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.      

California - Still Dreaming

There is no media in California pointing out there that it new tax policy of "soaking the rich" was a bad idea, there will also be no politican doing the same, and since the Republican Party is so weak what it says doesn't count. Even as the State sinks the citizens of California will never connect higher taxes to anything bad, since the control of the means of communication by Democrats means that no one will be making that connection, at least no one of any significance and reach (sorry to say that).

The traditional American spirit of rugged individualism and independence is DEAD in California - it is dying in the rest of America, along with any hesitation to take benefits from the government - Democrats have used their decades of control of government and media to recreate the citizenry to one that is more conducive to Democratic control. In the new Democratic State of California dependence on government is good, as is being raised by one parent, in a community where high levels of crime is the norm, where government workers make far more than their counterparts in the private sector (hence the jobs are more desirable), and where the only people who have money are those at the very top (the good rich), while the rest (excepting gov't workers and the party apparatchiks) are the hordes of poor, too stupid to know what they have lost - or they came from elsewhere and never knew any different, only that here is better than there, at least for now. After a few years it won't be possible to tell the difference.

Californians will NEVER wake up and realize that soaking the rich is a mistake - the blame for financial problems will always fall elsewhere. Those who leave should leave, but the ulitmate irony is that Californians who do leave bring their voting habits with them. Such is the effectiveness of conditioning by Democraic media.

The sad thing is that competent government works - who would have thought that it would be possible to halve the welfare rolls with competent, conservative reforms, who would have thought that a (for the most part) competent Rudy Giuliani could make crime a non-issue in New York, who would have thought that Ronald Reagan in 1980 could add millions of jobs, and make America prosperous again after Carter destroyed the economy.

California could be great, but because Democrats have access to public funds through public unions as well as control of the means of communication means that it won't be. California is firmly in the hands of the Democratic Party which is rapidly transforming the society to one more amenable to continuation of Democratic control. This means using tax and regulatory policy to convince those who disagree with the new California to leave, importing and making up the lost population (with the help of hapless Republicans who are soon to lose Texas and elsewhere through the new amnesty law) through immigration, legal and illegal, using welfare policies and media to encourage single parenting, which creates dependence on government and a cycle of that dependence, as well as high crime which further induces dependence, and as a side benefit causes low educational achievements so that the citizenry is too dumb to understand how badly they are being used, and finally to keep everyone divided and hence more pliable. It means doing things Democrats do, with the predictable result that California, once so prosperous, is now permanently economically challenged.

The foregoing is all to the good for Democrats, who see the new society as one where they will get ALL the votes, and none of the blame, since they control the means of communication.

"Regret" soaking the rich? It is a laughable concept - anything that happens, albeit detrimental by "old" standards, is all to the good in the new Democratic society being created. No matter how bad it gets, the people of California will never understand why their society is doing so poorly, even as the state becomes economically Detroitified. Tourism will be there maybe, but tourism is the business of the third world.

You wonder what it would take to wake people up in California that their choice of leaders is what's dooming them to future poverty. With media firmly in the hands of those leaders, and the society becoming ever more pliant, with the alternative - Republicans - in the hands of inept, incompetent bunglers like Boehner (a man who is working full time for the position of minority leader in the House), don't look for change - ever, in a million years.

Who would have thought that it was so easy to fool all of the people all of the time?

THE REPUBLICANS AND THE CITIES

 Republicans have essentially abandoned the cities and the result has been catastrophic, not just for Republicans, but for city dwellers - ESPECIALLY minorities who have suffered under Democratic policies that have destroyed their families, criminalized their communities, taken away their will to be educated, impoverished their neighborhoods, and worked on nullifying any semblence of American traditional self reliant individualism in these communities and replaced it with some awful dependence culture unique to history.

It wasn't supposed to be this way. The insanity created by the one party Democratic politics, essentially the ruin of entire cities, has led to Democrats getting all the votes while at the same time delivering nothing to the governed but corruption, misery, hypocrisy, manipulation and double talk. Democratic lock on the media has led to adoption by ALL media of policies that hide the facts underlying the corrupt rule of Democratic leaders, under which these communites act as islands of repression, used as income producing poverty centers, supporting the entire Democratic dominated poverty industry, and subject to every whim of rabble rousing Democratic leaders.

Think I'm exaggerating? Take a look at crime and education rates for certain groups in cities under long term Democratic control, not just generally but as a percentage of the population. Look at disparities in income levels, look at the number of children born to single mothers, which are a critically important indicator of the child's future success in life. Which media led to acceptance of the notion of a single mother raising children? That claimed it as something noble, while at the same time marginalizaing the male role in the family?

It all works out pretty neatly for Democrats - they create the conditions and culture for a community that is perfect for Democratic control and a vehicle for making money for Democratic causes. The resulting statistics in these communities are DISMAL, especially as to the lack of a private sector, but you don't hear a word about it in the Democratic media because of policies adopted for the very specific purpose of protecting the Democratic rulers.

It takes a peculiar form of blindness not to see this from the inside, but then again Democrats have had decades to hone their skills at conditioning. These communities tend to be insular, and anything that is disagreeable to the ruling class is dismissed with either mockery or claimed as racist. The fact that the communities are not doing well under common sense notions of what doing well means is irrelevant - what counts is whether the community is doing well as defined by Democrats.

And since Democats are able to use the community to drain money from everywhere else, and maintain a lock on votes means that these communities are doing well indeed - and Democrats would't change a thing.

In some former time, when one party was an utter failure at governing the people would come to the conclusion that it was time for a change, and the other party would be voted in. But, the creation of entrenched areas of Democratic Party rule in most major cities (New York being a happy - for the people involved - exception as to the mayor's office, although this is temporary, as New York will soon resume the slide to the bottom - as defined by others, for Democrats it is no such thing - that was temporarily interrupted when Giuliani was elected in 1989) has led to institutional corruption at every level, and acceptance of a status quo that would be unacceptable to any reasonable person. But, conditioning by Democratic media, as a result of adoption of journalistic conventions - political correctness - has led to acceptance of what would formerlly have been unacceptable. This in turn has led to not just one party rule, but the belief by the community that the awful conditions that exist are not the fault of the party in charge, but "others' i.e. Republicans, who haven't wielded power in the community for decades, if ever. The lack of any real check on corruption has led to its institutionalization, a natural consequence of of years and years one party rule by a people that were bent on corruption to begin with.

Accordingly, Republican abandonement of the cities has been a disaster - and Romney's decision to focus all of his resources elsewhere means that these people haven't heard from anyone but the Democrats for years. With nothing else challenging them, Democrat's have convinced the people in Detroit, of Camden, East St. Louis, Chicago, Washington and other places to re-elect, year after year, the very people responsible for their being mired in poverty, and used as a vehicle for Democrats enriching themselves.

Those on the outside who see all this happening think that the people involved will somehow wake up and toss out the politicans responsible. But, that will never happen unless someone from the outside comes in and tells the truth - the unvarnished truth - not only about what's going on but how it got that way. Take a look at some of these places - here in New Jersey it can be seen in parts of Paterson, in much of Newark, Irvington, East Orange, Hillside et als. Year after year goes by and places that were at one time centers of prosperity, little crime, high education are mired in the American version of poverty, whatever you want to call it for decades upon decade - even as the rest of the country goes through periods of prosperity. The people involved are subject to a barrage of messages from Democrats blaming everything but the Democratic leadership for the problems, but year after year after year nothing changes - conditions become, if anything, worse. Through it all no one says what's really wrong, even as the state comes up with plan after plan - tosses millions if not billions of dollars down a rathole to be used by corrupt Democrats for very personal purposes, all of which does nothing. In Newark the State opened an arts center - people get there from the suburbs by highway ringed with security, all the way there and all the way back. Very nice, but how does this help the city? It's a bad joke, as bad as when Atlantic City put up "intercept" parking lots on the approaches to the city for so that casino and hotel workers from outside the city could park. It's a bad joke, just like the sports complexes that were built to house a basketball team that soon left, and a hockey (hockey!) team that has almost no chance of staying.

It's now been half a century since the riots in Newark, and that city could be seen as a microcosm of the terrible consequences of Democratic control and Republican abandonment of the cities. I simply do not have the time to list all of the Democratic abuses in Newark, soon to be New Jersey's second largest city, a once prosperous and beautiful center of the nations insurance industry. Thanks to Democratic media conditioning it would be practically unthinkable for Republicans to come to power in Newark - unless somehow Republicans can shake off the media strait jacket and tell the entire truth about what's going on and how it got that way. No doubt Democrats would get hysterical and scream racism, as they always do, but at this point, for Republicans what would they have to lose?

But that's the problem, Republicans, their leadership, are far too timid, far too spineless, far too "go along get along," far too accepting of a secondary role in society to make assertions about conditions that everyone knows about but no one says a word. The Democratic emperor has no clothes (and I am not talking about Obama - he is almost irrelevant to this discussion) but for some reason there is no one on the Republican side brave enough to say a thing about it.

When did Republicans make an agreement with Democrats to not mention certain subjects? - because that's essentially what's going on. How did Republicans decide to say nothing about the Democratic rape of certain city communities, or of entire cities?

So, another generation gets lost, and we all sit by and watch as our nation slides down the drain. The sad irony is that Democrats are extremely vulnerable - the hysteria voiced by Democratic leaders should anyone even hint at any of these issues is revealing of that vulnerability.

We keep waiting for someone in the cities to come out and say what the rest of the country knows, but it isn't going to happen - it will not be that easy. Republicans have waited far too long, and it will take a concerted effort by courageous people. 

HOW THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY DESTROYS

It's happening everywhere, and has been happening  in many if not most of the nations major cities for years -  the policies of Democratic politicians drive away commerce and destroy public education until you have a city like Detroit, or in my state, Trenton, Camden, Passaic, Newark, Paterson et als. The city becomes a drain on the surrounding areas, which is not what cities are all about.  It's happening, has been happening, and will continue to happen and no one says a word about it.

It is a continuum, with places like Detroit and Camden the end result of Democratic policies, and other cities heading toward where theses two cities are. Without a media that points out what's really going on there is no check - the cities die slowly, painfully, with corruption taking the place of good government, and wasting billions on the process.

The lesson to be learned is this: you cannot have a thriving city in a place run by Democrats implementing Democratic policies - it just can't happen, it just won't work, it will never and can never happen - never. Those policies are far too detrimental in every aspect of governance and community life - education, economy, family the whole mishpucha.

In my state the best example is Newark - most of this city died after the 1967 (68?) riots. Despite millions if not billions spent for sports facilities, for commercial and residential buildings, for education, for transportation, for everything you could possibly think of, the city is no better off now than it was 40+ years ago. All that money and you still can't walk down South Orange Avenue at 10 PM.

Furthermore, there is clear connection between Democratic policies and the failure of city government, the failure of communities, and all the rest BUT without a media out there reporting what any rational person knows nothing changes. There will never be a "Frontline" or "60 Minutes" or anything else detailing the failure of Democratic policies in the cities? (I'll leave off commenting on what Democratic policies have done to minority communities). Heck, you can't even find an acknowledgement that it was Republican Rudy Giuliani's policies (slavishly followed by Bloomberg)in New York City that saved New York from where it was headed under Dinkins and prior Democratic administrations - even though any New Yorker who was there knows that Giuliani prevented New York City from complete collapse. (New York will of course go right back to where it was once a Democratic mayor takes over from Bloomberg - it's inevitable). Giuliani's reward as a result of success at what has been called the "second hardest job in America" should have been a shot at the Presidency, but Democratic media prevented this using every mean trick possible, including attacking Giuliani's personal life - a dreadful irony given the same media's support of Bill Clinton, the admitted abuser of a young intern, convicted perjurer, disbarred attorney and accused rapist. The depravity of the the Democratic media is best illustrated by attempts to connect Giuliani's family to the mafia, which really illustrating the just how vile these people really are.

Without major media scrutiny the cities under Democratic control are doomed to a slow death, those who live in these cities doomed to impoverishment. The one party Democratic politics of most major United States cities make "change" an impossibility as these cities go from one incompetent leader to the next, while the communities are fed a constant stream of nonsense by a media that lost its ability to truly understand why conditions never improve - in fact, it's worse than that since major media has adopted a self censorship under the guise of political correctness.

The cities under incompetent Democratic leadership will never know how much better it could be under more enlightened leadership.  Take the success of the 1996  welfare reform law which stunned everyone. But, what was truly stunning was that no one in the media pointed the finger at those Democratic miscreants who had doomed two generations to impoverishment and dependence under the old law - and needless to say, the Republicans were never given credit for the vast improvement to people's lives under the new law. In short, you find few examples in the media of how good it is for cities lucky enough to escape Democratic leadership - the still very powerful Democratic media is studiously silent about those examples.

It's a depressing picture, and there isn't much hope for change - in fact, as I've argued in other contexts, change is precisely what Democrats fervently seek to prevent. By staying the course Democrats are fully aware that their policies drive out and silence those who question what is going on, who eventually leave, which consolidates and entrenches power in those remaining.

And when it comes to politics, power, ability to give out patronage, is what it is all about. The difference is that Democrats have no interest in bettering the community - power IS the goal. And I challenge anyone to defend Democratic policies in the cities over the last 40 years without using the standard defense tactic of changing the subject.

THE DISGRACEFUL ONES

Lately, I've been watching the British Hitchcock films from the 1930's, and it is depressing to think that the culture illustrated in these films is gone - not imply the fashions etc. but the underlying cultural assumptions on which the society has been based for decades is gone. The British stiff upper lip, the dry good humor, the stoicism, has, as you note, been replaced by a nation of louts and sluts.

How did this happen? I've been thinking about that too. There is much truth in the old saying "monkey see, monkey do." In the late 1940's Brits and Americans allowed a device in their homes - the telescreen err television that carried programming created by people who first sought to modify, then when they saw the power of it, sought to destroy the existing culture. These people succeeded beyond their wildest dreams. In fact, based on the looting that took place a year or so ago, it looks like the immigrants in Britain, who are new to the television/loutmaker, haven't been poisoned by it yet. What an irony!

Not just television: look at "Rebel Without a Cause." The lead character, James Dean, who is outside the culture in many ways, is handsome and sexually successful. Compare that to the 1950's television show "Dobie Gillis" where the "beatnik" is unattractive, and sexually unsuccessful. 

By the 1960's the loutmaker was enhanced by the introduction of color - the better to reprogram the culture. Those bent on destroying the old culture and remaking went into overdrive, taking a small group of California beatniks and creating/celebrating a "counter culture" that has all but taken over today. 

The loutmaker is and has been on the leading edge of this great change. Monkey see monkey do - make a mockery of those who adhere to the old culture, and show those who adopt the new culture as sexually attractive and successful. The louts and sluts are nto doing anything more than imitating what they see on the loutmaker - why should they be anything other than louts and sluts when louts and sluts are celebrated day in and day out? Why would they be anything else?

Plus, when you come right down to it, who do these louts and sluts resemble? Why... rock stars of course. The adherents of the new "counter" culture are nothing more or less than rock stars in miniature - drunk, drug abusing, sexual active, who work when they feel like it ("taking care of business"), if ever, and are never responsible for anything.

Even though it is all but dead, the old culture remains endlessly mocked, portrayed on the loutmaker as unattractive, the persons in it unsuccessful sexually. Religion, which is part of the old culture is subject to the same treatment - except of course foreign religions, which are revered. Family? Old stuff. Work? For losers. Sex? Good, more the better. Commitment? Also for losers. In fact, men, the idea of masculinity, is mocked. 

However, the joke is on the louts and sluts, however - the new culture portrayed as positive on the loutmaker is not self sustaining, it is doomed to failure. More ominously this new culture cannot sustain a democratic form of government. 

So, sooner or later Britain, and the United States will lose the wealth and government that their ancestors put in place for their undeserving descendents. Who is to say that the citizens of Britain or the United States are entitled to live a first world life style? It takes work to maintain this standard of living, and when the people of the nation aren't willing to work, then what they have will be lost. A nation of louts and sluts will inevitably live in squalor, eking out a living while those who are willing to work build a society that is self sustaining. 

It's another old story - the ant and the grasshopper. A nation of grasshoppers soon to be starving in winter - and that's when the Democratic form of government will be lost when people decide to exchange slavery on the promise of bread.

It is very hard to stand by and watch while a nation commits suicide. But, when you come right down to it, in Britain anyway, the old culture died long ago. All we have left is the movies to show what has been lost. There is going to be a certain satisfaction in seeing the louts and sluts get what they deserve, along with (hopefully) those who have programmed an entire nation to self destruct.

rats?

EVENING IN AMERICA

Oddly enough, despite not being an Obama supporter, at the beginning of his Administration I had sincerely wished that something of his message was genuine, that he really meant to change government, that maybe Obama was the right man at the right time, and his could be a storybook presidency. However, over the first few months, like many Americans I was stunned, not by Obama's activism, but by his overall lack of interest and lack of vision. Obama never gets involved in governing, he never even got to the level of being a cheerleader for what other people were doing. The signature bills of his Administration - Obamacare, Dodd Frank, the stimulus, were all drafted by others - his role was to sign laws that someone else did the hard work to produce.

Obama never seems to have a presence. And what he attempts to do, he does poorly. His foreign policy - what could be called a policy, never goes much beyond apologizing. His bowing before foreign dictators is repulsive. His blaming of the prior administration for his own failures on the economy showed his poor character and penchant for meanness that always seems below the surface.

Obama's Administration is only about politics. But his ineffectual - or non-existent - leadership meant that he wasn't able to accomplish much even on issues that Democrats support. In that respect, Obama's incompetence is a blessing. With 60 votes in the Senate and a majority in the House, Obama could have done far more - at a minimum he could have made Roe v. Wade superfluous, by enacting federal statutory protections for abortion. Likewise for comprehensive immigration reform - it was Obama's for the taking, but he didn't press it.

Of course, a more cynical view is that the Democrats didn't want abortion and immigration to disappear from the national stage, so that they could pummel Republicans. However, what we have seen is that Obama doesn't have the intelligence capability to engage in that kind of strategic planning. The simple answer is that Obama couldn't be bothered.

For the country as a whole Obama's ineptitude is thus a mixed blessing.

And through it all, over the last four years, Americans never really got to know Obama. He is disinterested, and never makes a move unless he absolutely has to. Prior to Obama the terms, "empty suit" and "man in a bubble" were mre political invective. However, both terms perfectly picture Obama.

The real mystery with Obama is why he even ran for a second term. He doesn't want the job. But then again why should he, since he is so very bad at it. And without the protections of a media that has shown itself to be completely incapable of telling the truth about a Democratic President, Obama would be the most hated men in America. But then again, black Americans have fallen hook, line and sinker for the con job that the Democratic party has pulled on them - they are the only ones in America that seem to be unaware of this - see my other articles for a more complete description.

In the final analysis, none of those who voted for Obama were able to make the case that he deserves to be re-elected. Most of what we saw were tired cliche's about Republicans, and talking points about Romney. When pressed on it, Democrats really didn't articulate anything positive about Obama, other than he isn't a Republican, and he isn't Romney. When asked about Romney, what is said is that someone as wealthy as Romney could never made a good President. When pointed out that Democrats in 2004 ran John Kerry, a man who married into enormous wealth, what you get blank stares.  So much for the intelligence of the average voter.

On the other hand, Romney was surprisingly good, and laid out lots of reasons why he would make a good, capable president. It's too bad - very bad for America - that we will never find out what type of President Romney would have been. 

It's as if Carter beat Reagan, or Dinkins beat Giuliani - we will never get to know the greatness that might have been instead of the mediocrity and incompetence that is. 

  A blog never changes anyone's mind. But, over the next four years we will find out precisely what type of a mistake we have made. it's too bad we will never find out how good it could have been.  

It is indeed evening in America.

A TEST FOR EVERYONE

A comment (with a few modifications)  found elsewhere.  If you think this is racist then you really should examine your own standards, and gain some understanding as to how you have been conditioned by a Democratic media that is utterly hostile to the black community:

The black community used to strive to prove its humanity and worth to a white community that was largely indifferent and sometimes hostile to it's plight. When blacks became accepted by much of white society, the black community became largely indifferent and hostile to the values established by the majority culture. The lack of discipline and acceptance of lower standards for blacks on the part of the Democrats who govern most areas with  large black populations guarantees that the majority of blacks will fail.

It is truly ironic that bending over backwards by Democrats so as not to appear racist has resulted in damage to the black community beyond even the wildest dreams of the Klan. Democrats have replaced the real chains of slavery and Jim Crow with invisible chains of low expectations and dependence, and then stand back and watch the blacks destroy themselves rather than get their hands dirty doing it as was their practice in the old south.

To top it off, Democrats also claim to be the "good guys" fighting for social justice even as the community is mired in poverty and violence, all as a result of Democrats so called good intentions.

The black community must stop tearing itself apart and realize that its REAL problem is the Democratic devil on their shoulder that has been whispering into their collective ears for the past 50 years.