The Reptilian, Repulsive Pelosi, aka Spartacus, Bears Her Yellow Fangs at the White House.

We must tolerate countless personality types in our encounters with other beings on this planet although some of them appear to be a bit more agreeable to deal with than others. Most of us might think that nearly all and sundry of us are just ordinary people who can be sensible in their dealings with their peers and this holds, for the most part, until we enter the political arena. In that snake pit, we expect no mercy or quarter for any and all forms of conduct. Today, we discuss an essay into hate and lunacy from those well skilled in the art.

In today’s Associated Press we read that [Nancy] Pelosi Wants Bush Aides Investigated [1]and we might mistakenly assume that this notion should encompass some basis in truth or law to ostensibly proceed. It seems that Pelosi, aka Spartacus, given this name in honor of Rosa Luxemburg [2]who briefly  established some independent Soviet State in Germany in 1919, has to conduct reverse McCarthyism [3]style ‘investigations’ into White House operations in the case of firing federal prosecutors in 2006, a constitutional perogative of the Executive Branch, which requires no approval of Congress. It seems that such probable dumping of the undesirable and/or incompetent graduates of certain law schools [either real or percieved] when they are not following Justice Department instructions and the following the general theme of the President is unacceptable to the rabid left although Clinton fired all of them after he clawed his way into the Oval Office.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi [4] [5], current leader of the Spartakusbundasked the Justice Department  Thursday to open a grand jury investigation, in the spirit of a reptilian humanoid, into whether President Bush's chief of staff and former counsel should be prosecuted for contempt of Congress. Her frolics are described in her own maniacal shrieks:

"There is no authority by which persons may wholly ignore a subpoena and fail to appear as directed because a president unilaterally instructs them to do so," Pelosi wrote Mukasey. She noted that Congress subpoenaed Miers to appear before the House Judiciary Committee, which is investigating the firings.”[6]

There are two salient facts here:

[1] No crime was committed when Bush, or whoever, fired WH appointees and, thusly, there is no basis for any ‘investigation’ unless Congress thinks they can employ a McCarthy style ‘investigation’ of Miers or Bolton that surges back 15 years and includes all of their bank accounts, contracts, leases, letters, video rentals, e-mail and also their family members as the Millard Tydings [7]Hearings did to Senator Joe McCarthy. All this is outlined in the new book Blacklisted by History: The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy and His Fight Against America's Enemies by M. Stanton Evans. This event would become a wild celebration with the howlings of ‘contempt of Congress.’ It is very difficult to not be guilty of contempt of Congress by any citizen given their low approval rating and obnoxious Marxian rants of such a person as Nancy Pelosi. Many of these people are intolerable.

[2] Article II of the Constitution.  Separation of powers. 

This is a hunting expedition. They are groping for a sensation. It seems that the House, under Iron Hand of Spartacus, has to time to fish for minnows in an ocean of illegal aliens, street crime and Islamo-Fascists, many centered in San Francisco, but cannot seem to find time to put up the FISA bill for a vote. Her quest for new forms of Staatswissenschaft is ongoing.Translated, that means anything but capitalism.

“"Rather than passing critical national security legislation, they continue to squander time on partisan hijinx," Fratto said. Boehner spokesman Michael Steel said "this sort of pandering to the left-wing fever swamps of loony liberal activists does nothing to make America safer."[8]

Reshrieking the same oath we read:

“She added: "Short of a formal assertion of executive privilege, which cannot be made in this case, there is no authority that permits a president to advise anyone to ignore a duly issued congressional subpoena for documents."

Why not?? She may be merely confused and unconsciously channeling back to the case where former White House aides Sidney Blumenthal and Bruce Lindsey were forced to appear before a grand jury to answer its questions. [9] That is an outage that the rabid left cannot put down.

Is there really some formal procedure where executive privilege must be exercised? One wonders what happened to the concept of separation of powers we used to know. Apparently, Harriet Miers would have her legal imperative of client-counsel secrecy rights abrogated by the House. In the amusing case of the scrutiny of Clinton for Perjury we read:

“Following his day of testimony [who was subpoenaed], Blumenthal told reporters, "If Ken Starr is interested in the truth, he heard it today."

"The president shared his account of the Lewinsky matter with me," Blumenthal said. "He did so unguardedly and freely under the assumption that we were speaking in complete privacy. What I told the grand jury under oath supports completely what the president has told the American people and is contrary to any charge that the president has done anything wrong."

Bill did not have sex with Lewinsky. The library sink was probably responsible for his eruptions.

Of course, we all know how the DNA results came out and Clinton was impeached. Here, the point was that the Special Counsel had the license of the Rule of Law on his side and could attack the case at his choice of options. An Act of Congress gave him such license.[10] This instant slapstick has no bearing on the Pelosi Plea for testimony to elucidate the particulars of a non crime committed by a member of the White House Cabinet and perhaps the Vice President. This is so foolish and we read the rebuttal of this antic from the White House:

“At the White House, spokesman Tony Fratto said House Democrats "have been trying to redefine the notion of contempt and they succeeded."

And, what else would bubble up from the “left-wing fever swamps” but spittle and spite and the howls for fresh meat. This is a typical and expected outcome of the Nancy Pelosi training in politics as she was a witness to the gutter methods and dark alleyway politics of BaltimoreCity in her youth. She learned how to communicate and navigate in the political latrines. Now, matured, she is the Queen of the San Francisco Massage Parlor Set and is grateful for the rubber-stamp votes of the gay cabana cavaliers, illegal aliens and assorted perverts.

San Francisco is an AIDS-infested lagoon of Rimming-Ramming-Romper Room politics that celebrates and fuses the least attractive facets of perversion and Marxian politics into one congealed mass. To vote in the Bay Area, the voters really need only to supply an ample assortment of dope, cheap white wine [11] and a solitary Community Voting Lever to pull during their Fulton Street Follies or at any old time. Such a democratic device could be mounted on some giant cantilever that spans a full city block in the Mission District illuminated with candles, accented with incense and fitted with little bells. When loaded with drunks, perverts and dopers, ceremonial kazoos would be passed out and the machine would just lower itself into the street level under the weight of the screaming masses, score a city-wide unanimous vote on any topic and then disgorge its howling load. It could then just stoically await a second relay to remount the gadget and revivify the unanimous voting process. The citizens of San Francisco have, indeed, chosen the best person to focus their hate upon democracy, society and elements of decency and found a new Sprawa Robotnicza [12]. She might also consider a few more face lifts so as to better complement her Order of Lenin Red dresses that proudly announce her politics in monotone. The overriding cadaver gaze she was apparently born with should be retained as it is now a suitable component of the ambience of her constituents. She is just one of the average citizens.

The frenzy:

“The House voted 223-32 this month to hold Miers and Bolten in contempt for failing to cooperate with an inquiry into whether the prosecutors' firings were politically motivated. Angry Republicans boycotted the vote and staged a walkout in an unusually bitter scene even for the fractious House.”[13]

The leftists are in a haluicationatory state over their loss of political power at the hand of Newt Gingrich. As a sop they appear to be chasing some glittering banshee that slithered down the nearest rat hole in the hope of pulling out a marijuana-stuffed rabbit, but this is yet another sick pipedream of the degenerates in San Francisco. In a way, it is too bad the Opium Dens were closed as the inmates in those establishments were at least silent.

The only positive aspect of this outrage is that Spartacus will not lose any votes from Code Pink, the Communist Party USA or from AIDS victims, living or dead.

The voters need to chuck out some of the radical leftist politicos in Congress so she will lose the vote for Speaker on the next round.

If I were subpoenaed by Congress I would use this sterling opportunity to waste their time and set a new record for taking the 5^th Amendment. All the Commies did that in the 40s, 50s and 60s and they were praised and saluted for their courage. Presumably, we still have the same rights as some slimy Communist. I can be just as combative and inventive before a House Committed as Owen Lattimore was, and then some as a few readings of my blogs might indicate.

rycK

Can the Global Warming Zombies Admit they look like Fools Yet??

The Grand Scenario, the Truth and the Quiz:

[1] Global Warming EcoNazis honked and bleeped the horrible news all over the planet, with firm data, kazoos and sophisticated computer models clearly proving that the planet’s temperature increased with CO₂ levels, a politically defined ‘pollutant.’[1]

[2] Real scientists replied that this was so much crap. [2]

[3] Al Gore sets up tax schemes to tax the universe and the drooling leftists pile on the band wagon and dream of higher and taxes.[3]

[4] Swedish and Norwegian Communists give out the Nobel Peace Prize for Phony Science to Al Gore.

[5] The UN gets in the game and parrots the ‘scientific’ findings. [4]

[4] The weather agencies, all four of them, now show that the temperature is decreasing. [5]

“Now there is word that all four major global temperature tracking outlets have released data showing that temperatures have dropped significantly over the last year. California meteorologist Anthony Watts says the amount of cooling ranges from 65-hundredths of a degree Centigrade to 75-hundreds of a degree.”[6]

So, up is down or hot is cold or tax is tax or sleaze is sleaze?!

Quiz:

The liberals and their so-called scientists now either look like: [a] fools, [b] idiots, [c] political toadies devoid of scientific skills [d] simpletons who need more life and fewer drugs[e] other [f] no opinion as I am a liberal.

The best answers are a, b, c or f. Partial credit is given for e.

rycK

The New York Times Sings Wonderful Songs about North Korea and Diplomacy.

The New York Times, always in the furrow created by Walter Duranty[1], the Patron Saint of the Old Gray Lady, now essays us on fairness and diplomacy, again, with North Korea.[2] [3] The editorial staff of the Times remains emotionally enchanted and politically mesmerized by Marxism and its intrinsic ‘fairness’ and ‘concern’ for the poor, notwithstanding the essential vector here: the excuse to plunder the assets of capitalism at all costs. That is their future; that is their present; that is their past. Today, in an odd twist, the NYT actually agrees with the Bush Administration on the failure of the Communists to give an open accounting of their nuclear program. David Gregory must have swooned. Bill Clinton solved the diplomacy problem [4] by shuffling about 5 billion dollars of our tax revenues to the dictator Kim with the Marxian assistance of Jimmy Carter.[5] [6] This sterling piece of diplomacy was based on an exchange of money for ‘promises.” We know how that worked out. Jimmy was ecstatic, Clinton was satisfied, the Communists were overjoyed as they could get paid for producing nuclear weapons and the US citizens got screwed, as usual, in dealings with the shrunken Marxist remains of the Bolshevik Era. This little theatrical production seems to have received unfavorable reviews by some, but not robustly by the Times. The Times will find a way to support our enemies in any way they can and this propaganda piece of today is just illusory fluff—there is more to come.

In today’s little propaganda piece [A Little Nuke Music[7]] that is based on holding the parties accountable for their (now) signed and published promises, we are astonished by the NYT’s admission  that they suddenly [read temporarily] side with Bush on the question that their allies in the flesh would renege on a deal and demand payment anyway. That is a bit too cheesy for the editorial staff to spin directly into policy—they need to create some loopholes for their friends.

“That effort unfortunately has stalled, and the fault — at least this time — is undeniably Pyongyang’s. It would take a serious diplomatic push by the Bush administration and the leaders of China, Russia, Japan and South Korea to ensure that it does not fall apart.”[8] [Emphasis is mine in all quotes.]

!!!

“North Korea agreed last year to disable its Yongbyon nuclear reactor and produce a “complete and correct” accounting of all its nuclear activities, facilities and weapons-usable material by the end of last year. In exchange, it was to get 950,000 tons of heavy fuel oil and start down the road toward normalizing diplomatic and economic relations with the United States and others.”[9]

Is this like scouring Africa and most particularly Niger and not finding yellow cake? A negative can be proven if a sufficient number of leftists join the chorus.

“The Bush administration has a long history of using any excuse to scuttle any diplomatic deal, but in this case it is right. Pyongyang clearly agreed to full disclosure and the deadline. Since then serious questions have also arisen about Pyongyang’s nuclear cooperation with Syria. That must also be disclosed.”[10]

Can we suggest, at this point, that such a “complete and correct” accounting of North Korea’s nuke songs might have been incorporated by Jimmy Carter in his ‘diplomacy’  in the first place before we gave them loads of cash? No. The leftist notions of diplomacy are defined only in the strictest terms of appeasement. Just give the maggots some money and hope the threat will go away. Such measures have worked well in such cases as Mary Joe Kopechne as strict silence, as specified in a signed agreement, was maintained.

“The United States and its partners should continue to explore creative solutions to the impasse and stand ready to lift sanctions and quickly take North Korea off the terrorism list if it fulfills its obligations. China, North Korea’s chief benefactor (and frequent enabler), must press Pyongyang to keep its commitments.”[11]

I thought the NYT was for a one-on-one diplomatic effort at the beginning of the Bush Administration’s efforts to deal with these maggots? Not true? Now, they want China and Japan and South Korea, the capitalistic mirror image of the abortive North[12], to throw in a few things? I thought China was building a wall to keep the illegal North Korean aliens out of their country? Is this an ‘enabling’ process? It might well be as it prevents the horrors of the poor being documented as fleeing the splendors the Dearest Kim’s Paradise. That is leftist diplomacy in full bloom with song and scents.

Then, there is a fleeting mention of the possibility of Syria and North Korea working on a joint project to fit nuclear war heads to missiles so they can obliterate Israel. [13] That might be a diplomatic coup for the left as they are bosom buddies with the Islamo-Fascists. The scheme to give our enemies money to develop nuclear weapons and help out the Islamo-Fascists prepare new exotic missiles to burn down Israel ranks up at the very top of the scale of cooperating with our enemies as we saw in an earlier performance with such fellow-travelers such as Dean Acheson, Millard Tydings and the Little Truman and his lackeys. The Truman administrative decks were awash with FDR-inspired Commies and couldn’t seem to properly investigate them or at least kick them out of the White House or State Department. Notice that the Clinton/Carter antics can be correlated with the Dean Acheson Follies to show that appeasement and direct support of our enemies are a vital and ongoing project for the sordid left. Imagine the ingenuity of our supporting our enemies so they can destroy us! All this seems to show us a concerted FDR/HST/JEC/WJC string of diplomatic successes in aiding our enemies.

The gripper comes in the last element of this propaganda exercise when we read:

” The United States and its partners should continue to explore creative solutions to the impasse and stand ready to lift sanctions and quickly take North Korea off the terrorism list if it fulfills its obligations.”

Now, the dangling carrot is shown in the light. If NK comes up with some phony list then the NYT would push to forget and forgive and remove NK from its state-sponsored terrorist status. That would be a cheap parlor trick reminiscent of Harry Hopkins [14]giving Joe Stalin his pick of land in Eastern Europe he desired or finding ways to sandbag Chang to give Chairman Mao the prize of the People’s Republic.

Maybe the leftists have found a way to get Israel nuked with American support and tax dollars. That would be a coup that would best the Fall of Berlin or Pearl Harbor.

For a mere picosecond it looked like the New York Times had stumbled into some location resembling reality, but a close reading of this well-tuned propagandistic treatise shows that they have reserved several caveats to cover their adoration for Marxism and will remain the compliant stooges that their sordid histories clearly indicates they have been and they will continue to grovel in the political rubble of the vanquished Marxist dream in any event.

The Times is hinting that some random numbers and appropriate dates must be scrawled on an imported clean sheet of paper and then proffered before the world to satisfy due diligence and compliance with the agreement’s critical elements and show that North Korea has fully complied with the deal. Shovel some more money their way so that Times can celebrate in Greenwich Village with white wine and tofu.

rycK

Comments: ryckki@gmail.com

More Big Government and Maniacal Mortgage Manipulation from The New York Times

We can relentlessly depend on the New York Times, the key propaganda arm[1] of the far left to signal us, and their attendant stooges in the various legislature across the land, to advise us when a novel form of taxation is possible. In today’s preposterous dissertation, we read that there is some new debt burden issue in ownership of private property that needs to be adjudicated. The usual leftist intrinsic bias against private property [2]is relaxed in rare cases when such antisocial behavior can be juxtaposed against public ownership.[3] But in this case there are some new and wonderful indirect taxes that can be levied upon the corporations at no political cost! That is an indirect tax that the usual tax whores would not have to express regrets about when election time rolls around. It doesn’t add to the national debt. For that, the Times will go to the legislative mat. Soak the capitalists!

The wailing is noted in today’s new tax scheme screed: Getting Real About theRescue[4]

The problem stated:

“Some big banks are supporting new proposals to rescue homeowners who owe more on their mortgages than their houses are worth, but let’s get one thing straight: the banks haven’t been struck by a sudden urge to help the needy. Rather, by advocating bailouts, the lending industry is trying to head off a possible change in the law that would let troubled borrowers modify their mortgages in bankruptcy court — where lenders, not taxpayers, would be stuck with the losses.”[5] [Emphasis is mine in this and  all  following quotes.]

In propaganda rants, this one gets a C+ as the basis for an urgent rescue is properly set up as is the social basis for change, but the solution to is too cryptic and lacks the usual maudlin songs and sobbing and arrives, too bluntly in my view, at the solution. An A rating on this would begin with starving workers trying to experience the American Dream as they are living their lives in their precious homes but starkly contrasted with the horrors of seeing their meager possessions (and children) being summarily cast off into the streets by officers of the law while greedy mortgage lenders are seen wheeling away stacks of money. This one is a bit abrupt, but the leftist contents might become important talking points in the upcoming election farces so let us plug along and see how it unfolds. Capitalism is going to get whacked here; the interest is in how the Times wants to veil it.

“Congress must not kowtow to the lenders. It should insist that borrowers be given a chance to modify their mortgages under bankruptcy court protection before it even thinks of asking taxpayers to pick up the tab for the mortgage mess.”[6]

The briar patch is now unraveled. Certain members of Congress are the stumbling point. Here we learn that the lenders, presumably some part of our economy that deals in capitalism with all its open markets replete with numerous buyers and sellers should stand last in line in the Congressional legislation. They should have no influence in the legislation. The little guy comes first. Note that the blame and fault are now instantly placed upon the evil money lenders before the solution is revealed in a bright and scented shower of fairness, sensitivity and concern. The lenders must pay for the problem. Justice must be served.

“Under current law, borrowers cannot rework the mortgages on primary homes in bankruptcy proceedings.”[7]

Ah, the jaws of the Demon are exposed. The term rework used here must have its political  roots planted in compassion, socialism and the eternal quest for votes for Democrats must be embedded somewhere. This sentence, the gripper passage that inflames the reader, implies that the law must be changed.

The warriors choose sides in this battle:

“Senate Democratic leaders are pushing a bill to let many at-risk homeowners do just that. The House Judiciary Committee has passed a similar measure. Republicans, who are balking, should get on board, or risk leaving their constituents without an effective way to save their homes.”[8]

This reads like a Greek Tragedy as the stately home owners, through no fault of their own, must seek the help of the gods for relief. The nasty old Republicans stand in the way of Justice as she attempts to minister to her flock. Perhaps their very eyes will adorn the peacock’s tail for this cruelty.

The details of the Redistribution of Wealth and the Poisoned Apple:

“If the bankruptcy provision becomes law, as it should, lenders will have a powerful incentive — which they currently do not have — to modify troubled loans voluntarily. If they can’t or won’t come to new terms with borrowers, then they would run the risk that a bankruptcy court would do the modifying for them.”[9]

There is some prize here proffered to the money lenders. They can take a loss on their loans or they can have the government direct the loss on their loans. This is given in the spirit of the French Revolution where you can have your head roll into the basket after you have selected your favorite raison d'être from the list:   Liberty, Equality or Fraternity. We can only speculate what the word modify means in this context.

The political payoff:

“So far, despite a lot of promises, the industry has been unable or unwilling to rework the junk loans of the bubble years in ways that come near addressing the enormity of the problem. In contrast, access to bankruptcy court would mean relief for some 600,000 homeowners — not by wiping out their debts, but by modifying the loan terms so borrowers can pay them off over time.”[10]

A catchy slogan matching the notion that: “… all the workers have to lose are their chains.” How poetic! Let us break out into song and have the workers of the world unite.

The condemned raise a point of order:

“Lenders object that by giving homeowners the right to modify their mortgages under court supervision, the bankruptcy amendment would raise the cost of mortgages for everyone, forever. That concern is surely overstated, but not entirely without merit. To address it and other industry worries, lawmakers have proposed constraints, such as limiting the bankruptcy relief to junk mortgages of the past few years.”[11]

We must now wonder what a ‘junk mortgage’ might be and if this can be directly compared to junk bonds or junk dealers or junkies. Do you buy a junk mortgage with junk money? What could this mean? We are also blessed with a new (Constitutional?) right—the right to modify corporate contracts if money is lost. I would hope that we would have a similar ‘right’ to modify our tax returns to correct some perceived injustices in federal government spending. How about this: I will acknowledge my full tax liabilities if I can pay off my accrued taxes at a dollar per year at zero interest.

A hint:

“The idea is that if lenders voluntarily agree to loan modifications, they would become entitled to a share of the house’s appreciation, if any, when the house is ultimately sold.”[12]

Who defines the modifications? What share?

“Like other Bush administration plans, this one suffers from its emphasis on voluntary cooperation, which has been shown to be inadequate. The bankruptcy amendment, however, would give lenders more incentive to go along, by providing a real downside to not acting voluntarily — losing control to a bankruptcy judge.”

The justice of the guillotine was not exactly voluntary in the same way that the options to lose money on loans are not exactly voluntary in this case. This is a propagandistic sentence that reveals no facts--only slogans and threats. If the wording is vague in the ‘law’ then the bankruptcy judge can act like Citizen Robespierre and just fill the baskets with heads using vague reasons and barking the trendy explanations of the day. It is too bad that a fraction of our tax liability is not voluntary.

This amounts to a leftist mass groping of some business sector wealth. This is a classic propaganda piece that always incorporates the predictable Retribution of Wealth cliché. Once implemented, a person’s debts may now be adjudicated in some court or by those who owe their jobs to the political machines. This is a form of financial justice offered in democratic terms. The notions of risk and other attributes of capitalism are crushed in this Marxian screed. There is no risk! If you are some leftist parasite, a hopeless druggie, sexual predator who cannot get a job or some felon you now buy a house, default in defiance of the system, and somebody else will subsidize payments for you, enforced by federal law. Here we are instructed that if any housing market turns down then those who sold the products are liable for any loses encountered by the buyers. This places a floor upon which money lost in market activities can be reclaimed merely for the reasons that somebody lost money. I wonder if we could do this at the race track and get a long-term refund for a misplaced bet on some three-legged donkey that somehow missed the winner’s circle, the bright flowers and applause.

No essay from the New York Times, the Walter Duranty Papers[13], could offer more promises for less leftist political risk than this wreckage. This is a freebee.

What is missing here is the nasty effects of the predictable shortage in mortgage loans if this monster becomes law. The lender can now voluntarily lose money, or he can involuntarily lose money—a fair and level choice sanctioned by the leftists. And, the little guy wins. Lenders might then unfairly scrutinize future loans for deadbeats or marginal barrowers or find other ways to secure their loan repayments. The political celebration here comes from a novel test case where in the usual free enterprise arena the markets rise and fall, driven by the expected supply and demand effects, but the socialists are now insisting that any downside risk must be indemnified by somebody else. I am surprised that the Democrats don’t want to establish some federal slush fund that subsidizes loses in any home loans—no let us be generous and add in TVs, autos and beer coolers—so we can have the nasty old capitalists redress for the Sins of the Past. That would necessitate more taxes, so that is a bit tacky in an election year.

I anxiously await the NYT ‘solution’ to restoring lost union auto jobs in Michigan as they may offer some solution related to this. How about the case where car buyers are liable for lost jobs if they buy a car outside Michigan? That sounds fair. We need more taxes and legislation like this one.

I want to be able to ‘rework’ my 401(k) so as to make it tax free. I don’t want to kowtow to the tax mongers.

rycK

Comments: ryckki@gmail.com

The Universality of McCarthyism and the Political Diodic Effect.

Diodes are a useful invention in electronics as they allow the current to flow in only one direction. They are found in nature in the mineral galena. The Diodic Effect is observed in politics as essential to protecting certain groups such as the Communists and others who subvert our society. They are now protected by the McCarthy Effect. The public has been educated that Senator Joe McCarthy unfairly ‘smeared’ both innocent and loyal workers of the government[1] [2], intellectuals and some members of theatrical industry. This was all so unfair. The facts are somewhat different, but facts are of little use in politics. Politics is not based on truth. The details are covered in the new book[3] Blacklisted by History: the Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy and His Fight against America's Enemies by M. Stanton Evans. The story is complex here and a reading of the facts of each case McCarthy presented to various Senate Hearings is not realistic in analytical political terms as they seem to be a legitimate mechanism to investigate criminals—as the facts are not admissible in political battles. Joe was able to attack the Truman Administration who frantically tried to identify the sources of his memos and facts, destroy the Millard Tydings Hearings that were set up only to stop the Senator and much more. Truman was a timorous castaway from the FDR Machine and knew little, if anything, about the inner workings of the myriad of Communists who had infiltrated the US government, or much else. He was a mental midget who had his dignity rubbed in the dirt by many politicians from both sides of the aisle and was unexpectedly elected probably by ballot box stuffing or from some obscure symbiosis with fate. He was all they had so the Democrats rallied around his little person when the citizens questioned him about Reds in his administration. He reacted very poorly to criticism by allowing the State Department under Dean Acheson to whitewash every communist in the department. He couldn’t seem to fire a communist even when his desk was piled high with  fat FBI files or testimony from Congressional hearings. He let Acheson must move them around like pieces on the chessboard The finest defense of his stubbornness and resistance to investigations is that he didn’t understand what had happened before he was fatefully shown the Oval Office and took such elements of ignorance personally. His singular lack of achievements, other than being selected as VP to FDR, betrays his status as an accomplished politico, or business person or as a military man or anything else. The fortunate thing we must keep in mind is that if some person is unfamiliar or uninterested in politics then they will be supplied with those preceptors who can counsel and even vote for such an entity. It is difficult to believe that anybody could be so dense and lacking of cognitive skills, but it appears to be so. Harry danced the Dunciad at the strings of his bettors.

McCarthy was somehow alerted to the presence of Communists in our government in high places from several possible avenues (including the FBI) and had several strong allies in this war such as Martin Dies, Everett Dirkson and Pat McCarren. We don’t know how he got started. On the opposition, we find Dean Acheson, Millard Tydings and others, were fighting for the communists with spirit and zeal (either consciously or unconsciously), and, who raised a frantic bulwark designed to undermine the senator’s investigations because of the massive damage he did to the White House and  Democratically controlled Congress. They were truly frightened of both Joe and the Truth—either might destroy them. Joe had three solid years of red-hunting and terrorized the Democrats mostly due to their stalling and ineffective inactions, but attracted the negative attention of Republicans as well. Ike was on his case, but had to wait as he was just too powerful to attack. Joe presented facts and refuted the testimonies of numerous communists and other politicos. Many politicians trashed their careers while frantically opposing the senator such as Millard Tydings, who is now known in history as a simple stooge or perhaps a malleable supplicant who bungled the job of defaming McCarthy and shot himself down. Somebody named a bridge in Maryland after him as an afterthought so we can run over his image for a small fee. He made a fool of himself proffering a record player in some arcane carnival act with a record  disk that he said  had ‘evidence’ against McCarthy in the very  halls of Congress, a sorry tactic he was later forced to recant under oath. He lied. He also lost his reelection bid, but seemed to haunt Congressional committees who were fighting the McCarthy juggernaut as an attendant-in-spite. They were not very successful in plugging all the leaking holes in the communist tent as McCarthy had numerous unknown (to them) sources, many yet to be identified, and the FBI stacks of background and backup material and also several military intelligence units who were on board with the senator. The short view of this is illustrated in my following whimsical theatrical construction that has sharp elements of truth embedded:

Yes, Joe, we know there are numerous Communists and their fellow travelers and associated workers ensconced in the Army, Department of State, White House and more, but by exposing these traitors you are just smearing them, and us. We must protect our phony political careers. If we can merely  put up a host of personal testimonials  at the hearings and trials of McCarthy’s victims, singing the praises of  their marvelous character and loyalty to the Truman Administration or Democratic variants that might come in the future, the charges of espionage will be dropped and they will become sainted martyrs of Joe McCarthy’s Smear Machine. They can write books for fun and profit. Thus, we can readily accept the salient fact that many of us are functional Soviet Stooges, some of us are paid handsomely for their treachery, but the exposure of these operatives damages our political image. You, Senator McCarthy, are more of a threat to our political existence than are the beloved Communists we harbor in our petticoats that seek to destroy our society. We will destroy you, if we can. Sob.

The instant transition from the FDR era to Truman meant that residuals from the war years would merely change their letter heads—not their political vectors. Harry Truman had no idea about the nuclear programs or the extent of espionage in the country and did not know how to deal with McCarthy and his allies. Added to his woes was the FBI headed by J. Edgar Hoover who supplied Joe with numerous reports to be read into the Congressional Record about spies and others that were described in detail in numerous memos previously  sent to the White House that were subsequently ignored. The Hoover memos just got ‘lost.” They had been ‘lost’ since the 30s and Truman would not act on anything Hoover showed him. As such, we must presume that J. Edgar approached Joe McCarthy in Legislative branch of government out of desperation for a suitable platform that had investigative powers to get around Harry and his entrenched Marxists in the Executive Branch. Unlike Acheson or Marshall, Hoover’s loyalty to the US was unquestioned. That may be the reason he dragged his feet on question of organized crime until 1957—he was up to neck in squirming commies.  

The Communists were in the highest places of our government from 1938 on and persons such as Harry Hopkins, Sol Adler, Lauchlin Currie [Communist code name” Page"], Harry Dexter White, and others, were ensconced in lofty positions in both Democratic administrations  and wielded massive power and influence over both FDR and HST. FDR was dying of congestive heart failure and the effects of several strokes and HST was clueless on most matters.

As an example of what a good Commie can accomplish if left to his own devices, here is a list of Harry Hopkins’s deeds as a paid espionage agent of the Soviet Union[4]:

During the war years, Hopkins acted as

[1] He was FDR’s envoy to British Prime Minister Winston Churchill and Soviet leader Joseph Stalin.

[2] Set policy for the 1941 $50 billion Lend-Lease program to the UK and then USSR.

[3]  Hopkins promoted an aggressive war against Germany and successfully urged Roosevelt to use the Navy to protect convoys before the US entered the war in December 1941. Recall that Congress had passed the Neutrality Act.

[4] Roosevelt brought him along as advisor to his meetings with Churchill at Cairo, Tehran and Casablanca in 1942-43.

[5]  He was a firm supporter of Communist China, which received Lend Lease aid for its military and air force.

[6] “Hopkins wielded more diplomatic power than the entire State Department.”

[7] Hopkins was at the Yalta conference in February 1945 where Europe was carved up in favor of the Communists.

The amount of damage here is astronomical. We financed almost the entire Second World War and the Russians would up with most of Europe and then we had a half century of nuclear-inspired Cold War. Notice that Marshall and Eisenhower were very compliant in these outrageous military and political adventures and could only offer the excuse that they were ‘under orders,’ the same excuse given by enemy soldiers at the Nuremberg Trials that failed to save equivalent military counterparts from the social and military outcomes of their actions. Ike finally got McCarthy—nobody else could.

The Conclusion from the authors of The Venona Secrets [5] [6]:

"For a long time," the authors explain, "it has been an article of faith among apologists of the Left that Communist Party members were loyal citizens merely engaged in dissent and only bent on reform of the American system. Venona proves the opposite—their loyalty was to the Soviet Union, and many of the Party’s leadership and some of the hard-core membership served as spies in the Soviet cause. Venona and other recently available materials help explain why American Communists betrayed their democratic country to a totalitarian dictatorship."

McCarthy not only  attacked George C. Marshall and Dwight D. Eisenhower for their waffling waiting to converge on Berlin with the ‘allies’ and other strategic follies, he attacked Owen Lattimore[7] for his ongoing condemnation of Chang Kai-shek and boundless praises of Mao in China. The social and political and military loses we saw in Europe were mirrored in Asia. Strangely, or maybe not so strange if we mix in the communists, we seem to have lost both fronts after the war. The world was going communist and we were on the defensive. Lattimore was later indicted for perjury as his testimony conflicted with records at his Institute of Pacific Relations (I.P.R), a known Communist Front organization that did everything it could to have the communists win in Asia. Chang was defeated and many liberals thought we should help Mao take him off the island of Formosa. His cheesy lawyer was Abraham Fortas[8], who resigned his position on the United States Supreme Count because he “… had accepted a secret $20,000 retainer from the family foundation of Wall Street financier Louis Wolfson” [9], a friend [and criminal, ed.] and former client, in January 1966.” All this sounds like a success story to me for the Marxists.

There are thousands of pages of more evidence that the far left in this country still cannot accept in these matters. They offer an account of a massive stoic disbelief in some, if not all, of the Marxist tenets employed in the US during the 30s and 50s and still use ‘Marxian Analysis’ and other discredited notions to advocate the zombieistic redistribution of wealth and financial assistance using US tax revenues to Marxist dictatorships such as Cuba, Nicaragua, many places in Africa and North Korea.

Apparently, we are to believe that his initial list of 57 Communists identified by Venona or FBI or valid latent Russian sources were persons friendly to America and not traitors. Here is a sampler of the Marxist actors in this recital from Venona:

Solomon Adler [Treasury Department] , Cedric Belfrage , Elizabeth Bentley , Earl Browder , Virginius Frank Coe [Director of Monetary Research in the United States Department of the Treasury.][10], Lona Cohen, Morris Cohen, Lauchlin Currie [White House economic adviser to President Franklin Roosevelt during World War II][11], Laurence Duggan , Harold Glasser,   Alger Hiss [State Department [12]], Donald Hiss [brother of Alger] Harry Hopkins , Mary Jane Keeney, Philip Keeney , Frank Oppenheimer, Julius Robert Oppenheimer, Julius Rosenberg, Ethel Rosenberg, David Greenglass, Nathan Gregory Silvermaster , Helen Silvermaster , Harry Dexter White [13], and many more. 

These Democrats were all traitors

So, what are we to make of McCarthyism today given the mountain of material that suggests that McCarthy was absolutely right in perusing the roles of traitors in our government and society? The law was on his side. The Democrats stonewalled him from the very moment his microphone was shut off in WheelingWest Virginia in 1950. Truman had exhaustive and more than ample warnings from Hoover in numerous matters. The conclusion is that he was wrong to do so because even the attempt to investigate criminality in government was intrinsically a smear tactic. This is similar to Stare decesis in the court system: once decided the point of law must cast in stone—once elected we must stay in power. We wonder how Henry Waxman views this quandary. We are now vociferously warned that even the perception that there are traitors in our government, like the Democrats mentioned above, are safe in their positions because of the McCarthy Curtain that protects them from abuse. Such political logic has now been extended to the presence of Islamo-Fascists in or government, military or in our society. There is no reason to investigate anybody because the investigation, alone, would constitute McCarthyism and violate their rights. Many would prevent wiretaps of criminals, terrorists or others on this basis: you might find something! From those perches, the elected politicos are free to cohabitate or promulgate with what is left of the Marxian Cadaver or Islam, or drugs, or whatever they seem to believe in. Criminals or perverts or other are protected as long as they can provide political support in one form or another. None of this can apply to Vice President Richard Cheney or Karl Rove or others in the Bush Administration as they are fair game for any speculation by the NYT or their surrogates or stooges or investigations by House Democrats whose actions are protected by their First Amendment rights and court cases. McCarthyism works only in one direction: against the right.

The political use of McCarthyism is alive today and essential to protecting many left-liberals from being politically damaged even if they run for high office. We seemingly cannot employ the facts or even devise probing questions directed to Hillary Clinton during her race for the nomination about her close associations with the self-identified communist Saul Alinsky, or to Al Gore for his friendship and sponsorship by Armand Hammer, the son the founder of the Communist Party USA [CPUSA] or Bill Clinton’s fun trip to Moscow in 1969 or the dirty money from the Lippo Group.

Perhaps the McCarthy Curtain will protect Hillary Clinton from probes and ugly questions by McCain and others in the inevitable televised debates if she survives Texas. It is also of interest that the notion of reverse McCarthyism, cannot  even be applied to extreme cases such as the attacks on Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, all sanctioned by the far left as is seen in the 6000+ posts at Salon.com TableTalk[14] or the 3000 posts screaming about Karl Rove [15] or, at the same location or about Condi Rice.[16] Of these 10,000 posts on Salon there is little substance, nothing convincing, but a flurry of enduring character assignations with foam and hokum that should   bear the earmarks of what should obviously be labeled something like McCarthyism. No smear here. The latest attack on John McCain by the New York Times is an example of McCarthyism. [17]

No, McCarthyism is now a living tool that can now be readily employed only by the left that allows them to smear any member of the political opposition while giving solace to criminals and worse on the left. Bill Clinton may be some form of sexual pervert, a probable trained mole by the USSR in 1969, the recipient of numerous gifts and bribes by the Communists and others, a liar and philanderer, but he is protected by McCarthyism.

McCarthyism is like Racism, they both have only one allowed direction as a political vector: to the right—never to the left, hence the Diodic Effect. 

rycK

Comments: ryckki@gmail.com

The Leftist Tax Whores Use Stealth to Rob the Treasury and Spread Out Wealth Around Third World.

We continue to see the leftists use any sleazy tactic they can dream up  to gouge the US taxpayers and buy friends and support from the third world. [1] [2] [3] [4]In this latest case of baseness, we find that the famous braggart and plagiarist Joe Biden tried to suppress debate on this Senate Obama-initiated bill and hurry it thought his committee. Does Barack have a special place for Joe in his new administration? Secretary of State?? A lot of things are for sale by the leftist parasites that spend our money and they need the tax monies to gain favor.  

“Two conservative members of the U.S. Senate have anonymously placed a hold on Sen. Barack Obama's (D-Ill.) global poverty bill, Cybercast News Service has learned.”[5]

Good. Let us at least get to see what this bill has given Bush’s propensity to sign bills he does not understand. We all remember the McCain-Kennedy Amnesty Bill that Bush want to hail.

“The Illinois Democrat [Obama] praised Biden and the committee's ranking Republican, Indiana Sen. Richard Lugar, for "moving so quickly." Obama is the chief Senate sponsor of the bill.”[6]

Now, why would they be so nasty in insensitive to the world’s poverty needs?

“Cliff Kincaid of Accuracy in Media, a conservative media watchdog, said S. 2433 has been getting "a pass" from Congress. It received absolutely no scrutiny in the House last fall, when it was passed on a voice vote, and no scrutiny last week in the Senate, when the Foreign Relations Committee also passed it on a voice vote. “[7]

Where is the element of democracy here? We don’t discuss spending anymore? We can thank Nancy Pelosi [Spartacus][8] for this along with the Curmudgeon of Claymont[9] of their sleaze.

"They never held any hearings on this bill in either body - none whatsoever," said Kincaid. "They never heard from people like me, who monitor the U.N. for a living, about what was in it and what it means. You can be sure that people in the foreign aid lobby completely understand what's in it."[10]

So, how much would this cost us in the long run??

“The U.S. currently contributes about $15 billion a year, which is around 0.3 percent of the total federal budget. To reach the U.N.'s benchmark, some U.N. economists have called on the U.S. to increase its contributions by $65 billion a year.”[11]

Oh! We can afford a mere $65 billion a year, half of what Hillary needs to implement socialized medicine. Such a pittance. We should be generous.

“Kincaid estimates the so-called "Monterey Consensus" could wind-up costing U.S. taxpayers a whopping $845 billion or more by 2015, if the U.S. is forced to up its aid to meet the 0.07 standard.” [12]

A global tax is necessary[13]:

“The bill doesn't specifically mention a global tax," Kincaid said. "No one is suggesting that Sen. Obama has officially called for the imposition of a global tax. But the inevitable result of passing this bill would be to bring on or to encourage a global tax - no question about it."[14]

"They probably have never read the U.N. Millennium Declaration," Kincaid said. "They probably didn't read the Monterey Consensus. They didn't understand the references in the bill to timetables and goals. But they are there."[15]

And we wonder why the Congressional Approval rating is below that of the current Bush??

Any nefarious act may be justified as ‘concern for the poor’ or other hackneyed phrase so as to gouge the US taxpayer, the public trough of the sordid left. These parasites have nothing other than you tax money. They cannot set up one of their Marxist dictatorships that can survive by themselves despite decades of attempts in African or the Caribbean. Let us just throw a few hundred billion dollars to the Marxists and other losers so Joe Biden can get a cushy job in return for his sleaze.

rycK

Comments: ryckki@gmail.com

“Keep it Clean Geraldine” Calls for Superdelegates to Vote  for Hillary: The Sleaze Machine Cranks Up for War.

Our most famous vice presidential candidates, has opined that the superdelegates are actually ‘leaders’[1] and should have already made their choices and that Hillary should be awarded  the Florida and Michigan votes now  hanging somewhere out there in the ether.

Tammany Hall-Style Politics Revisited:

She is an old time party crank who suffered her own scars when her crooked husband was soaking old ladies for some extra interest their savings in his escrow accounts and her financial affairs were thought to be shady.[2] The Sleaze Effect apparently cost Weird Walter Mondale the election along with his Push the Button speech. She was more successful while barking for soft drinks, the only proven honest work she ever did. Her second chance to enter the ring in the New York senatorial race was crushed by her past sins.[3]

“But the superdelegates were created to lead, not to follow. They were, and are, expected to determine what is best for our party and best for the country. I would hope that is why many superdelegates have already chosen a candidate to support.” [4]

This is so phony; I cannot begin to find a place to embark on this political flotsam.

The Song of the Stooge:

“Perhaps because I have endorsed Mrs. Clinton, I have noticed that most of the people complaining about the influence of the superdelegates are supporters of Mr. Obama. I can’t help thinking that their problem with the superdelegates may not be that they’re “unrepresentative,” but rather that they are perceived as disproportionately likely to support Mrs. Clinton.” [5]

“I may be a cynic, but I’m a fairly knowledgeable political cynic. If Mr. Obama wins the nomination, those members are undoubtedly concerned that they would be inviting a primary challenge in their next re-election campaign by failing to support his candidacy.” [6]

This may be translated to be understood by all, using the appropriate dose of cynicism in my case, to mean that blacks will run their own candidates against current Democratic office holders in a nasty racial backlash after their first hope for political power has his chances trashed by the Old Party types. This may already have happened in South Carolina after Bill’s works there. Or, they will sit out this one and let Hillary crash.

And bending the Rules?

“Because both states went strongly for Mrs. Clinton, standing up for the voices of grassroots Democrats in Florida and Michigan would prove the integrity of the superdelegate-bashers. The people of those states surely don’t deserve to be disenfranchised simply because the leaders of their state parties brought them to the polls on a day that had not been endorsed by the leaders of our national party — a slight the voters might not easily forget in November.” [7]

Of course, all candidates were told to stand down in those states. Now, that Hillary is hungry for votes to ward off O’Bama we need to hear some notions about integrity. What about the low turnout in those states because the O’Bama voters didn’t have a chance to vote for their candidate. No disenfranchisement there? This is an example of working the lower rungs of political sleaze.

This is the very kind of twisted sleaze and gutter politics that the Clinton Machine is famous for and this author, an old party ancillary lever who has been discredited and disgraced one presidential nominee, just turns the party crank and rewrites the Rules to keep her personal party links in order. There is some hidden promise or payoff here from the Clinton Camp and we will only know what it is if Hillary is ‘selected’ for the presidency while the Party of Democrats disintegrates along racial lines. What prize awaits her?

All this argues for a new party: The American Black Party.[8] Such a party can effectively deal with slimy instances like this one and perhaps get some proportionate power in exchange for their political work. They can be king  Queen makers [or unmakers]  if they hold their votes in abeyance. The theory is clear here. [9]

The Clintons can get a lot nastier, and they will. They know what is ‘best’ for the party.

rycK

Comments: ryckki@gmail.com

The New York Times Plays a Funeral Dirge in E Minor for The Vanquished Clinton Machine.

Blame is now laid down for Hillary and her lackeys for the impeding loss next Tuesday. Frank Rich, of Pratfall Fame[1], has now shown us the warts and tumors and arrogance that derailed the Clinton Surge to Greatness. The Dynasty is now finished.

From the Riches of the past works of Rich:[2]

““By telling an Iowa audience on Tuesday night that he had opposed the Iraq war “from the beginning,” Bill Clinton committed a double pratfall[3]. Not only did he refocus attention on his wife’s most hazardous issue, Iraq, just as it was receding as the nation’s Topic A, but he also revived unhappy memories of the truth-dodging nadirs of the Clinton White House”

And today:

“WHEN people one day look back at the remarkable implosion of the Hillary Clinton campaign, they may notice that it both began and ended in the long dark shadow of Iraq.”[4]

So, Frank was right left!

After one correct prediction we need more information from the sages:

“It’s not just that her candidacy’s central premise — the priceless value of “experience” — was fatally poisoned from the start by her still ill-explained vote to authorize the fiasco. Senator Clinton then compounded that 2002 misjudgment by pursuing a 2008 campaign strategy that uncannily mimicked the disastrous Bush Iraq war plan. After promising a cakewalk to the nomination — “It will be me,” Mrs. Clinton told Katie Couric in November — she was routed by an insurgency. “[5]

Didn’t General Douglas McArthur take some flak for saying he would return to the Philippines?

And the guilty are enumerated:

“That’s why she has been losing battle after battle by double digits in every corner of the country ever since. And no matter how much bad stuff happened, she kept to the Bush playbook, stubbornly clinging to her own Rumsfeld, her chief strategist, Mark Penn. Like his prototype, Mr. Penn is bigger on loyalty and arrogance than strategic brilliance. But he’s actually not even all that loyal. …..”

A Rummy Dummy in charge!

“Clinton fans don’t see their standard-bearer’s troubles this way. In their view, their highly substantive candidate was unfairly undone by a lightweight showboat who got a free ride from an often misogynist press and from naïve young people who lap up messianic language as if it were Jim Jones’s Kool-Aid. Or as Mrs. Clinton frames it, Senator Obama is all about empty words while she is all about action and hard work.”[6]

Well, that must be given partial credit. O’Bama talks about the changeless  changletts of change as if he could change the changes that  need to changed.

“This is the candidate who keeps telling us she’s so competent that she’ll be ready to govern from Day 1. Mrs. Clinton may be right that Mr. Obama has a thin résumé, but her disheveled campaign keeps reminding us that the biggest item on her thicker résumé is the health care task force that was as botched as her presidential bid.”

As the sins of the past are revisited upon the heads of the unwise.

“If the press were as prejudiced against Mrs. Clinton as her campaign constantly whines, debate moderators would have pushed for the Clinton tax returns and the full list of Clinton foundation donors to be made public with the same vigor it devoted to Mr. Obama’s “plagiarism.” And it would have showered her with the same ridicule that Rudy Giuliani received in his endgame. With 11 straight losses in nominating contests, Mrs. Clinton has now nearly doubled the Giuliani losing streak (six) by the time he reached his Florida graveyard. But we gamely pay lip service to the illusion that she can erect one more firewall.”

A point well made. The Clintons were always protected from the truth and the damning evidence of  their own creations. The potential and enticing  Clinton Tax Gate might be as interesting a piece of reading as the M.K.L. FBI file, which was sealed for 75 years.  Recall that she buried subpoenaed evidence in the Rose Law Firm Billing Records scandal that proved that she lied under oath, the very little thing that got Bill impeached. Sometimes, as in VENONA, political horrors can be kept in the crypt long after the voters made their final mistakes.

“The single biggest factor in Hillary Clinton’s collapse is less sexism in general than one man in particular — the man who began the campaign as her biggest political asset. The moment Bill Clinton started trash-talking about Mr. Obama and raising the specter of a co-presidency, even to the point of giving his own televised speech ahead of his wife’s on the night she lost South Carolina, her candidacy started spiraling downward.”

Very well stated and others on the NYT agree. [7]

And to finish it off:

“What’s next? Despite Mrs. Clinton’s valedictory tone at Thursday’s debate, there remains the fear in some quarters that whether through sleights of hand involving superdelegates or bogus delegates from Michigan or Florida, the Clintons might yet game or even steal the nomination. I’m starting to wonder. An operation that has waged political war as incompetently as the Bush administration waged war in Iraq is unlikely to suddenly become smart enough to pull off that duplicitous a “victory.” Besides, after spending $1,200 on Dunkin’ Donuts in January alone, this campaign simply may not have the cash on hand to mount a surge.”

Very good Frank.

It is rare that the NYT gets down to the nuts and bolts of any issue without swooning over tax cuts, scouring the sidewalks for the latent footprints of Nazis or rehashing McCarthyism.

I think Rich is mostly correct here, but would interject that salient fact that many people are tired of the Clinton Era and are not ready to revisit 16 more years of Bill and his antics.  But, the issue of whether Obama is ‘electible’ given his 100% liberal rating and his skin color remains to be debated in depth at the Old Gray Lady. His wife made a huge mistake with her ‘angry black girl’ performance last week. The theoretical South Carolina racial backlash might surge forward it they cannot fix this. We can blame Bill for that one.

Sooner or later, that issue must come up for consideration. Liberal Senators from the East have not been exactly winning material for the Democrats since JFK and he was not even liberal. A reading of Jack’s  notions on tax cuts alone would spoil his nomination today.  By default, we have to choose among three senators and if Ralph Nader misses the WH then we will get some form of a liberal senator anyway.

These are difficult times for the Times.

rycK

Comments: ryckki@gmail.com

The New York Times Moans over Guns, Again, and Again and Again.

Since the New York Times is a tautological screed machine that supports, blindly or otherwise, the selected and sanctioned tenets of the far left, we are, again, again treated to another maudlin essay on gun control. Today, Gail Collins[1], a political activist on the NYT staff turns the old rusty crank and moans about guns, again. She must call this ‘journalism’ or some rough equivalent of that venture, but today’s specimen is so much crude pot boiling.

Guns in the hands of the citizenry are a histrionic non-starter on the Rack of Reason for the Times and other far leftists. They don’t like guns. They want to control all elements of society and to think that a private citizen might have significant firepower at his or her disposal is unthinkable. They might blow away some psychotic mugger who tries to bash in the brains of some old lady for her welfare check and thus ‘violate’ somebody’s rights. It seems that the fastest way for many dictators to deftly disappear from their unearned palaces and stacks of loot sometimes issues forth from some distant source at an advanced kinetic rate and thusly pinkly mystifies the parasite of the moment Such an event might undermine years of leftist political work. The Marxist dictators are the vera icons of the New York Times and other leftists and they don’t want them to lose power in some coup or revolution.

The moans of the left and their fabricated horrors stories about guns have been readily debunked by many such as Richard Poe in his sensational The Seven Myths of Gun Control: Reclaiming the Truth About Guns, Crime, and the Second Amendment (ISBN: 0761525580). The facts are that there is less crime around those who are armed and the criminals know this.

It seems that law-abiding folk who wish to exercise their Second Amendment Rights are the eternal targets of the Times and their Lessers who crank out little screeds almost daily. A month cannot pass the Times with out some new slant on the gun issues. The Walter Duranty Papers[2] routinely whines about such things as guns and taxes and such and frequently duns their endorsed politicos for not pursuing higher taxes or, in this case, the end of guns.

Of course, criminals use guns daily in the business pursuits when they sell drugs, control turf or punish subordinates who misbehave. The same egalitarian cluster who wants guns removed from members of the hated NRA would not sanction a sweep of South Central L.A. or Oakland for guns. I think a case was described by Peter Collier and David Horowitz in Destructive Generation where the Black Panthers in Oakland had some ‘educational’ facility and the cops found hundreds of guns in the lower reaches. It seems no charges were pressed. This makes sense in California where the Black Panthers were, and still are, regarded as Freedom Fighters and their possession of guns is just fine. Perhaps the bullets that tore into Fay Stender[3] and stuck in her spine were a gift from one of her clients or their friends or former lover [George Jackson] and the eternal pain caused her to end it with a bottle of pills in Hong Kong, as I remember. The left have a way of celebrating the thugs and social garbage that haunts this society, but is reluctant to see them imprisoned or executed for their crimes. Mumia is an example. Bobby Seale was anther.

We have plenty of gun laws and one might presume that the Rule of Law that is so frequently touted by the left might apply to gun owners. I think it was Jingo Janet Reno who would not enforce the gun laws. They just ignored these laws.

But, the basis for this anti-gun propaganda is to merely attack the modern capitalist society at every point where they hold and advantage or elements of power. It has no other basis in logic or politics. Whey we suggest that there be a one-strike and you are out law the ACLU buzzards gather in the trees and flock down to defeat any such criminality. We might suggest that we could lower violent crime by eliminating the Recidivism Effect[4] by executing the perp on the first violent instance gives rise to howls and rants from the sordid left. Executed felons have never come back from the grave to murder more people however they seem to have voted from the Floors of Hell a few times at least in Chicago. The left-liberals would rather let criminals run wild in the streets [with guns and dope] than let honest citizens hold them in their homes for protection.  

So, the Times whines on about the missing political platforms about gun control that should be proudly listed on the webzines or featured in the ornate speeches of Senators Obama and Clinton. The contestants know that they will lose votes on this issue so they keep silent.

Vote against the Democrats for this reason only.

rycK

Comments: ryckki@gmail.com

The New York Times Signals: Hillary Goes into the Dumpster with Dignity.

We are always amused to read the NYT, aka the Walter Duranty[1] Papers, as they seem to flip and turn on any story, other than raising taxes, like a squirrel dodging a crow.

In today’s amusing article that foreshadows the last gasp of the Clinton Machine Hillary on the High Road?[2] we read that she is finished but has some dignity to preserve. Someone who acts out the part of Colonel Klebb[3] [4] [5] has dignity?

To wit:

“A referee would stop the fight. Hillary Clinton is exhausted, and her supporters are becoming increasingly demoralized. The candidate who tried to present herself as inevitable has been out-maneuvered nearly every step of the way by a prodigy with a warm and brilliant smile who still seems as energetic as an athlete doing calisthenics before a big game.”[6]

She is finished and outdone by one with more talent than she has it seems.

“There’s nothing like the terra firma of hindsight. Senator Obama, it turned out, was a far more gifted candidate and strategist than many of us gave him credit for. And Senator Clinton, for all of her command of the issues, was mediocre, at best, on the stump. He was the inspirational leader. She remained the wonk.”[7]

Wonks such as she are the bread-and-butter machines that put food in the moufs of millions of leftists who gnaw on the largess of American taxpayers. Her work was scripted as in evidence of the many times she had to refer to her crib sheet. If she loses it will the fault of her handlers and she will be the shrike  and destroy them for their failure to elevate Queen Bee to Glory and her earned coronation.

And the le coup de coup:

“At the debate on Thursday night, Senator Clinton, who is 60[8], passed on a number of opportunities to harshly criticize Senator Obama. She refused to say that he was not ready to serve as the nation’s commander in chief. And she suggested that she does not intend to pursue a ruinous fight for superdelegates at the Democratic convention.[9]

She seemed like someone unwilling to sacrifice her dignity or the interests of her party in an attempt to stave off a likely defeat.”[10] [Emphasis is mine]

That would be the first time. How about this quote from an article in the NYT:

“Hillary Clinton, famous for her : “We’ll crush you. You’ll wish you never mentioned this to me.” [11][12]

How about that scene for a little dignity.  No revenge here?

This fluff is so far removed of the vera icon of the Clinton Machine we must be in off Kansas with Alice and the Mad Hatter. Hillary has used threats, nasty mouth oaths, bullied members of her own party, sent her daughter and anybody else off to purloin pledged delegates from Obama and has a long history of lying, criminal activity and a close and adoring association with radical Marxism. She read the FBI files of her enemies with glee. She lied under oath and hid subpoenaed documents from the courts. All this as a lawyer and “smartest woman in the world,’”who never argued a court case or wrote a law article.

She has been just on step ahead of the special councils and other investigators as she pursued her dream of being the Washington Commissar for the Communist Party. Her life has been devoted to Neo-Marxism.

The Times here is just feathering here impending landing site and trying to tell us that she lost because of her age or the changing of the times or some factor beyond her control. Hillary was endorsed by the Times and attempts to first dump O’Bama [13]  and then undump[14] him were frightfully amusing.

Such as:

The quote” Hillary Clinton has been a much better senator than Barack Obama. She has been a serious, substantive lawmaker who has worked effectively across party lines.” [15] is from the Babbling Brooks was based on mere sausage-machine propaganda of the most pedestrian sort.

Given her consummate skills in sleaze, we cannot really expect this tort to end gracefully. Revenge is more powerful than love as an emotion and she will get her pound of flesh sometime in the future.

Her cauldron will never go dry.

ryck

Comments? ryckki@gmail.com

The New York Times Calls for More Taxes [What else would they do?].

Books are an invaluable educational tool as no matter how many times you read them they never seem to change the word order or refuse to let you peek at the next page. The New York Times, aka the Walter Duranty Papers, are also a consistent resource on the fine points of political propagandizing as they offer frequent examples of  this fine art every week. The reading of articles by Paul Krugman is a marvelous study case in the intricacies of leftist propaganda and provides a more interesting sport and challenge to sort out the cryptic elements of these political constructions and recover [and expose] buried slogans than the NYT crossword puzzle.

In today’s lesson, we are treated to an historical redaction that can be used to predict the future! In an article entitled Don’t Rerun That ’70s Show [1] we read the following:

“Will the next president be the second coming of Jimmy Carter? Given Thursday’s economic headlines, full of dire warnings about the return of 1970s-style stagflation, you might think so.”[2]

There are two embedded elements here, one a more than casual snip at religion and two a reflexive refection of stagflation, the economic aliment  that trashed Keynesianism .

“Let’s talk first about the Carter-era economy….Jimmy Carter’s overall economic record was much better than most people realize — the average economic growth rate under his administration was 3.4 percent per year, slightly higher than the growth rate under Ronald Reagan and far better than growth under either Bush.”[3]

Ah, back to the past and sifting of good news.

“That said, I don’t believe we’re really facing anything comparable to 1970s stagflation. For one thing, we’re less dependent on oil: America has more than twice the real G.D.P. it had in 1979, but consumes only slightly more oil. For another, there’s no sign of the wage-price spiral that once drove inflation into double digits — in fact, wage growth has been declining even as inflation rises.”[4]

What he means here is that oil is a smaller cost component of our economy than it was during the Jimmy Carter Era.

“The first President Bush presided over the 1990-1991 recession. But his real problem came during the alleged recovery, which was hobbled by financial problems at many banks, which had been badly damaged by the collapse of the late-1980s real estate bubble, and by sluggish consumer spending, held down by high levels of household debt”[5]

This was the Clinton-Gore Recession and is justified by using the same logic Krugman uses to explain that Jimmy Carter’s problems were inherited.

“The difference is that the problems look a lot worse this time: a much bigger bubble, more financial distress, deeper consumer indebtedness — and sky-high oil prices added to the mix. So if history is any guide, we should be looking at an extended period of economic weakness, probably extending well into 2010, and quite possibly even longer.

Can the next president do anything to avoid that outcome? In terms of straight economics, the answer is a clear yes.”[6] [Emphasis is mine in all quotes in this essay]

We have a solution!! Let us celebrate! Give it to us!!

“To this day, it’s not clear what Mr. Carter could have done differently: stagflation is a problem with no good solutions. But weak spending is a treatable condition. A serious fiscal stimulus plan — one that emphasized public investment and aid to Americans in economic distress rather than across-the-board tax rebates, which many people won’t spend — could do a lot to ease the country’s economic pain.”

Now, we get to the bottom line: Weak spending is allowed by higher taxes or higher debt!!

Didn’t Hillary and Obama both want to ‘balance the budget’ and give us low-cost socialized medicine? Where does this money come from?? Higher taxes??

If #1

“If the next president is a Republican, he will be captive to the doctrine that tax cuts are the answer to all problems, and therefore won’t seek an effective response to the economy’s troubles…. [If #2]…And even if the next president is a Democrat, any serious stimulus plan would face intense, ideologically motivated opposition in Congress.”

These are mysterious words inscribed here as in keeping with the construction of political and propagandistic slogans and assorted rabble-rousing speeches. Notice that there is only the negative commentary on tax policy and nothing else. Nothing specific is offered here by the NYT—only that tax cuts are probably inevitable in the next administration regardless of  horns or stripes and the diametrically incorrect economic vector to pursue.

Then, from the pages of the iron-bound book of Fata we read the penalty:

“And if effective action isn’t forthcoming, the next president will suffer the fate of Jimmy Carter, who began his administration with words of uplift — “Let us create together a new national spirit of unity and trust” — and ended up delivering America into the hands of the hard right.”

So, what is this effective action? Where is the beef??

More is missing from this analysis. Where is the discussion and effects of growth on the economy? Ronald Reagan doubled revenue with his tax cuts and added 21 million new jobs. Bush has a similar record and looking at the SP 500 we can wonder what Bill Clinton did, other than pursue corporations with his Justice department, and attempt to institute socialized medicine at a horrendous cost. Using the Krugman time-scale predictions we could just assume that the Clintons merely unconsciously floated upon the Reagan Era economic corrections like an old wooden tub at a Newport Regatta and benefited from the earlier phenomenal growth-oriented solutions to the Jimmy Carter Malaise. Krugman probably looks at data like these below that allow a cherry-picking picnic for every specious theory one might dig up and proffer as truth. [7]

Year    Inflation  Unemployment (1)

-------------------------------

1961      1.0%      6.7%

1962      1.0       5.6

1963      1.3       5.6

1964      1.3       5.2

1965      1.6       4.5  < Vietnam war spending increases

1966      2.9       3.8

1967      3.1       3.8

1968      4.2       3.5

1969      5.5       3.5

1970      5.7       5.0

1971      4.4       6.0

1972      3.2       5.6

1973      6.2       4.9

1974     11.0       5.6  < First oil crisis

1975      9.1       8.5

1976      5.8       7.7

1977      6.5       7.1

1978      7.6       6.1

1979     11.3       5.9  < Second oil crisis

1980     13.5       7.2

1981     10.3       7.6

1982      6.2       9.7

1983      3.2       9.6

1984      4.3       7.5

Federal tax receipts and spending (percent of GDP) (2)[8]

Year    Receipts  Spending

-------------------------

Carter

1978     18.5%    21.3%

1979     19.1     20.7

1980     19.6     22.3

1981     20.2     22.9

Reagan

1982     19.8     23.9

1983     18.1     24.4

1984     18.0     23.1

1985     18.5     23.9

1986     18.2     23.5

1987     19.2     22.5

1988     18.9     22.1

1989     19.2     22.1

It is of interest to note that all 8 of Ronald Reagan’s budgets were ignored and 7 out of 8 times Congress spent more than his original budget targets suggested.  Notice that growth is not a factor here in this data set and only the barrowing is shown in relative terms based on the current GDP for each year. Why not show the growth curve of the GDP? Such would defeat the arguments against spending and barrowing above revenues. Take a peek at the SP 500 for a clue.

The far left continues to demand that any tax cut is a ‘cost’ to the economy and this  phony declaration ignores that very basic fact that tax cuts spur growth and increase tax revenues and also the fraction of taxes paid by the very rich increase. This is the leftist myth that is frantically plastered in every article that moans about the poor and substantiates the cliché that “The rich get richer and the poor get poorer.” That is the classic leftist phony slogan that keeps some of these leftist politicians at work.

The conclusion of this link is this:

“Tax cuts were supposed to have spurred economic recovery by liberating the tax dollars of entrepreneurs and allowing them to invest them in greater productivity and jobs. However, such greater investment never occurred. It appears that the rich simply pocketed the savings, because investment fell during the 80s:”

What??

This is a fantastic mangling of reality.  Alice must have seen more reality in Wonderland than this fluff. We need to look at other factors and use a certain measure of truth here:[9] Reagan had to deal with a leftist Congress and agreed to certain tax cuts and tax hikes and tax reforms and made adjustments to the 1981 Economic Recovery Tax Act.[10] This act reduced the astronomical tax rates, which penalized entrepreneurs from  a high  of 70% to 50% and lower  the bottom rate to 11% from  14% to and [attempted to]index  these rates for the effects of inflation.

The effect was:

“Between 1980 and 1983, the share of individual income taxes paid by taxpayers in the top 1 percent of the income distribution increased from 19.1 percent to 20.6 percent.”[11]

So, a tax cut in the higher brackets results in more revenues?!! Where is this salient fact in this article by Krugman??

Looky here:

“The criticism that the tax payments of the rich would fall under ERTA was based on a static conception of human behavior. As a 1982 JEC study pointed out,… similar across-the-board tax cuts had been implemented in the 1920s as the Mellon tax cuts, and in the 1960s as the Kennedy tax cuts. In both cases the reduction of high marginal tax rates actually increased tax payments by "the rich," also increasing their share of total individual income taxes paid. Unfortunately, estimates of ERTA by the Democrat-controlled CBO continued to show falling tax payment by upper income taxpayers, even after actual IRS data had become available showing a surge of income tax payments by affluent taxpayers.”[12]

The tax mongers have to cook the books to salvage their jobs and political power.

There is a reason for all this. By ignoring the facts of sound economics and always finding new ways to argue for increasing taxes the left betrays their intrinsic intent: They cannot gain power when individuals and corporations gather wealth and create growth. They must control every dollar they can and make the populace dependent upon the government. The far left have nothing but Bolshevik Revolutions, confiscation of private property disguised as ‘nationalization’, oppressive taxes and regulations and tangential antics like the Clean Air Act and Endangered Species Act that allow the ex-Marxists to be ‘giant killers’ and suppress growth. This is the leftist basis for blocking all attempts to drill for more oil, build new dams, erect new oil refineries, and more.

How can you redistribute the wealth when the system is growing? The economic might of the US crushed the phony USSR and its minions and showed the world that planned or command economies could not produce enough returns to maintain the economic levels of their citizenries much above the poverty level. Asia, in the cases of View Nam and China, have given in to capitalism and showed that their societies are overwhelming improved over the Marxist versions.

The far left have a Rule or Ruin mentality and that is reflected in the phony economic platforms espoused by the New York Times.

Hillary Clinton would penalize Exxon with a 50 billion dollar tax and ‘take away their profits.’ Karl Marx could not have said it better.

The NYT cannot tolerate a frank discussion on growth and tax cuts without foaming at their collective maws and scrounging up some redacted and slanted pile of rubbish from the past to show that a failure like Jimmy Carter was not all that bad. This is decrypted and exposed in this article published today and means: high taxes were the correct policy anyway!

Jimmy never met a Marxist he didn’t like and we can then explain much of the leftist reverence for this fool. The Navy wisely let him go back to his peanut farm to rescue the business and avoided problems in the nuclear submarine fleet. The Peanut actually kissed Premier Brezhnev on the cheek [about four feet above the proper place] and wept when Daniel Ortega lost his election in Nicaragua.

Some things never change and the mantras of the far left tax mongers at the New York Times just drone on in the face of reality. They have nothing else to try. The truth never works for the far left, so they spin such hokum and foam as we read toady in the instant krugmaniacal screed.

We can certainly avoid a rerun of the Carter Malaise: Vote against the liberals and cut some more taxes.

ryck

Comments: ryckki@gmail.com

Review of NYT Article: For McCain, Self-Confidence on Ethics Poses Its Own Risk

This is gossip with no facts or proof. This is garbage.

rycK

The Quest to Solve Global Problems Revealed by the New York Times: Keep the Borders Open and Attack Capitalism.

In an interview with Lou Dobbs, the NYT, known as the Walter Duranty Papers, instructs Lou in humanity and some factors to solve the global problems. We always expect the NYT to attack capitalism [c1], redistribute the wealth [c2], and minimize the laws that control crime [c3], celebrate Marxists whenever possible [c4] and other tenets. Today, in a maudlin political essay during a lobster bisque lunch, we are tautologically invited to side with Times against Lou in a wild myriad list of social issues. I would think warm millet gruel would be more politically correct. For this article, I deem it appropriate to merely number the leftist clichés implanted in this maudlin screed with the numbers keyed in as given above.

After the foreplay and food, we read:

“An honest person must concede a lot when arguing immigration with Mr. Dobbs: Yes, the borders and ports are insecure, and poor countries like Mexico have done too little to solve their economic and migration problems. Yes, illegal immigration hurts some Americans, globalization causes many global problems and big corporations love to stick it to the little guy.”[1]

The first step in a good propaganda piece is to offer the offender a few concessions and, here, in lock step with good political training the author does exactly that, but reserves the criticism for later. Using this reverse circular logic the author gets to slither around both sides of the issue and appear to preserve the moral high ground, if morality had anything to do with the far left.

Mexico is a general disaster and has been so centuries before Columbus. This land has 500+ years of demonstrated failure. Only Africa has surpassed Mexico in the tedious study of how to achieve failure at all costs. It is a land of corruption, crime, poverty and political excesses almost unmatched anywhere except Europe or perhaps Cambodia. This half-Marxist social rubble called a country has created an economic latrine where there is no hope for any meaningful future for their citizens unless they seek jobs outside their borders and send the earnings back home  to provide for the minimal  basics of life. The disgusting Mexican governmental behavior is always beyond criticism by the NYT and other Marxist tomes. They have nothing better than to milk the poor by the use of their ‘diplomacy’ with the US and moving a few tons of dope in the process.

“My point to Mr. Dobbs was that the little-little guy — the “illegal alien” crossing our “broken borders” — was the wrong target. His overriding emphasis on solving globalization’s many ills by urgently sealing the borders strikes me as populism gone astray.”[2]

Here, we now acknowledge the blame is unfairly placed on the little guy.

This allows the problems and solutions to be centered on the least able to change the system. Let us compromise our system for the foreign poor. Why not shut down capitalism and bring the Golden Age to the Americas? Apparently, the NYT places illegal aliens at the very fulcrum of the imbalance in wealth due to globalization. Of course, globalization started with the silk trade 2500 years ago in Egypt, or with gold and bronze in Ireland 4,000 years ago, but who is counting the decades?

The criticism then becomes more pointed:

“First, it’s ineffective, because the country will never be ziplocked as tightly as he wants it to be.”

Then, why not just let the borders stay open indefinitely? That leads to a lot of votes for the left—does it not? Many states do not check IDs before voting. Power to the People!  How does the EU escape scrutiny here as all visitors must show passports and such and leave them at the hotels at night so the French police can inspect them? Can we just wander into Japan or Austria or Hong Kong without papers and find work?? [c3] fulfilled. The Berlin wall was effective for decades!

“Second, the obsession with enforcement dovetails with the agendas of some nasty people”

Here the Rule of Law [RoL] is abrogated where examples like Waco cannot be submitted in evidence on how to handle ‘crimes.’ The NYT can suborn torture of children by military CS gas dissolved in methylene chloride, a chlorocarbon toxic chemical, in an attempt to fulfill the Janet Reno[3] version of the RoL, but let us not perturb the coyotes, drug dealers, flesh merchants, Islamo-Fascisti, tax evaders and other criminals who may become Democrats. The left needs the votes. They are just the little guys. Enforcement of such illegal actions would be ‘nasty.’ Burning down the Branch Davidians[4] [5] was not related to the concept of being politically nasty in the twisted history of the Times. That was justice and the antithesis of nastiness. [c3] fulfilled.

“Third, it does too little to attack the evil corporate elites that are Mr. Dobbs’s sworn enemy.”

Cynicism and a synthetic sop offered to Dobbs. The eternal attack on capitalism is ongoing. What else can we expect from the NYT? [c1]  fulfilled.

The attack continues:

“The idea is to confront abusive corporate power with worker power. If day laborers end up in our suburbs, where the money and jobs are, then give them safe places to gather and help them work together to keep from driving wages and working conditions down. If companies take advantage of workers, empower the workers to fight back: as union members, legal residents, citizens.”

[c2]  fulfilled. [c1] restated. Workers of the World Unite![6] [c4] celebrated.

What abusive corporate power is this? People hire day laborers and this is abusive? Now, we are injected with a ‘solution’ to the problems of globalization: ignore the laws and create safe havens so the illegals can set up unions!!

“Mr. Dobbs listened graciously and budged not. He said he respected immigrants, even illegal ones, who he felt had gotten an unfair shake from their governments. He reminded me of his fondness for Cesar Chavez.”[7]

I was an eye-witness [8] to the UFW union organizing of illegal aliens in Tulare County in the rural area of East Orosi during the 60s. They were cheap thugs and beat up those workers who would not voluntarily join the union while hustling hookers in the local towns like the village of Cutler at night using white nine-passenger sedans with blue cellophane to illuminate the wares for sale. Drugs were another glittering offer. They had a violent shooting war with the Teamsters resulting in several murders by shotguns. The Teamsters slinked away given the firepower. Chavez was little more than a cheap thug with enthusiastic Marxist support mostly from the Eastern liberals like Bobby Kennedy. Obviously, such a person would be an icon to the New York Times. Dobbs is just uninformed about this cheap crook and terrorist.

“We shook hands and I thanked him for the discussion. He made me promise to continue it. I assured him I would.”

Yes the far-leftist quest for the destruction of capitalism, which puts up an economic wall against the left and prevents their usurpation of wealth and enterprise, will continue on and on and can conveniently be reminded for us as the Biblical phrase “..as the dog leftist returns to its vomit, the fool NYT returns to its folly Marxian politics.”

Capitalism has crushed the left into a sorry pink slurry.

Grunt and Grab as always. The NYT has produced another slushy propaganda piece along the constricted guidelines established when their patron saint, Walter Duranty, was the leading intellectual in attacking capitalism and celebrating Marxism. Sausage machines spit out brats in a similar fashion. Some things never change and the propagandists at the NYT didn’t miss a cliché.

But, it was a fine piece in propaganda terms and the author, one Lawrence Downes, rates the Dean Acheson Prize for Leftist Political Stoogery. Any anti-anticommunist is a ‘patriot.’

rycK

Comments: ryckki@gmail.com

Obamamania Alters the Lexiconic Obamasphere and, Incidentally, the Political Landscape.

 We are treated to the tin-pan theatre and sensationalism of what is now known as Obamamania.[1]  The English[2] American language is now infested with numerous new expressions that alter the new lexiconic[3] Obamasphere,[4] introduce the new kinetic concept of Obamamentum[5] [6] and, incidentally, the political landscape.

The polis now bubbles and foams with enthusiasm over Senator Obama as his very name has been magically transformed into numerous catchy compound nouns, adverbs, adjectives and more. We have yet to see a variant used as a conjunction, but we do note an assumed connection the ubiquitous Irish, by appending a meager apostrophe to arrive at O’Bama.[7] This may attract more votes. Right now, it is a sensation in the primaries.

The enthusiasm of the O’Bama Phenomenon is heightened by the syncretic decline of the Guiding Star of the House of Clinton. Similar accounts of this form of brackish political foam reside in the mangled and mundane history of politics, are not exactly revolutionary, but are known to be very successful in elevating many minions to the dizzying heights of a Leader, Sage or Statesman. This is all very well. Kudos is offered to the participants. But, the last bit of chum has yet to be chucked.

The observation here is that we are only squinting at the wrapping paper of a glittering icon and are ignoring the importance of the intrinsic philosophy, various social views and spending costs associated with the numerous wild, budget-busting promises of this candidate. Apart from the mundane words ‘change’ and ‘hope’ a large chunk of the  polis have no clue about what Senator Obama stands for or what his policies might be if elected. They are only interested in ‘change,’ whatever that means. Politically, it means nothing, or, it may mean everything will change.  

This is all very useful to the candidate as there is no reason to suggest that politicians desire an educated constituency; the dumber the better. The theory of political power [8] suggests that there are many mechanisms for harvesting the votes of the ignoratti and that any mechanism selected that gets votes is useful and praiseworthy and paves the pathways for future political victories. Occasionally, the Good Senator uses phrases that smack of capitalism such as “sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship” [9], which might inflame an informed socialist. But, the meanings of these words are obscured by the wild hallucinations of the cheering crowds. The only other neo-Marxist choice is Hillary [and Bill]. H. L. Mencken should have lived to witness this mess as his predictions have not yet come true. Be patient.

Now, this is useful to Republicans and certain  moderates  if, and only if, the mesmerized voters have enough neurons left to analyze what else, if anything, he has to offer besides taxes, more taxes and even higher taxes. He has no way to pay for the cost of his manifold and continuously unfurling promises. He is, after all [and this is a dark secret] the leading liberal in the US Senate and his Obama Spend-o-Meter[10] is off the charts nearing 874 billion dollars to date and rising like the tide. The year is very young and he has months to ratchet this up to a few trillion more to the wild cheers of the welfare crowd. All this can help:  electrify the illegal aliens, rouse the drug-crazed San Francisco citizens, awaken the dependent socialists in jail, stimulate the horizontal in the drug rehab flophouses and stir up those ‘working’ for the government. More than a chicken in every pot is offered here. Everybody wins everything in Obamamania.

So, the best path forward is to:

[a] Let Hillary and Bill, in their utter desperation, resort to more specific overt racism, slurs, lies, misinformation, media-driven screeds and the proper use of Politics of Personal Destruction so as to destroy Obama and win the nomination by a wide margin of pledged delegates and then lose the election because of all the bad will resulting from the loss of votes from the independents and McCain wins by default.

[b] Let Hillary and Bill, in their desperation, sleaze away more than 10% of the total pledged Obama delegates with bribes, steal the nomination [and get caught doing so], which will offend the Afro-Americans as they will stay home on election day, and Hillary loses the election and McCain wins by default.

[c] Let the Billary-Obama Wars degenerate into a gutter brawl that forces Hillary to lose the nomination by primary vote count, nominate Obama and then let the media probe Obama for something other than far leftist notions, expose these phantasms and push votes to McCain [Obama has nothing left to promise at that point  and cannot exactly reverse himself on his socialism] and McCain wins by default.

Notice in all variations, McCain only wins by default. There is no other way.

All this may proceed if McCain can learn to act something like a conservative, which is a chore for all Republicans, but achievable if we hold his promised money sack of campaign contributions [of the non McCain-Feingold sort!] just in front of the brass ring in his nose so he may blindly sniff his way to victory and let Billary do the dingy deeds. [11]

My theory, ….it could work.

rycK

Comments: ryckki@gmail.com