The New York Times Moans about Iowa and Wants Changes in the Process!

After their favorite Marxist showed out flat, busted and exhausted in Iowa, the New York Times [aka The Walter Duranty Papers] wants to change the rules.  In their opinion article of today we read:[1]

“We believe the time has long passed for both parties to not only break the Iowa-New Hampshire habit but also end the damaging race to be third, with states pushing their primaries closer and closer to New Year’s Day.”

Would the Old Gray Lady have printed this fluff if Hillary[2] [aka Colonel Klebb[3]] had taken 60% of the vote?? What a laugh!

“Instead, the country should adopt a more sensible and more representative system of regional primaries, in which states are divided into regional groups that vote on a designated day. The honor of going first would rotate year to year among the regions. That would give a far broader range of American voters a say in this vitally important choice.”

We must translate this: This is an option that would favor those with machine politics and would allow Hillary to avoid direct contact with voters except in her customary structured and scripted presentations with planted stooges [4] to ask the politically correct questions.

The NYT predictably whines about this outcome. To think that their Dump Obama [5],[6] thrust has failed is not easy for this paper to accept. Hillary is their sacred and anointed and best displays the politics of Marxism[7] and is thusly the best candidate for President.

There are troubled times ahead for Hillary and she has to watch her mouth and wrinkles [8] when hard questions might be posed to her. She is definitely on the frantic edge and her millions, dedicated political webzines like mediamatters.com, her own creation, and the NYT attacks on Romney, Huckabee and Obama mean little. She lost big and this paper is outraged.

The best scenario[9] of the Times has been snarled by voters hunting ‘change.’ It is difficult to imagine that Hillary is an element of change, but the New York Times will find a way to convince themselves of this self-evident notion. [10]

Let us all have a good belly laugh as the New York Times groans in frustration.  Cancel your subscription to this pink rag.

rycK  Comments: ryckki@gmail.com

Colonel Klebb’s Poor Showing in Iowa: The Clintoonery Bubble has Burst.

Colonel Klebb[1] and her consort Slick Willie showed the world a disheartening performance in Iowa last night. It seems that tax-whoring[2], siding with terrorists, groping for votes from illegal aliens[3] and attacking job-generating corporations were not that popular in the state. We wonder if the word ‘change’ means the Colonel will have to drop some of the tenets mentioned above. Could she back off taxes? What a laugh!  To wonder why a black person took  nearly 37% of the vote in a state with only 2% Afro-Americans in the presence of Hillary and her  vast left-wing machine is to question the asinine theory that Hillary is the political consort  and inheritor of the legacy of the first Black President. It also casts a strong brown light on her manufactured ‘change’ mantra. The New York Times previously stumbled strategically with their Dump Obama[4] and other themes[5] as well. Hillary is an indelible Saul Alinsky Marxist who believes that taxes are the only acceptable solution to any and all social and economic problems in the US. She wanted to tax gasoline and put a massive punitive tax on Exxon as we recall.

Apparently the need for ‘change’ in Washington translates to something like this: the voters do not want the old Saul Alinsky tax whoring machine to continue to grunt and grab for higher and higher taxes. This reflects on NYT’s Paul Krugman reputation, a person, but probably not an authentic economist, who never saw a massive tax hike proposal that he could criticize.

At the Colonel’s victory speech we witnessed the grand diplomat Madam Albright[6] of the North Korean Nuclear Project[7] hoping for a way to give future tax monies away to Hugo Chavez or Daniel Ortega and fulfill the Marxist Dream inherent in the Clinton camp. Isn’t it interesting that the Communists flock to the Colonel and her companion?

On the collateral damage side, Joe Biden has humiliated himself, again, while ignoring his duties in Washington. His reputation as a liar, braggart, plagiarist and Ring Master of the Anita Hill Circus must have followed him to Iowa. As the Grand Vizier of the Democrats Against Joe Biden coalition in Delaware[8], I claim partial victory here. His irresponsible works in Kosovo, attacks on the War on Terrorism and his grunting for votes from Illegal Aliens and  calls for amnesty are a disgrace. When we mention the word ‘change’ we need to change out Old Joe.

The New York Times, the morning tome and political wake-up pill for the far left today has said this in their morning lament [9]:

“The victory by Mr. Obama, 46, amounted to a startling setback for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, 60, of New York, who just months ago presented herself as the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination. The result left uncertain the prospects for John Edwards, a former senator from North Carolina, who had staked his second bid for the White House on winning Iowa.”

Perhaps the Walter Duranty Papers can take some solace from the convincing Huckabee victory.

“Mike Huckabee, the former governor of Arkansas who was barely a blip on the national scene just two months ago, defeated Mitt Romney, a former Massachusetts governor, delivering a serious setback to Mr. Romney’s high-spending campaign and putting pressure on Mr. Romney to win in New Hampshire next Tuesday.”

Then, the old NYT bigotry machine gets a few words in:

“Mr. Huckabee, a Baptist minister, was carried in large part by evangelical voters, who helped him withstand extensive spending by Mr. Romney on television advertising and a get-out-the-vote effort.”

Hillary, a Methodist, thus a problematic case in Christianity for many in that main line group, does not have her faith, if she has any, examined by the New York Times. Let us note that the Huckabee win in Iowa is a cause célèbre for the Old Gray Lady. They want a McGovern-style loser to run against their favorite Marxist. Baptists and Mormons are old targets of the NYT and its atheist staff. We can predict that the NYT will turn the old bigotry crank and blast away at Mike.

The final score was:

Senator Obama                                                                           37.6 %

Ex-Senator and Channeler  Edwards                          29.8 %

Senator Clinton had                                                                                29.5.%

That is a fairly dismal  outcome for Clinton given the hype, mountains of money from questionable sources, slimy efforts of Moveon.com and mediamatters.com, the latter a Hillary creation, and the usual Asian Communist connections in her campaign chest. We don’t have to mention Richardson as he had no chance. He did beat Biden, though, and we can wonder why any Iowans might have formed ranks around Joe. Getting twice as many votes as Biden is a victory of sorts for the Hispanics. Biden said after his humiliating debacle:  “I ain’t going away.” That is refreshing. Where are you going Joe?

Hillary and Slick Willie flew quickly to New Hampshire soon after the loss in Iowa to invent new ways to trade tax revenues for votes from the disaffected in that state. The New York Times must now ‘position’ or, perhaps ‘reposition’ Hillary as the authentic element of ‘change.’ That will be amusing. Given her long history and tax whoring, supporting Marxists and her peculiar support for the War on Terrorism the Times has a delicate and complicated task ahead.

But, we can calmly assert that the Old Gray Lady will always find a way to endorse the Marxist Candidate of the Day and inhumanly attack those with faith or corporate connections. Pinch Pustules are made of this.

We need the Old Red Lady [the Dowdy Dowd] to weigh in here and get Hillary back up to numero uno.

Hillary may have reached the edge of the snake pit after the bitter sorrows in Iowa and that fused plastic smile on her wrinkled face may crack if she loses control when hard questions are posed to the Colonel.[10] She is on the hairy edge and Bill may start lying again[11] in a frenetic effort to help out one of his alleged sexual partners. What happened to the 'experience' attribute here??

Just let these parasites speak out in public and the voters will do the rest.

rycK  Comments: ryckki@gmail.com

Fat Albert Waddles Off To Bark  His Global Warming Follies As The Russians Buy Furs.

The pristine world of science has been  frequently politically polluted by phonies like Hitler , Lysenko[1], Mesmer[2] and a host of noisy Greeks, who, convincingly,  guessed wrong on nearly everything they studied thus  setting the world back in a scientific retrograde flight from reason that lasted for a couple of dozen centuries. The credibility of science probably hit its technical apogee with Rachel Carson’ Silent Spring[3] constructed from her feverish and incompetent misreading of research papers about pesticides. This maudlin screed is a testament to the gullibility of leftist politicos and their tax-dependent surrogates who pretend at science in their lust for power. Al Gore wrote an ‘introduction’ to a reprint of her psychotic fluff and has declared war on the internal combustion engine. As a scientist I deplore this corruption of what should be a pristine endeavor.[4] Politics is a disease that should not affect science.

Al Gore, who savors pound quantities of red meats on his several lunch and dinner plates, that his father got indirectly from Stalin via Armand Hammer, has made a career out of creating expensive social phantasms of the sort that will soon boil the oceans and end the human race and will probably even ruin a NFL records as a result. He would tax the US into poverty if he could. This is the biggest tax-whoring scheme since Hillary Care. Since scientists always scrounge more  funding for more and more  ‘research’ and the third world needs US tax dollars,  so Al and his EcoNazis have been very successful in hyping the world and funneling tax monies into the scientific latrines.  The UN and the simple minded Marxist Swedes along with  their Norwegian political floor sweepers all celebrate Al’s political tantrums. We all remember Olof Palme and his Marxism.  Are the peace-loving Swedes selling guns and weapons to the Taliban and Al Qaeda?? You bet.

In a recent article, the Russians, who now seem to reject Stalin for unknown reasons, have issued a form of manifesto that reviews the weather for a few thousand years. It is excellent reading. Straying from the sanctioned leftist notions about global warming , Oleg Sorokhtin writing for  RIA Novosti [5] has concluded the opposite  temperature vector is in progress.

The Russians argue several strong points here:

They claim the real reasons for climate changes are, inter alia:

Uneven Solar Radiation

 Terrestrial Precession (That Is, Axis Gyration)

 Instability of Oceanic Currents

 Regular Salinity Fluctuations of the Arctic Ocean Surface Waters

Solar Activity and Luminosity.

Al and his politicos put almost all of their emphasis on the assumed slight change in the nominal 0.038% carbon dioxide in our atmosphere since 1900 or so corrected with tree rings if necessary. They ignore solar fluctuations. We can also note that computer models that predict dire circumstances and other evils that Al needs for his political works are obstinate in that they seem to be frequently wrong.[6] The famous pseudoscientific flop The Limits to Growth [7] predicted the following:

Here are their predictions from 1972:

[1] They Predicted We Would Run Out Of Gold by 1981,

[2] We Would Run Out of Mercury in 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.[8]

This is a joke. What a disgrace!

It is interesting that there is no meaningful scientific apologia for this outrage. Aren’t we supposed to correct the scientific literature when gross errors are made? This work seems to have rotted in place in the annals of leftist politics and the hilarious conclusions summarily ignored by those who lust after tax monies. Apparently, the controlling political thrust is to ignore any negative evidence in their ‘scientific’ findings and to just keep moving the goal posts toward their desired conclusions.  Harvard Law School runs like this. Bums take a similar approach when perusing used Tokay bottles in the dumpsters of dark alleyways of Los Angeles.

We should wonder how so many of their concerned ‘scientists’ have ignored the complaints of 400 other scientists who criticize this circus. In science, there is supposed to be some conditional premise upon which all theories hinge that the proposed hypothesis must describe all the firm data or it is obviously flawed and must be revised. We have to thank Steve Milloy of Junkscience.com for constantly debunking much of this crap.[9] Al Gore has considered this scientific debate ‘settled’ and not open for discussion. He is not a scientist, and readily admits this fact, but many advanced degreed liberals that sit in cozy research jobs cannot even consider the scientific method[10] in Al’s case.  Unlike all other authentic probes into science, this file  is ‘closed.” Al Gore transcends facts, truth and good science in their view.

The Russian article puts up very serious observations and critical historical items that are all but ignored by the political garden party now run by Al Gore and his EcoNazis as they fly around the planet spewing out more CO2 and mumble  about trading carbon credit futures for fun and profit. They think we ought to buy fur coats, while Al believes we will need loin cloths.

It is highly probable that the Global Warming phantasm is actually reversed in direction and that we are ending a typical cyclic weather mode, as usual, and cooling may be observed in the next 200 or 300 years.

Al Gore’s politics is worse than his science as he predicts disaster, soon, and allows his Marxist friends in the People’s Republic, parts of Europe and Africa and India to escape any sanctions or caps on industrial production while putting the blame and demands  upon  the US. That is politics and has nothing to do with science. It is fitting that the UN and Nobel Prize Committee together dote on some common Communist Stooge and proven loser.  We expect such phony stunts from the far left and their toadies.

We have insanely subsidized politically polluted science projects in our society and it is time to revise this process. We need both new and old methods to generate energy [oil, nuclear, etc.,] and people like Al Gore have no known skills  other than pandering, drugs and overeating and should not be consulted in this action.  We should start defunding certain universities who cannot seem to follow basic scientific principles. Send them to Cuba to work in the cane fields and roll cigars.

Cut taxes some more.

rycK  Comments: ryckki@gmail.com

The New York Times  Finds [and explains] all of the Mitt Romney Warts.

As the mechanical automaton in some glass booth in some 19^th century fun house grinds away at some mundane task like predicting the future for a nickel, the New York Times discovers and offers the astonishing prediction that one of the Republican candidates will lose the race. This is indeed a rare finding—and so novel. In today’s article Road to Nowhere[1], David Brooks turns the old rusty crank and squeezes out an ‘objective’ analysis of why Mitt will lose and takes us, predictably in his case, nowhere.

In the stale and predictable manner of the propagandistic polemic[2], characteristic of the NYT, we first start off with the conclusion [road to nowhere] and add in some modest and meaningless ‘compliment’ and then get to the gritty process of sorting out the political warts.  Romney’s political opponents in the other party are not mentioned. Romney, current leader in some polls must lose and enhance the liberal cause! Why write this piece if this is not the intended outcome?

“The most impressive thing about Mitt Romney is his clarity of mind.”

This is probably just fluff, so we can ignore this unless it returns later in the article. McCain’s mind is unclear?

“Earnestly and methodically, he has appealed to each of the major constituency groups.”

This is stunning. No liberal Democrat would have the clarity of mind to seek political help from their constituencies. We may be witnessing a breakthrough in political analysis here. Maybe the Walter Duranty Paper driven by Pinch Sulzberger has attained new analytical insights. We must be delighted and read more! We may learn much from Brooks today.

“No candidate offends so few, or is the acceptable choice of so many.”

Mumble mumble mumble………

We can wonder why our writer does not contrast Mitt with Hillary and show that Hillary’s crimes and such must be ignored since she is ‘vetted.’ Hillary does have a 49% unacceptable-to-the-voter rating.  This is not mentioned. Brooks does mumble about planning and such and offers a platitude about unintended consequences but then we get the whammy:

“And what Romney failed to anticipate is this: In turning himself into an old-fashioned, orthodox Republican, he has made himself unelectable in the fall. When you look inside his numbers, you see tremendous weaknesses.”

How many Democrats think Hillary is unelectable? Is Hillary an orthodox liberal? She trails Obama by 7 points in Iowa at this writing. The NYT has previously argued the parallel case where Obama cannot win either. [3],[4] What about Edward’s weaknesses in numbers? What about Biden? [5] No matter what the polls say, the NYT will pick the candidate that closely approximates the central tenets of Marxism. Period. They never miss this point.

In an effortless propagandistic transliteration this means Mitt is against high taxes and wants more tax cuts, is pro war on terrorism, against illegal immigration and takes other political stances that define conservatives. This is astonishing! A conservative is announcing that he is a conservative. Do liberals do this? We cannot find out from this article.  We can note that all the leftist candidates support major and soaring tax increases[6]—probably the first defining attribute for all the candidates. This election may be a referendum on taxation. The NYT would not attempt to make that case in public.

Perusing the usual myriad of meaningless polls nearly a dozen months before the election, we find Mitt is not leading in all categories which include age, gender, class and Hispanics. We find that the liberal North East newspapers “…find his flip-flopping offensive.”  Has Brooks ever heard of John Kerry[7]?? We also learn that: “Romney has turned himself into the last gasp of the Reagan coalition.”

Some think Hillary is the last gasp of the Radical Marxist Movement of the 60s. She has a long, warm association with Communism. She has Castro’s vote. Hugo Chavez too! OBL seems to like her. I wonder why? She is a favorite with Kim of North Korea. Impressive.

We must recall that Ronald Reagan destroyed most of the Great Society, New Deal, the USSR[8] and cut taxes and created unparalleled economic growth. Such an experience has never been so ghastly for the Old Gray Lady. We then get to read a recitation of the old stale platitudes:

“The general public prefers Democratic approaches on health care, corruption, the economy and Iraq by double-digit margins. “

Yes, we see how Congress is rated on these issues. Below 12% approval rating and sinking are they? This article ignores the fact that George Bush is not running again. It is easy to run against Bush2 as he is not exactly the favorite son of the conservatives having made numerous social and spending blunders and would not be nominated even if he could run again. His first SCOTUS pick cost him 15 points from conservatives and allied independents. His stance on illegal immigration finished him off. George might have to play the part of the bucket next year as in History of the World Part 1. [9]

Brooks left out critical political vectors such as global warming. By health care we can translate as socialized medicine, the mechanism by which, hopefully, California or Oregon or, hopefully both, will crash in debt[10].  We need to show the voters how expensive this can get if political stooges are placed in charge of such a process. We can always be reminded of Central Planning in Moscow, a cluster of incompetents who were able to carefully mismanage the Soviet economy for decades. On corruption, this must reference Libby and Gonzales, but we wonder about Hillary’s good friends[11] who stuff their shorts with stolen documents[12] or grunting and grabbing money from Asian Communists[13]. We can conveniently forget about Waco[14] where children were summarily burned along with some toxic military gas in a war about some assumed ‘sex’ problem. Bill Clinton never had a sex problem. Other people had problems with his sexual advances.

So, we can show gratitude to the New York Time for another meaningless fluff piece cut to fit from the old rusty propaganda molds. Hopefully, this ragzine will not break out of this narrow and circular logical snake pit and discover either use of the facts or how to influence voters who think this paper is best suited for parrot cage linings. It could be dangerous, but with Pinch cranking out Pinch Pustules like sausages we can use the NYT as a convenient disinformation alert and merely endorse what they advocate in reverse. These toadies have advocated and carried various waters [like in History of the World Part 1] for every leftist slime ball since 1900 and endorsed most of the Marxist dictators who murdered millions. That is what the New York Times has to offer and we can thank them for these alerts when properly translated.  

How can be we ever be dissatisfied by the crude propaganda in eh New York Times? And the follies continue.

rycK

Comments: ryckki@gmail.com