.

I would ask whether anyone could have done a worse job of governing in the community than the Democrats in the last 50 years. And I would ask why it is that Democrats are never taken to task for it, why no one ever questions what they have done.

There is a reason for it of course, and for political correctness - it is a device by which Democratic leaders protect themselves from being criticized for their dismal performance.

So we wait and wait and wring our hands as we watch the black community being destroyed, and can do nothing about it since people like Robinson are there to shout 'racist' when someone points out what's happening. It is truly depressing.

CONSPIRACY OF SILENCE

2012-08-24T11:19:00.000-07:00

Every year one group commits an insane proportion of the crime. Unbelievably, one can't even mention the statistics, because Democratic media has trained and conditioned Americans not simply to ignore it, at the pain of being called racist. So...what is the consequences of this silence?

What this conditioning ensures is that one party maintains full control in the black community - the Democratic Party, the same party that was responsible for maintaining slavery in the South, which enacted Jim Crow laws, which formed and whose members comprised the KKK. And it was Democratic governors who were barring the schoolhouse door seeking to prevent blacks from entering. These are the people who have been in full control of the black community for the last 50 years.

But the foregoing is a minor point - it is northern Democrats who have control of the black community and they are every bit as ruthless as their southern counterparts although with a different strategy and a different face. However, the result are pretty much the same.

One party control means Democrats get just about the entirely of the black vote, while at the same time delivering nothing but decades of misery. The journalistic political correctness standard (and that's what it is), under which Democratic failures in the black community are subject to no outside criticism, arose in the 1980's. Perfect timing, right? Before that time, the blame for economic, social and educational failures in the black community could be directed at remnants of racism, but by the '80's the racism excuse was getting thin. So...Democratic media simply imposed a blanket of protection on Democratic failures in the community. It's still unclear whether this naturally evolved or was intentional.

So, despite 50 years of Democratic control, year in and year out black leaders are always positioning themselves as demanding more for the poor because their community - year in and year out, decade after decade, remains poor, and with horrid (and not often disclosed thanks to P.C.)stats on crime, and dismal education and economic achievements. So....always the demands for money, the claims of racism, but the truth is something else entirely - Democratic policies which encouraged single families, a victim mentality, and dependence on government have destroyed the community. What money does go into the community - and there is plenty of that - enriches those who purport year and year out to assist the community but in reality these people get rich, while year in and year out the community remains poor. And those bloodsuckers who get the money never pay a price for their lack of success - they simply claim that not enough money was spent.

The screams from Democrats about police brutality, and all the nonsense about stop and frisk are desperate attempts to get the attention away from their own failures - which are readily seen, but, thanks to the political correctness standard, never talked about, nor is there any price to pay for failure. For example, you don't hear, since Obama was elected, the demand for more jobs in the community from black Democratic leaders. It's as if they knew this demand was a sham, but the reality is that for Democrats the worst that could happen is community improvement.

What it is, is like Alice in Wonderland. Plain insane.

So, like trained seals, the rest of us ignore what goes on, leaving it to black Democratic leaders to govern their own community, which they do with an iron fist - and God forbid anyone says anything it - the Democratic media is there with the racism label, an instant career killer. After all how can anyone possibly prove that they are not a racist?

The result? For 50 years the community has been ground down by the Democratic Party - the people doomed to be raised where, ironically, real change is discouraged - and failure is always the fault of those on the outside. Where change is always talked about but where nothing ever changes.

No wonder there is anger - but it is misdirected.

It's not as if there isn't a ready and simple solution to the problems in the community- repair the family, put the father back in the home, discourage divorce and discourage single parenting. But, Democrats definitely do not want this - so they claim that family is a Republican issue and that Republicans are the enemy. And encourage and subsidize single parenting and make it acceptable through the example of Democratic media - where even drug abuse is excused.

Yes, it's a bleak picture, but it is also reality. No one ever talks about it because there is a price to be paid.

So if you wonder how a Democratic leader can complain about stop and frisk without mentioning the lopsided crime statistics, then bitch about the LACK of crime prevention while at the same time that police are attacked for 'brutality' and being called racists, you need to understand that Democratic leaders are desperate to pin the blame on others for their own failures.

Because, after all, after 50 years of solid control in the community, Democrats have run out of excuses, and at the worst time, before a Presidential election. Like three card Monte players Democrats must maintain as many distractions as possible.

Because, once the people Democrats have ruled for all this time understand - truly understand - what has been done to them, how they have been used, abused, pillaged, raped, and murdered by a coterie of corrupt, parasitic politicians, so called journalists and entertainers, there
is surely going to be hell to pay.

And when the Truth Commission gets going there will be lots of questions for Democrats.

DEMOCRATS NEVER TELL THE TRUTH (THEY DON'T HAVE TO)

2012-08-20T07:38:00.001-07:00

No one expects political memoirs to be objective. Even for these books, however, there is a minimum truth requirement, or, rather there used to be. With the recent revelations that Obama's books are filled with lies about his past shows that the test for accuracy in memoirs is this: Democrats can say anything and get away with it. Republicans better stick to the truth - or else.

But it's more than that, much more - it's part of a decades long protection of Democratic candidates and politicians. Early in WWII John F. Kennedy had a dalliance with a German spy - with the FBI in the next room recording all of it (See Dan Simmon's book "The Crook Factory"). In disgust Joe Kennedy told the State Department to transfer JFK to combat duty, where he distinguished himself as a PT boat commander by promptly getting run over by a Japanese destroyer. In order to avoid the embarrassment Kennedy was given a medal and later, a fawning Democratic media made a movie about the episode, that played right into the myth they were creating about their "war hero": "PT 109."

But JFK's many adulteries, even when President, were carefully hidden by a media that could say nothing bad about a Democratic candidate. Would they have done the same for a Republican? I think not. What's said is that "in the old days" the media protected politicians who couldn't control themselves - the truth is that the protection was there for Democratic politicians, not Republicans.

So when Marilyn Monroe sang "Happy Birthday Mr. President" the media knew full well what had gone on between Monroe and JFK, but of course, said nothing. This wasn't the last gasp of the old boy system, this was protecting a fellow Democrat. And it was something that continues to this day.

And so it goes. The National Enquirer had story after story about John Edwards, but somehow none of it made the Democratic media until there was simply no choice but to cover the story. Ditto Clinton and Monica - the excuses and protection of the Democratic media (along with a half million dollar payoff to NOW to buy its silence) allowed Clinton to remain in office. When a Democrat strays, it's cute or ignored entirely, when a Republican does the same thing, it's called disgusting and they are hounded from office.

Yes there are exceptions but very VERY few.

Could any Republican have survived, as did Barney Frank, whose lover operated a brothel out of his Washington apartment? Or Marion Barry, who made a political comeback even after being caught red handed in a motel room smoking crack with a prostitute, at the same time that crack was devastating the young people of the city in which he was mayor?

Or Bill Clinton, whose political career best exemplifies the protection and double standard of the Democratic (say it like it is, that's who they are) media. Forget about the past - the lies, including perjury committed by Clinton - it was only a few short years ago that the same National Enquirer that had run stories on Edwards' foibles were running stories about Clinton as well. And what was the magazine saying about Clinton? Not just adulteries, but front page photographs of Clinton's long time mistress - all this plastered in magazines easily seen right in the supermarket checkout aisle. These stories were confirmed in the recent book "Game Change" about the McCain campaign which discussed Hillary Clinton's concern about Bill Clinton's many adulteries and his long term relationship with the woman whose photograph was plastered on the front page of the National Enquirer.

Yet, somehow, the Democratic media (and, let's face it, the conservative media, which simply gave up on being able to communicate to the public on these issues) ignored the story, and continues to do so. In fact, Bill Clinton will speak at the Democratic convention, so his political career has been completely unaffected by his playing around, more or less at will, and with full knowledge of Democratic media.

Would this media have done the same for a Republican? Of course not. In fact, when the Democratic media has nothing they simply make it up, as they did with McCain and Bush I. Pure fabrications, but that's the way the game is played in the Democratic media, silence for one party, LIES for another.

So when it is found that Obama made up his auto-biography, that it is filled with lies of the worst sort meant to fit his story line, has the Democratic media said a word? It's is disgusting, how they can excuse someone who is almost pathological when it comes to telling the truth - truth simply doesn't matter.

In other words, forget about Clinton, JFK, Ted Kennedy (who, it was recently revealed, tried to rent out a brothel in Chile in the early 1960's), even Frank - what kind of a person makes up these phony stories for all the world to see - and check? And why did it take three years into his Presidency for people to know that much of what he put out in books about himself were lies?

In short, what kind of a man have we elected President? How could Obama, heck anyone write a book that contains so many falsehoods, how could he ever think it possible that he would get away with it?

The true irony, of course, is that he DID get away with the whole thing - that he not only got away with writing a book that had facts completely made up, but it is now known that he did it, and he has not suffered a bit from it. I've not even heard a word about it from the Administration, and you can bet the Democratic media won't be asking about it.

What does that say about American media? What does it say about Democrats? Should we ever expect the truth or anything close to it from Democratic politicians and candidates after this - what incentive is there to tell the truth, to have character, which seems to be utterly lacking in every Democratic leader on the planet.

Today we hear Obama making speeches filled with assertions that are simply untrue. And he is never called on it since in Obama there is conditioning on two levels - the first based on race, the second based on party. If Obama says that two plus two is five, you won't hear anyone challenging it - in fact, we will have columnist after columnist making the case for him. This state of affairs can only be viewed as sick, very sick, as sick as our society has become. There sense of things falling apart, a feeling that hasn't been in America since the worst days of Jimmy Carter.

Saying the Same Thing Again and Again

2012-07-30T08:02:00.004-07:00

Some thoughts this summer as Democratic policies continue to wreak destruction on the black community:

Recall how Kennedy in 1968 proposed laws that led to the arrival of immigrants by the millions, all in an effort to import Democratic voters. Just whose jobs did these immigrants take? The answer is jobs which were held almost exclusively by blacks - jobs which in a more equal environment could have been stepping stones to better employment. Instead, these Democratic policies led to black unemployment.

Democratic policies also destroyed the black family - I recall the articles in the old Newark Evening News about welfare "cheats" who had been found to have their husbands living with them. Democrats ignored studies put out by D. Patrick Moynihan's organization in the 60's and 70's which predicted that such policies would result in the destruction of the black family. Nevertheless, Democrats pressed ahead, destroying the black family. This inevitably led to the present day criminalization of the inner cities - and elsewhere. The lack of a father, and the inability of the mother to raise children alone required grandmothers to step in - but the generation of these grandmothers is over. And black communities in the inner cities are paying a bitter price - in Paterson New Jersey my brother in law described a rolling crime wave when the mostly black high school was let out. After the death of a homeless man the police were called upon to flood the area every afternoon.

And can you help but notice who is in the flash mob videos - although to even mention this or the awful lopsided crime statistics is now equated with racism under the conditioning of Democratic media. That conditioning means that nothing is done - and the leaders appointed by the Democrats in the black community are never criticized even as they get rich off the misery of the community they are supposed to represent.

What to do? Black Democratic leaders claim that Republicans are a bunch of racists, but no group could possibly do worse than what the Democrats have done to the black community, which is nothing short of a holocaust in plain sight. My children went to a high school that was at least 25% black, and the honors classes were almost a form of segregation, since there were almost no black students taking honors classes. I questioned this and got blank looks in return. The classes are open to everyone, but the community is not producing scholars - that takes two parents making sure the children do their home work. In fact, the black community in my town is being supplanted by Latinos who have transformed an area that has been almost completely black since the Revolutionary war.

All this thanks to Democratic policies - and if you say that Republicans were just as responsible for immigration policies the response is that wouldn't Democrats have some impetus to defend a community that gives them close to 100% support? Instead of promoting policies that took away jobs? And I do have black friends and they are universal in condemning immigration policies but you won't get that from black Democratic leaders who are more beholden to party than people.

Black leaders say that Republicans are a bunch of racist rich white guys but no one could have done a worse job of governing than the Democrats in the black community - they have caused destruction on a scale almost too horrible to imagine. Under current conditions blacks give Democrats 100% of the vote - so why would Democrats be interested in changing anything?

And there is no hope for improving conditions. We will have the same conversation in 2020, 2030 and onwards. Always black leaders ask for more for the poor - after half a century of Democratic rule black leaders should be in favor of tax breaks for the rich. But instead, year in year out it's the same thing - more for the poor.

Black leaders - any leader - must get beyond their conditioning and take a courageous stand - point out what the rest of the country knows but doesn't say since they have been silenced by Democratic media. And that's that the Democratic Party, the party of slavery, Jim Crow, lynchings, the KKK and the destruction of the black family is responsible for the destruction of the black community.

More About Democratic Party Corruption

2012-07-24T13:57:00.001-07:00

Public unions are government turned upside down, where government workers rule the people not the reverse. To reiterate the point I've made elsewhere - what we have in public unions is corruption by definition. Corruption is what you happens when public unions are allowed to make donations to political candidates. These donations originate as taxpayer dollars so the unions act as a conduit for money to be transferred from the treasury to the party - the Democratic party - which in return for the money does whatever the union wants.

I recall reading about how the Japanese were able to buy enormous favors in the legislature in Hawaii for ridiculously small donations. Accordingly, how much more are the public unions able to get with the insanely huge donations they are able to do through the use of taxpayers funds? Who would want to live in such a place, where those who work for government determine policy for the people?

As noted in recent articles, money from teachers unions goes not only to political donations made on behalf of teachers but other Democratic causes as well. So, in essence, what we have is that public unions are not merely funding the Democratic Party, they are the party - it is one big happy organization. It wouldn't be much of a surprise if we found that, like in the Democratic media, people who regularly work for the teachers unions also work for the party.

And where are the People with a capital"P" in this arrangement, how do they fit in? It is their children who are allegedly supposed to be taught by this monolithic entity. The answer is the People are there to be squeezed, while the unions deliver the least possible for the most possible - or even not possible. Don't for a second think that teachers will be held accountable for anything related to education either - we've seen how the unions respond to efforts to rate teachers. And here the teachers are somewhat right - the biggest factor in education is family, not school. But Democrats are hard at work destroying family in order to increase dependency on government - it is one of many ironies created by the new normal under the Democrats. Someone should ask Mayor Rahm in Chicago how the destruction of the family and increased dependency is working out in his city.

Who would argue that such a system is not corrupt, that allowing government workers to unionize and make enormous donations to ONE political party make sense, or is good government? And where was the Republican Party when all this was enacted, in fact where ARE the Republicans on this issue? We have yet to hear one word of complaint from Republicans, this recipe for corruption. Republicans have turned out to be ridiculously easy to fool - on immigration, on spending, on public unions the Democrats have run circles around Republicans.

And when we do get complaints about the system, what we hear from Democrats is nonsense about workers "rights", as if there is somehow a "right" of public workers to unionize. However, there is no right under federal statutory law, the Constitution or anywhere else for public workers to unionize - these entities exist only as entities under state law, and the state can set the terms and conditions under which they exist. ANY terms and conditions.

In fact, Democrats have set the terms and conditions under which public unions exist, and they are this: the unions donate enormous amounts of money to the Democrats and Democratic causes and be part of the Democratic family of organizations, and in return the Democrats give the unions enormous benefits, essentially whatever they want.

It's a very nice quid pro quo arrangement, under which governments are driven into bankruptcy since the politicians rarely look beyond the next election. And why should they - under the arrangement in my state, for example. local elections are at different times than federal and state-wide elections, which gives more power to government workers since turnout for everyone else is so low.

It is mind boggling that we hear not one word from major media about this corrupt arrangement. No "Frontline" stories, no "60 Minutes" - nothing since it is Democrats who are part of this. Of course, if the donations were going to Republican candidates, we would hear about it endlessly.

And, naturally, the last thing on the minds of those in charge is education - this is all about money. The Democrats will always adhere to the line that teachers are always under paid, that there is never enough money for education, in fact isn't education a great issue on which to squeeze taxpayers? After all there isn't an anti-education lobby out there, and thanks to Democratic media, teachers have achieved virtual sainthood. Who can argue for less money for the people who teach your CHILDREN? Democrats are pros when it comes to making arguments that turn people's best instincts inside out.

In fact, the situation is rapidly going from corruption to repression.

The New Jersey Supreme Court Bounce

2012-07-24T13:48:00.000-07:00

Here in New Jersey, we residents live subject to the decrees of our Supreme Court, which rules in ways that bear similarity to Alice in Wonderland. For example, the Court's Abbott decision is not applicable to ALL poor districts, but only the 17 or so "Abbott Districts." Why do these particular school districts get the benefit of extreme state largess and no others? Because they were the ones that were in the original suit - LUCKY! Make sense? Of course not, even assuming that the Abbott decisions make any kind of sense, which they certainly do not.

Most important, having adopted the simplistic formula that equates education with money, the self appointed rules of the kingdom of New Jersey have put the squeeze on, and the results haven't been pretty. I recall working with the New Jersey School Construction Corporation - the so-called experts in this agency simply forgot that part of the expense of building a school included land acquisition! Alice in Wonderland indeed - six billion spent and not much to show for it - in fact, land purchased by the SCC is still laying vacant waiting for schools that will never be built. The law of unintended consequences strikes again, as it has with everything the Court does.

Plus, the guiding principle of the Court has been to see everything from the Democratic left - the very liberal left, which believes government can solve any problem. Thus, and not mentioned is that the Court has never seen an environmental law that it didn't like and wouldn't uphold, no matter what the impact on property ownership. Thus the Court has upheld laws that have made it impossible to use land, but it also has made it functionally impossible to make a claim of regulatory takings - requiring not only that the laws and regulations leave the owner with no value whatsoever, but also that the owner go through the time and expense of having a development plan rejected, again and again. In the process, the Court has upheld laws that placed huge areas of the Republican part of New Jersey off limits to development, thus ensuring that the power stays in the Democratic urban areas.

The Court has adopted rulings that affect every area of life, from, as pointed out, zoning and education, but also reproductive health, going even further than Roe v, Wade. Every time the Court usurps another area given by the Constitution to the legislature, the people lose more liberty - there being no appeal from the real rulers of New Jersey.

The people of New Jersey have, of course, voted with their feet - even massive immigration didn't prevent the state from losing another Congressional seat after the last census. It is a trend likely to continue here in the Kingdom of the New Jersey Supreme Court.

WHEN WILL SOMEONE SAYS SOMETHING PART II

2012-07-24T13:43:00.000-07:00

The thought when a child turns criminal: "where are the parents." For many the answer is "nowhere." When children are raised in families without a father, in some cases without a mother or a father, or even a grandmother - the generation of grandmothers that took care of children after Democratic policies shattered families in the 70's is mostly gone, for the most part, or no one, that child will have problems. Forget about school, without parents, what these children learn about society is through media, which promotes a violent gangster lifestyle.

In fact, since attachment to family is natural in humans, the gangs become the substitute. You really think that the criminal justice system is going to deter someone who has found family in gangs? How would you react if you found family in a gang after getting nothing anywhere else?

The point is this: blacks, though just over 10% percent of the population, commit over 50 percent of all murders, rapes, robberies, and assaults. Accordingly, isn't it reasonable to assume that there is something fundamentally wrong?

What has been done to the black community by Democrats was and is intentional, the suborning of the leadership, the inducement of governmental dependency through destruction of the family, the loss of the traditional employment to immigrants (employment which could have led to better things on a more level playing field) and, most important, the conditioning of the American mind by Democratic media to equate any mention of the awful statistics and the one party system in the black community with racism. Democratic leaders knew that community destruction would lead to one sided vote tallies, i.e. power. There was more than enough evidence that destroying the family would induce dependence. That the community would be criminalized may or may not have been an unintended consequence - but it was criminal neglect since there was lots of evidence to suggest that destroying families leads to crime.

Until someone starts talking about what's going on nothing is going to change. In the 80's people saying the problem in the community was no jobs. We then went through - thanks to Reagan's policies - a prolonged period of high employment. So Democrats could no longer blame lack of employment, in fact, you don't hear anything from them these days. Democrats are willing to accept the status quo, while the community gets worse and worse - to the point...well look at that statistic to see where it is headed.

And there really is no hope for the future, there is nothing out there which indicates that conditions in the community are improving. In fact, it is just the opposite. And no one is talking about the real problem, which is the destruction of the black family by Democratic policies - a host of Democratic policies. Right now there is no incentive to change a thing - with Democrats getting close to 100% of the vote, with Democratic leaders and their followers making a fortune off the poverty industry, while delivering absolutely nothing, what possible reason is there for change?

After all family is a Republican issue. And if 50 years of Democratic allegiance hasn't improved the community, in fact has taken it backwards, Democrats don't cares are as long as the community votes the correct way and the right people are getting government money.

In short, while the rest of the country has steadily improved, Democratic media has conditioned the rest of us to ignore the black community, at the price of being labelled a racist, which for politicians is a virtual career killer. So you have one community responsible for 70% of most crime, that has been pillaged at will by Democrats which has induced conditions under which this has all been done, which has destroyed the family, which has taken away the will to be educated, which has impoverished this community under the very noses of the rest of the country, since the rest of the country is afraid to say a thing.

When a group of people - Democrats - commit the national equivalent of a holocaust shouldn't someone says something? It isn't as if it's a secret, although there is a powerful incentive to keep it all quiet - I note that recently someone brought up the 70% statistic on the Herald Riviera radio show, Riviera claimed it couldn't be true. Democratic media has been THAT successful at keeping all of this under wraps.

But, someone has to notice who is in those flash mob videos, someone has to notice what has happened in Rahm's Chicago, someone has to notice that year in and year out, for HALF A CENTURY for crissakes, the black community has been all about more for the poor, even as much of the rest got wealthier. And it isn't going to get any better - in fact , it is going to get worse since as every year passes less and less children in the community are raised in two parent families. With no one even talking about what's going really going on, unless and until someone does things wills imply get worse.

You would have thought by now that Democratic media would have to say something but the powerful incentive toward silence works on them as well. But, how can you possibly hide all of this - how can Democrats expect the rest of us to stay quiet?

Democrats respond, like children really since they have nothing left other than to scream about racism.

WHERE IS THE AFRICAN AMERICAN LEADER WHO WILL LEAD HIS PEOPLE OUT OF THE WILDERNESS?

2012-07-09T11:03:00.000-07:00

"For Democrats poverty is the objective, not a condition to be avoided."

Once you see Democrats in that light it all makes sense. Democrats pay almost no price when the economy is bad - in fact they get more votes, since poor people vote Democratic in the mistaken belief that Democrats are for poor people. True enough, if the goal is to stay poor.

And yes, Democrats do give benefits to poor people, but just enough so that they can maintain, not enough to get them out of poverty. And, of course, the money will one day run out, but to these people that does not matter one bit. Power at any price is the goal.

Welcome to the Democratic Party - the most corrupt organization on planet Earth.

If you have any doubts about it, look at the African American experience with the Democratic Party the last 50 years. After 50 years of Democratic leadership shouldn't blacks be worried about excessive wealth? Didn't happen - instead many if not most blacks are part of a permanent underclass. And the way things are arranged to even talk about that fact is equivalent to racism - Democratic media has conditioned the public to stay silent on how poorly blacks have done the last 50 years.

So...what would you say about an organization that has arranged it so that blacks live in a state of high crime, low education, shattered families and governmental dependence? To me what it is is consistent with Democrats prior activity as the party of slavery, the KKK, "separate but equal", lynchings and Jim Crow.

One day a leader will arise in the black community who will see things for what they are and demand appointment of a truth commission to look at the modern day holocaust committed by Democrats. That day can't happen soon enough - or are we to lose more generations?

THE MOST CORRUPT ORGANIZATION ON PLANET EARTH

2012-07-09T10:41:00.000-07:00

Does the Democratic Party want prosperity? Of course not. Democrats are quite comfortable with a government caused poor economy - poverty by another name. The Democratic leadership is clued in to the fact that poor people vote Democratic, middle income Americans less so, and the well off least of all, with a very few well publicized exceptions. So for the Democratic leadership, a functioning economy, schools that teach, a society founded on children raised by two parents, in a crime free environment are not objectives, but conditions to be carefully avoided.

In other words, Democrats understand that they do well among those who are poorest and most dependent on government. It's why black Americans under Democratic leadership have done so poorly - it's a state of affairs that is calculated never to change, while Democratic leaders, with hands wringing, extract the most money possible from tax paying citizens, all the while claiming that the money is necessary to assist needy families and other, 'progressive' causes.

It's a flim flam that has continued for 50 years or more and no matter that the money never makes a bit of difference it's the same story over and over again. Programs funded by Democrats exist solely for two purposes - enrich Democratic leaders and those favored, and to fill Party coffers so that the swindle can continue. You can't help but notice that Democratic leaders no longer bother calling for more jobs in the inner cities - there isn't any need, since by now it is understood by that the only interest the leaders have is in maintaining the status quo, not bettering lives. After all under current conditions Democrats get 100% of the vote. Democratic leaders know that crime, poverty, shattered families and dependence on government are perfect conditions for getting votes.

So, for Democrats, the more misery the better. And, in California, for example, Democrats get to use their strategy on a state-wide scale. They adopt policies that chase away Republicans, import poor people to replace them, then get the misery machine up and running. And if anyone complains, just shout 'racism!' Democratic media has conditioned all of us to hear that and then reflexively shut up. It works every time - if you got uncomfortable with the statement above that black Americans are doing badly under Democratic leadership - an undeniable truth - that is your conditioning, something that Democratic media knows how to do all too well. (think '1984' when the interrogator asked Winston Smith how many fingers he saw).

You say this can't be true? Look at the facts - 50 years of Democratic leadership in the inner cities and conditions are the same or worse than they were in the 1960's when Democrats fully came to power in the black community. Look at California, one of the most well run state governments in the country, make that on earth, and in one or two generations Democrats have run it to the ground, at least as one would normally think of the phrase. One can't seriously look at what has happened in California and not think that there was an intention to make conditions exactly as they are today, and exactly where they are heading.

So face it - Democrats aren't and never will be serious about economic recovery. As this article shows it's the furthest thing from their minds. For Democrats government exists only for government workers, so they are well paid, and in return government unions funnel taxpayer funds to the Party coffers. And, of course, to people dependent on government. The rest be damned, or be used, as with those 'environmentalists' who play their part in maintaining the misery - and reap the rewards of being on the Democratic payroll.

It's no joke since the system is so inherently repressive that sooner or later it will collapse. But corrupt people by nature never think long term, and those in the Democratic Party are the most corrupt there are. What possible incentive is there for Democrats - at least those in the leadership, to have good government as normal people think of good government.

Good government? To be avoided! For Democrats BAD government is where the votes are. Democrats do not pay a price for a bad economy - it just means more poor people. And since Republican leadership for the most part are dumb as posts (in the sense of being deaf, probably in the other sense as well), there is no chance at all of Democrats being called out for their corrupt ways. You certainly won't see or hear Democratic media saying a thing about it.

In short, why would Democrats want prosperity when they do so well with misery?

The New Democratic America

2012-05-23T07:45:00.000-07:00

In California (and elsewhere) Democrats view the loss of business not as a detriment but as a benefit - they fully understand that poor financial conditions drive Republicans out of the state, consolidating power in the Democrats who remain. So as power grow, further policies are enacted which drive out more Republicans, who are replaced with poor immigrants.

Democrats know full well that two thirds of immigrants vote for Democrats in the entirely (and tragically) mistaken belief that Democratic policies help poor people.

The foregoing mistake IS tragic - Democratic policies are expressly designed to maintain the poverty status quo while at the same time enriching those who make money working the phony quasi-governmental poverty industry, as well as government employees themselves. The result? Economically it will look like a third world country - few rich, lots and lots of poor, and very well heeled government workers, party apparatchiks and intelligentsia, employed at the universities.

It is also a ponzi scheme, with the end result looking something like Detroit for the cities. And it is supported by a Democratic media that has an open door policy with those institutions supported under corrupt Democrats - the educational system, including higher education as one of many examples.

The liberal billionaires who support this system are in it for corrupt purposes as well, although their motives are far more murky. However, Soros, for example. has made it clear that his motivation is financial. One wonders at how and why an 82 years old man so consumed by greed.

The Democrats are full of sound and fury but their actions signify nothing but business as usual. I've mentioned many times the Democratic caused destruction of the black community - done while maintaining close to 100% of the vote -as the crowning achievement of Democratic policies. In that destruction we see the Democratic pattern for the future, a pattern being implemented statewide in California.

Soon, there will no place to hide from the Democratic locusts who are consuming California and other places. For now, control of major media allows these people control over the nations agenda. Education - real education as to the motives, methods and madness of these people is our only hope. God help us if we fail.

The Black Experience with the Democratic Party

2012-05-03T12:04:00.001-07:00

We still hear nothing of the Democratic Party's continued rape, looting, pillaging, robbing and murdering of the black community. 50 years ago blacks put all their support behind the Democrats - 50 years of backward progress, communities with broken families, crime at unheard of levels, little educational achievement, employment rates at a fraction of every other group - and yet media like yours hides these statistics in a vain attempt to protect black Democratic leaders like Obama who themselves benefited from the poverty industry. That industry year by year acts as a conduit through which money flows from the government into the pockets of so-called 'community organizers' like Obama, the man who could "barely afford" a $1.65 million house.

How do you square the facts as set forth above with your own views of the Democratic Party? We aren't talking about Republicans here - how do you explain the importation of immigrants as votes for Democrats, when the jobs taken by theses same immigrants, the "jobs Americans won't do" had previously done by blacks? In a scarce labor market and the '60's civil rights legislation these jobs could have been steppingstones to better employment, but as a result of Democratic endorsed, supported and enacted immigration policies these jobs were simply taken away by those willing to work for lower wages. How is that for the Democratic Party working African American interests?

We both know - or you should know - that the Democrats for decades ignored blacks, assuming that they would never vote for Republicans, and, further they would be whipped into shape by black Democratic leaders. In the meantime, the black family was shattering, crime reached unheard of levels, Democrats in entertainment were promoting drug use which devastated the black community, Democratic media was promoting single parenthood, as well as every possible racist stereotype.

How can you anyone of color associate with these people? As group after group cycles through the ghettos, there is one constant, and I don't have to spell it out - and yet Democrats get re-elected year after year, despite failure on the level of a national holocaust?

What is it that Democrats have, what possible motivation could make voting for the party of the KKK, slavery, lynchings, Jim Crow and the permanent povertization of millions of people for a 150 years a rational choice?

THE FEAR GAME

2012-04-27T12:24:00.000-07:00

Today a change of pace as we discuss the fear game. The game is run like this: the people who run most of the the media in the world, especially the news media, have noticed that more people tune in when there are disasters, even if those disasters aren't happening to the individual consumer of media. Ever slow down to watch an accident? You and every baboon on the planet does the same, and those in the media know it.

Since disasters don't happen every day, our media sometimes has to get creative. After being on the planet for 55 years, you hear catastrophe warnings over and over and over again, on every subject imaginable, and it never, ever stops. Earth getting hit by an asteroid! There was even some stupid movies about it - that and a zillion other disaster films including the incredibly stupid (and awful) '2012.'

Remember Y2K? Millions, no BILLIONS perhaps spent on what?

And when media gets going the hand wringers come out in full force - the no character, easily manipulated and brainwashed. What it always comes down to - always, is these people know better, and not only that, they are constantly running around telling everyone what to do. Stop eating that, stop doing this, stop buying that, stop listening to that, stop thinking that, we should have a law - and it never, ever stops.

The greatest catastrophe of all time outside of nuclear war is human caused global warming - the so called 'warmists' (can you believe we have names for these people - "warmists" and "deniers" - like a religion!) are like cave men, seeing and hearing thunder and lightening and telling everyone we need to appease the gods by sacrificing a few virgins - or else. Yes, these people know what to do - and when we have thunder and lightening they say, look you didn't sacrifice virgins, or enough virgins anyway...

You see the articles, it's the same nonsense - "97% of climate scientists says"- well if 97% of scientists say we need to sacrifice virgins does that means we start lining them up? Here's what Michael Crichton had to say about 97% of scientists:

"I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.

Let's be clear: The work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus."

As for the science being settled on human caused global warming (note "human caused" - if Mars is also warming, maybe the fact that it is a bit warmer outside has something to do with that big bright, hot ball in the sky we see every day, and not anything we are doing - after all it has been warmer in the past, and we weren't even around then) that was something made up by a British PR firm. Now, when a scientific theory requires a public relations firm isn't that a bit suspicious? Not to mention all the so called support for human global warming that turned out to be plain wrong, misleading or downright fraudulent - the hockey stick graph, climategate and all the rest.

Because, the point is, that the news media gets more people tuned in and hence more advertising dollars when there is a disaster, and when there isn't a real disaster, well, one has to be made up. Earth shattering asteroids, man eating fungi, man eating bacteria, swine flu, bird flu, marmot plague, anthrax, air pollution, light pollution, water pollution, cancer from cell phones, cancer from high tension wires, exploding homes caused by fracking, cancer from alar (remember that one?), cancer from cyclamates (another blast from the past), prions, global cooling, nuclear winter, race riots, terrorism, right wing terror, left wing terrorism (not so much), this thing that will kill you, that thing that will do the same....

and endlessly the hand wringers on television, on the net, in the streets, on the radio, an endless stream of these no character, chicken littles and boys who cry wolf, sometimes slick as can be, sometimes crude as can be - and they all say we need to listen and do what they say...and they constantly have their hand in our pockets - especially the global warmers who all have money in the game, especially Al Gore, and the environmental groups, some of which have candidly admitted, more or less, that "global warming is a mighty fine way to make some money."

Hand wringers out there - get some common sense - stop with the nonsense already!

Listen to the news the next month or so - I guarantee something new will be added to this list - these people are endlessly inventive - maybe mad cow disease, maybe something else but it is coming!

The Democratic Swindle

2012-04-17T14:13:00.001-07:00

Those who still believe that the Democratic party is legitimate should actually visit - or better yet - live in some of the areas where multi-generational poverty is a way of life. I saw this first hand in the 90's making appearances in Newark, Essex County New Jersey Juvenile Court. It was truly a scene out of Dickens, a decrepit old court room, an elderly judge, children as young as nine being brought up on drug dealing charges (one by selling drugs through the fence of the colloquially named 'Youth House' - itself a place out of Dickens) without any family member appearing for them. I heard the Judge say "where's the grandmother" over and over again. The children? Invariably African American. This in a place where the Democrats have been in power for a hundred years or more.

Or in Paterson, New Jersey, which used to have a rolling crime wave every afternoon when the mostly African American High School got out. Shopkeepers would close their stores, residents knew better than to be on the street - a scene out of the wild west, until a homeless man was killed by a group of students. Now, hordes of police patrol the area every afternoon when school gets out. This, in a place that has been controlled by Democrats, also for at least the last 100 years or so.

The point is this: whatever is being done isn't working, not only is it not working, there isn't any hope of conditions getting better....ever - EVER. There just should not be a group that year after year, decade after decade - for whom no matter how much money is spent - nothing changes except for the worse. How can we tolerate this, especially when Democrats are using the same tactics on recent immigrants i.e. Latinos?

How does this apply to welfare reform? It's this: Poverty should not be a racial issue, but it is because poverty and dependency seems to be intractable for an outsized part of the African American community - ask yourself: why is it that year after year African American leaders are always calling for more for the poor? And why is it that it NEVER changes, year by year decade by decade. We all expect it now, no one takes notice, it's part of the culture - and no one says anything because we have all been conditioned by Democratic media to keep quiet or face claims of racism. Hunh?

So no one even mentions the statistics about outsized crime rates, poverty rates, dismal educational achievements etc. in an outsized part of the African American community, and the lack of progress, despite billions, if not a trillion spent. Those who say anything are immediately tagged as racists by a Democratic media which - again - has conditioned all of us to remain silent at the risk of career killing racism charges.

Again, this applies to welfare because Democratic leaders have made welfare into a racial issue, equating welfare reform efforts with racism. What's racist, however, is perpetuating year after year a system, a paradigm, a culture or whatever you want to call it, where African Americans continue to have unbelievably high crime rates, dismal poverty rates, high unemployment rates, poor educational achievements etc. And where the people continue to re-elect leaders that every year fail to deliver, who by their continued failures show that they have little or no interest in doing anything other than squeezing every last penny out of the situation for them and their cronies - so that there is now an entire poverty industry dependent on the misery of the community, while retaining as much power as possible.

And yet again - the Democratic media ensures that any critique of the present awful situation is the same as racism, so that nothing changes, even after half a century of program after program, and billion after billion spent. SOMEONE has to point out that it isn't working, that money isn't the answer, that maybe a change of leadership is required. That the present Democratic leadership in the African American community has no interest in the changing the status quo since they get all the votes now, and a change for the better would result in less power, and less money.

In short, where else do you see no political consequences despite decades of failure?

As for other aspects of welfare reform, the Democratic Party has a vested interest in keeping as many people dependent on welfare for as long as possible. The reason is simple - the Democratic Party, historically the party of the KKK, Jim Crow, lynchings and slavery, has transformed itself into the party of government, and the more people dependent on government the more votes Democrats get. Prosperity is not the goal of this corrupt organization. It's as simple as that. And the New York Times, as the standard bearer of the Democratic Party, in a recent article on welfare reform uses its age old tactic of highlighting individual examples as support for their argument against welfare reform - in other words, anecdotal evidence. It's a dishonest way of proving a point, but dishonesty is what Democratic media is all about.

There should be outrage that this one organization and its supporters would ruin lives by the thousand, if not millions, by encouraging dependency, all in an effort to gain power. Why even discuss the cure for poverty and crime, that is, intact families with two parents (and hopefully, grandparents, aunts, uncles and cousins) all working together. But, then again, family is an anathema to blood sucking Democrats, who feed off of and encourage shattered families.

Obama Could Do it Better

2012-04-12T08:19:00.000-07:00

Ever watch a news story unfold and wonder why no one else sees what you see? Here's an example...

Forget what you have been told about leftist university professors and Democratic Party supporters - the average Democratic voter is characterized by a profound ability to either be manipulated or to be unable to break free from manipulation. Remember when the hypnotist came into your school and got those most susceptible to hypnosis to climb on stage and perform tricks? Now imagine the same thing on a massive scale and you have the Democratic Party's message politics. However, there doesn't appear to be any way to snap your fingers under the nose of these people and show them how they have been played for fools.

Two news stories caught my attention and are relevant to this discussion. The first concerned Obama. Apparently, Obama, a modest man, is in the habit of telling everyone that, no matter what the job they are doing, he - Obama - could do it better. Whether it be head of the FBI, his campaign manager, or the guy who shampoos the rugs, Obama believes he would be better at it and doesn't hesitate to say so. (we should remember that when recalling the press conference after Obama's 'shellacking' in November of 2010, when he fled the stage leaving it to Clinton. A very revealing incident).

The second story was about how Obama recycles phrases and even entire speeches. Obama has apparently taken to heart the advice that if you repeat something often enough it will be accepted as truth. Plus, he can rely on the Democratic media to cover for him.

Putting all this together what do have? Answer - George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin. Obama's campaign is all about doing it just like 2008 - even to the point of using the same campaign speeches. And what speech really galvanized the liberal white and African American voter? The speech delivered after the revelations about Reverend Wright. As unbelievable as this sounds, the Martin/Zimmerman story is being manipulated as a setup for a speech. In that sense it is similar to the reaction to Hurricane Katrina, which was also manipulation on a massive scale, as a response to African American voters taking a look at the Republican Party - remember the black leader in Los Angeles who changed his party affiliation from Democratic to Republican? Katrina was all about that. And the Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman story, for all its ironies (for example, if Zimmerman is a "white Latino" then what does that make Obama?) is about one thing, the forthcoming speech on race from Obama. It will be "the speech" and it follows a pattern in 2008.

It is sad indeed how no one has yet caught on to the fact that this is what it is all about - setting up a speech that will generate the same claptrap as in 2008, plus solidifying the African American vote, which is all Obama's anyway. But Obama knows how critical this vote really is, especially since it gives Obama an immunity about certain very uncomfortable issues. So the speech will come, on race, as before, and as before Democrats will cheer and those who are not Democrats will ignore it. But Obama will have accomplished his critical goal of bridging an all important enthusiasm gap, and following his own lead, while he shows everyone what a genius he is. That it is at such a cost in terms of relations between black and white (mostly black to white) means nothing to Obama.

This mean little man, who always thinks he is the smartest, maybe the only real person in the room, could care less about race relations. In that sense he truly represents the Democratic Party, its mean spirit, its arrogance, its overall intent to crush all opposition, no matter what the cost. And in so doing, to destroy a group of people - blacks - who have foolishly aligned themselves to this band of corruption, which has destroyed their community.

After all, with Democrats having taken everything from black Americans - family, safety, prosperity, education, self respect, what is left?