Democrats Are Racists in General or Only When It Comes to Hispanics?

In his  article  below, Chris Salcedo emphasizes that Democrats are picky about their racism, preferring this group to that and another tribe best of all.

My argument is that Democrats are racists in general.  Their entire political strategy is based on favoring some groups in America over others based on race, ethnic origin, language, religion, sex and sex preference against the opponent of each and every group not in its favor. 

Democrats call it diversity.   They diverse regarding what that means, but overall it is their political alliances of those in groups who oppose white conservatives by defining them as racists for simply being white and conservative.  Democrats actually preach hate as the basis for unifying their constituencies.   If anyone doubts this strong statement, please stop at your neighborhood university and obtain course summaries and bibliography listings of such racist spewing university Departments of ‘learning’ called:   Women’s Studies, Black Studies, and Gay and Lesbian Studies.

They aren’t   into the Latino Studies spreading their brands of  bigotry at these universities as yet, but they soon will be.

Mr. Saucedo’ article, “Democrats Racist When It Comes to Hispanics”, is at Pajamas Media:

“Conservatives warned liberals of the dangers of playing the race card too often without substantiation. But with the election of President Obama, progressives went crazy.

Every time conservatives opposed our inexperienced president on policy, progressive pundits were quick to dismiss the objections as a simple expression of conservatives’ supposed distaste for an African-American president. Recall how Karen Hunter, MSNBC contributor, described challenges to the Obama agenda? “Post-Traumatic First African-American President Syndrome.”

The 5th District watchdog group in Virginia chronicles the net effect of such dangerous use of the race card:

Even the Daily Show lampooned the excessive use of the race card, declaring it “maxed out.”

Well, if by liberalism’s standards the act of objecting to a person of color on policy is tantamount to racism, then Americans now have clear evidence that progressives are racist toward Hispanics.

Democrats, through Bill Clinton and reportedly the White House, conspired to defeat a conservative Latino in a Senate race in Florida. The liberals in charge of the Democrat Party tried to convince their candidate, Kendrick Meek (an African-American), to drop out of that race so that the linguini-spined Charlie Crist would have a shot at beating Marco Rubio.

The message, largely ignored by the press, was that Marco Rubio could not be allowed to win because he was the wrong kind of Hispanic.

His family fled the left-wing utopia of Cuba. Thus, he had too much knowledge about where liberal policies lead. Worse yet, for liberals, he could articulate his family’s experience with the destructive results of leftist policies.

Liberals knew he had to be stopped, and thus were willing to throw an African-American under the bus in favor of the white guy who had been a Republican five minutes ago.

It wasn’t so much the man that liberals were trying to defeat, though Rubio is a magnificent candidate and will be a great senator. It was the idea that Rubio represents: he puts an exclamation point on the fact that not all Latinos believe in open borders and the welfare state. He shatters the narrative that liberals have worked for decades to craft. Now, not only will white America know that not all Latinos are liberal, Hispanics will now see their traditional conservative values displayed by a man that has an (R) next to his name. Rubio is something the Democrats have long feared: a conservative role model for the Latino community.

Sadly, this isn’t the first time liberals have conspired to keep Hispanics out of high office to maintain a narrative.

In 2001 and 2002, President Bush — the Republican who appointed the first African-American secretary of state, the first African-American female secretary of state, and the first Hispanic attorney general of the United States — was busy trying to fulfill his duties under the Constitution. One of those duties was to appoint judges. In natural course, the opposing party lets the president know what nominees would be acceptable. But outside forces influenced prominent Democrats to filibuster a very qualified Hispanic judge who was up for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia: Miguel Estrada. Leaked memos showed that Senate liberals were working in close consultation with groups like People for the American Way, the Alliance for Justice, NARAL, and the NAACP Legal Defense Fund in an effort to defeat President Bush’s judicial nominees.

One memo dated November 7, 2001, from a staffer to Illinois Democratic Sen. Richard Durbin described a meeting with the liberal interest groups in which the groups targeted Estrada as:

Especially dangerous, because he has a minimal paper trail, he is a Latino, and the White House seems to be grooming him for a Supreme Court appointment.

After two years of active opposition from liberal senators like Durbin and Kennedy, Estrada withdrew his nomination.

Let there be no ambiguity here: liberal groups and their lap-dog senators targeted Miguel Estrada because he was a Latino.

And these leftists have the temerity to call conservatives racists? But this incident went largely unreported. The few in the mainstream press who bothered to show a shred of journalistic integrity by asking about the memos bought the senators’ explanation. And that explanation was essentially: “I’m a Democrat, how can I be racist?”

For the record, conservatives oppose liberal progressive policies regardless of the race of the person pushing them. Liberals say they love and advocate for people of color. That’s true, as long as the people of color are also committed Democrats, ascribe to leftist thought, and believe the only way for success in life is with government help. If you are a conservative, they call you all kinds of delightful names like, “Oreo,” “Uncle Tom,” “Coconut,” or my favorite: “race-traitor.”

The liberal message is: “If you wander off the victimhood reservation, don’t bother looking to us for support.”  The left has used and abused the race card to stifle debate for decades. And it seems their loud advocacy as “race-warriors” was to compensate for and hide their own deep-seated racism.

Progressives support so-called minorities only if they are the “right kind” of minority.”

Further comment:  It should not be forgotten that this Marxist phase of the American Progressive Movement violates all three of the basic tenets of what America primarily stands for:

E Pluribus Unum……….In God We Trust……..and Liberty

How about studying these tenets once again in our school classrooms.  All of you readers, I am sure, remind your Lefty friends and relatives of the countless ways in which this New Left Obama Democrat Party diminishes America  in its war against these tenets.

Dennis Prager has an excellent five minute course reminding Americans of the importance of maintaining these beliefs as those which have made this unique nation what it is.   Check it out at Prager University.

Dick Morris’ Report: Dems Base “Decided’ to Vote Democrat Late

President Obama’s last-ditch attempt to turn out his voter base worked — and changed the 2010 election from a tsunami of epic proportions into a mere catastrophe for the Democrats.

John Zogby’s post-election polling reveals that voters who made up their minds about how to vote within the last week voted Democrat by 57-31 while those who made up their minds earlier backed the Republican candidate, 53-44. Zogby’s data indicated that it made no difference whether the voter decided for whom to vote two or three weeks before the election or more than a month before. Both groups backed Republicans by 10 points. But those who decided in the voting booth or in the week immediately before voting backed the Democrat by large margins.

Fortunately for the GOP, only 8 percent of the electorate were late deciders. A full 46 percent were early voters. These Democratic late deciders were all straight from the party’s base: • 15 percent of single voters decided late, and singles voted 64 percent Democrat. • 14 percent of under-$25,000-income voters decided late, and voters in this income category voted Democrat by 59-36. •  20 percent of voters 18-29 decided late, and this group backed Obama by 56-37.

So Obama’s appearances on “The Daily Show” and in youth-oriented media worked well to his party’s advantage.

Race, age and marital status were the key predictors of how a person would vote.

Racially, the Zogby poll shows that blacks cast only 10 percent of the vote and Latinos only 8 percent in the 2010 elections. In 2008, they cast 13 and 10 percent, respectively.

Obama did well among Latinos. His appeals based on immigration worked. Hispanics voted Democrat by 58-37. But, surprisingly, Zogby showed erosion among black voters, who backed the Democrat by only 72-24, well below their percentage for Obama himself in 2008.

Age played a key role in determining one’s vote:

•  Among the youngest voters, 18-24, Democrats got 66 percent of the vote.

•  More broadly, those aged 18-29 voted Democrat 56-37.

•  Those aged 30-49 were split fairly evenly, with Democrats winning 47 percent and Republicans 50 percent.

•  Voters 50-64, the baby boomers, have shifted to the Republicans, backing them by 54-43.

• And, thanks to ObamaCare, the over-65 voters backed Republicans by 57-38.

But voters under 30 constituted only 11 percent of the vote, and those 18-24 were just 3 percent. The failure of these groups to turn out in larger numbers did much to doom the Democratic candidates.

Marital status continued to be one of the key variables in our politics:

•  Married men voted Republican by 60-35.

•  Married women followed suit by 58-40.

•  Unmarried men voted Democrat by 50-42.

•  Unmarried women voted Democrat by 61-34.

Oddly, Obama’s last-minute appeal seems to have been effective based largely on demographics, not on union membership. The unions are the Democratic Party’s financial base, but not their voters. Union members broke evenly, with 49 percent backing Democrats and 47 percent voting Republican.

Historically, Democrats “come home” as Election Day approaches, and those whose involvement in politics is most marginal — who tend to be poorer, less educated and more Democrat — make late decisions to support Democrats. The 2010 election was no exception to this trend.

I had thought that it would be. Based on the solid Republican trend that continued well into October, I believed that the late deciders would tend to side more with the GOP than usual. I felt that those who normally voted Democrat would stay at home. They didn’t. And Obama’s last-minute campaigning had a lot to do with it.

How Dare Israel Defend Its Vital Interests!!! Oh the Chutzpah of It All!

Prime Minister Netanyahu has dared to express himself as Prime Minister of Israel.   Paul Mirengoff at PowerLine writes the following about the reawakening Israeli leader.

‘We have noted the increased assertiveness of Israel in its public pronouncements since the November 2 election. We pointed to Prime Minister Netanyahu’s statement to Vice President Biden about the need for a more assertive policy towards Iran and to the announcement, while Netanyahu is in the United States, of the advanced planning for new housing units in East Jerusalem.

The State Department reacted to the latter development by stating it is “deeply disappointed” with Israel’s announcement. Spokesman P.J. Crowley sniffed that “it is counterproductive to our efforts to resume direct negotiations between the parties,” and that he “expect[s] this will be a topic of discussion when the secretary meets with the prime minister on Thursday.”

Netanyahu, through a spokesperson, fired back as follows:

Jerusalem is not a settlement; Jerusalem is the capital of the State of Israel. Israel has never accepted upon itself restrictions of any kind on construction in Jerusalem, which has approximately 800,000 residents, including during the ten months in which construction was suspended in Judea and Samaria.

Israel sees no connection between the diplomatic process and planning and building policy in Jerusalem, which has not changed in 40 years. All Israeli governments in the past 40 years have built in all parts of the city. During this period, peace agreements were signed with Egypt and Jordan, and for 17 years, diplomatic negotiations have been conducted with the Palestinians. These are historical facts. Construction in Jerusalem has never hindered the peace process.

The disagreements with the US over Jerusalem are well-known. They are not new and have continued for 40 years. We hope to overcome them and continue to advance the diplomatic negotiations. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is looking forward to his planned Thursday meeting with US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton in order to advance the peace talks.

I don’t know whether either party is actually looking forward to the meeting, but I’m looking forward to the fact that it likely will be less one-sided than previous discussions between Netanyahu and the Obama administration

Bloating the Federal Workforce for Our Marxist Future

It is good to see that USA Today is less of a patsy for Democratic Party Progressivism as it has been in the past…..at least in view of the following article, by Dennis Cauchon titled: 

“More Federal Workers’ Pay Tops $150,000″.

“The number of federal workers earning $150,000 or more a year has soared tenfold in the past five years and doubled since President Obama took office, a USA TODAY analysis finds.The fast-growing pay of federal employees has captured the attention of fiscally conservative Republicans who won control of the U.S. House of Representatives in last week’s elections. Already, some lawmakers are planning to use the lame-duck session that starts Monday to challenge the president’s plan to give a 1.4% across-the-board pay raise to 2.1 million federal workers.FEDERAL WORKERS: Earning double their private counterparts

Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, who will head the panel overseeing federal pay, says he wants a pay freeze and prefers a 10% pay cut. “It’s stunning when you see what’s happened to federal compensation,” he says. “Every metric shows we’re heading in the wrong direction.”National Treasury Employees Union President Colleen Kelley counters that the proposed raise “is a modest amount and should be implemented” to help make salaries more comparable with those in the private sector.Federal salaries have grown robustly in recent years, according to a USA TODAY analysis of Office of Personnel Management data. Key findings:•Government-wide raises. Top-paid staff have increased in every department and agency. The Defense Department had nine civilians earning $170,000 or more in 2005, 214 when Obama took office and 994 in June.•Long-time workers thrive. The biggest pay hikes have gone to employees who have been with the government for 15 to 24 years. Since 2005, average salaries for this group climbed 25% compared with a 9% inflation rate.•Physicians rewarded. Medical doctors at veterans hospitals, prisons and elsewhere earn an average of $179,500, up from $111,000 in 2005.Federal workers earning $150,000 or more make up 3.9% of the workforce, up from 0.4% in 2005.Since 2000, federal pay and benefits have increased 3% annually above inflation compared with 0.8% for private workers, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis. Members of Congress earn $174,000, up from $141,300 in 2000, an increase below the rate of inflation.Jessica Klement, government affairs director at the Federal Managers Association, says the government’s official pay analysis shows that federal workers earn less than private workers for comparable jobs. Still, she says, managers are willing to give up next year’s raise: “If it will help the country bounce back, they’re willing to make the sacrifice 

The number of federal workers earning $150,000 or more a year has soared tenfold in the past five years and doubled since President Obama took office, a USA TODAY analysis finds.

The fast-growing pay of federal employees has captured the attention of fiscally conservative Republicans who won control of the U.S. House of Representatives in last week’s elections. Already, some lawmakers are planning to use the lame-duck session that starts Monday to challenge the president’s plan to give a 1.4% across-the-board pay raise to 2.1 million federal workers.

 

FEDERAL WORKERS: Earning double their private counterparts

 

Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, who will head the panel overseeing federal pay, says he wants a pay freeze and prefers a 10% pay cut. “It’s stunning when you see what’s happened to federal compensation,” he says. “Every metric shows we’re heading in the wrong direction.”

National Treasury Employees Union President Colleen Kelley counters that the proposed raise “is a modest amount and should be implemented” to help make salaries more comparable with those in the private sector.

Federal salaries have grown robustly in recent years, according to a USA TODAY analysis of Office of Personnel Management data. Key findings:

•Government-wide raises. Top-paid staff have increased in every department and agency. The Defense Department had nine civilians earning $170,000 or more in 2005, 214 when Obama took office and 994 in June.

•Long-time workers thrive. The biggest pay hikes have gone to employees who have been with the government for 15 to 24 years. Since 2005, average salaries for this group climbed 25% compared with a 9% inflation rate.

•Physicians rewarded. Medical doctors at veterans hospitals, prisons and elsewhere earn an average of $179,500, up from $111,000 in 2005.

Federal workers earning $150,000 or more make up 3.9% of the workforce, up from 0.4% in 2005.

Since 2000, federal pay and benefits have increased 3% annually above inflation compared with 0.8% for private workers, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis. Members of Congress earn $174,000, up from $141,300 in 2000, an increase below the rate of inflation.

Jessica Klement, government affairs director at the Federal Managers Association, says the government’s official pay analysis shows that federal workers earn less than private workers for comparable jobs. Still, she says, managers are willing to give up next year’s raise: “If it will help the country bounce back, they’re willing to make the sacrifice.”

Comment:  The Marxist dictatorships of the Soviet model, relied on tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands government workers, the apparatchiki, to enforce State control over human life.  They would be paid well for without them there would be no dictatorship.

Most government paid personnel would never consider voting against their paychecks.   Marxists are fully aware that the larger the government, the smaller the citizen.  While Dennis Prager and his conservatives might abhor the enlargement of government to the point of citizen enslavement, Marxists have no problem with that at all……for that is the whole point of America’s Obama Left. 

ObamaLeftists are certain they are doing good by bloating the government payroll.  They truly believe in “guiding” American citizen life……..because they learned better than citizens….they went to college and discovered Liberal Arts, Marxist style.  An army of the “knowing better” college educated need to help American solve problems by solving problems for them.   The larger this army the smaller the citizen is, not only in person, but in voting power.

Again, who votes against ones paycheck?

Governor Chris Christie Denounces ‘Greedy’ Public Sector Poster Boy!

New Jersey is facing bankruptcy.  Unlike Barbara Boxer, Gavin Newsom, Henry Waxman, and Jerry Brown California, it elected as governor a politician who is more American than Marxist.  

Quoting the Governor: 

“Let me tell you about the new poster boy for all that’s wrong with the public school system that is being dictated by greed,” Christie said. “This contract is the definition of greed and arrogance.”

“I suspect that the executive county superintendent is going to look very poorly upon someone who is trying to game the system and take from the taxpayers of Parsippany, and by extension, the taxpayers of New Jersey,” the governor added. “If Lee Seitz wants to try to put his greed and his arrogance ahead of the taxpayers of New Jersey, you elected me to stand up to people like Lee Seitz and others across the state, and I will.”  

Click on the following for the  video:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/11/10/gov_christie_rips_poster_boy_of_greedy_public_sector.html

California, the Sinking Ship…..an Article by Dennis Prager about the State in Which He Lives

“OK, riddle fans, here’s a toughie: What’s the difference between California voters and the passengers on the Titanic?

The passengers on the Titanic didn’t vote to hit the iceberg.

Most Americans understand that California is sinking. What is almost incredible is that it has voted to sink.

On Election Day, 2010 Californians voted Democrats into every statewide position (one is still undecided). This is the party that singlehandedly has brought one of the world’s greatest economies to near ruin. There may well be historical parallels to what Californians did — but I cannot think of any.

A listener called my radio show two days after the elections to tell me that his business is booming — thanks to Californians. His occupation? He’s a real estate agent in Phoenix, Ariz.

The middle class has begun to leave California. It is, of course, impossible for most members of such a large group to leave a state; few people leave their family, their friends, their job and their home except under the most dramatic circumstances. But this fact makes all the more noteworthy the exodus from California that has been taking place.

You have to wonder how many businesses and individuals would leave California if their friends and family could also leave, if they could find a comparable job elsewhere and if they could sell their homes without losing money. What you don’t have to wonder about is who would stay under those conditions. The state of California would eventually be left largely with those groups who voted Democrat in this election: rich liberals (such as those who live in Nancy Pelosi’s Marin County, in the bay area and in West Los Angeles); state and municipal workers (who vote Democrat in as direct a pay-for-vote scheme as a law-based society allows); those who rely on state and city governments for entitlements; and those Latinos who either fall into the last category or who unfortunately identify the Republican Party with anti-Latino sentiments because it opposes illegal immigration.

Those who believe in individual responsibility, the free market and personal liberty are a minority in California. We greet each other as Americans would greet each other meeting in a foreign country.

We watch as one of the greatest places in the world — with its extraordinary natural beauty, almost uniquely beautiful weather and agricultural abundance — wastes all of this as a result of having become a left-wing experiment. What is particularly saddening is to see a state whose success was achieved because it was a Mecca for the adventurous in spirit do everything possible to crush that spirit and drive away those who have it.

There is a silver lining here: clarity. Americans living elsewhere need not elect liberal Democrats to know what will happen if they do. They only need to look at California if they want to see what happens to a state governed by the left (and, for that matter, they can look at Texas to see what happens to a state’s finances when governed by the right).

The left and its teachers unions have ruined public education in California. The left and its public service unions have saddled the state with $500 billion in unfunded pension liability. California’s left-governed cities have set themselves up as “sanctuary cities” for those who have come into America illegally. And the left passes more and more rules governing the behavior of California citizens. Two examples: San Francisco just banned McDonald Happy Meals because they come with a toy and therefore entice children to eat fattening food; and the Democratic legislature has made it illegal for a California employer — even in a retail operation — to ask a male employee who comes to work wearing a dress to wear men’s clothing while at work.

And to render the Titanic analogy even more accurate, Californians voted to retain a law that was described by George Will as one “that preposterously aims to cool the planet by requiring a 30 percent reduction of carbon emissions by 2020.”

That law will ensure that California taxes energy use more than any other state. That, in turn, is guaranteed to increase unemployment and the cost of living in the state — one more reason businesses and productive individuals are leaving, but rarely moving, into California.

Environmentalist true believers have free reign in California. They have convinced a majority of the state’s voters to believe the increasingly absurd notion that human carbon dioxide emission is heating up the planet to temperatures so high that humanity and the earth will suffer cataclysmic consequences.

To return to our Titanic metaphor, the great difference between that ill-fated ship’s crew and California’s crew (its voters and the California Democratic Party) is that the Titanic’s crew did everything possible to avoid hitting the iceberg; California’s crew did everything possible to hit it. Perhaps they believe global warming will melt it before they get there.”

The above article was written by Dennis Prager  as the most recent of his Tuesday columns at his website or at Townhall.com.

Every American should be concerned about the wanton profligacy of the Lefties who goverrn California.  Already $40,000,000 PER DAY is being paid by the Obama government to help that state continue its spending.

The Second Best Column Maureen Dowd Has Ever Written!

My good friend and former teaching colleague, Mark Waldeland, sent me yesterday’s Maureen Dowd column in the New York Times.

Only once before in her life has Maureen Dowd ever written a column as prescient, so loyal to truth, and as profoundly expressed.  And that was six years ago, not coincidentally, written in the same season of the year, perhaps even the precise date as this second outburst of intellectual enlightenment:

This is from Maureen’s column yesterday:

“As a semichastened Barack Obama appeared at the press conference following the election, he conjured up the image of the curtain opening in “The Wizard of Oz,” revealing a little old man working the controls, not the great and powerful Oz.

The president had to wonder how this could happen in two short years. He must long for the days when the media routinely referred to him as “cerebral and brainy” (savvy was never mentioned) and salivated over “Michelle’s amazing arms.”

The voters left no doubt about their feeling for his super-nanny state where the government controls all aspects of their lives and freedoms. Warning signs were up in the three elections held in Massachusetts, Virginia and New Jersey and with the noisy birth of the Tea Party. But the president, swathed in the protective cocoon of adulation and affirmation from the media and his own sycophants, soldiered on in his determination to turn our country into just another member of the failed European union — France without the food.

No one should be surprised by this. The president is a devoted disciple of the teachings of Saul Alinsky and a true believer in a redistribution of wealth controlled by big government. We can see how well that is working in Greece, Portugal, Spain and France. Instead of focusing on jobs and turning the private sector loose to provide them, he insisted on giving the American people things they did not want: expensive health care, more regulation and higher taxes. He clumsily interjected himself on behalf of the mass-murdering Muslim Army major, the ground zero mosque, the civil trials of enemy combatants and the lawsuit against Arizona. His theme song could have been “Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?”

On Nov. 2, voters across every spectrum loudly stated their preference for a return to American exceptionalism, self-reliance, limited government and personal freedoms. They delivered a message that they would demand that their representatives start reflecting their wishes. They showed their muscle to shocked elitists who had dismissed their dissent as ignorance, bigotry or racism. It is probably a product of the revisionist history we now teach in our schools that the Tea Party, a replica of the beginnings of the American Revolution, was marginalized and mocked as a lunatic fringe group by a dismissive news media.

That same media is becoming increasingly aware that its creation is in over his head. He seems unaware of, or ambivalent about, the results of his actions. The last three weeks of the campaign were particularly unseemly. The vision of the President of the United States, one who spoke of civility and hope and change, exposed as just another Chicago pol, viciously and personally attacking his opponents, was undignified.

When my children were small, I used to take them to visit my mother. One of her favorite lines if they complained was, “Do you want some cheese with that whine?” We may have to call Switzerland to get enough cheese for the presidential whines.

I once had a Jesuit English teacher who asked for an example of irony. A classmate raised his hand and wondered if Othello mistakenly killing Desdemona qualified. The old priest shook his head, noting, “That is not irony, bud, that is tragic irony.” So it is with the idea being floated that Hillary might join Obama on a dream ticket as V.P. to save his presidency. Hillary, the only member of the cabinet with any political savvy, saving the guy that jumped line on her. I don’t think so.

Here are my random thoughts for 2010:

To Sarah Palin: Mirror, mirror on the wall, you’re the fairest of them all. You don’t need to run for the presidency.

To Nancy Pelosi: It’s hard to watch a noble ideal ravaged by facts. We’re going to need that military jet back.

To Keith Olbermann: A welcome, but all too brief, respite. Thank God you’re not handicapping horses.

To Chris Matthews: Is that tingle now a spasm?

To Jon Stewart: Good work and great rally! You tower above your critics.

To Alan Grayson: Good riddance.

To Eric Holder: Try suing the bad guys.

To Chris Van Hollen: Pickett was not promoted after Gettysburg.

To Jimmy Carter: You make my hair hurt.

To Vivian Schiller: Too bad the truth didn’t set you free — as in fired.

To President Bush : A 50-to-42 winner over Obama in a mock presidential poll in Ohio after doing absolutely nothing. A Nobel Prize is on the way.

To John Boehner: You are on double secret probation. Be grateful for a second chance. Vaya con Dios!”

(The entire article above appeared in yesterday’s New York Times, written by Maureen Dowd.  The contents indicate a deep and accurate understanding of the 44th American president and the scene of today’s political play managed by the nation’s Left Wing.

But, Ms. Dowd prefaced her column as written above with the following paragraph:

“My Mom used to say, “When you’re blue, wear red.” America took that advice on Election Day, and you can color Kevin happy. My conservative brother celebrated by doing his year-end political letter early. Here is his tour d’horizon:”   …….and then the above “tour”.

(Thank you so much, Kevin.   This is the second best column ever among Maureen’s offerings.)

Six years ago Ms. Dowd was much angrier, almost hysterical…..or perhaps she had lost it, but calmed down enough to be hysterical,  over  the re-election of George W. Bush.  Again, the week following she woefully admitted she didn’t know who these losers were who could be dumb enough to vote for GW.   And, perhaps to control her violence, she turned to her ‘conservative’ brother for clarity, and his views were accurately expressed without her editing or sniping, and wrote the best column in her life.   I have saved it, but it is lost somewhere in the innersancta  of my house.   I am going to seek it out.

Frankly, both articles written in these Novembers, speak very well of Ms. Dowd……much better than her usual stuff.   It shows she has a loyalty to someone besides her Marxism.

The Demise of Home Ownership…. Marxists Prefer Apartment Dwellers

A few days  ago I was watching a business channel on television where the regulars, experts all in something or another, were arguing about the rising numbers of the American population who live in apartments.   They all looked at the issues as if home ownership was simply an investment.   With the housing market depressed as it is, you can imagine there weren’t many points made for ownership.

The major lunge against home ownership was that it limited the owner to prospects for employment.   T he house was a liability both financially and  a burden for finding new employment.   One couldn’t easily market oneself outside of his community.

Nothing was said regarding how owning ones own home affects the owner…..or affects the culture.  Apartment dwellers come and go.  For most there is little effort made to join the community or express oneself within the walls of the few rooms of existence.   There is far less sense of belonging to anything…..roots and such.  

For most   Americans marriage and home owning are the most conservative acts in ones life.   Why bother with marriage when living together in a flat?   Neither identifies a future.  So the present is all there is. 

Lefties are far more likely to avoid home owning, unless they are well established or more  privileged economically.  I think of the Kenwood folk in Minneapolis.   So many so often change residences, they might as well live in great complexes.

One of the basic essentials of red state living is home ownership.   Not least important is the ownership of some land around it.   One can be a slob indoors, but in most neighborhoods there are expectations regarding how the residence appears to the public.  

Another conservative move is becoming acquainted with what can be done to make the home beautiful out doors, or at least become aware how the grounds can further ones interest “at home”. 

When one begins to garden seriously, in the sense beyond growing vegetables, but trees and shrubs and things more delicate, that is where one often becomes almost a part of the Earth and therefore never dream of moving anywhere no matter what the circumstances.

I believe more modern the man the less likely he desires home and grounds ownership.  He has no clue what to learn about it, and so has no interest, especially if he is shacking up.  The more adult male still values his castle, a place where he can create his little empire and protect it.   It is in the blood.   He may not go so far as to participate creatively in its  outdoor surroundings, but maintaining a nice looking lawn and neat appearing support,  usually will push a bit of male pride.  It is his lawn.   They are his shrubs.  His wife will usually be the one growing the flowers.

Nothing is more demanding of conservative discipline that managing ones home and grounds successfully.   Knowledge, routines, many of them seen as boring to the uninitiated, become daily and seasonal exercises stimulating learning and imagination. 

The ‘intellectually self blessed’ ‘ Left has long sneered and teaches others to sneer at those red state creatures who mow their own lawns.    It is the height of bourgoise vacuousness. 

For lefty women, however, it is a mark of superiority to conduct a garden of some kind.   These days it is a rain garden.   The left has its moods.  They take classes at the local arboretum and learn ten rule of this or that in one weeks’ time.   The environment does inspire them.  They desire to do good and so march out and dictate to others how to do everything in the out doors from their weeks’ learnings.

Working ones own home grounds demands duties and yields endless benefits to those who want to know more about the life around them than what they see on televisions or learn from Marxism 1o1.

American youth is drifting to apartment culture for a number of reasons.    A bad economy is one.   Another comes from the Leftwing politics  spewing out from our universities and schools….the most damaging of which is the propagandizing that there are no basic differences between the human male and female beyond socialization.   Then there are  the attacks on the nation’s young males  from the feminist crowd, for being male, a major weapon exercised by the Left.

The family is far less valued by the society as a whole.   More and more citizens grow old unmarried and not committed to children, their own or others.   Duties around the home are not taught to the young.   There is less imitating Dad when there is no Dad around.  Many in the Leftwing American cheer that kind of society.  They propagandize their poison in the Women Studies programs at nearly all of American ‘institutions of higher learning.’.

Home ownership is a powerful enterprise forcing the human male and female both  to play their normal  roles according to their sex..  Deviations may occur.  It is better for all if they occur from natural  experience rather than from university (left wing) dictate.

When any government amasses enough power, it will demolish private homes and herd its people into apartments where  lives can more easily be  controlled, that is.  The Marxist rulers will boast about the frugality of it all.