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.

EUGENE ROBINSON - LAP DOG

Consider Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post. A columnist who writes a biweekly column that uniformly praises Democrats and blasts Republicans.  His peevish views exemplify a lifetime of conditioning by Democratic media, and the man reflects that conditioning like few others in the so called mainstream media. 

Robinson's conditioning has made him an apologist for an organization that was responsible for continuing slavery in the South, for forming the Klu Klux Klan, for lynchings, Democratic governors attempted to bar the door to prevent black students from entering universities, and all the rest. And yet, despite all this, 50 years ago black leaders pooled their support into the Democratic Party. We know the result.  Democrats promptly enacted laws that have destroyed the black family, led to criminalization of the community, loss of the will to be educated, allowed immigrants by the millions to come into the country and who took jobs and benefits away from blacks - and all this despite warnings from two studies put together by Daniel Patrick Moynihan on urban planning precisely detailing the consequences of enactment of these very policies. 

How to understand how someone who appears to be reasonably intelligent supporting an organization that has essentially destroyed a large part of the black community?  The answer is conditioning. The Democratic academic and media machine has conditioned people like Robinson into embracing an organization that is bent not on change but on maintaining terrible conditions in the black community, in an effort to ensure continuation of the Party's ability to get votes. I saw this in action in Newark, NJ where the Juvenile Court was like something out of Dickens, in a place where Democrats had been in charge for as long as anyone can remember. Children sans parents sans grandparents being sentenced to the "Youth House" and caught in the maw of the Democratic community destruction machine. 

It's like Alice in Wonderland - the entire country knows exactly what the Democrats are doing to the community, but people in the community can't see it.  It's disheartening to see people like Robinson falling for the lies, the vicious manipulation, and all the rest. People like Robinson participate in the fallacy, then act like automatons responding to their conditioning by pointing fingers at Republicans as the cause of their problems - as if Republicans have had any say in the community for the last 50 years! No wonder the frustration since the real power is in the hands of people who have absolutely no interest in changing anything since under the present conditions Democrats get all the votes. 

In short, the real irony is that change is the last thing Democrats want.

So like a good automaton Robinson participates in the misdirection campaign. Maybe he actually believes what he says, given his lifetime of conditioning.  To those on the outside it appears like insanity - how else to explain it?  It is a measure of the arrogance of the man that he never shows any doubt, he has lost the ability to question the framework underlying his opinions, and that he thinks he can see in the hearts of those who he blames for the destruction of the community, or a substantial part of the community.

I would ask whether anyone could have done a worse job of governing in the community than the Democrats in the last 50 years.  And I would ask why it is that Democrats are never taken to task for it, why no one ever questions what they have done. 

There is a reason for it of course, and for political correctness - it is a device by which Democratic leaders protect themselves from being criticized for their dismal performance. 

So we wait and wait and wring our hands as we watch the black community being destroyed, and can do nothing about it since people like Robinson are there to shout 'racist' when someone points out what's happening. It is truly depressing.

CONSPIRACY OF SILENCE

Every year one group commits an insane proportion of the crime. Unbelievably, one can't even mention the statistics, because Democratic media has trained and conditioned Americans not simply to ignore it, at the pain of being called racist.  So...what is the consequences of this silence?

What this conditioning ensures is that one party maintains full control in the black community - the Democratic Party, the same party that was responsible for maintaining slavery in the South, which enacted Jim Crow laws, which formed and whose members comprised the KKK. And it was Democratic governors who were barring the schoolhouse door seeking to prevent blacks from entering. These are the people who have been in full control of the black community for the last 50 years.

But the foregoing is a minor point - it is northern Democrats who have control of the black community and they are every bit as ruthless as their southern counterparts although with a different strategy and a different face. However, the result are pretty much the same.

One party control means Democrats get just about the entirely of the black vote, while at the same time delivering nothing but decades of misery. The journalistic political correctness standard (and that's what it is), under which Democratic failures in the black community are subject to no outside criticism, arose in the 1980's. Perfect timing, right? Before that time, the blame for economic, social and educational failures in the black community could be directed at remnants of racism, but by the '80's the racism excuse was getting thin. So...Democratic media simply imposed a blanket of protection on Democratic failures in the community. It's still unclear whether this naturally evolved or was intentional.

So, despite 50 years of Democratic control, year in and year out black leaders are always positioning themselves as demanding more for the poor because their community - year in and year out, decade after decade, remains poor, and with horrid (and not often disclosed thanks to P.C.)stats on crime, and dismal education and economic achievements. So....always the demands for money, the claims of racism, but the truth is something else entirely - Democratic policies which encouraged single families, a victim mentality, and dependence on government have destroyed the community. What money does go into the community - and there is plenty of that - enriches those who purport year and year out to assist the community but in reality these people get rich, while year in and year out the community remains poor. And those bloodsuckers who get the money never pay a price for their lack of success - they simply claim that not enough money was spent.

The screams from Democrats about police brutality, and all the nonsense about stop and frisk are desperate attempts to get the attention away from their own failures - which are readily seen, but, thanks to the political correctness standard, never talked about, nor is there any price to pay for failure. For example, you don't hear, since Obama was elected, the demand for more jobs in the community from black Democratic leaders. It's as if they knew this demand was a sham, but the reality is that for Democrats the worst that could happen is community improvement.

What it is, is like Alice in Wonderland. Plain insane.

So, like trained seals, the rest of us ignore what goes on, leaving it to black Democratic leaders to govern their own community, which they do with an iron fist - and God forbid anyone says anything it - the Democratic media is there with the racism label, an instant career killer. After all how can anyone possibly prove that they are not a racist?

The result? For 50 years the community has been ground down by the Democratic Party - the people doomed to be raised where, ironically, real change is discouraged - and failure is always the fault of those on the outside. Where change is always talked about but where nothing ever changes.

No wonder there is anger - but it is misdirected.

It's not as if there isn't a ready and simple solution to the problems in the community- repair the family, put the father back in the home, discourage divorce and discourage single parenting. But, Democrats definitely do not want this - so they claim that family is a Republican issue and that Republicans are the enemy. And encourage and subsidize single parenting and make it acceptable through the example of Democratic media - where even drug abuse is excused.

Yes, it's a bleak picture, but it is also reality. No one ever talks about it because there is a price to be paid.

So if you wonder how a Democratic leader can complain about stop and frisk without mentioning the lopsided crime statistics, then bitch about the LACK of crime prevention while at the same time that police are attacked for 'brutality' and being called racists, you need to understand that Democratic leaders are desperate to pin the blame on others for their own failures.

Because, after all, after 50 years of solid control in the community, Democrats have run out of excuses, and at the worst time, before a Presidential election. Like three card Monte players Democrats must maintain as many distractions as possible.

Because, once the people Democrats have ruled for all this time understand - truly understand - what has been done to them, how they have been used, abused, pillaged, raped, and murdered by a coterie of corrupt, parasitic politicians, so called journalists and entertainers, there
is surely going to be hell to pay.

And when the Truth Commission gets going there will be lots of questions for Democrats.

DEMOCRATS NEVER TELL THE TRUTH (THEY DON'T HAVE TO)

No one expects political memoirs to be objective.  Even for these books, however, there is a minimum truth requirement, or, rather there used to be.  With the recent revelations that Obama's books are filled with lies about his past shows that the test for accuracy in memoirs is this: Democrats can say anything and get away with it.  Republicans better stick to the truth - or else.

But it's more than that, much more - it's part of a decades long protection of Democratic candidates and politicians. Early in WWII John F. Kennedy had a dalliance with a German spy - with the FBI in the next room recording all of it (See Dan Simmon's book "The Crook Factory"). In disgust Joe Kennedy told the State Department to transfer JFK to combat duty, where he distinguished himself as a PT boat commander by promptly getting run over by a Japanese destroyer. In order to avoid the embarrassment Kennedy was given a medal and later, a fawning Democratic media made a movie about the episode, that played right into the myth they were creating about their "war hero": "PT 109."

But JFK's many adulteries, even when President, were carefully hidden by a media that could say nothing bad about a Democratic candidate. Would they have done the same for a Republican? I think not. What's said is that "in the old days" the media protected politicians who couldn't control themselves - the truth is that the protection was there for Democratic politicians, not Republicans.

So when Marilyn Monroe sang "Happy Birthday Mr. President" the media knew full well what had gone on between Monroe and JFK, but of course, said nothing.  This wasn't the last gasp of the old boy system, this was protecting a fellow Democrat.  And it was something that continues to this day.

And so it goes. The National Enquirer had story after story about John Edwards, but somehow none of it made the Democratic media until there was simply no choice but to cover the story. Ditto Clinton and Monica - the excuses and protection of the Democratic media (along with a half million dollar payoff to NOW to buy its silence) allowed Clinton to remain in office. When a Democrat strays, it's cute or ignored entirely, when a Republican does the same thing, it's called disgusting and they are hounded from office.

Yes there are exceptions but very VERY few.

Could any Republican have survived, as did Barney Frank, whose lover operated a brothel out of his Washington apartment? Or Marion Barry, who made a political comeback even after being caught red handed in a motel room smoking crack with a prostitute, at the same time that crack was devastating the young people of the city in which he was mayor?

Or Bill Clinton, whose political career best exemplifies the protection and double standard of the Democratic (say it like it is, that's who they are) media. Forget about the past - the lies, including perjury committed by Clinton - it was only a few short years ago that the same National Enquirer that had run stories on Edwards' foibles were running stories about Clinton as well. And what was the magazine saying about Clinton? Not just adulteries, but front page photographs of Clinton's long time mistress - all this plastered in magazines easily seen right in the supermarket checkout aisle. These stories were confirmed in the recent book "Game Change" about the McCain campaign which discussed Hillary Clinton's concern about Bill Clinton's many adulteries and his long term relationship with the woman whose photograph was plastered on the front page of the National Enquirer.

Yet, somehow, the Democratic media (and, let's face it, the conservative media, which simply gave up on being able to communicate to the public on these issues) ignored the story, and continues to do so. In fact, Bill Clinton will speak at the Democratic convention, so his political career has been completely unaffected by his playing around, more or less at will, and with full knowledge of Democratic media.

Would this media have done the same for a Republican? Of course not.  In fact, when the Democratic media has nothing they simply make it up, as they did with McCain and Bush I. Pure fabrications, but that's the way the game is played in the Democratic media, silence for one party, LIES for another.

So when it is found that Obama made up his auto-biography, that it is filled with lies of the worst sort meant to fit his story line, has the Democratic media said a word? It's is disgusting, how they can excuse someone who is almost pathological when it comes to telling the truth - truth simply doesn't matter.

In other words, forget about Clinton, JFK, Ted Kennedy (who, it was recently revealed, tried to rent out a brothel in Chile in the early 1960's), even Frank - what kind of a person makes up these phony stories for all the world to see - and check? And why did it take three years into his Presidency for people to know that much of what he put out in books about himself were lies?

In short, what kind of a man have we elected President? How could Obama, heck anyone write a book that contains so many falsehoods, how could he ever think it possible that he would get away with it?

The true irony, of course, is that he DID get away with the whole thing - that he not only got away with writing a book that had facts completely made up, but it is now known that he did it, and he has not suffered a bit from it. I've not even heard a word about it from the Administration, and you can bet the Democratic media won't be asking about it.

What does that say about American media? What does it say about Democrats? Should we ever expect the truth or anything close to it from Democratic politicians and candidates after this - what incentive is there to tell the truth, to have character, which seems to be utterly lacking in every Democratic leader on the planet.

Today we hear Obama making speeches filled with assertions that are simply untrue. And he is never called on it since in Obama there is conditioning on two levels - the first based on race, the second based on party.  If Obama says that two plus two is five, you won't hear anyone challenging it - in fact, we will have columnist after columnist making the case for him. This state of affairs can only be viewed as sick, very sick, as sick as our society has become.  There sense of things falling apart, a feeling that hasn't been in America since the worst days of Jimmy Carter.