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.
Monday, July 30, 2012
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.
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.
Most important, having adopted the simplistic formula that equates education with money, the self appointed rules of the kingdom of New Jersey have put the squeeze on, and the results haven't been pretty. I recall working with the New Jersey School Construction Corporation - the so-called experts in this agency simply forgot that part of the expense of building a school included land acquisition! Alice in Wonderland indeed - six billion spent and not much to show for it - in fact, land purchased by the SCC is still laying vacant waiting for schools that will never be built. The law of unintended consequences strikes again, as it has with everything the Court does.
Plus, the guiding principle of the Court has been to see everything from the Democratic left - the very liberal left, which believes government can solve any problem. Thus, and not mentioned is that the Court has never seen an environmental law that it didn't like and wouldn't uphold, no matter what the impact on property ownership. Thus the Court has upheld laws that have made it impossible to use land, but it also has made it functionally impossible to make a claim of regulatory takings - requiring not only that the laws and regulations leave the owner with no value whatsoever, but also that the owner go through the time and expense of having a development plan rejected, again and again. In the process, the Court has upheld laws that placed huge areas of the Republican part of New Jersey off limits to development, thus ensuring that the power stays in the Democratic urban areas.
The Court has adopted rulings that affect every area of life, from, as pointed out, zoning and education, but also reproductive health, going even further than Roe v, Wade. Every time the Court usurps another area given by the Constitution to the legislature, the people lose more liberty - there being no appeal from the real rulers of New Jersey.
The people of New Jersey have, of course, voted with their feet - even massive immigration didn't prevent the state from losing another Congressional seat after the last census. It is a trend likely to continue here in the Kingdom of the New Jersey Supreme Court.
WHEN WILL SOMEONE SAYS SOMETHING PART II
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.
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
WHERE IS THE AFRICAN AMERICAN LEADER WHO WILL LEAD HIS PEOPLE OUT OF THE WILDERNESS?
"For Democrats poverty is the objective, not a condition to be avoided."
Once you see Democrats in that light it all makes sense. Democrats pay almost no price when the economy is bad - in fact they get more votes, since poor people vote Democratic in the mistaken belief that Democrats are for poor people. True enough, if the goal is to stay poor.
And yes, Democrats do give benefits to poor people, but just enough so that they can maintain, not enough to get them out of poverty. And, of course, the money will one day run out, but to these people that does not matter one bit. Power at any price is the goal.
Welcome to the Democratic Party - the most corrupt organization on planet Earth.
If you have any doubts about it, look at the African American experience with the Democratic Party the last 50 years. After 50 years of Democratic leadership shouldn't blacks be worried about excessive wealth? Didn't happen - instead many if not most blacks are part of a permanent underclass. And the way things are arranged to even talk about that fact is equivalent to racism - Democratic media has conditioned the public to stay silent on how poorly blacks have done the last 50 years.
So...what would you say about an organization that has arranged it so that blacks live in a state of high crime, low education, shattered families and governmental dependence? To me what it is is consistent with Democrats prior activity as the party of slavery, the KKK, "separate but equal", lynchings and Jim Crow.
One day a leader will arise in the black community who will see things for what they are and demand appointment of a truth commission to look at the modern day holocaust committed by Democrats. That day can't happen soon enough - or are we to lose more generations?
THE MOST CORRUPT ORGANIZATION ON PLANET EARTH
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?
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)