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.
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
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.
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
Occupy the Democrats!
Why is it you never hear of the Democratic Party's role in promoting the Occupy Wall Street ("OWS") movement, and how it, along with media controlled by Democrats (such as top Obama advisor and General Electric's CEO Jeffrey Immelt's GENBC) has created and manipulated OWS for its own purposes?
What OWS is NOT is a legitimate grass roots movement. Rather it is a small core of die hard anarchists and rabble rouser's who have no plans other than to topple what's here, with just a fuzzy concept of what comes next. Unfortunately, when movements like OWS and other movements like it manage to have any degree of success the result never resembles a democracy. Instead, what is created are perfect conditions for people of ill will to step in. The best example - besides the French Revolution - is Iran.
How quickly we forget when the Democratic media wants it that way! In the late 1970's the all powerful Western media was gung ho on getting rid of the Shah, but of course too brainless to understand that what would replace the Shah would not be supporters of democracy, but a repressive theocracy - and a highly dangerous theocracy at that. Jimmy Carter, then and now an incompetent, was completely outmaneuvered, no difficult task. The Western media supported those seeking to bring down the regime, and down the regime went. The result was decades of repression, misery and world destabilization.
Of course, no one was taken to task for what happened in Iran. The Democratic media in the United States - among which are the major television networks - CBS, NBC, ABC, PBS, NPR, plus the N.Y. Times, Washington Post et als, never allows a former Democratic President to be considered poorly in retrospect (think of fellow incompetents Harry Truman and even more so - John Kennedy). So as quickly as possible sainthood was conferred on Jimmy Carter and his Arab dictatorship supporting "Carter Center." You have never, and will never hear a peep of criticism from the Democratic media of just how badly Carter handled the Iranian situation.
In fact, it is never mentioned at all.
So now we have the even more openly Democratic media wholeheartedly supporting "Occupy" movement. Naturally, there's an angle in it for the Democrats. Besides taking the spotlight off of Obama's economically and socially ruinous policies, the claim to a "movement" countering the Tea Party is used hand in glove to support Obama's campaign strategy of separating America into rich and poor. This isn't the time to go into how dangerous and un-American it is to divide the country into classes based on wealth, but it is a certainty that the Democratic media won't take Obama to task for it - heck lots of that media are working for Obama's campaign! In fact, the Democratic media is actively pressing ahead with the assumption - soon to be considered "fact" - that OWS is legitimate movement acting as a voice of the people, and by the way supporting Obama's class warfare campaign strategy.
And, typically, the Republicans fall into every trap laid for them by the Democrats - but again that's another story.
Maybe something more sinister is going on with the Democrats and OWS. But whatever it is, what OWS is not is a legitimate, spontaneous grass roots movement. Rather, it is a carefully planned, although who knows, perhaps poorly executed stunt aimed at bettering the Democrats chances in the next election.
And here's a prediction - the OWS movement will wither away, Cindy Sheehan style, if Obama wins the election and OWS's usefulness to the Democrats is over.
Because when you come right down to it, the power of the OWS movement is something wholly conferred by the Democratic media. That media is still immensely powerful, and has done a good job of taking a tiny group of people and making them into something they are not. Recall the hostility of the Democratic media to the far far larger Tea Party and the manipulation that has been used on those already subject to a lifetime of conditioning to convince them that the Tea Party movement is somehow 'racist.' This despite the fact that race and social issues aren't any part of the Tea Party agenda. But then again, prevarication, falsehoods, exaggerations, omissions and outright lies are just means to an end for the Democratic media.
And, most troubling is that the issues discussed above don't ever seem to be examined by anyone - again, where are the Republicans? Of course, Republican failures with respect to the Democratic media is another subject entirely.
What OWS is NOT is a legitimate grass roots movement. Rather it is a small core of die hard anarchists and rabble rouser's who have no plans other than to topple what's here, with just a fuzzy concept of what comes next. Unfortunately, when movements like OWS and other movements like it manage to have any degree of success the result never resembles a democracy. Instead, what is created are perfect conditions for people of ill will to step in. The best example - besides the French Revolution - is Iran.
How quickly we forget when the Democratic media wants it that way! In the late 1970's the all powerful Western media was gung ho on getting rid of the Shah, but of course too brainless to understand that what would replace the Shah would not be supporters of democracy, but a repressive theocracy - and a highly dangerous theocracy at that. Jimmy Carter, then and now an incompetent, was completely outmaneuvered, no difficult task. The Western media supported those seeking to bring down the regime, and down the regime went. The result was decades of repression, misery and world destabilization.
Of course, no one was taken to task for what happened in Iran. The Democratic media in the United States - among which are the major television networks - CBS, NBC, ABC, PBS, NPR, plus the N.Y. Times, Washington Post et als, never allows a former Democratic President to be considered poorly in retrospect (think of fellow incompetents Harry Truman and even more so - John Kennedy). So as quickly as possible sainthood was conferred on Jimmy Carter and his Arab dictatorship supporting "Carter Center." You have never, and will never hear a peep of criticism from the Democratic media of just how badly Carter handled the Iranian situation.
In fact, it is never mentioned at all.
So now we have the even more openly Democratic media wholeheartedly supporting "Occupy" movement. Naturally, there's an angle in it for the Democrats. Besides taking the spotlight off of Obama's economically and socially ruinous policies, the claim to a "movement" countering the Tea Party is used hand in glove to support Obama's campaign strategy of separating America into rich and poor. This isn't the time to go into how dangerous and un-American it is to divide the country into classes based on wealth, but it is a certainty that the Democratic media won't take Obama to task for it - heck lots of that media are working for Obama's campaign! In fact, the Democratic media is actively pressing ahead with the assumption - soon to be considered "fact" - that OWS is legitimate movement acting as a voice of the people, and by the way supporting Obama's class warfare campaign strategy.
And, typically, the Republicans fall into every trap laid for them by the Democrats - but again that's another story.
Maybe something more sinister is going on with the Democrats and OWS. But whatever it is, what OWS is not is a legitimate, spontaneous grass roots movement. Rather, it is a carefully planned, although who knows, perhaps poorly executed stunt aimed at bettering the Democrats chances in the next election.
And here's a prediction - the OWS movement will wither away, Cindy Sheehan style, if Obama wins the election and OWS's usefulness to the Democrats is over.
Because when you come right down to it, the power of the OWS movement is something wholly conferred by the Democratic media. That media is still immensely powerful, and has done a good job of taking a tiny group of people and making them into something they are not. Recall the hostility of the Democratic media to the far far larger Tea Party and the manipulation that has been used on those already subject to a lifetime of conditioning to convince them that the Tea Party movement is somehow 'racist.' This despite the fact that race and social issues aren't any part of the Tea Party agenda. But then again, prevarication, falsehoods, exaggerations, omissions and outright lies are just means to an end for the Democratic media.
And, most troubling is that the issues discussed above don't ever seem to be examined by anyone - again, where are the Republicans? Of course, Republican failures with respect to the Democratic media is another subject entirely.
Friday, February 17, 2012
Masochists And Other Taxpayers
As you look at the endemic corruption that is so ingrained in the Democratic part of government and that's with a capital "D", one has to wonder - how is it possible that taxpayers can be so stupid?
For those who enjoy being raped, robbed, beaten, pillaged and raped there are the public unions (they likes rape) - a very bad idea in principle and a far worse idea in practice. So, let's start with this premise: public unions are based on and operated for a corrupt purpose at the behest of the most corrupt institution on the planet, the Democratic Party. And such unions exist only as a means to funnel taxpayer dollars to the Democratic Party and its causes.
Anyone see a problem here? It doesn't take a rocket scientist - but where are the taxpayers? (sound of whipping).
It doesn't have to be this way - public unions are entirely creatures of statute - hey everyone! There is no right under federal law or the federal Constitution that gives public workers the right to unionize. As such, the individual states and their masochistic voters have complete control over these entities - they control the formation, the rules under which unions are run, the state is in charge of everything - the voters say "go away" and these entities go away. And "go away" is a good idea since in practice, since the way the unions are run is premised on this corrupt purpose, that the unions can use what are essentially state taxpayer funds as a means to influence legislators from one political party (Democratic), which in return for monetary support ensures that the unions get....whatever they want.
In the process, the entire system of governance is corrupted - and not the least the Democratic Party that benefits from these monies.
The emergence of public unions as the most influential group in State politics where unions exist cements the Republican Party's title as the "stupid party." Stupid is of course far better than corrupt. The failure of the Republicans to speak out in plain terms - and even Chris Christie does not talk about the corrupting influence of public unions with the degree of precision that this issue deserves - about public unions is inexplicable. How could Republicans have failed to see and failed to speak out about the terrible consequences of allowing state employees to unionize and donate money (and/or spend money in causes that influence voters to choose Democratic candidates) to the very legislators that determine wages and benefits? Could not Republicans figure out that these entities would be used as a pathway by which Democrats could have access to the public fisc for precious campaign dollars or to media that influences elections?
Just plain stupid - really really stupid.
Of course, it's the Democrats who have allowed themselves to make a devils bargain - by accepting campaign dollars from public unions, or support from such unions, Democrats ensure that government in those states which enact statutes allowing public workers to unionize will never have their fiscal house in order. Democrats, while paying a pretend game of freedom from influence from public unions, have to dance to the tune played by the unions no matter the consequences, including destruction of the private economy as the level of taxation rises so high that economic activity is stifled. Of course, to Democrats, lack of prosperity is never a concern - in fact, prosperity is an anathema to Democrats, since poor people vote for Democrats. So, for Democrats, the poorer the better, and if people stay poor, that's even better. Heck, ask African Americans - the perfect Democratic constituency - how well things are going after 50 or so years of solid - SOLID - support for Democrats. (more sound of whipping). That this is a short sighted view never seems to make a difference to Democrats. In fact, in their own way Democrats are stupid, but their corruption is such that it masks the stupidity. And stupidity and corruption is a dangerous combination that allows Democrats to be controlled by smart people with evil, corrupt intentions - like George Soros. If you want to see extreme evil combined with extreme corruption take a look at Soros's 28 year old Brazilian girlfriend. (how could she? HOW COULD SHE?).
It could be - although probably not - that those who made the original decision to go the route of allowing public unions may not have realized their mistake until it was too late. But, despite Wisconsin and Ohio, typically once government employees are unionized there is no going back - these entities are way too powerful. In New York for example, there is a political party ironically and somewhat humorously called the "Working Families Party" that entirely consists of government workers - and the WFP is a force to be reckoned with. The consequences of course, are a loss of political power for the State as a whole (i.e. the loss of two Congressional seats every ten years) as the population votes on the system with their feet. To add a touch of irony, the population loss is perfectly acceptable to Democrats, since by ridding the state of those who oppose their corrupt agenda, power is consolidated in those remaining. And, in places like New York, California and elsewhere, the lost population can be imported through immigration. Since it takes immigrants two or three generations to understand that Democrats are NOT the party of the poor (unless the object is to remain poor) Democrats can count on the votes of newcomers, for awhile at least.
But, you also have to wonder about this - when it is said that public unions are so powerful in many states that they can't be ousted, just what does that mean? What it actually means is that the unions have enough money to throw around to run commercials that influence the public to not do what should be done and get rid of these obscenities. In fact, it is so easy to manipulate the taxpayers - or rather the voters, which is certainly not the same thing since nowadays not too many voters pay taxes - that public unions not only stick around but they get what they want from legislators. That says not much about the public unions since we already know how bad they are, but it does say loads about masochistic voters, especially that part of the voters who are also taxpayers. (more sounds of whipping).
Sigh.....corruption when combined with stupidity and masochism equals a pretty dismal prospect for the future. Fortunately, there are still places where the corrupting influence of public unions are absent, but as a whole, as such unions are able to influence policy at the federal level, the future is anything but bright.
Especially for those stupid masochistic taxpayers.
For those who enjoy being raped, robbed, beaten, pillaged and raped there are the public unions (they likes rape) - a very bad idea in principle and a far worse idea in practice. So, let's start with this premise: public unions are based on and operated for a corrupt purpose at the behest of the most corrupt institution on the planet, the Democratic Party. And such unions exist only as a means to funnel taxpayer dollars to the Democratic Party and its causes.
Anyone see a problem here? It doesn't take a rocket scientist - but where are the taxpayers? (sound of whipping).
It doesn't have to be this way - public unions are entirely creatures of statute - hey everyone! There is no right under federal law or the federal Constitution that gives public workers the right to unionize. As such, the individual states and their masochistic voters have complete control over these entities - they control the formation, the rules under which unions are run, the state is in charge of everything - the voters say "go away" and these entities go away. And "go away" is a good idea since in practice, since the way the unions are run is premised on this corrupt purpose, that the unions can use what are essentially state taxpayer funds as a means to influence legislators from one political party (Democratic), which in return for monetary support ensures that the unions get....whatever they want.
In the process, the entire system of governance is corrupted - and not the least the Democratic Party that benefits from these monies.
The emergence of public unions as the most influential group in State politics where unions exist cements the Republican Party's title as the "stupid party." Stupid is of course far better than corrupt. The failure of the Republicans to speak out in plain terms - and even Chris Christie does not talk about the corrupting influence of public unions with the degree of precision that this issue deserves - about public unions is inexplicable. How could Republicans have failed to see and failed to speak out about the terrible consequences of allowing state employees to unionize and donate money (and/or spend money in causes that influence voters to choose Democratic candidates) to the very legislators that determine wages and benefits? Could not Republicans figure out that these entities would be used as a pathway by which Democrats could have access to the public fisc for precious campaign dollars or to media that influences elections?
Just plain stupid - really really stupid.
Of course, it's the Democrats who have allowed themselves to make a devils bargain - by accepting campaign dollars from public unions, or support from such unions, Democrats ensure that government in those states which enact statutes allowing public workers to unionize will never have their fiscal house in order. Democrats, while paying a pretend game of freedom from influence from public unions, have to dance to the tune played by the unions no matter the consequences, including destruction of the private economy as the level of taxation rises so high that economic activity is stifled. Of course, to Democrats, lack of prosperity is never a concern - in fact, prosperity is an anathema to Democrats, since poor people vote for Democrats. So, for Democrats, the poorer the better, and if people stay poor, that's even better. Heck, ask African Americans - the perfect Democratic constituency - how well things are going after 50 or so years of solid - SOLID - support for Democrats. (more sound of whipping). That this is a short sighted view never seems to make a difference to Democrats. In fact, in their own way Democrats are stupid, but their corruption is such that it masks the stupidity. And stupidity and corruption is a dangerous combination that allows Democrats to be controlled by smart people with evil, corrupt intentions - like George Soros. If you want to see extreme evil combined with extreme corruption take a look at Soros's 28 year old Brazilian girlfriend. (how could she? HOW COULD SHE?).
It could be - although probably not - that those who made the original decision to go the route of allowing public unions may not have realized their mistake until it was too late. But, despite Wisconsin and Ohio, typically once government employees are unionized there is no going back - these entities are way too powerful. In New York for example, there is a political party ironically and somewhat humorously called the "Working Families Party" that entirely consists of government workers - and the WFP is a force to be reckoned with. The consequences of course, are a loss of political power for the State as a whole (i.e. the loss of two Congressional seats every ten years) as the population votes on the system with their feet. To add a touch of irony, the population loss is perfectly acceptable to Democrats, since by ridding the state of those who oppose their corrupt agenda, power is consolidated in those remaining. And, in places like New York, California and elsewhere, the lost population can be imported through immigration. Since it takes immigrants two or three generations to understand that Democrats are NOT the party of the poor (unless the object is to remain poor) Democrats can count on the votes of newcomers, for awhile at least.
But, you also have to wonder about this - when it is said that public unions are so powerful in many states that they can't be ousted, just what does that mean? What it actually means is that the unions have enough money to throw around to run commercials that influence the public to not do what should be done and get rid of these obscenities. In fact, it is so easy to manipulate the taxpayers - or rather the voters, which is certainly not the same thing since nowadays not too many voters pay taxes - that public unions not only stick around but they get what they want from legislators. That says not much about the public unions since we already know how bad they are, but it does say loads about masochistic voters, especially that part of the voters who are also taxpayers. (more sounds of whipping).
Sigh.....corruption when combined with stupidity and masochism equals a pretty dismal prospect for the future. Fortunately, there are still places where the corrupting influence of public unions are absent, but as a whole, as such unions are able to influence policy at the federal level, the future is anything but bright.
Especially for those stupid masochistic taxpayers.
Monday, February 13, 2012
The Democrats Ruthless Quest for Power in California
For those who didn't already know here's the reason why we have so many immigrants, legal and illegal, in California:
One reason and one reason only - the plan by Democrats to transform a red state to a blue state. And it has worked beautifully - Democrats, sometimes with the aid of duped Republicans like Reagan and Bush, used traditional charitable impulses enhanced by a goading media in a cynical maneuver aimed at achieving political power. No other reason.
And power is what it is all about for the Democratic party (aka 'the most corrupt organization on the planet') - the demographic change in California is solely about what's good for the Democratic Party, and NOTHING else. The fact that what has happened has destroyed a state that was at one time the top in education and the economy means nothing to these people, all that matters is power.
As I've written elsewhere, an analysis of what has happened in California, why it happened and what's going to happen cannot be looked at in terms of what's traditionally thought of as rational. Rationally, one would expect a government that seeks improvements in education, reduction in crime and toward prosperity. Democrats have learned that the consequences of a community relatively free from crime, with high educational achievement, and prosperity is a loss of power. Since Democrats get 100% majorities when the population is poor, the community has high crime rates and educational achievement is low what we see and hear from Democrats is lots of lip service about improvements based on these three factors, but that's all it is - the goal is to extract as much money as possible to treat these conditions while ensuring that nothing improves, while tax money is transferred to favored causes and, more important, party coffers.
In short, for Democrats in California and elsewhere the worst outcome would be an "improvement" in people's lives. So, the African American community in the inner cities is, 50 years after giving Democrats 100% loyalty, in dismal shape (see Heather MacDonald's articles on Chicago). Of course, that depends on how one defines 'dismal.' For Democrats, conditions in the inner cities are not dismal at all. I recently had a conversation with someone living in Paterson, New Jersey - he told me of what used to be a rolling crime wave every afternoon when the heavily African American high school lets out the students for the day. Shop keepers would close, people would avoid that area until a few hours later. This was only addressed after the killing of a homeless man - now Paterson police surround the neighborhood on school days in an effort to prevent crime. However, in Paterson, Democrats are and have been in solid control for decades and decades - Republicans don't even bother to run candidates. One would think that after 50 years people would wake up to the fact that the one party system is what's causing the problems, but instead a Democratic lock on the local and national media prevent any discussion of Democratic policy failures in the community. (again, for Democrats - these are policy successes, not failures - the Democratic agenda is premised on maintaining power, not improving lives). And no amount of failure at improving lives ever leads to a loss of power for Democrats - it never happens.
And so it goes for California and elsewhere, where Latinos can look forward to, not lives of prosperity, low crime and high educational achievement, but rather, as a result of Democratic control, the destruction of the family, the criminalization of the community, little or no educational achievement, permanent conditions of poverty, and leaders selected for their loyalty to party, and ability to maintain the status quo. And a media that maintains a seamless connection to party which blames the so called "problems" on lack of money and Republicans, and attacks any criticism of party leaders and their record as 'racist.'
What's set forth above is THE Democratic plan for California, so we may as well get used to it. It's a plan under which Democrats have maintained power in urban areas throughout the United States for scores of years now. And it has a 100% success rate - in no area where Democrats have taken control have they lost it.
In fact, California is the ultimate success story for Democrats - provided there is an understanding of what Democrats mean by 'success.' So, with California and with Latinos the Democrats impose a new holocaust. And that is very much what it is - what else would you call permanent conditions of poverty, crime and zero educational achievement? What else would you call what Democrats have done to African Americans for last 50 years?
One reason and one reason only - the plan by Democrats to transform a red state to a blue state. And it has worked beautifully - Democrats, sometimes with the aid of duped Republicans like Reagan and Bush, used traditional charitable impulses enhanced by a goading media in a cynical maneuver aimed at achieving political power. No other reason.
And power is what it is all about for the Democratic party (aka 'the most corrupt organization on the planet') - the demographic change in California is solely about what's good for the Democratic Party, and NOTHING else. The fact that what has happened has destroyed a state that was at one time the top in education and the economy means nothing to these people, all that matters is power.
As I've written elsewhere, an analysis of what has happened in California, why it happened and what's going to happen cannot be looked at in terms of what's traditionally thought of as rational. Rationally, one would expect a government that seeks improvements in education, reduction in crime and toward prosperity. Democrats have learned that the consequences of a community relatively free from crime, with high educational achievement, and prosperity is a loss of power. Since Democrats get 100% majorities when the population is poor, the community has high crime rates and educational achievement is low what we see and hear from Democrats is lots of lip service about improvements based on these three factors, but that's all it is - the goal is to extract as much money as possible to treat these conditions while ensuring that nothing improves, while tax money is transferred to favored causes and, more important, party coffers.
In short, for Democrats in California and elsewhere the worst outcome would be an "improvement" in people's lives. So, the African American community in the inner cities is, 50 years after giving Democrats 100% loyalty, in dismal shape (see Heather MacDonald's articles on Chicago). Of course, that depends on how one defines 'dismal.' For Democrats, conditions in the inner cities are not dismal at all. I recently had a conversation with someone living in Paterson, New Jersey - he told me of what used to be a rolling crime wave every afternoon when the heavily African American high school lets out the students for the day. Shop keepers would close, people would avoid that area until a few hours later. This was only addressed after the killing of a homeless man - now Paterson police surround the neighborhood on school days in an effort to prevent crime. However, in Paterson, Democrats are and have been in solid control for decades and decades - Republicans don't even bother to run candidates. One would think that after 50 years people would wake up to the fact that the one party system is what's causing the problems, but instead a Democratic lock on the local and national media prevent any discussion of Democratic policy failures in the community. (again, for Democrats - these are policy successes, not failures - the Democratic agenda is premised on maintaining power, not improving lives). And no amount of failure at improving lives ever leads to a loss of power for Democrats - it never happens.
And so it goes for California and elsewhere, where Latinos can look forward to, not lives of prosperity, low crime and high educational achievement, but rather, as a result of Democratic control, the destruction of the family, the criminalization of the community, little or no educational achievement, permanent conditions of poverty, and leaders selected for their loyalty to party, and ability to maintain the status quo. And a media that maintains a seamless connection to party which blames the so called "problems" on lack of money and Republicans, and attacks any criticism of party leaders and their record as 'racist.'
What's set forth above is THE Democratic plan for California, so we may as well get used to it. It's a plan under which Democrats have maintained power in urban areas throughout the United States for scores of years now. And it has a 100% success rate - in no area where Democrats have taken control have they lost it.
In fact, California is the ultimate success story for Democrats - provided there is an understanding of what Democrats mean by 'success.' So, with California and with Latinos the Democrats impose a new holocaust. And that is very much what it is - what else would you call permanent conditions of poverty, crime and zero educational achievement? What else would you call what Democrats have done to African Americans for last 50 years?
Friday, January 27, 2012
WHERE ARE THE BLACK LEADERS? SLEEPING?
Obama makes speeches, once you hear a few you realize he isn't very good at it, there's no substance, and the same things are repeated - and there's no execution. Gallop shows that Obama's poll numbers fell after the SOTU.
But you know that - since your schtick is schilling for the Democrats who knows if you believe the nonsense you write? It is hard to believe that there is anyone who would choose to be be a Democrat unless there is money in it.
And that's the root of the problem for the most corrupt organization on planet earth - the Democratic Party. How to ensure that there is enough money to keep the people in the Party happy.
The example of black Americans captures perfectly just how corrupt - and corrupting - the Democratic party really is. In the late 1960's African Americans made the fateful decision to put all their eggs in the Democratic basket. Obviously, if this had been a good decision then blacks would be wealthy, with happy prosperous families, living in crime free communities, with good jobs that require little government support, high educational achievements, and they would have a leadership that looks out for the community.
Right?
WRONG! Far from it - Black Americans have done poorly in the last 50 years on almost every level, and - no surprise - Democratic media has made any mention of this equivalent to racism. Why? How did that happen? It's not hard to figure out since implementation of a political correctness standard provides protection for the dismal failure of Democratic sponsored policies in the black community. So, to even mention that the emperor has no clothes brands you a racist which that same media has conditioned us to consider mention of the statistics the worst insult in the world.
Do we really need to go through how poorly black Americans have done over the last 50 years in terms of education, crime, families, economics and the rest of it? Just who is in those flash mob videos? Is it racism to even mention it? Democratic media would have the fingers pointed at everyone but the real culprit for this - Democrats, Democratic - Democratic policies which have destroyed the black family, put a quarter of its men into the criminal justice system, destroyed - not education opportunity which is there, but the will to be educated, or to seek wealth and all the rest of it. DEMOCRATS - no one else!
In Newark, NJ juvenile court where I represented children, or in Paterson, New Jersey, when the high school that is nearly all black gets out there used to be a rolling crime wave - shopkeepers close their stores and restaurants, people clear the streets -until a homeless man was just beaten to death by these kids in Paterson. Why? In a city that has been under Democratic control for a century it comes to this? How can anyone defend the people that caused this?
So black leaders sit up from on high and tell us all about how terrific the Democrats are, how terrible the Republicans are, it is like Alice in Wonderland, and everyone but those affected know it. There is no hope - none - for these children, because thanks to Democratic media we can't even talk about what's really going on, and there are people like you defending the very people responsible for this! You see any chance - any shot at all that the inner city black community will ever get out of its hole when the government subsidizes the current situation, and refuses to acknowledge that those subsidies are the problem? That children need a mother and father at home because it can't be done any other way.
But wait, being pro-family is something that those right wing Republicans do. But Republicans have nothing to do with running things in the black community, and that it is Democrats who run things and are alone responsible for the awful situation. Democrats who put leaders like Sharp James and Marion Barry in charge. How can anyone possibly think that any of this can ever change when the Democrats are the ones who benefit the most for continuation of the current dismal situation.
In other words, since they get 100% of the vote now why change anything?
But you know that - since your schtick is schilling for the Democrats who knows if you believe the nonsense you write? It is hard to believe that there is anyone who would choose to be be a Democrat unless there is money in it.
And that's the root of the problem for the most corrupt organization on planet earth - the Democratic Party. How to ensure that there is enough money to keep the people in the Party happy.
The example of black Americans captures perfectly just how corrupt - and corrupting - the Democratic party really is. In the late 1960's African Americans made the fateful decision to put all their eggs in the Democratic basket. Obviously, if this had been a good decision then blacks would be wealthy, with happy prosperous families, living in crime free communities, with good jobs that require little government support, high educational achievements, and they would have a leadership that looks out for the community.
Right?
WRONG! Far from it - Black Americans have done poorly in the last 50 years on almost every level, and - no surprise - Democratic media has made any mention of this equivalent to racism. Why? How did that happen? It's not hard to figure out since implementation of a political correctness standard provides protection for the dismal failure of Democratic sponsored policies in the black community. So, to even mention that the emperor has no clothes brands you a racist which that same media has conditioned us to consider mention of the statistics the worst insult in the world.
Do we really need to go through how poorly black Americans have done over the last 50 years in terms of education, crime, families, economics and the rest of it? Just who is in those flash mob videos? Is it racism to even mention it? Democratic media would have the fingers pointed at everyone but the real culprit for this - Democrats, Democratic - Democratic policies which have destroyed the black family, put a quarter of its men into the criminal justice system, destroyed - not education opportunity which is there, but the will to be educated, or to seek wealth and all the rest of it. DEMOCRATS - no one else!
In Newark, NJ juvenile court where I represented children, or in Paterson, New Jersey, when the high school that is nearly all black gets out there used to be a rolling crime wave - shopkeepers close their stores and restaurants, people clear the streets -until a homeless man was just beaten to death by these kids in Paterson. Why? In a city that has been under Democratic control for a century it comes to this? How can anyone defend the people that caused this?
So black leaders sit up from on high and tell us all about how terrific the Democrats are, how terrible the Republicans are, it is like Alice in Wonderland, and everyone but those affected know it. There is no hope - none - for these children, because thanks to Democratic media we can't even talk about what's really going on, and there are people like you defending the very people responsible for this! You see any chance - any shot at all that the inner city black community will ever get out of its hole when the government subsidizes the current situation, and refuses to acknowledge that those subsidies are the problem? That children need a mother and father at home because it can't be done any other way.
But wait, being pro-family is something that those right wing Republicans do. But Republicans have nothing to do with running things in the black community, and that it is Democrats who run things and are alone responsible for the awful situation. Democrats who put leaders like Sharp James and Marion Barry in charge. How can anyone possibly think that any of this can ever change when the Democrats are the ones who benefit the most for continuation of the current dismal situation.
In other words, since they get 100% of the vote now why change anything?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)