Recently in Failed Democratic policies Category


Condoleezza Rice condemned Democrats for playing the race card in this month's elections, calling it "appalling."

She also addresses the habit of too many blacks to make outcasts of blacks who try to improve themselves and "don't act black enough." Quarterback Russell Wilson of the Seattle Seahawks is the most recent example, being accused of acting white by his fellow black teammates. To his credit, Charles Barkley spoke up in Wilson's defense and blasted those blacks who peddle such "crap."

Such talk does a great deal of damage to young black people, who wind up preferring jive talk and baseball caps worn backwards to fitting in at school and working hard to get ahead.

What a role model Condi Rice is for young blacks, if they will only heed her. They need to be encouraged to believe that the same if not better opportunities lie ahead for them that were there for her when she was growing up in the segregated South.

It starts with the right kind of education. And too much of public school education is effectively controlled by public teachers unions whose first priority is themselves, not the students. Competition in choice through vouchers is the beginning of the answer, as Senator Tim Scott champions.

High on the Republican agenda in 2015 should be increasing school choice and other opportunities for the poor to advance themselves.



Every Democratic senator seeking re-election who was in office in 2008 is responsible for the economic disaster that has befallen the families of America. Their 60 votes installed Obama's "transforming" agenda to the detriment of the middle class and poor of America. They did it all without a single Republican vote. If the voters know the truth, those Democrats will pay at the polls in November.

The Democratic Party's great political victory in 2008 led to the realization of a progressive agenda in the making for a century. But that agenda resulted in economic failure for working Americans. It failed as it has always failed: Progressive policies buy votes but destroy prosperity.

Senate Democrats vs. the Middle Class
Senators elected in 2008 made Obama's agenda possible, and its results have harmed most Americans.

By Phil Gramm and Michael Solon
WSJ Aug. 18, 2014

On Nov. 3, 2008, seven new Democratic senators were elected, giving Democrats 58 votes. Eight months later, with the Minnesota Senate race settled and Arlen Specter having switched parties, Democrats secured the 60th vote to overcome filibusters and impose absolute control over the Senate for the first time in 31 years. In 78 days, American voters will render judgment on the record of the Senate Democratic Class of 2008, and on all 35 Democratic candidates seeking to perpetuate their Senate majority.

The Senate's Democratic majority was united after the 2008 election in its commitment to President Obama's progressive vision to remake America. And with a financial crisis afoot, it was determined to not waste the opportunity.

ObamaCare, which gave government control of the health-care system, was vigorously supported, promoted and defended by every Senate Democrat. It became law in March 2010 without a single Republican vote in either house of Congress. Every Democratic senator cast the deciding vote for ObamaCare.

Since the Progressive Era a century ago, Democrats have dreamed of seizing the commanding heights of the financial system to expand government's ability to influence the allocation of credit. The passage of Dodd-Frank in July 2010, also supported by every Democrat in the Senate, made that dream a reality.

In 1993, President Clinton had been unable to pass a comparatively modest $16 billion stimulus program. Democrats in 2009 passed a massive $787 billion stimulus program with every Democratic senator voting for it. And with the tacit support of Democratic senators who have blocked every bill, resolution or amendment that impeded any aspect of his regulatory agenda, President Obama has implemented the most massive expansion of federal regulatory authority since the Great Depression.

It is impossible for any Democratic senator running for re-election this year to credibly argue that he or she did not support the president's program or provide a critical vote to enact it. No Democratic candidate can argue that by electing him or her and sustaining the Democratic majority in the Senate, voters can hope to alter the president's program.

With his party's Senate supermajority, President Obama achieved a series of historic political victories. But the question most voters will have to answer on Nov. 4 is whether this program has been good for working Americans. We think the answer is clear. As is well known, the Obama recovery is the weakest in postwar history. If the Obama recovery had been as strong as the average of the previous 10 postwar recoveries, 13.9 million more Americans would be working today and the average real per capita income of every man, woman and child in America would be $6,308 higher.

Continue reading . . .



This is becoming one of the most watched video of the year and the response is overwhelming -- vote for the conservatives in 2014.



There is a lot to catch up on!

The Chatham RTC and our colleagues in the Lower Cape - the RTCs of Harwich, Orleans, Eastham, Brewster and Truro -- worked hard to put together what I will call a magnificent observance of the 150th anniversary of President Lincoln's Gettysburg Address on November 19th, 2013. It was held exactly 150 years to the day after President Lincoln put into words what the war had achieved -- fulfilling the promise in the Declaration of Independence that all men are created equal.

We chose the elegant Wequassett in Harwich as a fitting location to celebrate such a momentous day in America's history. It was also fitting that Massachusetts was one of just a handful of states honoring the day -- Gettysburg itself, the Lincoln Library in Springfield, Illinois and Lincoln, Nebraska, renamed that shortly after the assassination.

More than 100 citizens of the Lower Cape gathered to honor President Lincoln and reflect on the meaning packed into his 272 words. Our special guest Republican candidate for Governor Charlie Baker not only came out of respect for President Lincoln and his message, but the urgency that should be directed towards winning all Republican contests in November 2014 to achieve yet another Rebirth of Freedom. As Charlie said,"I am proud to be the heir of Abraham Lincoln and his concern for freedom and equality before the law for all." His words were enthusiastically received. It is clear that Charlie Baker cares deeply that Lincoln's message is a message for our times.

It is fitting for Massachusetts to join in the celebration because the heart and soul of the abolitionist movement was in Boston. Massachusetts was the second state (right after Vermont) to outlaw slavery in 1783.

The leading publication of the movement was The Liberator, begun in Boston by William Lloyd Garrison in 1831 and continued right through the Civil War. When the Republican Party was formed on an anti-slavery platform in 1854, abolitionists en masse became Republicans and swept Lincoln to victory in 1860.

The anthem of the anti-slavery cause in the Civil War, The Battle Hymn of the Republic, was a poem penned by a Boston abolitionist Julia Ward Howe.

The Republican Governor of Massachusetts John Andrew was such a fervent and active supporter of freedom for slaves that a hospital at what was an all-black college in Tuskegee, Alabama is named after him.

During the war it was the Republican abolitionists with Massachusetts in the forefront who kept putting pressure on President Lincoln to unilaterally "do something" to free the slaves. Trouble was, for Lincoln, a President sworn to uphold the Constitution and a lawyer as well, slavery was legal under the Constitution in states which allowed it. And the Supreme Court had ruled that Congress could not restrict slavery in the new territories of the Louisiana Purchase. What could he do?

Beset daily with demands from his most loyal and demanding supporters, he searched for an answer and, as the inventive lawyer he was, he found it in that troublesome document the Constitution itself.

Preserving the Union was the President's paramount duty under the Constitution and he was waging a war to do just that. Just perhaps, under his War Powers as Commander in Chief, he could indeed "do something."

Lincoln delivered an ultimatum to the rebel states: Return to the Union by January 1, 1863 or he would free all the slaves in rebel territories and order the Union Army to protect them. His war aims were two-fold: To encourage slaves to flee the plantations, thus weakening the agricultural output of the South, the source of almost all of its external revenue and, hopefully, to get freed slaves to sign up for Union Army. He achieved both purposes -- and his Emancipation Proclamation was never legally challenged.

Until 1963 the South was winning most of the battles. By mid-summer, the effects of the Emancipation Proclamation were beginning to be felt. On the first three days of July, the bloody battle of Gettysburg was fought and the Union forces were victorious, forcing Lee to quit the battlefield and retreat.

Cheering crowds stormed the White House on July 4th wanting to hear from the President, but we waved them off. It wasn't yet time to say what he sensed had occurred: The war had turned in the Union's favor and the Union would be preserved. And something just as great if not greater was being accomplished.

The citizens of Gettysburg decided on a Soldiers' Cemetery and that a solemn dedication was called for. The date set was November 19, 1863. Edward Everett, himself a Massachusetts abolitionist, probably the most distinguished man of his times, was chosen to deliver what would be a two-hour oration. The invitation to Lincoln was a courtesy by the committee, which politely indicated he could make "a few remarks" after the principal talk. Lincoln told his aides before leaving Washington that was fine, he would be "short, short, short."

After what would have been Edward Everett's oration, Abraham Lincoln, in his long black coat with white flecks in his beard, walked through the crowd at Wequassett, took his place at the front and began, "Four score and seven years ago,...

"Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Scott Hamilton." The crowd rose with enthusiastic applause in appreciation of this stirring rendition.

President Lincoln had put things in context. Acceptance in the Constitution of slavery as life as it had been in America since the early 1600s was a betrayal of the Declaration of Independence. Now the promise that all men are entitled to the enjoyment of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" had been made fact by the brave men who had fought and died. There had been A NEW BIRTH OF FREEDOM.

There was still "unfinished business" for "us the living." It is to ensure that "government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth."

Lincoln spoke not only to the people of his times, but to all those generations to come in America who would be threatened by the loss of freedom. Lincoln had warned that if America were to suffer decline, be defeated, it would be from within. Every generation had to be on guard, every generation had to fight for a new birth of freedom to ensure the perpetual continuation of a government controlled by the people, not by those who from time to time would be in power.

President Reagan had his own warning, that freedom can be lost in a single generation.

When we see the overreaching in Democrat-controlled Washington eroding our freedoms, limiting our choices,refusing to enforce the laws of the land, intruding into our private lives, taxing and regulating the productive and denigrating the accomplishments of the successful, we must take heed of Lincoln's message and gird ourselves for the elections ahead. It isn't just the White House, it is every Democrat who supported its policies, voted for them and did not protest the constant lying to the American people about how they had been deceived.

And the one-party tyranny in the State House is spending our taxpayer money on government handouts to those who aren't entitled to them, imposing taxes and more taxes, even automatic taxes on gas, and more and more regulation, it is time for change there, too. Contrast the Weld to Romney years of balanced budgets without tax increases and low unemployment and strong job growth in a business-friendly economy with the past seven years.

President Lincoln's spirit will be with us as we fight to reclaim the freedoms which are being stolen from all Americans by those in power who are telling us how to live our lives.

2014 is the time the people must fight to win back our freedoms. We must bring about a new birth of freedom. It is Republicans who must lead the charge as they did to free the slaves of 150 years ago.

Fran Meaney, Chairman, Chatham RTC



The racist hypocrisy exhibited by Obama and Attorney General Holder is an essential piece of Democratic policies that are aimed at maintaining 90% voting control of black Americans.

Non-blacks are getting fed up and are not reacting with "white guilt" as they are supposed to. They are beginning to realize that the race-baiting and black victimization mantras and related Democratic policies are the causes of the failed black culture that daily threatens other Americans.

It is time for blunt talking and Victor Davis Hanson destroys the Obama/Holder myths of white racist stereotyping and white victimization of blacks with facts.

July 23, 2013
Facing Facts about Race
Young black males are at greater risk from their peers than from the police or white civilians.
By Victor Davis Hanson

Last week President Obama weighed in again on the Trayvon Martin episode. Sadly, most of what he said was wrong, both literally and ethically.

Pace the president, the Zimmerman case was not about Stand Your Ground laws. It was not a white-on-black episode. The shooting involved a Latino of mixed heritage in a violent altercation with a black youth.

Is it ethical for the president to weigh in on a civil-rights case apparently being examined by his own Justice Department? The president knows that if it is true that African-American males are viewed suspiciously, it is probably because statistically they commit a disproportionate amount of violent crime. If that were not true, they might well be given no more attention as supposed suspects than is accorded to white, Asian, or Latino youths. Had George Zimmerman been black, he would have been, statistically at least, more likely to have shot Trayvon Martin — and statistically likewise less likely to have been tried.

Barack Obama knows that if non-African-Americans were to cease all inordinate scrutiny of young African-American males, the latters’ inordinate crime rates would probably not be affected — given other causation for disproportionate incidences of criminality. Yet should their statistical crime profiles suddenly resemble those of other racial and ethnic groups, the so-called profiling would likely cease.




Shelby Steele, a brilliant African-American writer at Stanford's Hoover Institution (along with the brilliant Thomas Sowell), explained yesterday how hollowed out and irrelevant the so-called civil rights establishment of today is, a far cry from the days and character of Martin Luther King, Jr.

Rush Limbaugh emphasized for his listeners how important Steele's words were for the real problems that today's black leadership is ignoring -- that, for example, a young black is killed by another black youth almost every day on the South Side of Chicago; that more than 70% of black children are growing up without a father; that that illegitimacy rate threatens to consign blacks to something like permanent inferiority.

The death of Detroit and the disintegration of the black family are both results of wrong-headed, self-serving Democratic policies, the seeds of which were planted decades ago and watered diligently ever since.

The Decline of the Civil-Rights Establishment
Black leaders weren't so much outraged at injustice as they were by the disregard of their own authority.
Wall Street Journal

The verdict that declared George Zimmerman not guilty of murdering Trayvon Martin was a traumatic event for America's civil-rights establishment, and for many black elites across the media, government and academia. When you have grown used to American institutions being so intimidated by the prospect of black wrath that they invent mushy ideas like "diversity" and "inclusiveness" simply to escape that wrath, then the crisp reading of the law that the Zimmerman jury displayed comes as a shock.

On television in recent weeks you could see black leaders from every background congealing into a chorus of umbrage and complaint. But they weren't so much outraged at a horrible injustice as they were affronted by the disregard of their own authority. The jury effectively said to them, "You won't call the tune here. We will work within the law."

Today's black leadership pretty much lives off the fumes of moral authority that linger from its glory days in the 1950s and '60s. The Zimmerman verdict lets us see this and feel a little embarrassed for them. Consider the pathos of a leadership that once transformed the nation now lusting for the conviction of the contrite and mortified George Zimmerman, as if a stint in prison for him would somehow assure more peace and security for black teenagers everywhere. This, despite the fact that nearly one black teenager a day is shot dead on the South Side of Chicago—to name only one city—by another black teenager.




Condoleezza Rice reminds us that an equal opportunity future for our present and future generations depends on education. She calls the challenge to provide quality education the civil rights issue of our times. She's right. Public charter schools and vouchers for private schools should be available to all, not just the wealthy.



What are people online saying about the basket case of Detroit?

It's the wave of the future because it is the inevitable result of the Democratic strategy to capture voters through spreading taxpayer money around.

LBJ's plan to lock up the "Negro" vote for 200 years was the Great Society. It created a new class of government dependents who would vote to keep those goodies coming no matter what.

The LBJ plan can only be described as a spectacular success for Democrats. Not so much for the recipient dependents.

African-Americans continue to vote more than 90% Democratic as their families disintegrate, black unemployment keeps rising and the number of unwed black mothers giving birth continues to increase (now over 70%). Poverty is perpetuated through dependency. Handouts are enough to" keep them quiet" but not enough to make them free (or "uppity," in LBJ's words).

In addition to welfare payments, loyalty and votes are assured by Democratic machines in big cities (and some states) by expanding government employment and enriching public unions and employees, in too many cases without regard to the costs of the obligations being taken on. Too often, corruption adds to the mess.

But the plan nonetheless is busily being expanded -- with food stamps and Obamaphones and other handouts -- to acquire even more solid Democratic votes not only of other minorities but of whites who are willing to live on handouts rather than work. The fact that recession is lingering and job growth is strangled by the rules of ObamaCare is good for Democrats, since the number of those eager for benefits increases.

But Detroit shows it can't go on forever. Margaret Thatcher's words apply to Democratic redistribute-the-wealth programs: Sooner or later the socialists run out of other people's money.

For Detroit the end has come though some already are calling for the federal government to bail Detroit out.

As in Detroit, as one observer noted, collapse comes when the parasite is growing faster than the host.

People are beginning to wake up to the corrosive and destructive effects of Democratic policies that promote dependency and fiscal irresponsibility.

Here's one blogger correctly assessing the Detroit situation:



What do the 26 cities with a population over 250K and the greatest poverty level have in common?

All are heavy unionized and all have been controlled by Democrats for many many years!

Does this fact and the Blue States bordering on Bankruptcy penetrate the mental fog surrounding the Liberal mind and their emotions that they use in place of thinking?

Of Course NOT!

Never have so many been oblivious to the obvious.

They still think the Democrat Politicians are concerned about their Welfare.

The same party and polities that reduced the black population into welfare bondage and the most dependable Democrat voters will work just as well for the rest of the population.

Just reduce them to poverty and Depending on Welfare and you have a Democrat voter for life!

President Zero and the Democrats are pursuing the same polities and spreading poverty for the rest of the Nation that have turned those cities and blue States like Calif., Illinois, New York etc. into basket cases and made them dependable votes for the Democrats!

The more the Democrats can spread Poverty, Welfare and the Entitlement mentality the more Democrat voters they make and the closer they get to a Third World Socialist Food Stamp Paradise controlled Lock, Stock and Barrel by the Democrat party!



The incomparable Mark Steyn marvels at the efficiency of the Democratic machine working with public unions in destroying the wealthiest city in the world in less than 60 years. An amazing achievement.

Democratic Great Society programs have led to the destruction of the black family. Also pernicious was the Democrats' authorization of unions for public employees, which has led to the cannibalizing of public services and fiscal irresponsibility in states, cities and towns across the nation.

Can what happened in Detroit happen elsewhere? The seeds are sprouting everywhere. Current extravagant overspending by governments is coupled with promises of future benefits made by politicians at all levels of government without regard to or provision for the corresponding costs.

On top of the promises inherent in Medicaid and Medicare, each of which is not currently sustainable, Obama forces another everlasting unsustainable benefit on the protesting public in ObamaCare. Present unfunded liabilities of the U.S. are estimated at $220 trillion, which is about 13 times the current national GDP. How unsustainable can we get?

States and local governments aren't much better. California and Illinois are the poster children of states as Detroit is for cities and towns.

But even towns on Cape Cod are suffering from too much spending and overpromising by boards of selectmen. All Cape Cod towns get a "D" for their funding of public employee pensions and an "F" for how long they plan to take to fully fund their obligations.

And most Cape towns have done nothing about even greater unfunded liabilities -- those for lifetime healthcare for public employees and their families. Chatham's 100% unfunded liability for Other Post-Employment Benefits (OPED), which includes healthcare, is right now $55 million, steadily growing each year; by 2016 it will be $61 million unless a funding program is begun or new contracts with sharply reduced benefits are negotiated. The selectmen have allowed this liability to grow unchecked for years and it is still growing unchecked.

Detroit is a warning only if it is heeded.

JULY 20, 2013
The Downfall of Detroit
It took only six decades of “progressive” policies to bring a great city to its knees.
By Mark Steyn
National Review Online

By the time Detroit declared bankruptcy, Americans were so inured to the throbbing dirge of Motown’s Greatest Hits — 40 percent of its streetlamps don’t work; 210 of its 317 public parks have been permanently closed; it takes an hour for police to respond to a 9-1-1 call; only a third of its ambulances are driveable; one-third of the city has been abandoned; the local realtor offers houses on sale for a buck and still finds no takers; etc., etc. — Americans were so inured that the formal confirmation of a great city’s downfall was greeted with little more than a fatalistic shrug.

But it shouldn’t be. To achieve this level of devastation, you usually have to be invaded by a foreign power. In the War of 1812, when Detroit was taken by a remarkably small number of British troops without a shot being fired, Michigan’s Governor Hull was said to have been panicked into surrender after drinking heavily. Two centuries later, after an almighty 50-year bender, the city surrendered to itself.



Contact: Diane Bronsdon 508 945 9218
C R Facebook
To help us do our part to keep America strong and well informed, just click below. Donate Now!


Michael O'Keffe District Attorney
Leo Cakounes Barn.Cty Commish
Sheriff Cummings
Hot Air
Legal Insurrection
National Review
Power Line
Pajamas Media


Semper Fi Fund
Cape Cod Cares for Our Troops
Wounded Warrior Family Support
New England Center and Home for Veterans
Chatham Info
Monthly Archive

Category Yearly Archives