Why is it you never hear of the Democratic Party's role in promoting the Occupy Wall Street ("OWS") movement, and how it, along with media controlled by Democrats (such as top Obama advisor and General Electric's CEO Jeffrey Immelt's GENBC) has created and manipulated OWS for its own purposes?
What OWS is NOT is a legitimate grass roots movement. Rather it is a small core of die hard anarchists and rabble rouser's who have no plans other than to topple what's here, with just a fuzzy concept of what comes next. Unfortunately, when movements like OWS and other movements like it manage to have any degree of success the result never resembles a democracy. Instead, what is created are perfect conditions for people of ill will to step in. The best example - besides the French Revolution - is Iran.
How quickly we forget when the Democratic media wants it that way! In the late 1970's the all powerful Western media was gung ho on getting rid of the Shah, but of course too brainless to understand that what would replace the Shah would not be supporters of democracy, but a repressive theocracy - and a highly dangerous theocracy at that. Jimmy Carter, then and now an incompetent, was completely outmaneuvered, no difficult task. The Western media supported those seeking to bring down the regime, and down the regime went. The result was decades of repression, misery and world destabilization.
Of course, no one was taken to task for what happened in Iran. The Democratic media in the United States - among which are the major television networks - CBS, NBC, ABC, PBS, NPR, plus the N.Y. Times, Washington Post et als, never allows a former Democratic President to be considered poorly in retrospect (think of fellow incompetents Harry Truman and even more so - John Kennedy). So as quickly as possible sainthood was conferred on Jimmy Carter and his Arab dictatorship supporting "Carter Center." You have never, and will never hear a peep of criticism from the Democratic media of just how badly Carter handled the Iranian situation.
In fact, it is never mentioned at all.
So now we have the even more openly Democratic media wholeheartedly supporting "Occupy" movement. Naturally, there's an angle in it for the Democrats. Besides taking the spotlight off of Obama's economically and socially ruinous policies, the claim to a "movement" countering the Tea Party is used hand in glove to support Obama's campaign strategy of separating America into rich and poor. This isn't the time to go into how dangerous and un-American it is to divide the country into classes based on wealth, but it is a certainty that the Democratic media won't take Obama to task for it - heck lots of that media are working for Obama's campaign! In fact, the Democratic media is actively pressing ahead with the assumption - soon to be considered "fact" - that OWS is legitimate movement acting as a voice of the people, and by the way supporting Obama's class warfare campaign strategy.
And, typically, the Republicans fall into every trap laid for them by the Democrats - but again that's another story.
Maybe something more sinister is going on with the Democrats and OWS. But whatever it is, what OWS is not is a legitimate, spontaneous grass roots movement. Rather, it is a carefully planned, although who knows, perhaps poorly executed stunt aimed at bettering the Democrats chances in the next election.
And here's a prediction - the OWS movement will wither away, Cindy Sheehan style, if Obama wins the election and OWS's usefulness to the Democrats is over.
Because when you come right down to it, the power of the OWS movement is something wholly conferred by the Democratic media. That media is still immensely powerful, and has done a good job of taking a tiny group of people and making them into something they are not. Recall the hostility of the Democratic media to the far far larger Tea Party and the manipulation that has been used on those already subject to a lifetime of conditioning to convince them that the Tea Party movement is somehow 'racist.' This despite the fact that race and social issues aren't any part of the Tea Party agenda. But then again, prevarication, falsehoods, exaggerations, omissions and outright lies are just means to an end for the Democratic media.
And, most troubling is that the issues discussed above don't ever seem to be examined by anyone - again, where are the Republicans? Of course, Republican failures with respect to the Democratic media is another subject entirely.
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
Friday, February 17, 2012
Masochists And Other Taxpayers
As you look at the endemic corruption that is so ingrained in the Democratic part of government and that's with a capital "D", one has to wonder - how is it possible that taxpayers can be so stupid?
For those who enjoy being raped, robbed, beaten, pillaged and raped there are the public unions (they likes rape) - a very bad idea in principle and a far worse idea in practice. So, let's start with this premise: public unions are based on and operated for a corrupt purpose at the behest of the most corrupt institution on the planet, the Democratic Party. And such unions exist only as a means to funnel taxpayer dollars to the Democratic Party and its causes.
Anyone see a problem here? It doesn't take a rocket scientist - but where are the taxpayers? (sound of whipping).
It doesn't have to be this way - public unions are entirely creatures of statute - hey everyone! There is no right under federal law or the federal Constitution that gives public workers the right to unionize. As such, the individual states and their masochistic voters have complete control over these entities - they control the formation, the rules under which unions are run, the state is in charge of everything - the voters say "go away" and these entities go away. And "go away" is a good idea since in practice, since the way the unions are run is premised on this corrupt purpose, that the unions can use what are essentially state taxpayer funds as a means to influence legislators from one political party (Democratic), which in return for monetary support ensures that the unions get....whatever they want.
In the process, the entire system of governance is corrupted - and not the least the Democratic Party that benefits from these monies.
The emergence of public unions as the most influential group in State politics where unions exist cements the Republican Party's title as the "stupid party." Stupid is of course far better than corrupt. The failure of the Republicans to speak out in plain terms - and even Chris Christie does not talk about the corrupting influence of public unions with the degree of precision that this issue deserves - about public unions is inexplicable. How could Republicans have failed to see and failed to speak out about the terrible consequences of allowing state employees to unionize and donate money (and/or spend money in causes that influence voters to choose Democratic candidates) to the very legislators that determine wages and benefits? Could not Republicans figure out that these entities would be used as a pathway by which Democrats could have access to the public fisc for precious campaign dollars or to media that influences elections?
Just plain stupid - really really stupid.
Of course, it's the Democrats who have allowed themselves to make a devils bargain - by accepting campaign dollars from public unions, or support from such unions, Democrats ensure that government in those states which enact statutes allowing public workers to unionize will never have their fiscal house in order. Democrats, while paying a pretend game of freedom from influence from public unions, have to dance to the tune played by the unions no matter the consequences, including destruction of the private economy as the level of taxation rises so high that economic activity is stifled. Of course, to Democrats, lack of prosperity is never a concern - in fact, prosperity is an anathema to Democrats, since poor people vote for Democrats. So, for Democrats, the poorer the better, and if people stay poor, that's even better. Heck, ask African Americans - the perfect Democratic constituency - how well things are going after 50 or so years of solid - SOLID - support for Democrats. (more sound of whipping). That this is a short sighted view never seems to make a difference to Democrats. In fact, in their own way Democrats are stupid, but their corruption is such that it masks the stupidity. And stupidity and corruption is a dangerous combination that allows Democrats to be controlled by smart people with evil, corrupt intentions - like George Soros. If you want to see extreme evil combined with extreme corruption take a look at Soros's 28 year old Brazilian girlfriend. (how could she? HOW COULD SHE?).
It could be - although probably not - that those who made the original decision to go the route of allowing public unions may not have realized their mistake until it was too late. But, despite Wisconsin and Ohio, typically once government employees are unionized there is no going back - these entities are way too powerful. In New York for example, there is a political party ironically and somewhat humorously called the "Working Families Party" that entirely consists of government workers - and the WFP is a force to be reckoned with. The consequences of course, are a loss of political power for the State as a whole (i.e. the loss of two Congressional seats every ten years) as the population votes on the system with their feet. To add a touch of irony, the population loss is perfectly acceptable to Democrats, since by ridding the state of those who oppose their corrupt agenda, power is consolidated in those remaining. And, in places like New York, California and elsewhere, the lost population can be imported through immigration. Since it takes immigrants two or three generations to understand that Democrats are NOT the party of the poor (unless the object is to remain poor) Democrats can count on the votes of newcomers, for awhile at least.
But, you also have to wonder about this - when it is said that public unions are so powerful in many states that they can't be ousted, just what does that mean? What it actually means is that the unions have enough money to throw around to run commercials that influence the public to not do what should be done and get rid of these obscenities. In fact, it is so easy to manipulate the taxpayers - or rather the voters, which is certainly not the same thing since nowadays not too many voters pay taxes - that public unions not only stick around but they get what they want from legislators. That says not much about the public unions since we already know how bad they are, but it does say loads about masochistic voters, especially that part of the voters who are also taxpayers. (more sounds of whipping).
Sigh.....corruption when combined with stupidity and masochism equals a pretty dismal prospect for the future. Fortunately, there are still places where the corrupting influence of public unions are absent, but as a whole, as such unions are able to influence policy at the federal level, the future is anything but bright.
Especially for those stupid masochistic taxpayers.
For those who enjoy being raped, robbed, beaten, pillaged and raped there are the public unions (they likes rape) - a very bad idea in principle and a far worse idea in practice. So, let's start with this premise: public unions are based on and operated for a corrupt purpose at the behest of the most corrupt institution on the planet, the Democratic Party. And such unions exist only as a means to funnel taxpayer dollars to the Democratic Party and its causes.
Anyone see a problem here? It doesn't take a rocket scientist - but where are the taxpayers? (sound of whipping).
It doesn't have to be this way - public unions are entirely creatures of statute - hey everyone! There is no right under federal law or the federal Constitution that gives public workers the right to unionize. As such, the individual states and their masochistic voters have complete control over these entities - they control the formation, the rules under which unions are run, the state is in charge of everything - the voters say "go away" and these entities go away. And "go away" is a good idea since in practice, since the way the unions are run is premised on this corrupt purpose, that the unions can use what are essentially state taxpayer funds as a means to influence legislators from one political party (Democratic), which in return for monetary support ensures that the unions get....whatever they want.
In the process, the entire system of governance is corrupted - and not the least the Democratic Party that benefits from these monies.
The emergence of public unions as the most influential group in State politics where unions exist cements the Republican Party's title as the "stupid party." Stupid is of course far better than corrupt. The failure of the Republicans to speak out in plain terms - and even Chris Christie does not talk about the corrupting influence of public unions with the degree of precision that this issue deserves - about public unions is inexplicable. How could Republicans have failed to see and failed to speak out about the terrible consequences of allowing state employees to unionize and donate money (and/or spend money in causes that influence voters to choose Democratic candidates) to the very legislators that determine wages and benefits? Could not Republicans figure out that these entities would be used as a pathway by which Democrats could have access to the public fisc for precious campaign dollars or to media that influences elections?
Just plain stupid - really really stupid.
Of course, it's the Democrats who have allowed themselves to make a devils bargain - by accepting campaign dollars from public unions, or support from such unions, Democrats ensure that government in those states which enact statutes allowing public workers to unionize will never have their fiscal house in order. Democrats, while paying a pretend game of freedom from influence from public unions, have to dance to the tune played by the unions no matter the consequences, including destruction of the private economy as the level of taxation rises so high that economic activity is stifled. Of course, to Democrats, lack of prosperity is never a concern - in fact, prosperity is an anathema to Democrats, since poor people vote for Democrats. So, for Democrats, the poorer the better, and if people stay poor, that's even better. Heck, ask African Americans - the perfect Democratic constituency - how well things are going after 50 or so years of solid - SOLID - support for Democrats. (more sound of whipping). That this is a short sighted view never seems to make a difference to Democrats. In fact, in their own way Democrats are stupid, but their corruption is such that it masks the stupidity. And stupidity and corruption is a dangerous combination that allows Democrats to be controlled by smart people with evil, corrupt intentions - like George Soros. If you want to see extreme evil combined with extreme corruption take a look at Soros's 28 year old Brazilian girlfriend. (how could she? HOW COULD SHE?).
It could be - although probably not - that those who made the original decision to go the route of allowing public unions may not have realized their mistake until it was too late. But, despite Wisconsin and Ohio, typically once government employees are unionized there is no going back - these entities are way too powerful. In New York for example, there is a political party ironically and somewhat humorously called the "Working Families Party" that entirely consists of government workers - and the WFP is a force to be reckoned with. The consequences of course, are a loss of political power for the State as a whole (i.e. the loss of two Congressional seats every ten years) as the population votes on the system with their feet. To add a touch of irony, the population loss is perfectly acceptable to Democrats, since by ridding the state of those who oppose their corrupt agenda, power is consolidated in those remaining. And, in places like New York, California and elsewhere, the lost population can be imported through immigration. Since it takes immigrants two or three generations to understand that Democrats are NOT the party of the poor (unless the object is to remain poor) Democrats can count on the votes of newcomers, for awhile at least.
But, you also have to wonder about this - when it is said that public unions are so powerful in many states that they can't be ousted, just what does that mean? What it actually means is that the unions have enough money to throw around to run commercials that influence the public to not do what should be done and get rid of these obscenities. In fact, it is so easy to manipulate the taxpayers - or rather the voters, which is certainly not the same thing since nowadays not too many voters pay taxes - that public unions not only stick around but they get what they want from legislators. That says not much about the public unions since we already know how bad they are, but it does say loads about masochistic voters, especially that part of the voters who are also taxpayers. (more sounds of whipping).
Sigh.....corruption when combined with stupidity and masochism equals a pretty dismal prospect for the future. Fortunately, there are still places where the corrupting influence of public unions are absent, but as a whole, as such unions are able to influence policy at the federal level, the future is anything but bright.
Especially for those stupid masochistic taxpayers.
Monday, February 13, 2012
The Democrats Ruthless Quest for Power in California
For those who didn't already know here's the reason why we have so many immigrants, legal and illegal, in California:
One reason and one reason only - the plan by Democrats to transform a red state to a blue state. And it has worked beautifully - Democrats, sometimes with the aid of duped Republicans like Reagan and Bush, used traditional charitable impulses enhanced by a goading media in a cynical maneuver aimed at achieving political power. No other reason.
And power is what it is all about for the Democratic party (aka 'the most corrupt organization on the planet') - the demographic change in California is solely about what's good for the Democratic Party, and NOTHING else. The fact that what has happened has destroyed a state that was at one time the top in education and the economy means nothing to these people, all that matters is power.
As I've written elsewhere, an analysis of what has happened in California, why it happened and what's going to happen cannot be looked at in terms of what's traditionally thought of as rational. Rationally, one would expect a government that seeks improvements in education, reduction in crime and toward prosperity. Democrats have learned that the consequences of a community relatively free from crime, with high educational achievement, and prosperity is a loss of power. Since Democrats get 100% majorities when the population is poor, the community has high crime rates and educational achievement is low what we see and hear from Democrats is lots of lip service about improvements based on these three factors, but that's all it is - the goal is to extract as much money as possible to treat these conditions while ensuring that nothing improves, while tax money is transferred to favored causes and, more important, party coffers.
In short, for Democrats in California and elsewhere the worst outcome would be an "improvement" in people's lives. So, the African American community in the inner cities is, 50 years after giving Democrats 100% loyalty, in dismal shape (see Heather MacDonald's articles on Chicago). Of course, that depends on how one defines 'dismal.' For Democrats, conditions in the inner cities are not dismal at all. I recently had a conversation with someone living in Paterson, New Jersey - he told me of what used to be a rolling crime wave every afternoon when the heavily African American high school lets out the students for the day. Shop keepers would close, people would avoid that area until a few hours later. This was only addressed after the killing of a homeless man - now Paterson police surround the neighborhood on school days in an effort to prevent crime. However, in Paterson, Democrats are and have been in solid control for decades and decades - Republicans don't even bother to run candidates. One would think that after 50 years people would wake up to the fact that the one party system is what's causing the problems, but instead a Democratic lock on the local and national media prevent any discussion of Democratic policy failures in the community. (again, for Democrats - these are policy successes, not failures - the Democratic agenda is premised on maintaining power, not improving lives). And no amount of failure at improving lives ever leads to a loss of power for Democrats - it never happens.
And so it goes for California and elsewhere, where Latinos can look forward to, not lives of prosperity, low crime and high educational achievement, but rather, as a result of Democratic control, the destruction of the family, the criminalization of the community, little or no educational achievement, permanent conditions of poverty, and leaders selected for their loyalty to party, and ability to maintain the status quo. And a media that maintains a seamless connection to party which blames the so called "problems" on lack of money and Republicans, and attacks any criticism of party leaders and their record as 'racist.'
What's set forth above is THE Democratic plan for California, so we may as well get used to it. It's a plan under which Democrats have maintained power in urban areas throughout the United States for scores of years now. And it has a 100% success rate - in no area where Democrats have taken control have they lost it.
In fact, California is the ultimate success story for Democrats - provided there is an understanding of what Democrats mean by 'success.' So, with California and with Latinos the Democrats impose a new holocaust. And that is very much what it is - what else would you call permanent conditions of poverty, crime and zero educational achievement? What else would you call what Democrats have done to African Americans for last 50 years?
One reason and one reason only - the plan by Democrats to transform a red state to a blue state. And it has worked beautifully - Democrats, sometimes with the aid of duped Republicans like Reagan and Bush, used traditional charitable impulses enhanced by a goading media in a cynical maneuver aimed at achieving political power. No other reason.
And power is what it is all about for the Democratic party (aka 'the most corrupt organization on the planet') - the demographic change in California is solely about what's good for the Democratic Party, and NOTHING else. The fact that what has happened has destroyed a state that was at one time the top in education and the economy means nothing to these people, all that matters is power.
As I've written elsewhere, an analysis of what has happened in California, why it happened and what's going to happen cannot be looked at in terms of what's traditionally thought of as rational. Rationally, one would expect a government that seeks improvements in education, reduction in crime and toward prosperity. Democrats have learned that the consequences of a community relatively free from crime, with high educational achievement, and prosperity is a loss of power. Since Democrats get 100% majorities when the population is poor, the community has high crime rates and educational achievement is low what we see and hear from Democrats is lots of lip service about improvements based on these three factors, but that's all it is - the goal is to extract as much money as possible to treat these conditions while ensuring that nothing improves, while tax money is transferred to favored causes and, more important, party coffers.
In short, for Democrats in California and elsewhere the worst outcome would be an "improvement" in people's lives. So, the African American community in the inner cities is, 50 years after giving Democrats 100% loyalty, in dismal shape (see Heather MacDonald's articles on Chicago). Of course, that depends on how one defines 'dismal.' For Democrats, conditions in the inner cities are not dismal at all. I recently had a conversation with someone living in Paterson, New Jersey - he told me of what used to be a rolling crime wave every afternoon when the heavily African American high school lets out the students for the day. Shop keepers would close, people would avoid that area until a few hours later. This was only addressed after the killing of a homeless man - now Paterson police surround the neighborhood on school days in an effort to prevent crime. However, in Paterson, Democrats are and have been in solid control for decades and decades - Republicans don't even bother to run candidates. One would think that after 50 years people would wake up to the fact that the one party system is what's causing the problems, but instead a Democratic lock on the local and national media prevent any discussion of Democratic policy failures in the community. (again, for Democrats - these are policy successes, not failures - the Democratic agenda is premised on maintaining power, not improving lives). And no amount of failure at improving lives ever leads to a loss of power for Democrats - it never happens.
And so it goes for California and elsewhere, where Latinos can look forward to, not lives of prosperity, low crime and high educational achievement, but rather, as a result of Democratic control, the destruction of the family, the criminalization of the community, little or no educational achievement, permanent conditions of poverty, and leaders selected for their loyalty to party, and ability to maintain the status quo. And a media that maintains a seamless connection to party which blames the so called "problems" on lack of money and Republicans, and attacks any criticism of party leaders and their record as 'racist.'
What's set forth above is THE Democratic plan for California, so we may as well get used to it. It's a plan under which Democrats have maintained power in urban areas throughout the United States for scores of years now. And it has a 100% success rate - in no area where Democrats have taken control have they lost it.
In fact, California is the ultimate success story for Democrats - provided there is an understanding of what Democrats mean by 'success.' So, with California and with Latinos the Democrats impose a new holocaust. And that is very much what it is - what else would you call permanent conditions of poverty, crime and zero educational achievement? What else would you call what Democrats have done to African Americans for last 50 years?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)