Media Matters, a creation of Hillary Clinton, according to one of her own off-hand remarks while giving some kind of political speech, has an active  campaign to attack Lou Dobbs and others  of CNN.[1]  This is proper and mandatory for a narrow political organization that specializes in half truths.

This political organization is headed by David Brock, President & CEO of Media Matters for America. We must recall that Brock was the best-selling author of The Real Anita Hill who did a first-rate investigation of her phony attacks on Justice Thomas and her attempts to prevent his appointment to the United States Supreme Court. He later said he was sorry. What he meant was that he was sorry that he attacked a far-left heroine of such a lofty status as Joan DArc or Eleanor Roosevelt. Shame on him.

Media Matters for America is a nit-pickers stew pot boiler that nibbles around details and constantly recycles rubber-stamped conclusions that the right wing is always wrong. They have proof or so they state, for discounting any and all views that are not sanctioned by the far left.

Lou Dobbs has been showcasing reports on the messy immigration issue and has offended those in the far left who see their political future as absolutely dependent on the current and future votes from illegal aliens. A simple analysis of who votes for the far left gives a dismal %41 on average and they have to pick 9 or 10 points up from the independents, the non party political party that is growing every day. The rabid left must get votes somewhere and success in capitalism tends to divert votes against those who are tax mongers, dictators or liberal Senators.

A few tidbits:

In a discussion of a Wall Street Journal editorial on immigration during his December 9, 2005, show, Dobbs announced, "I support the Minuteman Project and the fine Americans who make it up in all they've accomplished, fully, relentlessly, and proudly." As you may know, the Minuteman Project has been touted by conservative outlets, despite controversy over its anti-immigrant rhetoric and vigilante-style tactics.

This is a flat lie. The Minuteman Project does not employ vigilante-style tactics and Brock can find no such incidents. No Hispanic was shot or lynched in the years that his group has been along the border. That group only watches and then contacts the proper authorities when they spot illegal aliens, many of whom are potential terrorists, sneaking across the borders. They are not like the Stasi,[2] KGB, KKK, SDS, Weathermen or Gestapo as Brock would like some to believe. This is a flat lie.

 More:

During a CBS News interview with correspondent Lesley Stahl, which aired on the May 6 edition of CBS' 60 Minutes, CNN host and CBS Early Show special contributor Lou Dobbs defended CNN correspondent Christine Romans' citation -- initially made on the April 14, 2005, edition of CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight -- of the false claims that "there were about 900 cases of leprosy [in the United States] for 40 years," and that "[t]here have been 7,000 in the past three years."

Apparently, there is some urgent need to correct the precise number of lepers who transverse our borders and correct CNN for their gross distortions of disease. Note there is no mention of many who enter the US illegally with various other diseases and pose health risks. This is an example of minutia mongering.

Brock then goes on:

The Minuteman Project has been touted by conservative outlets such as Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, which has featured Minuteman organizers and supporters, often without providing an opposing viewpoint.

Okay, let us see what you have:

We can ask David Brock: Where is your forum where I can come on and put up my opposing viewpoint to some of your conclusions?? Do you want to be fair?? Or do you just want to turn the old rusty crank on any and all matters that can be used to attack the opponents of immigration.  Is your organization just a propaganda outlet?  Do you distort news? Are you biased?

Where is your essay on the Rule of Law, popular with the Clintons who founded and support your organization, that applies to illegal aliens who commit misdemeanors and felonies by:

[1] Entering the US illegally and frequently reenter.

[2] Steal Social Security numbers.

[3] Fail to submit state income tax returns

[4] Fail to submit federal income tax returns.

[5] Fail to buy auto insurance.

[6] Smuggling drugs into the US.

Do you sanction crimes if it leads to votes for liberal Democrats?

Given the grotesque distortions of the rabid left, we might reference a few Saul Alinskys Rules[3] and hold Brock and Media Matters to their own rules and processes that they force upon others. Saul was Hillarys favorite professor.

Suggestions:

Why not open a discussion about illegal aliens committing disgusting crimes and then wasting our tax monies while in prison? Why not put this option on your website?

Quoting Saul Alinsky[4]:

Rule 4: Make opponents live up to their own book of rules. You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.

Rule 5: Ridicule is mans most potent weapon. Its hard to counterattack ridicule, and it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage.

What are your rules David and can you stand some ridicule??

Can Media Matters tell us, using numbers as accurate as they required for the exact numbers of lepers in the US and tell us how many illegal aliens that are Mexican criminals are in jail in the US?? What fraction of crime in the US today is committed by illegal aliens? Can we debate that?

Can we get Media Matters to acknowledge that drug smuggling is a crime and account, in numerical terms, for how much this costs society in terms of medical expenses, social counseling and drug rehabilitation from Mexican and South American drug profits?? Can we debate that?

Is it illegal to grow marijuana in California? Can we debate that?

How many illegal aliens voted in Orange County for Rep. Sanchez? Can we debate that?

Media Matters is hypocritically acting to put out negative information against any right wing organizations or policies and function as a ragzine. They are not objective They cannot accept opposite views or criticism.

Take some ridicule!

rycK

 Enigma: The New York Times Advises Shutting Up Venezuela’s Chávez!?

Sometimes the New York Times blunders near the political center and commits a few unforgivable political strategic errors which grabs the attention of   those observers who  prefer the use of reason rather than simply  nod  with a leftist reflex at the Times’ Op eds. Roger Cohen reports from Caracas[1], Venezuela with some slightly negative views on Spanish-speaking tyrants.

To wit:

“President Hugo Chávez of Venezuela hates fascists; they are central to his repertoire of insults. But he has not hesitated to deploy the imagery of death to bolster his leftist brand of petro-authoritarianism, now operating under the ludicrous banner of “Fatherland, Socialism or Death!”

Misdirection.

Here we detect a synthetic linkage between fascism and hate and death with a few slogans to amplify the report. Perhaps the author thinks that millions of Kulaks were not dispatched with hate slogans. How about Mao and Pol Pot? Read a few Soviet posters from the 1919-1924 era to see some hate against the opponents of Marxism.

The conclusion appears early in his report:

“…Latin America’s oil-gilded caudillo is getting serious about ruling for life, just like Franco and Castro.”

Then, as an afterthought he says:

“I might add Vladimir Putin to that list.”…”… Chávez has … oil revenue… and the galvanizing appeal of vitriolic anti-Americanism to concoct a 21st-century, gulag-free authoritarianism. But even Putin has not contemplated going as far as Chávez now intends to take his “Bolivarian revolution.”

Here Cohen mixes political similes by lumping Marxist dictators (and their associates like Che Guevara, but Simon Bolivar was never in Bolivia, and Che tried to start a revolution in Bolivia, his home. This is almost a simultaneous play on words and sounds.) and assorted tyrannical wannabees with monolithic anti fascists into a tangled mixture that seems to offer some ethical political demarcation line separated only by gulags.

Then:

“Foreign investment has plunged, scared off by nationalizations.”

And

“But Chávez’s grab for socialist-emperor status is grotesque and dangerous — as Fascism was — a terrible example for a region that has been consolidating democracy.”

How about substituting –As Communism was—above?

Cohen omits a frank and stark criticism of the grotesque socialist-emperor status of Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Kim, Castro, Ho, Pot and others. He fails to show the near seamlessness between socialism with respect to Nazism and Italian forms of the Fascisti and then Franco’s unique fascist version of government in Spain. The author cannot spell out the fact that fascism was created in direct response to Bolshevism, the cancer of the 20s that sought to infect Italy, Germany in 1919 and later in Spain and other countries.. Much of the disgust and hate against fascists, called the ‘far right’ now is because those groups destroyed the Soviet Dream in many places and ‘liquidated’ Marxists like Rosa Luxemburg in Munich. These people of both the socialist, Marxist and fascist groups were all socialists of varying degree with the usual warts and defects and differing only on the salient mutual cooperation attribute with other socialists—not as they should be: properly allied against capitalism. We have to thank George Bernard Shaw who praised Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin and others for their common and tautological stance  against capitalism for clarifying this point. The New York Times scurries around this fact and appears to cherry pick attributes of various leftist despots as they did with Trotsky and Stalin in the 20s. They persist in refusing to believe that Nazis, Fascisti, socialists and Communists are all brothers in the quest for private property and wealth for leftist elitists to squander and  that they  differ only in methodology not ideology. They all hate capitalists.

We soon forget that Hitler and Stalin had secret agreements to carve up much of Eastern Europe [Poland and the Balkans] to their mutual benefit. Stalin said, in effect, that he could trust the Nazis over the British. [2]

Hugo Chávez is a very ordinary Latin American Marxist who uses old, stale hammer and cycle methods of grabbing industrial wealth and resources and spending them on some Marxist dream. His potential use of firing squads is restrained only by the media. His idols are Fidel Castro, Che and other Marxists and probably the inflation monger Daniel Ortega. Cohen stops very short of summarily denouncing Communism and its manifold failures as he should. We all recall the tears Jimmy Carter shed when Ortega lost the first election in Nicaragua.

Castro’s brutal communism is usually contrasted to the lesser antics of his predecessor of 50 years ago and hailed as an ‘advance’ in social experimentation while his firing squads and brutal suppression of criticism gets little notice by the New York Times, who has frequently described Castro in glowing terms and heaped praise upon his phony health care system.[3] Cohen does mention the Mexican PRI revolution and nationalization of British Petroleum and other assets in the 20s and the refusal to let foreigners own property in Mexico (as Castro does now in Cuba) as the basis for Mexico’s disastrous economic status for seven decades. Castro moans that his country is poor due to the US embargo although the Russians, French, Irish and Canadians were always free to trade and invest in Cuba-provided there was no private ownership and no profits.  To say that Cuba is ‘gulag free’ is a joke given the many thousands who were murdered or driven away by Che and his thugs. To think that Hugo Chávez has not set up gulags and firing squads may be fair for the moment, but we must see how the elections fare before we give Chávez some kind of label different from Cheap Marxist Thug. We can all recall the leftist support for the Khmer Rouge until they became too macabre and disgusting to praise in public.

We are constantly reminded that Marxism has much to offer and that the past leaders ‘just didn’t get it right yet’ and that ‘Marxism has not yet been given a fair chance to demonstrate its splendor’ and other fluffery by the New York Times and other far-left apologists. 

Cohen ends with the summary of “what Hugo Chávez wants:”

“Venezuelans will vote Sunday in a referendum that would remove all limits on presidential re-election, grant Chávez direct control over foreign currency reserves, allow him to censor the media under a state of emergency declarable at his discretion, expand his powers to expropriate private property and create the second formally socialist nation in the Americas alongside Fidel’s.”

Hitler, we must remember, got most of that from the German Enabling Act of 1932/3, from a fair vote from the German people. Can Venezuela offer a fair vote?

We must recall that the USSR had votes too. We should recall that it was Lenin who  MAY HAVE SAID said something like this; ”It doesn’t matter who votes—it only matters who counts the votes.”     This is not fully documented but it fits the Marxist-Leninist theme. This was called Democracy in Chicago in the Daley era and in Orange County, CA when Sanchez won with unchallenged absentee ballots reputed to be sent in by illegal aliens. The definition of ‘fair’ and ‘voter’s rights’ seems to wander when viewed by the New York Times and left-liberals.

The New York Times treads softly here so as not to intimidate Latin Marxists too much. This article is as much an Anti-Fascism Education Piece as a report from some dump that is undergoing the usual Marxist revolution with song and dance. There is too much respect for Stalin and Mao to strongly attack Ortega or Castro or Chávez  directly and condemn their far-left socialism as failed communism at its worst. There is even less desire to delineate the differences between socialism, Nazism and Fascism as the apparent separation that took a century to structure with ‘education’ to establish might  defeat many leftist causes. We can not, as yet, get the New York Times to Hitlerize or Stalinize Hugo Chávez as it should.

rycK

_____________________________________________________

Comments On Global Warming and Failed Computer Models

There are some serious problems associated with the current Global Warming Circus. The political forces seem to cherry pick those features that tend to amplify and extend their Tour of Fear and the usual Holocaust Songs. Our planet is burning! There are many so-called scientists who squat at large universities with fat research grants paid for with tax money and play with computers and, not surprisingly,  have conjured up scary scenarios of disasters that would the Earth.

Al Gore has mustered a pack of leftist scientists who tend to benefit from more and juicer research grants, higher tax revenues for their favorite social projects as in Africa and South America and more. The temptation to impede growth and capitalism, the forces that trashed the socialists and Communists in the last century, is too irresistible for the far-left liberals and Neo Marxists to give up. They have lost everything as the capitalism juggernaut crushed their phony attempts to control the world. The losers in the socialist and peasant world have only our wealth for money to spend. They cannot survive on their own as we see clearly from 7000 years of history. The Marxist-oriented states of Sweden and Norway are always anxious to promote some new form of George Bernard Shaw Fabianism, Marxism, Maoism, Castroism or worse even though they made their money from selling guns to everybody who wanted one or submitting to Nazis and Communists.

___________________________

Here are some facts from many places collected by Wikipedia[1] 

[1] They [some researchers] claim global average air temperature rose1.33 ± 0.32 F during the last 100 years. The error in a single thermometer reading is + or - 0.2 deg C.

[2] They use phases like is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic [man made] greenhouse gas concentrations and overwhelming majority of scientists.. agree with this.

___________________________

Here are my problems with this:

[a] That is a very very very small increase. The satellites show essentially no change in the last 30 years when the proper noise factors [3 sigma] are added in. Scientists who claim this frequently refuse to give out data and then sneakily   include tree ring measurements[2] to correct their data. Can you imagine that anybody can correct 1.33/100 or 0.0133 deg per year with tree rings?? Note that we had no sophisticated temperature measurement devices before about 1930. How do they get a good temperature measurement for 1900?? They had thermometers that good back then in the field around the Earth? No.

[b] How do you measure the average surface temperature on the Earth? Pick 100 cities or airports?? What if one group picks 100 sites and another group picks 100 different sites and suppose the second set shows a cooling of 1 deg F over 100 years? There are thousands of temperature monitoring devices on roofs next to smoke stacks and other sites whose local environment can affect the readings and bias the mean. Any extra heat only biases the result toward global warming!

[c] What is the standard error in measuring the temperature on the second Tuesday in August at 100 sites?? How about + or - 0.01 deg F? Can we believe they can take 100 to 10,000 measurements within+/-  0.01 deg?? What if they can only get down to 1 deg F? What then is this trend based on?? How about a 2 or 3 or 4 degree uncertainty for a set of data? So, how about a rise of 1 deg F + or 3 degrees?? How does that sound? That means we might be in a Global Cooling mode and not know it.

The ref above says this in footnote 12: The error in recent years is dominated by the incomplete coverage of existing temperature records. Early records also have a substantial uncertainty driven by systematic concerns over the accuracy of sea surface temperature measurements.[12][13]

They used to measure sea temperatures with buckets and thermometers. How accurate is that??

There are some serious questions about what this trend might be and how big it is. Recall that there was a glacier in Kansas 8000 years ago, the Viking settlements on Greenland froze over and the ice wiped out their crops about the year 1000 and medieval Europe nearly starved to death in the Middle Ages because the weather changed.

___________________________

Apart from the science, I am bothered by the following question:

Who benefits from this even if the studies are flawed or phony??

[1] Do politicians get more power? Do they attract votes with speeches on global warming? Yes. Do they demagogue with unsubstantiated fears? Yes.

[2] Do politicians get more taxes from this??  Yes.

[3] Does the UN want to tax carbon?? What will they do with the money?? Yes.

[4] During the Kyoto period no European country met the standards of the treaty they signed [nobody tried to] and China and India were given a pass and, of course, didnt meet any standards imposed upon them. Is the US supposed to do it all?? Yes.

[5] Do colleges and research facilities get more tax monies for research on the weather?? Yes.

[6] What is the effect of sun spots on surface temperature? Can we tax the sun and lower the temperature in August in Maryland?? Yes.

There are very serious questions about temperature changes in the last 10,000 years and if there are long term trends of say 75 to 100 years we do not know where we are on the curve. If  we can only measure 30 years of measurements out of 10,000 years how do we know if we are in some cyclic or random phase where the temp rises and then falls?? If the trend is sine wave cyclic or some approximation thereof, and the temp rises and falls in a 300 year sinusoidal cycle then are going up or down?   Do we only focus on the rise?? What if the temperature begins to fall in 20 years? They then want to do what? Do we put out more CO2 to heat the place back up??

Have the scientists forgotten that the sun heats the Earth and that sun spots vary  with ime and that the energy input  happens in cycles from 11 years to dozens of years?? The output from the sun is constant? Any change must have come from CO2 emissions from Buicks and SUVs?

There are too many politicians pandering for votes in this Global Warming Circus and too many third world countries with Marxist Dictators and other losers at the controls that will benefit from UN sanctions and taxes. They like to rely on computer models instead of hard data.

Let us not forget the phony science that predicted that saccharine was a carcinogen, also NutraSweet and others. Have we forgotten that the ozone layer is now not caused by Freon as we were assured in the 80s?? Let us not forget Carl Sagans Nuclear Winter predictions that were trounced in Science Magazine as lousy science and his membership in AAAS was rejected twice. Let us not forget Lysenko and his stuff and when we look at computer models let us ask why we got zero our of 14 hurricanes last year.  And this year we might also get zero hurricanes. How is that for computer model predictions? What happened to the canals on Mars? Everybody happy with this kind of failure? Why dont we all just predict the destruction of everything and somebody will be right eventually then they can be hailed as a prophet.

___________________________

An early computer model was a farce[3]:

What happened to the computer study from MIT[?] [The Limits to Growth] in 1972 that predicted the world economy would be critically dependent scarce metals and fail from depletion of fossil fuels.

Here are their predictions from 1972:

[1] They predicted we would run out of gold by 1981,

[2] we would run out mercury in by 1985, 

[3] be out of tin by 1987, 

[4] out of zinc by 1990, 

[5] run out of oil by 1992, and copper, lead

[6] out of natural gas by 1993.

What went wrong here?? Limits to Growth attracted controversy as soon as it was published for its absurd and phony assumptions and political bandwagon mentality. Yale economist Henry C. Wallich labeled the book "a piece of irresponsible nonsense" in his March 13, 1972 Newsweek editorial.  The authors of this tripe still cling to their notions and want people to think them might have right in the first place. Such hooey. Failure is failure. I had to deal with this group a decade or so ago at an innovation conference when they wanted to issue a new book with revised computer models yet they could not really explain why they failed the first time to get anything right. I pointed out that their methods were largely similar to the methods that failed 30 years before. Trash this computer model and stop funding phony studies like this.

Is this just as phony as the hurricane predictions of last year and this one when the score is 0/14 and will probably be 0/14 for the second year in a row?? Yes.

___________________________

Two days ago a study was published that noted the following [4]:

[1] The mean global temperature peaked in 1998 and has shown no warming for a decade now.

[2] From satellite data dating to 1979, we note global cooling is the general trendnot warming. 

[3] Changes in El Nino appear to have ended the warming trend in the Pacific that began in 1978.

[4]  There was a cooling trend correlated with  three  Las Ninas in a four  year period that  helped cool the earth in the late 1990s.

There are more data and information in the link.

Conclusion:

Science is not that good and politicians do not need the truth to gain powerall they need is persuasion. Let us be careful who we believe when there is tax money and political power to be had. There are a lot of third world parasites who would like free money from the US to deal with problems associated with US CO2 emissions. Such crap.

rycK, a retired scientist and inventor who is sick of reading this meretricious fluff. .

Bill Clinton lies As Usual. Is this new? the NTY can fix.

Certain political theories describe tactics that persuasion is more important than truth[1] hence the well-crafted lie or a little spin is a political advantage. The old notion that you should tell people ‘what they want to hear’ and  make changes that old tune if it waxes a bit stale sometime later is considered a workable elitist political theorem that produces results.

The Clintons are known for their links to Communists[2] and other matters such as lying under oath[3], but the use of the truth is frequently not a crime  they might  be convicted of outside of California or Vermont.

Yesterday we hear that “Bill Clinton Flatly Asserts He Opposed War at Start” as reported by the New York Times, surprisingly, one of the great resources on propaganda, political spin tactics and bending the truth when political climate calls for this measure. [4] Usually the Old Gray Lady remains silent on embarrassing political incidents involving the Clintons. The NYT functions as a political front in  a manner similar to a massage parlor fluffer in ways meant to offer customers something more exciting than the truth.

It seems that previously he said:

“That's why I supported the Iraq thing.”[5]

So, he both opposed and supported the Iraq War?! Can we reconcile this and show that Clinton did not lie?? Let us try:

And from 2004 [for liberals we stipulate that this statement was made three years ago] we read:

"I have repeatedly defended President Bush against the left on Iraq, even though I think he should have waited until the U.N. inspections were over," Clinton said in a Time magazine interview that will hit newsstands Monday, a day before the publication of his book "My Life." [6]

“Noting that Bush had to be "reeling" in the wake of the attacks of September 11, 2001, Clinton said Bush's first priority was to keep al Qaeda and other terrorist networks from obtaining "chemical and biological weapons or small amounts of fissile material."[7]

"That's why I supported the Iraq thing. There was a lot of stuff unaccounted for," Clinton said in reference to Iraq and the fact that U.N. weapons inspectors left the country in 1998.”[8]

The documentation of  abject prevarication is so strong here, almost as strong as the DNA specimen on Monica’s Blue Dress, that we must leave the matter to experts from  the New York Times to valiantly resolve this and show that Bill and Hillary are not liars.

I am confident that Pinch Sulzberger and his people can resolve this. They can start with “Bush lied and people died” and blame this mess on George Bush with extended chants and a little help from their friends. I suggest Maureen Dowd take on this minor problem, which she can dismiss as a lie about lies about lies from the VRWC[9] with a wave of her Henna bottle. Her sensational journalistic work as the Old Red Lady of the Old Gray Lady is celebrated  in the liberal stratosphere near the dizzying heights of such leftist luminaries as Walter Duranty, Upton Sinclair and George Bernard Shaw, giants in the annals of propaganda, mendacity and political spin doctoring.

Show us how NYT:  This is a turn-the-crank-exercise like making sausages and suits the mentality of the Pinch Staff.

rycK

Maureen Dowd: The Old Red Lady of The Old Gray Lady

The New York Times continues to grind away on their 19^th century political polemics and Maureen Dowd has chosen to put up few more sophomoric swipes at President Bush. [1]

This piece of leftist haze is actually devoid of any constructive comments on Middle East Peace, whatsoever, that might be of any utility to peacemakers and The Old Red Lady[2]  of The Old Gray Lady’s digs in Manhattan just lays out her hollow  spite using  argumentum ad hominem  in structuring attacks.  This is easier than thinking.

A few examples[3]:

“As an adult, Condi [Rice, ed] was worried about taking the job of top diplomat because it would mean traveling and being away from her things and habits.”

What??

Or

“After subverting diplomacy in his first term, now W. does drive-by diplomacy, taking a playboy approach to peace. He wants to look like he’s taking the problem of an Israeli-Palestinian treaty seriously when his true motivation is more cynical: pacifying the Arab coalition and holding it together so that he can blunt Iran’s sway.”

Bill Clinton and Ted Kennedy were not playboys.

I am sure there is some triple-reverse deep thinking here, but I missed the salient point--especially the ’things and habits’ comment. We must first note that our hair-dye-assisted Red Lady [Is that a wig??] is dancing on the outer fringes of plagiarism by nibbling on Rush Limbaugh’s “drive-by media” patent. It is a catchy phrase that grabs attention, something that might hike sales for the NYT.  I am sure this is one of Maureen’s best journalistic efforts for a while.  Baron Munchausen  wrote pieces like this.

“In 2006, when Israel invaded Lebanon and many civilians died, including children, Condi and W. drew Arab and U.N. ire for not forcing Ehud Olmert to broker a cease-fire faster.”[4]

Strange, but “W” has no say-so in Israel any more than he does in Iran or The Congo. We can wonder why Clinton did not stop the wars in Somalia and Rwanda—or can we?

Of course, we are advised that diplomacy is always the solution to peace in the world, which is backward since only war promotes lasting peace. Diplomacy in the hands of Wilson, FDR, LBJ and W. Jefferson Clinton must have accomplished much in the Middle East and elsewhere although I missed some of the important aspects and remain confused by some of the outcomes.  We must apparently show appreciation to President Wilson for only killing 160,000,  or so,  US soldiers  during his essay on diplomacy and thank  him again, profusely,  for this being a small percentage of the 51,000,000 dead in that war.  The war debts must have been a gift, the usual central method of leftist diplomacy. That covetous result must be hailed as a victory.  Diplomacy must have been successful in either preventing the US entry into this mess or, to a lesser degree, delaying our participation for a few years.  But we could wonder why war was not prevented altogether. The same theory must be applied to FDR and his wars on several fronts costing mere 400,000 American dead soldiers, but only a fraction of the 30,000,000 dead in Europe and the Pacific in that diplomatic sensation.  The debts were, again, forgiven in a stunning diplomatic gesture, at least to the Soviets, the ideological preceptors of the left-liberals. Triumph again! We must celebrate the notion that although the wars were not halted or prevented by ‘diplomacy’ but the fruits of diplomacy probably did save lives in a limited sense. It could have been 100,000,000 dead, the number that the Leninists, Maoists and Stalinists racked up since the 1917 October Revolution.  Apparently we must expect only approximations to peace and justice when we watch the left deftly ply their ambassadorial skills. Talk is more important than results we learn from these examples.  Let us just throw money into the Middle East and hope they will not conjure up another jihad. We wouldn’t want to be disliked.

Modern diplomacy, using the Clinton Idiom, means using tax monies to bribe useless, perverted murdering parasites such as ‘Dearest Kim’ in North Korea. The stunning prophylactic effects of negotiation (and more to the point the money) in this case actually prevented North Korea from invading Kansas or Maryland, the solid proof of the efficacy of the noble effort. Of course, the fact that Kim and his Marxist Friends of American Liberals did later develop and test nuclear weapons requires some special mention, but nobody in California lost their drug rehabilitation benefits or had any of their hemp plants wilt because of this adventure. Nobody was attacked by North Korean Shock Troops in Marin County we think. Diplomacy is really quite marvelous.

“That same year, in another instance of spectacular willful ignorance, she was blindsided by the Hamas win in the Palestinian elections.”[5]

Was Bill Clinton blindsided by Newt in the 1993 takeover of Congress? We can wonder who is blind.

Maureen smirks from the outer side of her multiple-face-lifted face and chucks nasty grams toward Condi Rice, churlishly nipping low at her boot heels from envy and frustration and, doubtless, while warming in the eternal glow of Albert (Pinch) Sulzberger[6] or one of his Pustule Peddlers or perhaps her written work is composed just below the Pulitzer Prize Plaque for Walter Duranty, the Patron Saint of the Left. Inspiration is the key to propaganda and disinformation.  We have to wonder, however, if these little flea flicks directed at President Bush can do much to improve the declining readership of the New York Times and rescue Pinch from business failure.

 So, again, we must thank the New York Times for wasting Internet bandwidth, broadening their carbon foot print by wasting sacred tree paper to print this vein of meretricious fluff, and solving more piquant difficulties in diplomacy.  We an always spot their work.

After a studious analysis of 7,000 years of war and strife in the Middle East, we can count on the New York Times to correctly delineate the proper mode and delivery mechanism of modern diplomacy. There will be peace in our time.  But, we can also wonder why Yasser Arafat refused the Clinton Gifts that were hailed and sanctioned by the New York Times.  Oh well.  This was not a failure of diplomacy as the New York Times understands it.

Blame Bush for that—not Yasser.

rycK

Propaganda Alert: New York Times calls for "Fair Tests?!"

Today, the New York Times, known alternately as the Duranty Papers or Pinch’s Pustules, as you please, has called for ‘fair’ and accurate tests for school children. Now, they cannot do this, in full, because it will expose the incompetence of some of their best union supporters.

We read:

This problem is highlighted in a recent study by Policy Analysis for California Education, a research center run by Stanford University and the University of California,  that analyzed the testing practices of a dozen states between 1992 and 2006. States that performed swimmingly on their own weak math and reading tests tended to score dismally on the more rigorous federal National Assessment of Educational Progress, often referred to as NAEP. [1]

 
Well now. Didn’t we get some flak from the far left when the Bell Curve[2] was published, which looked at public test scores and ranked the students according to race?? That was simple enough. Many of the outraged and psychotic far left seem to believe that if the Bell Curve had never been written the scores might have been better[3]. Exposing deficiencies in cognitive skills is a crime against humanity according to the left .Such are the pathetic political antics of the sordid left. The test scores continue to show that minorities such as Asians score higher than whites [about 100 for whites   with Asians at 101-102] with Hispanics and Afro-Americans scoring very much lower, by an average of 15 IQ points [at 85 or so]. This effect has been known for a century. [4] The left will waffle and moan and find ways to ‘explain’ the differences, which always regurgitate into a noisy clarion call for more tax hikes.[5] They can do little but glubber.

It the Duranty Papers are sincere about education, apart from the political vectors inherent in public spending and political controls here, that  they have probably gone crazy or have something special in mind.

Across the land, 3000 miles wide and 1500 miles high with about 14,000 school districts the result is the same:

[1] Half the students score below the average. This is sad, and unfair, but true.

 

[2] Some minorities always score below whites and Asians on average.

To lance the boil, we might suggest strictly controlled standardized tests for teacher and students as well and that these test scores be reported by some reference number to conceal identities but still  identified by race. The entire nation then could be tested at the fourth grade level sorted by race and we could see the results. That will just about crack this phony left-liberal ‘education’ money machine in the chops. It will never happen.

If certain minimum standards were set for teachers and tests given and, say, 5% of them failed then what do we do?? Why, we simply and gladly spend even more money for restitution and reeducation and bring these union teachers back to level!!

Sure.

In nearly all of the states studied, students did noticeably worse on federal tests than on state tests. In Oklahoma, the gap in scores was a shocking 60 percentage points in math and 51 percentage points in reading. In Texas, that gap was 52 percentage points in math and 56 points in reading. The state that came closest to the federal standard was Massachusetts, where there was a modest 1 percent gap in math and 10 percent gap in reading.[6]

Surprise surprise!! Let the locals define their own standards and presto they will meet the challenge! If you want to spend more money on welfare just raise the bar on the definition of poverty and dump more billions into the welfare pot. They will come running for the loot.

Advocates of the mediocre status quo will oppose any requirement for a national test.[7]

Be careful what you wish for—it may happen. No liberal can stand the truth or face the facts in education, war and several other matters. National standardized tests will show us who cannot compete, and why, and where the lousy schools and teachers are.

To suggest that the New York Times would support dismantling poorly-performing schools and fire incompetent teachers is a pipe dream out of the 60s.

That will never happen. They NYT does not mean what they say in the literal transliteration here. They have something else in mind Watch your pocket book.

rycK

Bluewater Follies and EcoNazism in Delaware.

We listen to the left and their attendant droolers to learn that we must ‘hear the voice of the people’ and use logic, reason and bipartisan cooperation in making decisions. There will be peace.

Lately, we have been bombarded with the EcoNazi Invasion of ‘greenies’ who now warn us that those who cannot buy into the phony offshore wind farm fiasco known as Bluewater Wind. The details of this phony outrage were discussed in detail recently. [1]

Briefly: The cost will rise 500% from 2 cents per Kwh to 12 cents per Kwh and the G. E. D. [equivalent] Governor Ruth Ann Minner [2] of Delaware has instructed at least two of her state committees NOT to vote against this boondoggle. Thus we hear ‘the voice of the people speaks’ it seems. Who looks out for the consumer when the governor instructs the public commissions how to vote?? How bipartisan of her, if she understands this complicated word. The former glubberer[3], one Russell Peterson made his case as succinctly as Herr Goebbels or Benito Mussolini when he gave the Final Order:

“The whole society is moving toward green energy. People standing in the way are going to be run over.”

This is the same flippant demagogue who advocated a 3$ per gallon tax in a speech to local garden clubs in New Castle County, DE.[4]

We don’t have democracy or any form of choice here. The residential folk and small business will share in building this phony offshore windy farm for 1.6 billion dollars with no inputs from the voters and very high energy prices.[5] Big business customers will get a pass under the current situation. Other energy sources, offered to us previously to lower costs, would have a surcharge placed upon their services so as to close out any loop holes This applies to green or non green sources.

Here is the most recent and blatant example of the EcoNazis forcing their special form of arrogance and summary justice upon us.

Those whose power bills will rise to the skies salute you!

rycK

The California Health Care Mess [Again]

We continue to be swayed and addled by the tears and howls of the Post-Fabian Era adherents where the advent of socialism must be fulfilled, we are told. It is only fair. And, they whine and they whine and they whine when some say no. The notion that everybody ought to have complete healthcare, extending even to massages, acupuncture, probably witchcraft, free marijuana,  the mysterious waters at the Baden-Baden Kure,  flying first class of course, capturing the curative  essences from the tails of passing  comets [H. G. Wells] and other follies. Somehow, for some who are attracted to politics, this strange thought is probably impregnated somewhere in their  genes in preference to other attributes such as reason,  immunity to crass folly and  freedom from drug addiction, which would be better for society. Not so.

California, always on the precipice, has been signaled from Venus [or Hyanis] to ‘take the plunge on health care.’[1] What else is new?? The Golden State’s 6.6 million uninsured[2] present a delicious social imperative to encroach upon business and free enterprise. Let us soak the rich to pay for this project with monies which they done stole from us anyways. Who could reject these poor unfortunates, 1/3 of who live in LA County and many are illegal aliens? Well, they can vote!!

Neglecting the fact, for the moment, that most of these are illegal aliens, we need to look at costs and services and the ability of the system to deliver such. This wild notion broaches the boundaries of financial responsibility, something the left have no use for. There is no limit to how much they could spend. The left merely howls and rolls in the latrines with the view that all persons ought to have unlimited access to healthcare at no cost. They even cite Cuba and perhaps the former USSR as models of such a wonderful system.[3] It would mean tens of thousands of new union medical service jobs and more. What an opportunity to ‘redistribute the wealth’ as the ‘rich’ would pay for this program. How can we lose? It is free.

You lose because there are still a wide majority of voters who can smell a stinky puddle of offal in the middle of the political road. The electorate is not, as yet, as dumb as Hillary Clinton and her fellow travelers would like to believe.

We need to  pause here in the analysis to peek at the next door neighbor in Oregon where they had a good time arguing about how to finance a similar program that would be free to all persons in the state.

Oregon attempted this folly a few years ago  [4] and will soon try again.[5] In 2003, the state of Oregon tried to pass an $800 million revenue package with a hefty $542 million tax increase.

The prize:

(AP) Every man, woman and child in Oregon would receive full medical insurance - no co-payments, no deductibles - under a measure on the Nov. 5 ballot that would create the first universal health care plan in the nation.[6]

How wonderful! We can still hear the kazoos blowing in the carnival atmosphere of this circus.  The pasties are still spinning.

“What we are proposing is ambitious and audacious, but we believe the health care system now is in a crisis," said Mark Lindgren, spokesman for the Health Care for All Oregon campaign, sponsor of Measure 23.” [7]

Here, 423,000 of 3,300,000 or 13% of the people were uninsured.  And here was the tax punch:

“The Oregon plan would be financed by a new payroll tax of up to 11.5 percent on businesses and an increase in personal income taxes. The top rate would rise from its current 9 percent to as high as 17 percent.”[8]

What happens when you add 17 % state tax to the 30% federal tax?? Add in sales tax and do you broach the %50 tax rate?? I wonder. Apparently they think the can tax themselves into prosperity and good health.

This phony project would essentially have doubled the aggregate taxes in the state and the potential undesirable outcomes of such a plan were not even mentioned. Not even going to the worst case, it would have caused the following:

[1] Those with businesses would leave the state thus escaping the huge new taxes which would make them uncompetitive with business in other states and foreign companies. Investment in new business ventures with new job creation would simply   halt .

[2] Those with high incomes would leave the state to escape high taxes.

[3] Worse, and not mentioned, was the propensity and high probability that anybody in the US,  Mexico or maybe even The Sudan could hop up and  move to Oregon to get free medical care. Oregon is not contesting their illegal alien problem at this time any more than California is. The flood gates would open. Free sex change operations would bring those who would Californicate Oregon in a flash. Think how big the AIDS clinics would be!

The three elements here apparently influenced the voters of this very liberal state in a slightly negative and it was rejected by 59% of the voters, a huge loss.

How financially ignorant and reckless can these worthless and imbecilic liberal Democrat social planners be? Are they all in rehab? Are the numbers on the work sheets obscured by dope fumes? Can they not see that doubling the Oregon state taxes [or any other state for that matter] from about 11 bln to 22 bln or a mere 100% would affect business??

No, they did not. They are frequently  lazy, consummate  liars and  drug-crazed parasites, but they are not completely stupid. They know how to Grunt and Grab.

The slimy ploy here, seemingly missed  in a similar occurrence that culminated with a flurry of tears and howls when New York almost went into default during the Ford Administration, is this: once implemented, such a plan would bleed and generate a host of moans and grunts that would eventually bring in federal funds to fund the deficits.  Free money!! This is the typical slimy scenario of the left who have never been able to set up a decent economy that didn’t focus primarily on selling dirty guns while parading around as a ‘neutral’ [Sweden], liquidation of dissidents [USSR] or working the levers on dirty money storage[Switzerland]. They are good on bloody revolutions, dope addiction and spreading venereal disease, but not effective in government.

The latest California ‘plan’ rests on increasing taxes on cigarettes or such, since the state requires some kind of supermajority to pass new legislative tax increases [Proposition 13??]. We wonder why they cannot just tax marijuana sales, the biggest business in the Golden State. That and a tax on massage parlors might just balance the budget even with this impending disaster.

We all have to see, up front, that some phony socialist medical program would not functionally change the average health of our citizens as measured under the current system, and would simply sink the economy as well as the medical programs. Every citizen and all illegal aliens already have health care, which is free if they cannot pay. The left liberals will do anything to attract more illegal aliens to California so they can stuff the ballot boxes,  glubber and beg for more federal funds and threaten to support socialized medicine on the federal level. They then get the benefit from the  new voters whom they have bribed with these social programs.  Dollars for votes, the old Democratic Way.

What we really need to see is Oregon or other Blue State  actually start off with a generous  doubling of taxes and implementing such a phony social program and then going down to the bottom of the financial sewers in failure. We need for the rest of us to watch them squirm and wallow in failure and self-pity and, then, explain to us all that their sorry  socialist program was ‘politically correct’ and that Rush Limbaugh or the ‘rich’ ruined the greatness of this gesture.

We need a test case to refer to. CA or OR might be such a case. Let these fools bungle the job in spades as we look on and learn some basic economics.

rycK

More Clinton/Gore  Tax Maggotry and the Proposed USCAP Dictatorship

Hillary Clinton, a well-known Marxist adherent[1] , and worse, a close ally of Al Gore [2] , the recipient of dirty bribe  money from the People’s Republic,  has a solid record of recommending punitive tax measures[3] and socialist-oriented government oppression to seek her socialist goals. While her past attempts to secure socialized medicine in the US failed, she shows no evidence she will not keep attacking capitalism. She does not like your private property and she does not like your 401(k)s and private healthcare system.[4] She does not like your stock ownership and will attack energy companies whenever possible.

She has several economically poisoned spears in her attack scenario:

[1] Tax everybody at the highest rate she can achieve.

[2] Punish everybody for any ‘excessive use of energy,’ as defined by her and her Global Warming EcoNazis using the Clean Air Act and Endangered Species Act.

[3] Employ the elements of reverse-racism, elitism, Fabianism[5]  and the civil rights legislation whenever possible to attack those who can be sued in court or penalized or taxed.

[4] The implementation of USCAP so all uses of energy in any form may be controlled by the government using punitive taxes and oppressive, capitalism-killing legislation.

List of outrageous tax increases:

[a] Dream Act, a sleazy way to get legalization of illegal aliens.  She needs the phony votes.

[b] A $5,000 bond for every newborn child in America, a cheap trick for using tax payer monies to buy votes.

[c] Sen. Hillary Clinton last week proposed to require that publicly-owned companies disclose to shareholders the financial impacts of global warming.[6] This is a ruse and what she wants is get the US infected with the far left organization know as  USCAP[7]

  Of all the sleazy mechanisms available to the Marxists and their lackeys this is the big one. This organization is a cluster of far-left anti-capitalist social parasites who wish to shut down industry and return to some form of rice paddy society.

Here are some of their proposals, all socialist, Marxist and oppressive in nature:

Here is their call to action:

“A CALL FOR ACTION

For these reasons, we, the members of the U.S. Climate Action

Partnership (USCAP) have joined together to recommend

the prompt enactment of national legislation in the United

States to slow, stop and reverse the growth of greenhouse

gas (GHG) emissions over the shortest period of time reasonably

achievable.” [8]

This call is based upon the following:

“Act on Climate Change

In June 2005, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences joined

with the scientific academies of ten other countries in stating

that “the scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt actions.” [9]

This is a flat out lie. There is no sensible evidence of GHGs doing anything harmful to the environment. CO2 is not toxic waste. CO2 is trapped in rocks and is in the oceans at incredible quantities.

Facts:

The satellites show no upper atmosphere temperature increase beyond the noise levels in the last 30 years. There is no known way to determine the ‘average Earth temperature’ and there is no known optimum or maximum level. The pseudo scientists, acting as political activists [read stooges in some cases] and ignoring the scientific method, reality and honesty, grunt and grab for any thing they can get to show the Earth’s temperature is rising, even resorting to correcting temp readings with tree rings.

Their “solutions” to their preposterous invented problems:

Mandatory approaches to reduce greenhouse gas emissions

from the major emitting sectors including emissions

from large stationary sources, transportation, and energy

use in commercial and residential buildings that could

be phased in over time, with attention to near-, mid-and

long-term time horizons;[10]

Mandatory approaches translates into oppressive laws that will destroy our society as we know it by outlawing SUVs, outdoor BBQ, recreational vehicles, cruise ships, vacations, gardening, fertilizer and bottled water. There is no limit to the extent of this Fascist Program. The Emission Nazis will patrol the streets looking for smoke and issue fines. The Flush Nazis will visit all houses to measure the flush volumes of your toilets, mandated by Al Gore to be 1.6 gallons/flush and issue summons and fines. All SUVS and cars having gas mileage values less than 50 mpg will be identified and taxed and manufactures will be prohibited from producing such cars. License fees for existing cars and truck will soar to get more tax money. Toll booths will charge very high fees for SUVs and trucks.

There is more:

Flexible approaches to establish a price signal for carbon

that may vary by economic sector and could include,

depending on the sector: market-based incentives; performance

standards; cap-and-trade; tax reform; incentives

for technology research, development, and deployment; or

other appropriate policy tools; and [11]

We wonder what a ‘price signal’ might be. More taxes? Fees? The word flexible means that there will be some control of prices or steep taxes to be implemented by ‘sector’ and the magic term that never disappears from the far left’s lexicon boldly shines: “tax reform.” Incentives mean phony jobs for academic types that will form some kind of Gestapo who will perform. Reform means oppression and tax increases and penalties in the leftist lingo.

Approaches that create incentives and encourage actions

by other countries, including large emitting economies

in the developing world, to implement GHG emission

reduction strategies. [12]

Al Gore has already excused India and PRC and all emerging countries. He means that the US will provide all the cuts in emissions as the Kyoto Treaty specified.

We need to recognize that the Global Warming Circus is just that: a farce.[13] We need to realize that so-called ‘scientists’ will bend and betray the basic tenets of proper science to throw support to some far leftist organization who will attack capitalism at all costs. These ‘scientists’ are mere fellow travelers in the leftist economic sense. The word stooge is too majestic to describe some of these social bottom crawlers.

All the leftists have is your wealth and they will not rest until they find a way to tax it all.

Fact,

rycK

______________________________________-

[1] http://rycksrationalizations.townhall.com/g/99310675-78ea-4a19-b592-216bd265e536

[2] http://rycksrationalizations.townhall.com/g/d336ad30-d754-439b-b09f-18e0dea1f617

[3] http://rycksrationalizations.townhall.com/g/b2b87e5a-5d41-495d-8117-ee89407f5a05

[4] http://rycksrationalizations.townhall.com/g/e0e6f98e-a0a5-40d6-8144-8283ce1dc54d

[5] http://rycksrationalizations.townhall.com/g/2d8b7149-45c1-452a-85fa-2121160e1e30

[6] http://www.junkscience.com/ByTheJunkman/20071115.html

[7] http://www.us-cap.org/USCAPCallForAction.pdf

[8] Ibid.

[9] Ibid.

[10] Ibid.

[11] Ibid

[12] Ibid.

[13] http://rycksrationalizations.townhall.com/g/84e54e3f-85c0-4745-a35b-9ea2b1416f40

More Propaganda and Half Truths from the New York Times

When you begin to assemble a good perky piece of propaganda you need to minister to your political stooges and your other favorites and radiate at least some doubt on the opposition. This is neatly accomplished in the current example of counterfeit journalism from the New York Times, a ragzine renown for its narrow political views and proper use of propaganda.

Let us work through the following expounding bit of propaganda form the Pinch Pustules in the hallowed halls of the NYT.

First we look at the byline: “Fighting to Fix What’s Not Broken[1]” and make a few comments. Here, in the best tradition of circular logic, they begin the biased essay with the conclusion they want to finally put out as the conclusion. This is an old stale method of persuasion and works well with the simple, the mentally ill, certain Methodists and others of the left.  Aristotle and his cronies beat this one to death many times. We must be drawn into the implicit truth that nothing is really wrong here.

What follows next is the idea that one of the political candidates favors a “fix” of the SS system, a leftist legacy from FDR and a general failure in social terms from his New Deal fluff and other shabby elements. It desperately needs a fix, but not at this politically inopportune time.

Senator Barack Obama, in a debate were there is fierce competition to give away anything and everything the people have for votes, recommended that the Social Security payroll taxes, currently capped at $97,000 should rise with inflation. We cannot be too hasty and accuse the NYT of straying and avoiding a gratuitous tax increase in this instance because there lies a handy [but phony] caveat and there is the need to make Hillary look as good as possible given her dumpy looks, her criminal activities, Marxist sympathies  and  other political baggage. Obama has to be attacked here.

“In response, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York declined to offer any specific proposals of her own, saying that she favored “looking at a lot of different things and using a bipartisan commission to do it.” She accused Mr. Obama of proposing a huge tax increase “on the backs of middle class families and seniors.”[2]

Hillary avoids the details as usual. This is all true, but to think that Hillary would go ‘bipartisan’ is a truly phony notion. Did Nancy Pelosi really try for bipartisan cooperation in forming new bills in her first 100 days? Or did she close the doors on the Republican opposition and work up legislation in secret?

The NYT abets Hillary’s cheap shot at Obama. Hillary is right! All this foam and fluff pales against the galactic background of Hillary’s other massive tax hikes, omitted by reference by the propagandists of the Pinch Persuasion. Obama is wrong here and Hillary is right. Vote for Hillary since she will not be seen as a wanton tax maggot. You read the proof in the NYT. Sure.

Hillary is commended for her financial acumen and restraint in taxation:

While Mrs. Clinton was right that eliminating the cap entirely would raise about $100 billion a year, or $1 trillion over 10 years, it is not clear that is what Mr. Obama intends to do.[3]

Hillary wins!! Uncertainty sets in here leaving us to the only viable conclusion that Obama is some kind of spurious entity, or ignorant of tax consequences, or perhaps an unrepentant tax monger and needs to be muzzled or ignored. At least vote for Hillary.

Next, enter the glubberance episode as the NYT sidesteps the facts and introduces a second monster:

“The starting point for understanding what is at stake with Social Security is to recognize that its problems pale next to the escalating cost of health care. If present trends continue, the Congressional Budget Office projects, the cost of Medicare and Medicaid will soar to about 20 percent of gross domestic product by 2050, from 4.6 percent today. By comparison, Social Security rises to just a little over 6 percent from about 4.2 percent.”[4]

Bingo!! Misdirection from the issue! We need to save money by having Hillary push her socialized medicine upon us. Having two gorillas standing on your chest is okay as long as only the first one will stomp the hardest and break more bones.

The First Gorilla is dismissed as an illusion by this comment from the far left:

“It isn’t a good idea to say Social Security is in crisis when it isn’t,” said Dean Baker, co-director of the liberal Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington. “Obama may be using this to score some political points against Clinton, but the danger here is that he is playing into the idea that this is some sort of pressing issue.”[5]

So, we now find that [1] Social Security is sound and [2] Obama is barking about taxes unnecessarily. How refreshing. And [3] HillaryCare is the more important issue.

But, is this true?? The NYT is never very handy in balancing factors in a truthful way.

Actually, we find that SS is a huge financial predicament because Democrats spent the so-called trust monies on pandering for votes to get reelected and left some phony IOUs in the hands of the Treasury.

“The Trust Fund does hold bonds that are a legal obligation of the government, and the government will not default on these obligations. However, the bonds in the Trust Fund cannot pay a single Social Security benefit. If for accounting purposes, you consider these pieces of paper “assets,” you must also note that they are Treasury “liabilities.” Summing over both agencies of government, assets plus liabilities net out to zero.”[6]

The NYT has always told us that some IOUs [sacred bonds] are some form of ‘instant money in reserve’ that can be used to fund and rescue the SS System, when they cannot. This culminates the circular conclusion. Social Security is not broke, it is just fine!

What a pitiful lie, something the Walter Duranty Memorial Papers know much about:

The money is gone and any cashing in any ‘bonds’ requires that the Treasury go to the tax base for the money. The cash box is empty and there is no money to send to SS![7] To folk other than the NYT staff, this must be read as an impending major tax increase or a budget deficit. No other options make sense. The liberals believe that we can shuffle IOUs around and somehow get money to SS recipients!

The Pinch Pustules proudly conceal this torpedo from the readers and replace the facts with some leftist fluff from a liberal think tank. Nuttin’ is broke.

Obama is actually right in that something must be done before we all rush to the Treasury money bin and grope for money that is not there. ]Inflation indexing SS taxes makes some sense.]  Then, we would encounter a financial catastrophe, which, in good liberal terms the NYT would call for a gigantic tax hike. The Bush Administration tried to point this out and get some private investment as a component of the Social Security Mess, but this was rejected by Democrats. We have time they said.

Do the left-liberal Hillary Clinton Democrats win this argument?? Of course they do. They can make all the promises they wish. If SS goes broke by, say,  2015,  then they blame Bush for inaction and bawl and weep for money and the NYT will lead the chorus for massive new tax hikes to ‘save the old people” who will be the largest voting block in the political arena.

Tax Whoring is a Win-Win Situation for the left. They get to use taxpayer monies to buy votes. Just promise everything, get elected and hike taxes later.

We are indebted to the New York Times for valuable instruction in model propaganda pieces. SS is not broke thus does not need no fixin’. Thank you.

I never doubled that the Pinch Pustules would fail in this endeavor. They are masters in this field .

rycK

Democratic Debates: A Cacophony of Tax Whoring Tunes

The Grunt and Grab Syndrome has consumed the rapt attention of those who would sit in the Oval Office and run things. As usual, campaign promises soar like pigeons on the boardwalk when the popcorn machine is running at full throttle.

There is, apparently, no limit to the number and scope of promises available to the American people by the furious left and a few million illegal aliens not to mention Islamo-Fascists, who are protected to the full limit of what liberals can provide. They can have everything and the ‘rich’ will pay for all this.

Mumbling about ‘fiscal responsibility’[1] seems to lead the charge for money grubbing in the Old Socialist sense.

To wit:

“Clinton, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois and former Senator John Edwards of North Carolina, all propose more than $150 billion a year in tax breaks for middle- income earners and new federal spending on health care, energy and education. They also pledge ``fiscal responsibility,'' a phrase Clinton used seven times during an Oct. 30 debate.”[2]

We can wonder what this might mean. Since the liberals are mere stooges or bumbling lackeys of Marxism-Leninism, albeit, thankfully, with low test scores, they must  resort to the only thing that has politically worked for the far left since 1848: Grunt and Grab some money from somebody else. They have little to show for their efforts except for a plethora of inner-city slums[3] and treacherous crime pits [Philly, Baltimore, Oakland, Atlanta, etc..]where there is no hope and despair drives their victims to drug addiction, sloth and worse all paid for by affirmative actions programs and welfare. They supply all the woe and sob stories and conjure word demons like justice and freedom and democracy that have no specific meaning. Apparently we are to believe that the War on Poverty was a success or that the Great Society was really great or that busing solved some educational problems. This disgusting process brokers failure for votes thus leading to more political power. The spirals then goes on and on like a boa squeezing its victim.

The details of the spending and taxing ‘programs’ are always couched in street hustler terms so as to disguise where the money is coming from and where it will finally land. Hookers and dope dealers are actually more honest.

Even some Demoncraps are critical:

``The Democrats at least are talking about paying for their proposals, but they're often using sources of revenue that probably are insufficient to cover what they want to do, or using them more than once,'' said Isabel Sawhill, associate director of former President Bill Clinton's budget office.” [4]

Her career is over.

Double counting is the usual crime here. The liberals ignore the growth derived from tax cuts and bawl about ‘costs’ of the tax cuts which produce the extra federal revenue. This application of  circular logic appeals to the uneducated, the hopeless and those who stare at the walls of Sing Sing prison, but have no effect outside of the Cluster of Victims that the left preach to and offer phony promises. It is interesting that the simple fools who believe in this foppishness never question their torturers or ask why their sorry  lot never improves and seem to blame others [read non Democrats here]  for being forced to live in the projects or slums.

Let us hear from Leon the Peon, a former Republican from San Luis Obispo:

“..if Democrats don't ``face up to the tough decisions and use real numbers,'' it will ``come back to haunt them.''[5]

Well, Leon, making promises that border on lunacy on the left side and outright prevarications and overt crimes [6]on the other side has not driven away the customary 41% of the voters who will vote for left-liberals any time, any place and any how. This is a puppet show that keeps the left in power, along with racism[7].

Hillary now clarifies ‘fiscal responsibility”:

``I am not proposing anything I don't have a way to pay for,'' she said during an Oct. 9 campaign event in Iowa.”

Really?? We can all wonder why she did not give us a firm number and method of payment for her 1993 HillaryCare mess, which was estimated to cost an additional $400 billion dollars at the time. She supplied no numbers and remained silent on the issue for years. Can we hold her to this??

Hillary and the Lesser Dems all promise essentially free healthcare, amnesty for illegal aliens, legalization of many drugs and fluff jobs with the government and she thinks she can ‘pay’ for all this with tax hikes for the rich.

This story is so old and fetid that we have to consider the words just a hackneyed snippet of some 1895 revolutionary speeches by Lenin or other murderous tyrant of the last century. 100,000,000 people died in such ‘redistributions of wealth’ programs intended to bring ‘justice’ to the people. Hillary and her associates coo and faun over Fidel Castro’s phony health care system[8] that has no money for clinical tests and show how low a cost socialized medicine can have. Why not just hire some witch doctors to run rattles and drums on public television?? That would be as effective as the Castro system where he had to rush in competent Spanish surgeons to save his sorry life from bugs.

Notice that the farce of Global Warming[9], where we are expected to substitute wind power or other novelties  for fossil fuels and lower our carbon footprint while allowing China and India and other ‘amercing ‘ countries to do what they please are not factored in here in taxes and costs. There is financial silence in the liberal camp on this issue. Who on the left complains that Castro and the PRC are planning to drill oil wells off the North coast of Cuba. It is okay for Communists to drill and sell oil and not okay for us. We have to ‘conserve’ and they do not.

The only thing the left-liberal Democrats have is your money and they will promise anything to get the chance to take it away from you and ruin our society.  I am sure the New York Times[10] will find some propagandistic pathway to persuade you that she can balance the budget and solve social problems and deal with Islamo Fascism. Sure, we can believe the Duranty Papers.

Just analyze what  ‘programs’ they promise and how they might pay for them.

Tax Tax Tax

rycK

Shavian Notions Revisited: The Wealth Tax and Other Mistakes

The world is said to be constantly struggling, sometimes couched in the Marxist idiom, to equalize or minimize differences in wealth among the various citizens. Most of the world is poor. We are reminded of those activists like George Bernard Shaw[1] who married into great wealth, became a financial success in the theatre as a play right, but stubbornly urged British and other governments to confiscate property and money and redistribute them into some manner to produce ‘equal incomes.’ He was never able to satisfactorily delineate this plan when challenged, but did support Lenin, Mussolini, Hitler and others who had any socialist views as alternatives to the post Victorian Imperialism of his age. [2] He supported the pogroms of the Soviets and other measures. He enjoyed his money when he basked in the sun in the French Riviera.

Echoes of Shavianism [a new word] reappear periodically like crab grass in the spring and reamplify the theoretical underpinnings and wobbly buttresses of modern socialism and worse. The latest outburst of ‘we must share the wealth’ comes from yet one other wealthy elite: Warren Buffet.[3] The notion that the aggregate wealth can be equitably divided and positive results sustained in a restructured society as must be demonstrated by the perpetuation of reasonably equal income norms and ownership is, of course, a farce. We need to read little history to show that: [1] such redistribution is impossible and has never been satisfactorily consummated and [2] wealth could spontaneously be redistributed in the hands of those adept in business and other economic skills thus defeating the system.  We have only to revisit the ‘land reform’ efforts of Lenin or measures by Mao, Castro, Ortega, Diem and others to show that this is the theatre of farce. The far left have failed miserably.

What the far left and their apologists refuse to consider is that places like the People’s Republic, Viet Nam, modern India and the like that have risen above abject poverty are the direct result of wealth and power being assumed by talented capitalists only after a firm dismissal of the feudal system and other forms of authoritarianism and replaced with capitalism. The left remain solidly invested in the past in fantasy playgrounds of Bernard Shaw, Karl Marx and Chairman Mao. The poor are clearly better off in China after Mao’s Follies were dismissed. The same is probably true for much of Russia although Putin is trying to reinstitute the KGB as government in the shrunken remnants of the old Soviet Union. Some group is putting to death his opponents in the old Stalin manner.

The teaching of history is: Those with talent and the ability to create wealth must own the assets and control necessary resources and make the decisions that will ensure that the wealth of the general populace will rise and be sustained. This must occur with unequal wealth per citizen. This is the converse of Marxism, which confiscates the wealth, concentrates it in the hands of the usual party loyalists and thus fulfils Trotsky’s Prediction[4], which brought him a whack with an alpine ax in the head in Mexico. Was Tony Soprano around that far back? Leon Trotsky was not wrong—he correctly predicted the current state of most of Africa, much of South American, the latent Eastern Europe satellites and Soviet Clients and other places. How many Marxist dictators have we had in Africa since 1950? 100? 200? How are the poverty levels going? Increasing?

The ostensible noble social essence of Shaw and others has been infected by crass murderers and other such undesirables and was obviously co-opted for political power. Frequently, well-meaning persons are used as stooges for criminals and dictators. Stalin and his party members lived in splendor compared to the average citizen. Brezhnev’s family and friend were prosecuted for usurping the state wealth by Gorbachev. And, to be reasonable, the quest for power in modern times requires vast wealth so we must not be shocked or unimpressed that politicos will Grunt and Grab[5] for money using any excuse available to get political power.  

Those like Buffet, Shaw, Bill Gates and others apparently feel some guilt or have assumed a god-like quality of mind created by their business successes that enables them to clearly see the resolution to social problems. They seem to know exactly what to do. This view, however, is not a solution and history clearly demonstrates this lesson in fullness. They have the situation deliriously backward.

Wealth confiscation and estate taxes becomes merely another layer of oppression with other serious counterproductive factors, and the monies extracted are mostly squandered by governments in expensive social programs. We have spent 6 trillion dollars in social programs and are told by the far left that we are getting poorer every day. Who won the War on Poverty? Where did the Great Society go?

There is no hope for the poor if they continue to listen [and vote] for the sordid left. There are many reasons for poverty such as drug addiction, crime, sloth, social disease, and other matters most of which are tolerated if not explicitly celebrated by the liberal Democrats in our government.

If you want to rise above poverty then the first thing you must do is reject the teachings of socialism and Marxism and their veiled versions. Success comes from education, ambition, savings and hard work. Any one of these defeats the liberal mechanism of failure that keeps them in power.

Here is what Shaw offered in 1928 as he embraced Marxism:

As to the mass of oppressive and unjust laws that protect property at the expense of humanity, and enable proprietors to drive whole populations off the land because sheep or deer are more profitable, we have said enough about them already. Naturally we shall get rid of them when we get rid of private property.[6]

That is the prize that left liberals and their allied Marxists naturally seek.

rycK

________________________________________________________

Hillary finally gets the politically correct answer to the question.

After multiple flip flops, our sour, wrinkled caricature of Colonel Rosa Klebb[1] stumbles upon the politically correct reply after the people have spoken on the subject and the arrogant parasite Spitzer chuck’s out the driver’s license program for illegal aliens in a sour display of failure and despair.  

This is more evidence that she is just some shallow weather vane politico with a penchant for lying and grunting and grabbing money from Asian Communists.

Here is her final and pitiful response.

"I support Governor Spitzer's decision today to withdraw his proposal," Clinton said in a statement. "As president, I will not support driver's licenses for undocumented people and will press for comprehensive immigration reform that deals with all of the issues around illegal immigration including border security and fixing our broken system."[2]

This is typical of Hillary as she cannot stand to answer direct questions without focus groups, consultations and war room analysis. She is clearly groping for some political ground and cares not how she gets political power.

The press will pounce on her sorry political carcass for this blunder and extract more flesh. She doesn’t have a clue as to what to say other than “Raise Taxes!”

That much she can get through her puckered lips without stumbling.

rycK

Clinton Plants Questions at a Grinnell College Forum[1]

We know that Hillary is a criminal[2], associates with and hires criminals[3] ,is a a Marxist [4] and panders money from Asian Chinese Communists [5]and is  the closest approximation to Colonel Rosa Klebb [6]that we can imagine so it is not surprising that she has her staff find stooges to ‘ask the right questions’ so as not to get into a Chris Matthews snake pit again.

“Clinton appeared at a biodiesel plant in Newton on Tuesday to introduce her energy plan. A student, Muriel Gallo-Chasanoff, later told Grinnell College's student newspaper, The Scarlet & Black, that she was asked[sic]  by a senior Clinton staffer to pose a question about global warming. She also said that staffers prompted the senator to call on her, the newspaper reported.”

No sleaze here?!

Hillary cannot stand direct questions that call for a conclusion or a stand on her part. She need to waffle and play both sides, a mental disorder derived from her sociopathic hate coupled with her in depth and narrow political training.  She has to have powder puff questions set up in advance as she did on the talk shows. What a sleaze!

We are assured that Hillary, who praised Saul Alinsky for his Marxism, Communism and radical politics, did not know about this. She seems to have lost any knowledge of her work on Castle Grande when she lied, under oath, at a deposition and then suppressed the Rose Law Firm Billing Records that there subpoenaed by the court. We were also apprised that she knew nothing about Bill and his philandering although she was the chief headsperson and Queen of the  Bimbo Eruption Squad.

Sure, Hillary, we believe you. You are the smartest woman in the world although you have no law cases to show, no articles, didn’t write your own books and other sleazy matters that tend to remove any doubt of your mendacity, sleaze and criminality.

We believe Hillary.

rycK

Clintons, Communists and More Communists: When will this stop??

How much interaction between the sheets, Marxists, Islamo-Fascists and illegal  campaign contributions  are we going to be forced to see until we finally come to the obvious conclusion: Hillary and her far left allies are Communists and criminals.?

Here are a few items.

Bill Clinton found some money to travel from England to Hungary and then Russia in 1969. What was he doing there?? The USSR had recently  crushed Czechoslovakia. [1]

The Chinese community is still pouring money into the Hillary Clinton campaign.[2]

Al Gore pandered for money from the Chinese Communists at some Buddhist temple, as Bill Clinton’s Vice President.  Al Gore’s  father received fancy presents from Armand Hammer, who was convicted  of a felony, whose father Julius Hammer, a bungling abortionist who served time in Sing Sing, founded the Communist Party USA.

 We still think that “China's Communist Party may have contributed to President Bill Clinton's re-election campaign.” This was apparently from John Huang  of the Lippo Group and organized by Ron Brown, former Commerce Secretary. [3]

Tom McLarty [Clinton Chief of Staff] organized some meeting between the Lippo Group, a law partner of Hillary Clinton [C Joseph Giroir] and John Huang. [4]

Bill Clinton aids the KGB. [5]

Hillary lied under oath in 1995 and was cited by the independent counsel Robert Ray.[6]

Hillary is praised by Fidel Castro [7], endorsed by Osama bin Laden[8] ,  and other Marxist dirt bags.

Hillary was impressed by a known Communist Saul Alinsky, [9] and wrote a wonderful thesis on him entitled “There is only the fight…….”

Hillary consorted with Red Bone [Robert L. "Red" Bone.].  “She traded the account under the guidance of James Blair. Blair was then an attorney working as outside counsel to Tyson Foods Inc” This was a crooked ‘sweet heart deal[10]’  and a  very  pretty neat cattle futures ‘investment’ that made 1000$ for each 1$ invested. [11]

Hillary received thousands and thousands of dollars in contributions from Norman Hsu, a criminal.  She didn’t even give it all back. She needs the graft.  There is a complicated ‘matching’ system in effect where various donors appear to give the same or similar amount to the Clintons or other Democrats. [12]

How many ties do we have to read about to realize that Hillary and her criminal friends are Marxist stooges and belong behind bars for several reasons, treason among those items on the list.

rycK