Wednesday, December 12, 2012


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.

Wednesday, November 14, 2012


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.

Monday, November 5, 2012


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.

Wednesday, September 5, 2012


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.

Friday, August 31, 2012


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.

Friday, August 24, 2012


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.

Monday, August 20, 2012


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.

Monday, July 30, 2012

Saying the Same Thing Again and Again

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.   

Tuesday, July 24, 2012

More About Democratic Party Corruption

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

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.


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.

Monday, July 9, 2012


"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?


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?

Wednesday, May 23, 2012

The New Democratic America

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.

Thursday, May 3, 2012

The Black Experience with the Democratic Party

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?

Friday, April 27, 2012


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!