New York - The End of An Era

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 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?

The Democratic Swindle

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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