Wednesday, November 26, 2014

The Ferguson riots: what they have accomplished

It's the same old page out of the same old play book: black Americans burn down their own town over some grievance (fill in the blank here), and think that their criminal actions will change America for the better.

And things don't change for the better.  We've seen it again and again, same ol' same ol'.  Watts and Detroit in the 1960's.  Los Angeles after the Rodney King beating.  Blacks burning down their own businesses, and blaming whites for everything that is wrong with their lives.

What are the results of this latest riot in Ferguson, MO?  Is the criminal justice system now going to look the other way from black crime?  Can blacks now steal and mug their way into the mainstream of American society without consequences?

The results of this riot in the short term are crystal clear: many black-owned businesses in Ferguson are gone, burned to the ground.  Hundreds of families are now without a source of income.  And the millions of white viewers around the country who watched these riots on TV are horrified that things could get like this in their country.

The results in the long term are the same as they have always been: white flight.  Whites fearing black violence move their families away from predominantly black and urban areas, leaving the black community to fend for itself.  The black community left behind is then hard pressed to make up for the lost business revenue, lost tax revenue and lost opportunities that have fled along with the fearful white Americans that have moved their families to safer grounds in the suburbs.

The results are exactly opposite of what the black activists who are calling for 'no justice, no peace': a viscous cycle of violence that plunge the black community into further chaos and despair.

I have no advice for the black community that it already doesn't know: their leaders are leading them down the path to ruin.  And things are not going to change for the better any time soon.

Friday, November 21, 2014

All we have to do is survive just two more lame duck years

Obama just threw down the gauntlet in front of the Republican's feet a mere two weeks after his party's historic landslide defeat at the national ballot box.

He will write new immigration legislation because the Republicans are dragging their feet on presenting him with a bill that he agrees with (like that is ever going to happen in our lifetime).

We'll see how the GOP takes this brazen violation of the Constitution.  Sitting down?  Maybe.  They might fly off the handle (I'd like to see that, I don't think they have it in them).

In any event, all we have to do as a nation is survive just two more years somehow of Obama's lame duck years.  Just two more.  He has now poisoned the Democrat brand so thoroughly up to this point in his presidency, most Americans have had it up to their eyeballs in liberalism's failures.

There's just no way any Democrat can succeed in 2016 in sneaking into the Oval Office.  Barry has so tainted every major Democrat's standing with Americans, they simply can't distance themselves far enough from Barry now, regardless of what they do or say.

How about Elizabeth (Pocahontas) Warren (D-Ma)?  High cheek bones and all, she is more liberal than Barry, and that is saying something.  Trust me, Kimosabe, this heap big liberal squaw will go-um down in heap big flames if the Dems have the nerve to nominate her, regardless of how much wampum she has in her war-teepee.  Pocahontas Warren was touted as the first 'woman of color' appointed to her position at Harvard.  Woman of color?  Elizabeth Warren?  She is arguably the whitest white gal east of the Mississippi.  I have seen better tans on jars of mayonnaise than on this 'woman of color.'  She's a complete and total (or as her people say, 'heap big') fraud and has no chance at attaining a position at the national level. 

Jim Webb (D-Va) has recently dipped his toe in the presidential waters.  He is so in bed with Barry philosophically, the GOP nominee in the 2016 race will lay a coat of Barry-paint on him so thick, it will take a battalion of chisel-bearing toadies to chip it off him.

And of course, there's Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-anywhere), who is joined at the hip with Barry.  She was in charge when Benghazi blew up in their liberal faces, there isn't a chance in hell that she won't be tarred and feathered with that debacle during the 2016 campaign. 

Americans are so sick and tired of this liberal crew and their devastating policies, even low info types like the Obama-phone lady in Cleveland have had enough.

All the GOP has to do is nominate somebody not named Bush and they are a shoe-in in 2016.

Friday, November 7, 2014

Liberal pockets of free cheese still plague the US

From the looks of this map, with red representing conservative land areas by county, and blue liberal, you would think the U.S. House of Representatives would consist of 400 Republicans, and 35 Democrats, right?

Nope.  With a few out-lying areas of blue, such as most of New England, much (but not all) of the blue liberal land is high density population areas which vote Democrat, even in Republican wave elections.

Why is that?  What is it about big cities that makes people vote against their own liberty and freedom?  Why do they pull the Democrat handle in the booth straight down the line in these blue urban areas?  Is it the water?  Maybe.

But mostly its the concentration of population that allows Democrat ideologues to prosper by simple logistics: it's easier to deliver the free government cheese to one big huge warehouse in one big city, than deliver the free government cheese to thousands of tiny warehouses spread out over  hundreds of thousands of square miles all over God's green earth (to borrow a Michael Medved phrase).

People who are susceptible to huge government promises to take care of them from cradle to grave typically have nothing: no skills, no cars, no education, no money, no land, no nothing, and they wind up in ghettos and slums packed on top of each other in big cities.  And when a slick talking liberal politician shows up on the urban stump with a bullhorn promising to take the money from those that greedily hoard it for themselves and give it to the mobs, who do you think they vote for?

It's not rocket science.  It's simple logistics.  This also facilitates the famous 'get out the vote' efforts that Democrats excel in: just drive around the ghettos in Democrat buses, with signs on the side stating "Get on this bus, vote Democrat and get free cheese...and cigarettes".  Hardly any money is spent on the diesel for the get out the vote buses, since they only have to drive for a few hours to pick up a couple of million low lifes and haul them to the polls.

Democrats know where their bread is buttered: high density population areas, where people and rats number in the millions. This is where they make their money.

And it clearly shows on the map.  

Sunday, November 2, 2014

"Tea Party" and "Republican" are dirty words in Chicago

With only a few days before the midterms, the Chicago airwaves are chock full of political ads, nearly all of them negative.  I kind of miss the ads for Chevrolet, Minute Rice and Cialis.  But those guys have been sidelined for the time being, there's negativity to be put out, courtesy of the big buck political machines, both Democrat and Republican.

And, of course, everyone knows that the Republican ads are all true, and the Democrat ads are all false and evil.  It's clear for everyone to see.  And I never write sarcastic posts.  Never.  Just ask me, I'll tell you that I don't.  

This particular year the Democrats are panicked big time, as Obama's popularity, or lack thereof is creating a disaster for the country because Marxism, socialism and communism have never worked for any country, ever.  Duh.  But you can't tell this administration that uncomfortable fact.  They continue plowing forward with Obama's stupid philosophy that is killing his party.

The political ads reflect Democrat panic, as they face a shellacking of Biblical proportions owing to the country's floundering over the last 6 years, and the public's newly found attention span that, unlike the past 6 years, now exceeds that of a common housefly.  Not by much, mind you, but more than a few of these low information voters are starting to put 2 and 2 together and see that Obamism is a total and unmitigated failure up to this point.

Over Chicago airwaves, the words "Tea Party" and "Republican" are on constant parade, with the low, ominous cellos sounding the alarm of the upcoming evil that these two words mean for the average Chicago voter.  And for good reason: the average Chicago voter is a black, welfare receiving, child support addicted, unemployed or labor union affiliated taker of tax payer funds.

And the Tea Party and the Republicans have articulated that all of these income redistribution policies of the Obama administration and the Democrat party in general have got to change.  

Accordingly, the mooches and government largess recipients are being put on alert by big Democrat money and the message is clear: Tea Party and Republican forces will alter your comfortable way of life without being a productive member of society.

Let the cellos groan ominously here in Chicago (Barack Obama's feeding grounds): a change is afoot.  

Friday, October 31, 2014

Dem candidates running from Obama like he has the plague

...or Ebola.  In any case, the president of these 57 states is about as unpopular as George W. Bush was before the 2006 midterm elections. Maybe more so.  And if anybody remembers, the GOP took a beating, losing both the Senate and the House to the Democrats who ran on the 'culture of corruption' drum beat.  After that gruesome election, both gavels of both congresses were turned over to Harry Reid(D-NV) and Nancy Pelosi (D-CA).

Both sitting leaders of the Senate and the House back in 2006, Bill Frist and Denny Hastert respectively, had their own issues of their own creation: Bill Frist was seen as weasley, mealy mouthed and easily bullied by the minority into lousy deals for the GOP.  Denny Hastert was seen as a weak leader who could not contain the Tom Foley scandal and tried to sweep it under the rug.

Dubya called the elections of November 2006 'a thumpin'.  This election on November 4th is looking every bit as thumpy for the Democrats, as Obama, while not on the ballot, is dragging down every Democrat's polling because of his scandalous presidency and disastrous foreign and domestic policies which these Democrats supported - much to their peril.

And now when any of these Democrats are asked about Obama, all we hear are crickets chirping.  Kentucky Senate Democrat Alison Grimes can't even find it in her liberal heart to admit that she voted for Barry (twice), as she knows that saying as much in very conservative Kentucky is like Dracula asking for a glass of Holy water.  It'll kill her politically.  But she doesn't even need to say it: everyone knows who this liberal commie pinko babe voted for in the past two presidential elections, and her candidate's name does not rhyme with either McLain or Momney.  

The incumbent Sen. Mark Begich (D-AK) is trying to convince voters that he was not with Obama all the time: he did not support any gun control measures, and did not support Obama's restrictive energy policies.  To do so in Alaska would have been an immediate kiss of death politically.  Of course he couldn't support those policies, as every man, woman and child in Alaska is armed to the teeth, and they use 40-gallon barrels of sweet Alaska crude as kitchen chairs.  

But what Sen. Bagich, the imperiled incumbent, can't run away from is that he supported the other 97% of Obama's liberal, job killing, foreign policy damaging agenda.  And Alaskans have watched Begich like a hawk voting with the Democrats on all of that garbage.

He's toast.  And probably the same fate awaits the rest of those incumbent Democrat candidates in the shaky seats up for grabs in North Carolina, Georgia, Kansas, West Virginia, Iowa, Colorado, Louisiana, South Dakota and a few surprise states.

All of these petrified Democrats are running from Obama as fast as their chubby little liberal legs can carry them.

Wednesday, October 22, 2014

Are San Francisco low achievers exempt from the effect of market forces?

San Francisco, California and its metropolitan areas contain some of the highest property values in the world.  The price per square foot for commercial real estate rivals that of Hong Kong and New York.

Ditto for residential property, the prices are sky high and rising.  In typical liberal fashion, these market forces for this highly desirable part of the country have been thwarted several decades ago by rent control laws that prohibited landlords from obtaining fair market rates for their assets.

And the low achievers that pay way less than fair market value in the short term can enjoy screwing their landlords out of the fruits of their labor owing to liberal politicians securing votes by sticking it to 'the man' and passing laws that prevent rents from achieving the short run.

But these rent control laws are running up against very powerful forces, namely the laws of supply and demand.  In the long run, the supply and demand forces will simply find a way to prevail despite the best efforts of scumbag politicians to keep them at bay and keep those whose lives are artificially improved through legislative fiat intact, in addition to their votes.

Landlords in general are not stupid.  These guys are actually pretty damn savvy, on the whole.  They have been patient, and since they are for the most part law abiding citizens, have gone along with the local governments' restrictions on their assets.  But they have not been idle: there are ways, and then there are ways to beat the system.

Additionally, these landlords have hired particularly sharp attorneys, who have been hard at work finding ways to free up the locked value of San Francisco property, and legally evict these free loaders who have been squatting on the assets of others for decades and only paying peanuts for the privilege to do so.

The squeals of outrage from these low life squatters are now evident, as the chickens come home to roost in San Francisco.  Evictions of deadbeats who either cannot afford any longer the cost to live in paradise, or choose to default and let the authorities work their charms while the TV cameras are rolling.

In any event, subverting the laws of supply and demand is not possible - in the long run.  In the short term, sure.  But those who live in the short term always have hell to pay in the long run.

Welcome to the NFL, all you San Francisco hippies who now have to pay fair market value.  It's about time.

Thursday, October 16, 2014

What would one party rule look like in America?

Barack Obama would love nothing more than to destroy the Republican party and create one party rule.  In that manner, he and his successors could get quite a lot done without that pesky 'Party of No.'

We already have several areas within the United States that are defacto one-party ruled: Detroit comes to mind as the poster boy of what happens when dissent to an out of control government is crushed and extinguished as a countervailing force in politics.

Barack's old stomping grounds of Chicago are also governed by one party only: the Democrat party.  And this has been the case since "Big Bill" Thompson (R) was mayor ending in 1931, although "Big Bill" was so corrupt that he may as well have been a Democrat.

Chicago politics is now in play nationally, with Barack Obama ruling through executive orders and virtually ignoring the will of Congress and the American people.  He learned this style of politics in the least democratic area in the US - The Windy City.

Just a few days ago, Chicago Public Schools' teacher's union boss Karen Lewis withdrew her name from the upcoming mayoral race, and it now appears that the current uber-liberal, big spending Democrat mayor Rahm Emanuel will not face any credible opposition.

This news of Karen Lewis' withdrawal was bemoaned as a loss of choice for the voters of Chicago, since Karen Lewis was running ahead of Rahm in the polls.  The choice was never between the two dominant philosophies within the US currently: liberal or conservative.  The choice Chicago voters would have had with Karen Lewis in the race was re-electing a big spending liberal in Rahm, or electing an even bigger spending liberal in Karen Lewis.

Not much of a choice, given that Chicago's public unions (including Karen Lewis' CPS teacher's union) are running billions of dollars of unfunded pension liabilities that has bankrupted Chicago to the point that it is another Detroit, only in zombie form - Chicago is fiscally dead but just doesn't know it yet, much like zombies are dead but don't seem to understand the concept.