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
THE FEAR GAME
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!
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!
Tuesday, April 17, 2012
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.
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.
Thursday, April 12, 2012
Obama Could Do it Better
Ever watch a news story unfold and wonder why no one else sees what you see? Here's an example...
Forget what you have been told about leftist university professors and Democratic Party supporters - the average Democratic voter is characterized by a profound ability to either be manipulated or to be unable to break free from manipulation. Remember when the hypnotist came into your school and got those most susceptible to hypnosis to climb on stage and perform tricks? Now imagine the same thing on a massive scale and you have the Democratic Party's message politics. However, there doesn't appear to be any way to snap your fingers under the nose of these people and show them how they have been played for fools.
Two news stories caught my attention and are relevant to this discussion. The first concerned Obama. Apparently, Obama, a modest man, is in the habit of telling everyone that, no matter what the job they are doing, he - Obama - could do it better. Whether it be head of the FBI, his campaign manager, or the guy who shampoos the rugs, Obama believes he would be better at it and doesn't hesitate to say so. (we should remember that when recalling the press conference after Obama's 'shellacking' in November of 2010, when he fled the stage leaving it to Clinton. A very revealing incident).
The second story was about how Obama recycles phrases and even entire speeches. Obama has apparently taken to heart the advice that if you repeat something often enough it will be accepted as truth. Plus, he can rely on the Democratic media to cover for him.
Putting all this together what do have? Answer - George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin. Obama's campaign is all about doing it just like 2008 - even to the point of using the same campaign speeches. And what speech really galvanized the liberal white and African American voter? The speech delivered after the revelations about Reverend Wright. As unbelievable as this sounds, the Martin/Zimmerman story is being manipulated as a setup for a speech. In that sense it is similar to the reaction to Hurricane Katrina, which was also manipulation on a massive scale, as a response to African American voters taking a look at the Republican Party - remember the black leader in Los Angeles who changed his party affiliation from Democratic to Republican? Katrina was all about that. And the Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman story, for all its ironies (for example, if Zimmerman is a "white Latino" then what does that make Obama?) is about one thing, the forthcoming speech on race from Obama. It will be "the speech" and it follows a pattern in 2008.
It is sad indeed how no one has yet caught on to the fact that this is what it is all about - setting up a speech that will generate the same claptrap as in 2008, plus solidifying the African American vote, which is all Obama's anyway. But Obama knows how critical this vote really is, especially since it gives Obama an immunity about certain very uncomfortable issues. So the speech will come, on race, as before, and as before Democrats will cheer and those who are not Democrats will ignore it. But Obama will have accomplished his critical goal of bridging an all important enthusiasm gap, and following his own lead, while he shows everyone what a genius he is. That it is at such a cost in terms of relations between black and white (mostly black to white) means nothing to Obama.
This mean little man, who always thinks he is the smartest, maybe the only real person in the room, could care less about race relations. In that sense he truly represents the Democratic Party, its mean spirit, its arrogance, its overall intent to crush all opposition, no matter what the cost. And in so doing, to destroy a group of people - blacks - who have foolishly aligned themselves to this band of corruption, which has destroyed their community.
After all, with Democrats having taken everything from black Americans - family, safety, prosperity, education, self respect, what is left?
Forget what you have been told about leftist university professors and Democratic Party supporters - the average Democratic voter is characterized by a profound ability to either be manipulated or to be unable to break free from manipulation. Remember when the hypnotist came into your school and got those most susceptible to hypnosis to climb on stage and perform tricks? Now imagine the same thing on a massive scale and you have the Democratic Party's message politics. However, there doesn't appear to be any way to snap your fingers under the nose of these people and show them how they have been played for fools.
Two news stories caught my attention and are relevant to this discussion. The first concerned Obama. Apparently, Obama, a modest man, is in the habit of telling everyone that, no matter what the job they are doing, he - Obama - could do it better. Whether it be head of the FBI, his campaign manager, or the guy who shampoos the rugs, Obama believes he would be better at it and doesn't hesitate to say so. (we should remember that when recalling the press conference after Obama's 'shellacking' in November of 2010, when he fled the stage leaving it to Clinton. A very revealing incident).
The second story was about how Obama recycles phrases and even entire speeches. Obama has apparently taken to heart the advice that if you repeat something often enough it will be accepted as truth. Plus, he can rely on the Democratic media to cover for him.
Putting all this together what do have? Answer - George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin. Obama's campaign is all about doing it just like 2008 - even to the point of using the same campaign speeches. And what speech really galvanized the liberal white and African American voter? The speech delivered after the revelations about Reverend Wright. As unbelievable as this sounds, the Martin/Zimmerman story is being manipulated as a setup for a speech. In that sense it is similar to the reaction to Hurricane Katrina, which was also manipulation on a massive scale, as a response to African American voters taking a look at the Republican Party - remember the black leader in Los Angeles who changed his party affiliation from Democratic to Republican? Katrina was all about that. And the Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman story, for all its ironies (for example, if Zimmerman is a "white Latino" then what does that make Obama?) is about one thing, the forthcoming speech on race from Obama. It will be "the speech" and it follows a pattern in 2008.
It is sad indeed how no one has yet caught on to the fact that this is what it is all about - setting up a speech that will generate the same claptrap as in 2008, plus solidifying the African American vote, which is all Obama's anyway. But Obama knows how critical this vote really is, especially since it gives Obama an immunity about certain very uncomfortable issues. So the speech will come, on race, as before, and as before Democrats will cheer and those who are not Democrats will ignore it. But Obama will have accomplished his critical goal of bridging an all important enthusiasm gap, and following his own lead, while he shows everyone what a genius he is. That it is at such a cost in terms of relations between black and white (mostly black to white) means nothing to Obama.
This mean little man, who always thinks he is the smartest, maybe the only real person in the room, could care less about race relations. In that sense he truly represents the Democratic Party, its mean spirit, its arrogance, its overall intent to crush all opposition, no matter what the cost. And in so doing, to destroy a group of people - blacks - who have foolishly aligned themselves to this band of corruption, which has destroyed their community.
After all, with Democrats having taken everything from black Americans - family, safety, prosperity, education, self respect, what is left?
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
The Dilemma
Not long ago I participated in a discussion about the terrible damage caused by the Democratic Party, and how it is difficult to think about it without feeling hatred for those who are destroying an entire nation. How can you not feel hatred - for an organization which for a century and a half now has caused such misery and destruction, and whose rare and always flatfooted efforts at doing good always causes even greater misery?
This site has focused on African Americans since they more than anyone else have suffered from the corruption, arrogance and plain evil of the Democratic Party. The Democrats and African Americans have a long, long, long history together, dating back when the Democrats were the party of the slave owning antebellum South, as well as in the post civil war South of Jim Crow, segregation and lynchings. Through it all the Democratic Party held sway over an entire region whose way of life was premised on the worst sort of racist repression. In the north, the Democrats became associated with big city corruption, and in an ironic twist, with the social policies of Franklin Roosevelt, among others. Somehow an evil partnership developed between the politicians of the urban north who used liberal policies to advance corrupt agendas, and virulently racist Southern Democrats. This has changed of course - the Republicans are now the leading party of the South and include many former Democrats. However, the racist policies of Southern Democrats has never been adopted by the Republicans, despite nonsense from the Democrats to the contrary - indeed what else would you expect Democrats to say about the loss of the South?
Nevertheless, the reasons the whites left and continue to abandon the Democrats is not because of racial politics, instead it is leftist policies, which it is plain to to anyone with a brain and without a corrupt agenda has caused misery and destruction everywhere these policies are implemented. In other words, the racist policies of the Southern Democrats were left at the door when they joined the Republicans - indeed, this was the basis upon which Democrats were allowed to join. However, in the Democrats twisted view, refusal by Republicans in the South (or anywhere else) to commit to liberal polices which resulted in the ruin of northern blacks is coincident with racism.
Of course, Democrats refuse to admit to or apologize for their past (and continuing) racist repression of blacks and partnership with segregationist Southern Democrats. For the Democratic controlled media more grounded in "1984" than anything else, history is meaningless - in fact according to this media, the racist, repressive policies of the old and new South has always been Republican.
Welcome to Orwellian modern America.
Through most of American history, the Democratic Party has been a pestilence on the African American people. And it is in the Democratic treatment of African Americans that one can see the outlines of the Democratic plan for the country as a whole. It has not been lost on the Democrats that in return for imposition of dependence, joblessness, crime, lack of education and misery, African Americans have rewarded Democrats with close to 100% of the vote. In an ultimate irony the Democrats have seen in their destruction of the African American community, a scheme for the rest of the country, starting with Latinos and poor whites. It's goal is power for the few in return for misery for many, and it is based on abuse of the best impulses in those remaining. It is a plan premised on the Democratic Party's corruption, arrogance and an endless, unquenchable thirst for power.
So, how precisely should we react to an organization whose goal is the ruin of a free people? The Democrats, having relied on using the charitable impulses of those whom they seek to destroy and have endeavored to corrupt, perhaps are not prepared for disgust at their arrogance and delight in destruction.
This site has focused on African Americans since they more than anyone else have suffered from the corruption, arrogance and plain evil of the Democratic Party. The Democrats and African Americans have a long, long, long history together, dating back when the Democrats were the party of the slave owning antebellum South, as well as in the post civil war South of Jim Crow, segregation and lynchings. Through it all the Democratic Party held sway over an entire region whose way of life was premised on the worst sort of racist repression. In the north, the Democrats became associated with big city corruption, and in an ironic twist, with the social policies of Franklin Roosevelt, among others. Somehow an evil partnership developed between the politicians of the urban north who used liberal policies to advance corrupt agendas, and virulently racist Southern Democrats. This has changed of course - the Republicans are now the leading party of the South and include many former Democrats. However, the racist policies of Southern Democrats has never been adopted by the Republicans, despite nonsense from the Democrats to the contrary - indeed what else would you expect Democrats to say about the loss of the South?
Nevertheless, the reasons the whites left and continue to abandon the Democrats is not because of racial politics, instead it is leftist policies, which it is plain to to anyone with a brain and without a corrupt agenda has caused misery and destruction everywhere these policies are implemented. In other words, the racist policies of the Southern Democrats were left at the door when they joined the Republicans - indeed, this was the basis upon which Democrats were allowed to join. However, in the Democrats twisted view, refusal by Republicans in the South (or anywhere else) to commit to liberal polices which resulted in the ruin of northern blacks is coincident with racism.
Of course, Democrats refuse to admit to or apologize for their past (and continuing) racist repression of blacks and partnership with segregationist Southern Democrats. For the Democratic controlled media more grounded in "1984" than anything else, history is meaningless - in fact according to this media, the racist, repressive policies of the old and new South has always been Republican.
Welcome to Orwellian modern America.
Through most of American history, the Democratic Party has been a pestilence on the African American people. And it is in the Democratic treatment of African Americans that one can see the outlines of the Democratic plan for the country as a whole. It has not been lost on the Democrats that in return for imposition of dependence, joblessness, crime, lack of education and misery, African Americans have rewarded Democrats with close to 100% of the vote. In an ultimate irony the Democrats have seen in their destruction of the African American community, a scheme for the rest of the country, starting with Latinos and poor whites. It's goal is power for the few in return for misery for many, and it is based on abuse of the best impulses in those remaining. It is a plan premised on the Democratic Party's corruption, arrogance and an endless, unquenchable thirst for power.
So, how precisely should we react to an organization whose goal is the ruin of a free people? The Democrats, having relied on using the charitable impulses of those whom they seek to destroy and have endeavored to corrupt, perhaps are not prepared for disgust at their arrogance and delight in destruction.
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
Calfornia There You GO
So what's is new in California? Nothing good. Public unions contribute oodles of money to the Democratic Party so don't expect change except for the worse (worse as normal people think it, not Democrats) - the unions simply have too much power over the people who are in power in California.
Why is it that no one figured out that allowing public workers to unionize AND allowing them to make political contributions or to support political causes would be a bad thing?
But, of course, the creation of public unions and donating to the Democratic Party was something that went hand in hand. So the Democratic Party knew exactly what was going to happen when public workers were allowed to unionize - for Democrats public unions were a huge success since for the first time it provided a ready source of campaign money that originates from the public fisc - all taxpayers contribute.
So we all get to donate money to Democrats! Not only are Democrats the party of government, they are funded by government, while Republicans have to beg for money from the people - the 'little' people.
In short, the unions and the Democratic party entered into a corrupt bargain under which the unions were created and Democrats give to the unions generous wage and benefit packages, in return for which the unions make sure that Democrats were well supplied with taxpayer money. It's a beautiful arrangement - taxpayers fund not only the workers but the party as well.
Best of all the major media doesn't say a word about this arrangement since they are in favor of anything that helps the Democrats. Naturally, the Democrats provide well for media, to the point of employing large numbers of media in Democratic campaigns. The money gets spread around.As a consequence, public unions became very powerful and Democrats got lots of money so they win more elections, which allowed the Democrats to give more wages and benefits to unions which in return gave more money to supporting Democrats and to Democratic causes which allowed Democrats to win even more elections. It all goes round and round and round.
The problem is that what we have is not a workable arrangement for a prosperous, well functioning society. Plus people are still free to vote on this arrangement with their feet, which they are doing by fleeing from blue states. So, the Democrats need to import voters which they have been very successful in doing, legally and illegally - while at the same time rewarding those who come here with liberal benefits to ensure that the Democrats get even more votes.
The result of this sick, corrupt, arrangement for California? California went from:
--a highly functioning state with an educational system and educated population second to none,
--with low crime,
--an efficient public sector capable of doing great things at relatively low cost that taxed at an affordable rate,
--an economy that was the envy of the world,
--with mostly intact families that
--voted mostly for Republicans,
to a State with:
--shattered families and high crime,
--an inefficient, highly expensive, hugely corrupt public sector incapable of even providing basic services,
--a hugely expensive educational system that doesn't educate,
--an economy in tatters, which is the envy of none
--a confiscatory taxation and regulatory system
--and a hundred other problems too numerous to list here
--voting mostly for Democrats who are doing everything possible to destroy what had been built under the Republicans, since it drives away those who disagree with Democrats, allowing them to consolidate power so they can pass laws that drive more Republicans from the State so that....and on and on and on.
Democrats have employed its corrupt governance model everywhere they have power. Like locusts Democrats destroy everything everywhere they go. The California model - perfected in the cities - is rapidly expanding elsewhere, and is essentially the Democratic plan for the nation. That it leads to a corrupt, decaying society is inevitable, with the consequence being exactly what you can imagine - poverty, a two class system and - let's face it - the end to our democracy.
Worst of all this is being done under the very noses of a populations in the nation that have been manipulated to go along with what is being done - Democratic media is a master at manipulation and conditioning.
The saying is where California goes, the rest of the country follows. And, absent some miracle which no one should expect, or some massive awakening, which likewise isn't going to happen - what is going on in California is where the rest of the nation will be. It's too late to change for California and probably too late for the rest of us as well.
Thank you George Bush. Thank you Barrack Obama - you killed a country.
Why is it that no one figured out that allowing public workers to unionize AND allowing them to make political contributions or to support political causes would be a bad thing?
But, of course, the creation of public unions and donating to the Democratic Party was something that went hand in hand. So the Democratic Party knew exactly what was going to happen when public workers were allowed to unionize - for Democrats public unions were a huge success since for the first time it provided a ready source of campaign money that originates from the public fisc - all taxpayers contribute.
So we all get to donate money to Democrats! Not only are Democrats the party of government, they are funded by government, while Republicans have to beg for money from the people - the 'little' people.
In short, the unions and the Democratic party entered into a corrupt bargain under which the unions were created and Democrats give to the unions generous wage and benefit packages, in return for which the unions make sure that Democrats were well supplied with taxpayer money. It's a beautiful arrangement - taxpayers fund not only the workers but the party as well.
Best of all the major media doesn't say a word about this arrangement since they are in favor of anything that helps the Democrats. Naturally, the Democrats provide well for media, to the point of employing large numbers of media in Democratic campaigns. The money gets spread around.As a consequence, public unions became very powerful and Democrats got lots of money so they win more elections, which allowed the Democrats to give more wages and benefits to unions which in return gave more money to supporting Democrats and to Democratic causes which allowed Democrats to win even more elections. It all goes round and round and round.
The problem is that what we have is not a workable arrangement for a prosperous, well functioning society. Plus people are still free to vote on this arrangement with their feet, which they are doing by fleeing from blue states. So, the Democrats need to import voters which they have been very successful in doing, legally and illegally - while at the same time rewarding those who come here with liberal benefits to ensure that the Democrats get even more votes.
The result of this sick, corrupt, arrangement for California? California went from:
--a highly functioning state with an educational system and educated population second to none,
--with low crime,
--an efficient public sector capable of doing great things at relatively low cost that taxed at an affordable rate,
--an economy that was the envy of the world,
--with mostly intact families that
--voted mostly for Republicans,
to a State with:
--shattered families and high crime,
--an inefficient, highly expensive, hugely corrupt public sector incapable of even providing basic services,
--a hugely expensive educational system that doesn't educate,
--an economy in tatters, which is the envy of none
--a confiscatory taxation and regulatory system
--and a hundred other problems too numerous to list here
--voting mostly for Democrats who are doing everything possible to destroy what had been built under the Republicans, since it drives away those who disagree with Democrats, allowing them to consolidate power so they can pass laws that drive more Republicans from the State so that....and on and on and on.
Democrats have employed its corrupt governance model everywhere they have power. Like locusts Democrats destroy everything everywhere they go. The California model - perfected in the cities - is rapidly expanding elsewhere, and is essentially the Democratic plan for the nation. That it leads to a corrupt, decaying society is inevitable, with the consequence being exactly what you can imagine - poverty, a two class system and - let's face it - the end to our democracy.
Worst of all this is being done under the very noses of a populations in the nation that have been manipulated to go along with what is being done - Democratic media is a master at manipulation and conditioning.
The saying is where California goes, the rest of the country follows. And, absent some miracle which no one should expect, or some massive awakening, which likewise isn't going to happen - what is going on in California is where the rest of the nation will be. It's too late to change for California and probably too late for the rest of us as well.
Thank you George Bush. Thank you Barrack Obama - you killed a country.
Friday, March 2, 2012
WHERE IS THE REPUBLICAN PARTY?
Ever get frustrated with the Republican Party's response to Democratic attacks? Ever wonder why the Republicans never seem take action in response to Democratic outrages? Seems stupid, doesn't it? Essentially, the stupidity lies in the inability of the Republican Party to adequately defend itself from coordinated attacks from Democrats and media controlled by Democrats, as well as an overall failure to show the Democratic Party for what it is - a party grounded in and operating on corruption.
Examples? Let's examine Reagan and the issue of homelessness. Part of the Democratic plan to undermine Reagan was constant repetition of the assertion that Reagan was against poor people - that Reagan didn't care about the poor. What Democrats did was use its control of the media to dramatize the issue of homelessness. Democratic media and the Democratic party worked hand in glove to publicize a new found 'crisis' of homelessness. This continued throughout Bush I's term, but ended when Clinton took office. Was the homeless 'problem' solved? Of course not - but there was no need to even discuss it now that a Democrat was President.
The homeless issue illustrates how Democrats are able to turn allegation into assumption into fact. It becomes a conditioned response, - Democrats and their media have mastered the art of manipulation through conditioning. You see the conditioning when you talk to a Democrat and point out that on this or that issue that there is nothing behind an allegation, and what you get is sputtering and anger - it is eerie.
Is this coordinated manipulation ever pointed out by Republicans? Of course not.
More recently, we have the anti-war protests. During the Bush II Administration, anti-war protests were front page news, and Cindy Sheehan was the hero of the day. Republicans become the party of the war mongers - the lying war mongers, and everything associated with war is bad. Then, Obama takes office, the issue disappears and Sheehan is tossed aside. But, the taint of war mongering stays with Republicans - in fact, if you ask which party started the Vietnam War most people will say Republicans, even though Nixon ended the American presence in Vietnam.
Not the best examples, perhaps, the way the media used the response to Katrina is much better - this was done solely because after the 2004 election some African Americans were looking at the Republican Party and the Democrats were desperate to find an issue to paint the Republicans as racist. Of course nothing but silence on this from the Republican Party. And Democrats are very interested in ensuring that Republicans are always the party of racism - despite the fact that it is Democrats, as the party of slavery, Jim Crow and lynchings, have a century old tradition of racism.
But, back to stupidity and Republicans. How else to explain why the Republican Party continued to allow Democratic media to host debates even as that media uses the debate forum to make Republican candidates look bad? Or why did Sarah Palin ever agree to allow herself to be interviewed by Katie Couric - she had to know that Couric would be seeking to make Palin look bad. Same thing with Boehner -why on becoming Speaker did he agree to be on "60 Minutes."?
Stupid stupid stupid.
The Republican Party never seems to understand how the deck is stacked against them - how it plays by certain rules, while the Democrats make up the rules as it goes along. So Democrats are able to destroy an entire community - African Americans - with 50 years of shockingly dismal results, and no hope for the future in the inner cities - no surprise of course given the Democratic party's history, as mentioned, as the party of slavery, Jim Crow and lynchings. But do Republican say anything about it? No, what they do is allow themselves to be unfairly tarred with the racism brush, even as taxpayer money is poured into the corrupt pockets of Democratic leaders in the inner cities, and Democrats refuse to acknowledge their awful past.
Examples? Let's examine Reagan and the issue of homelessness. Part of the Democratic plan to undermine Reagan was constant repetition of the assertion that Reagan was against poor people - that Reagan didn't care about the poor. What Democrats did was use its control of the media to dramatize the issue of homelessness. Democratic media and the Democratic party worked hand in glove to publicize a new found 'crisis' of homelessness. This continued throughout Bush I's term, but ended when Clinton took office. Was the homeless 'problem' solved? Of course not - but there was no need to even discuss it now that a Democrat was President.
The homeless issue illustrates how Democrats are able to turn allegation into assumption into fact. It becomes a conditioned response, - Democrats and their media have mastered the art of manipulation through conditioning. You see the conditioning when you talk to a Democrat and point out that on this or that issue that there is nothing behind an allegation, and what you get is sputtering and anger - it is eerie.
Is this coordinated manipulation ever pointed out by Republicans? Of course not.
More recently, we have the anti-war protests. During the Bush II Administration, anti-war protests were front page news, and Cindy Sheehan was the hero of the day. Republicans become the party of the war mongers - the lying war mongers, and everything associated with war is bad. Then, Obama takes office, the issue disappears and Sheehan is tossed aside. But, the taint of war mongering stays with Republicans - in fact, if you ask which party started the Vietnam War most people will say Republicans, even though Nixon ended the American presence in Vietnam.
Not the best examples, perhaps, the way the media used the response to Katrina is much better - this was done solely because after the 2004 election some African Americans were looking at the Republican Party and the Democrats were desperate to find an issue to paint the Republicans as racist. Of course nothing but silence on this from the Republican Party. And Democrats are very interested in ensuring that Republicans are always the party of racism - despite the fact that it is Democrats, as the party of slavery, Jim Crow and lynchings, have a century old tradition of racism.
But, back to stupidity and Republicans. How else to explain why the Republican Party continued to allow Democratic media to host debates even as that media uses the debate forum to make Republican candidates look bad? Or why did Sarah Palin ever agree to allow herself to be interviewed by Katie Couric - she had to know that Couric would be seeking to make Palin look bad. Same thing with Boehner -why on becoming Speaker did he agree to be on "60 Minutes."?
Stupid stupid stupid.
The Republican Party never seems to understand how the deck is stacked against them - how it plays by certain rules, while the Democrats make up the rules as it goes along. So Democrats are able to destroy an entire community - African Americans - with 50 years of shockingly dismal results, and no hope for the future in the inner cities - no surprise of course given the Democratic party's history, as mentioned, as the party of slavery, Jim Crow and lynchings. But do Republican say anything about it? No, what they do is allow themselves to be unfairly tarred with the racism brush, even as taxpayer money is poured into the corrupt pockets of Democratic leaders in the inner cities, and Democrats refuse to acknowledge their awful past.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)