The Old Red Lady of the NYT Wants the other Old Red Lady to Surrender.

From one Old Red Lady to another: Take a hike, honey. That the essence of the current Maureen Dowd screed from Walter Duranty’s[1] favorite newspaper. Our Old Red Lady of the Times gives us timely advice on history and policy matters in a presentation ensnarled like briar bush with only the thorns sticking out.

From her article entitled: Surrender Already, Dorothy  [2] we start off with some credentials mumbling that might impress the French:

“Bernard Kouchner, the foreign minister of France and a strong supporter of the United States, recently observed that President Bush has done such a number on our image in the world that no one will be able to restore the luster. “I think the magic is over,” he said.”[Emphasis is mine in all quotes and all quotes are referenced in Footnote 2 below.]

We might go to the National Arboretum and look under a few rocks for a similar thought as we recall that the French had 300-500 cars torched per night for weeks as they groveled before their own imported ignorant, uneducated and unassimilated Muslim masses that are destroying their Fifth Republic. After two World Wars and 81,000,000 dead we are impressed by the natural selection process that generates such survivors as Bernard Kouchner. Why was a specimen of his particular gene pool spared during the Terror? Most of their intellect wound up in baskets in that era in 1789. Apparently, this Vichy-like collaborator is some abstract culmination of French pride wherever that might be buried.  Our futures certainly depend on impressing the Europeans now as they struggle in their civil war struggles with Islam after spending 26 continuous centuries at war. They are so progressive and have handled communism so well in a few places. Islam will fix that.

But, this is just a cheap shot at Bush2 so we need to probe further:

“Many voters decided last week to stick with Obama despite his less-than-convincing explanations about the Rev. Wright — even as many soured on Hillary, casting her as Lady Voldemort.”

Maybe this means a tacit endorsement of Jeremiah Wright by the French? Perhaps. Wright might be a beacon of inspiration to the unwashed masses in France who cannot seem to pass the civil exams and get jobs, but retain their expertise in street rioting, anti Semitism and bus burning. Those living in lesser majesty in France might seek the elegance of New Orleans or Chicago or Philadelphia that the good Reverend seems to favor. Such places are the culmination of black liberalism.  Much of Europe has been recast in the Hogwarts image by drugs and socialists and Obama’s pastor might fit in the ambience here with his fiery rhetoric.

Hillary [Colonel Klebb[3]] truly is a monster of Voldemortian proportions, but was never accused as being a lady.

“Despite Bill Clinton’s saying it was “a bunch of bull” that his wife should drop out, Democrats are trying to sneak up on Hillary, throw a burlap sack over her head, carry her off the field and stick her in a Saddam spider hole until after the Denver convention.”

You could still see the steam boiling up from the hole.

“One Obama adviser moaned that the race was “beginning to feel like a hostage crisis” and would probably go on for another month to six weeks.”

This is democracy in action. Let us hear from the people! Power to the people!  Stay tuned, things might flip. Jimmy Carter fixed our hostage crisis with tears and speeches in the Rose Garden with Amy. He did get ‘peace’ with all that bawling.

“Hillary sunnily riposted that she likes long movies. Her favorite as a girl was “The Wizard of Oz,” so surely she spots the “Surrender Dorothy” sign in the sky and the bad portent of the ladies of “The View” burbling to Obama about how sexy he is.”

Yes, the Yellow Brick Road is paved with gold bricks given freely to the Clintons from Asian communists and those who will celebrate when US forces are forced out of Iraq under a new Marxist regime. Did Stalin surrender? Why should Colonel Klebb[4]?

“I think the president needs to use the bully pulpit to change our culture,” he said Thursday, talking energy at a $1,000-a-plate fund-raiser in Manhattan. “We are a wasteful culture. It’s always been that way because of our history. We do everything big.”

A ‘bunch of bull’ and the ‘bully pulpit’! Is there a linked metaphor here? This is deep.

Would a culture change be like wasting 5 trillion dollars on phony social programs since 1950? How much bull hides in that history?  How much do we waste in school taxes when many of Obama’s ethnic supporters cannot achieve a 50% graduation rate?[5] We can be sure that the good Reverend Wright [6]will add in some ‘culture’ to the Obama Administration as they ‘change our culture.’ After all, East Germany has had a major influence on their western brothers and brings some of the splendor of Marxism into Western Europe along with phenomenally high taxes. Does Obama always talk about tax hikes?? Yes. How progressive as Stalin would say.

“But, for now, Obama might want to leave the Trinity church photos out of the montage.”

Well, the typical white person ought to be able to change their attitudes and follow the new yellow brick road. Some of us are tired of prosperity and want to trade in our SUVs for some excitement. The typical white person, however, might want to see a more progressive battle between Hillary and the upstart as well. It could be a stunning race war if handled properly by the Clintons.

Hang in there Hillary! Don’t let all that Soviet Mole and Lipper Group money go to waste! You can still play the race card.

rycK, a typical white person Democrat in exile from California.

Comments to: ryckki@gmail.com

Colonel Klebb’s Lies are Pathological.

Frank Rich, of pratfall fame, analyzes the current ooze from the pot of Clintoonery. Rich prattles along with the usual mumbling techniques so cherished by the New York Times and then wonders:

“Which brings us back to our question: Why would so smart a candidate play political Russian roulette with virtually all the bullet chambers loaded?” [1]

All this appears after his first sentence acknowledged that all politicians lie.

The analysis proceeds with:

“What’s been lost in the furor over Mrs. Clinton’s Bosnia fairy tale is that her disastrous last recycling of it, the one that blew up in her face, kicked off her major address on the war, timed to its fifth anniversary. Still unable to escape the stain of the single most damaging stand in her public career, she felt compelled to cloak herself, however fictionally, in an American humanitarian intervention that is not synonymous with quagmire.”[2] [Emphasis is mine in all quotes]

This tangled syntax supposedly states that Hillary chose a war we ‘won’ to show that she was a player in the game, sincere, dedicated and brave. This is a fiction of another flavor. Rich persists in his delusion with this fluff:

“That Mrs. Clinton’s campaign kept insisting her Bosnia tale was the truth two days after The Post exposed it as utter fiction also shows the political perils of 20th-century analog arrogance in a digital age. Incredible as it seems, the professionals around Mrs. Clinton — though surely knowing her story was false — thought she could tough it out. They ignored the likelihood that a television network would broadcast the inevitable press pool video of a first lady’s foreign trip — as the CBS Evening News did on Monday night — and that this smoking gun would then become an unstoppable assault weapon once harnessed to the Web.”[3]

“The Clinton campaign’s cluelessness about the Web has been apparent from the start, and not just in its lagging fund-raising.”[4]

And, this essentially concludes the essay before digressing on the Obama phenomenon and how he beat a similar system:

Frank Rich has forgotten the Marxian Saul Alinsky ideology [5] that drives Hillary. The salient fact is that: It does not matter if you lie if you get votes!

Hillary has always depended upon the press to overlook are argue for her lies and this worked well as the drive-by media stooged for her and carried her many sour waters for almost two decades. Hillary works on her fables intensely and perfumes and perfects these scripted and well-rehearsed skits with every intention of using them to effect.

Rich is too blunt here and is too hard on Hillary. He now gives Obama a slight lift in the political wars and does so for no apparent reason. Hillary really is a monster and will lose this election even thought the New York Times endorsed her sorry case. Too many Democrats hate her guts, with good reason. Hillary slithers away here with the comment that she ‘misspoke.’ Done .

All this is proof that the editorial staff of the New York Times, the Walter Duranty Papers, is in disarray, confused and ready to implode over yet another lost political race.

rycK

Comments to: ryckki@gmail.com

Clinton: Rule or Ruin, the Colonel Klebb Solution to the Party of Democrats.

Politics may be compared to many things such as war, sleaze or disease, but never directly as self-directed ruination as we see in the Clinton determination to continue with a losing battle with Barack Obama. Most politicians can be persuaded to yield a lost contest ‘for the benefit of the party’ if the numbers show that the propensity for a win is either hopeless or damaging to the party in at least one of several ways. Not so with Hillary Clinton, the Colonel Klebb of the so-called Party of Democrats, a surly and obstinate surrogate of the tattered remnants of Marxism.

Trained in gutter politics by the social Marxist parasite Saul Alinsky and taught how to scatter the entrails of friends or enemies indifferently when the political circumstances require this action, Hillary the Queen of Clintoonery stands firm against the wishes of her (loosely defined) party ‘leaders.’

In her latest act of defiance, we read:

“There are millions of reasons to continue this race: people in Pennsylvania, Indiana and North Carolina, and all of the contests yet to come," Clinton told reporters Friday. "This is a very close race and clearly I believe strongly that everyone should have their voices heard and their votes counted.” [1]

The ‘closeness’ term implicit in this comment logically demands an algebraic inspection of the variables to analyze the potential outcomes for a closed system. There are only so many votes left and 35% of them are superdelegates whose votes depend on party leadership guidance and other nefarious factors. Many have openly opted for the Other Senator and have called for Hillary to cease the war. Clinton apparently believes that she can somehow make a case that she is more electible than the good Senator Obama, now recognized as an apologist for the overt racism of Barrack’s worthless, bigoted, psychotic, rabble-rousing racist, hate-twisted  pastor the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

She defines the ongoing contest in terms of a favorable outcome:

“"I believe a spirited contest is good for the Democratic Party and will strengthen the eventual nominee," she said.” We will have a united party behind whomever[sic] that nominee is. ... I look forward to campaigning over the next several months."[2]

Since the curious and ineffective system of delegates and superdelegates is not strictly rule based, treachery and intimidation are the most obvious mechanisms to turn the delegate votes away from their intended ‘duty’ to the party in terms of selecting the ‘best’ candidate. The Democrats have created this slugfest and can deal with the self-inflicted outcomes of such a joke.

The Clintons can only offer prizes and bribes in terms of what they can do if, and only if, they win. What they can offer outside of this definition is nebulous at best at this time apart from cabinet offices and such. Congress already uses tax monies in the form of port and earmarks to buy their votes for reelection under our phony system. In this regard, Senator Obama could offer the same perks and rewards to those who flock to his fold.

The Clintons will lose this contest as they just about as many enemies inside the Party of Democrats as they do in the opposition party. In an effort of desperation they may select to use the race card in reverse [3] and tell the world that a slick black enabler of the kind of racism that Jeremiah Wright preaches [4] will lose the white backlash votes as Bill tried to do in South Carolina.

All this will proceed in spite of the substantive facts that they are trying to elect a 100% far left liberal with an enormous tax-whoring agenda who is black and wants to maintain the institutionalized racism[5] inherent in government programs such as busing, affirmative action and such. These elements, alone, would call for voting against him, but Hillary must get up enough courage to state this scenario in explicit terms.

That will persuade the superdelegates to ‘make the right left decision.’

rycK

Comments to: ryckki@gmail.com

Private Property and the Leftist Quest for Political Power

The leftists, starting with J. J. Rousseau and culminating with Marx and Lenin and some drooling amateurs like Al Gore and the Clintons have struggled with the problem of private property over the many decades and have usually ‘solved’ the problem by advocating state ownership or control. We saw the majesty in this concept in the high-rise slum projects in the 60s and 70s, many of which were imploded after a few years because the elevators were piled high with feces and the fixtures torn out and sold. The 18^th Century notion of faction [best defined here as ‘special interest groups’ in today’s lexicon[1]] pivoted, ultimately, around the concept of direct ownership of property. This is the basis in income in terms of rents and commerce. Groups of special interest individuals have one attribute in common: they always seek to gain control of some sector of the economy and/or political power base that leads to some increase in wealth and real estate is always the best choice. Nine out of tem millionaires made their fortunes in real estate as did Crassus in Rome in 70 B. C. E.[2] The Marxist-Leninist [3]solution to the evils of faction was state ownership of real estate and most other forms of property and ownership of business with complete control of commerce. The idea here is that the relentlessly limited supply of housing and rent-generating assets would best be controlled and distributed equally by benevolent governments. This is the egalitarian phantasm that has destroyed many nations up to this point. This notion failed (as Trotsky predicted) when the ruling revolutionary elites sought to engorge themselves from the benefits of public chattels at the expense of the masses and merely constituted a different form of bourgeois conduct not distinguished from the original complains lodged against the feudal landlords and more-recent business owners. The Clintons are multimillionaires. Since failure is no barrier to more social angst, the original leftist solution to private property is, still, state control directly or indirectly. The leftist theme can best be described by a linear social progression:

“Marx illustrated his ideas most prominently by the development of capitalism from feudalism and by the prediction of the development of socialism from capitalism.”[4]

The chief difficulty here is that socialism as assessed by the myriad of flavors proffered around the globe has not shown sufficient efficiency to provide the necessary social benefits to compete with its capitalistic counterpart. Placing the workers in charge of the factories as we saw in Italy in 1919 is an old sour (and amusing) joke. A bigger joke was Moscow Central Planning. There is a very limited pool of managers who can consistently make the proper decisions to maintain an orderly market system of goods and services and these people are usually not politicians. Politicians are ‘naturally selected’[5] using other criteria. When major mistakes are made, the capitalist system requires that the corporation be dissolved and the assets and talents reassembled in a new attempt to produce the required good sand services. Thus, the capitalism system reacts to market forces and adjusts to changes and innovations and continuously improves while political systems such as Marxism, socialism and contemporary left-liberalism tend to stubbornly ignore failure and satisfy their self-inflicted economic deficiencies by taxation.

Given that economic failure is probably the best opportunity for the introduction of socialism and its adherents to gain power [World Wars 1, 2 and the Great Depression], we cannot accuse the left of attempting to best or even match capitalism. No dedicated progressive in the US ever seriously criticized the USSR during its 74 years of decrepitude of Eastern European society. The only proffered commentary was that the basic idea of Marxism or far-left socialism was vitally correct and some mistakes were obviously made. The transition process from entry into the business world and the parallel entry into the political world elevates different types of persons to dissimilar power constructs and they have very different outlooks and theories. Political dictatorships have a build-in profit motive conveniently derived from merely confiscating assets from others. This is how Fidel Castro eats $700 per pound ham from Italy while his victims are on the brink of starvation.

Now, as times change and property takes on new definitions and dimensions not envisioned by Marx and his stilites we tumble down to the progressive political realities where the lower classes are promised or offered personal property in terms of real estate and guaranteed jobs by the leftist political machines of the various states and the federal system. This is traded for votes of course. When the housing market increased monotonically for decades the rising costs of home ownership surged beyond the reach of the lower classes (of course) and laments for government intervention into home loans were opined and implemented into law, unfortunately. The dichotomy here is that the leftist paternalism actually creates and, more importantly, sustains those as the bottom of the social class structure, but the progressives will not admit this in spite of the overwhelming evidence. Without the helpless, poor and criminal elements, the leftists would be out of votes and decay. The FHA style programs (along with ultimate failures such as HUD) and other measures appeared, politically, to offer the American Dream to those in the lower economic classes as long as the actual selling price of homes increased in a linear upward ramp even if propelled by inflation alone.[6] When loan issuers estimated the creditworthiness of barrowers in the 60s and rejected applications by those who could not afford homes the process was known as Redlining.[7] The solution to this was Greenling[8], a leftist political solution of giving perks to the low class with poor credit habits or criminal activity such as writing bad checks, an indirect form of taxation. That gets votes for the leftists and maintains their voter base. Thus, those lacking the cognitive skills to generate sufficient income to afford private property were offered a free ride on the capitalist system and the banks and lenders would pay for this out of their profits. It is difficult to find a better example of a leftist political solution to private property. But, then, when the housing market vector reverses its attitude, the cost of ownership exceeds the financial assets of the lower class home owners and we predict foreclosure, a standard business mechanism that is necessary to maintain an orderly market. This is not a leftist political option however. Somebody must be blamed and the private property restored to the loyal voters merely for political purposes while the costs and penalties must be accommodated by either the lenders or the taxpayers or both. There are no other leftist political options.

In previous New York Times articles the Q/A on the subject runs like this:

“Q: So what policy ideas are out there?

A: None are wholly satisfactory. On the Democratic side, Barack Obama and Chris Dodd are proposing federally backed loan guarantees. People in danger of defaulting could get new mortgages that reflected the new, lower value of their homes. Lenders would write off some value, but it would be better than nothing.”[9] [Emphasis in color and italics are mine in all quotes unless otherwise indicated.]

So, there you have it. Let the lenders [evil capitalists] pay. We can wonder what happens if some loser defaults on a federal loan guarantee? Restructure the loan?? Forgive the loan?

As the instant New York Times[10] maudlin screed sobs along the rosy path we read in today’s article about the equity aspects of home ownership. Equity is a major aspect of home ownership, but is seen to be a social danger prospect by the left in the avalanche of loan scams designed to strip the poor of their rights to own property at any cost. It seems that people who barrowed more money using their homes as collateral are unfairly expected to pay back the money. This makes liberal sense.

 “Little by little, millions of Americans surrendered equity in their homes in recent years. Lulled by good times, they borrowed — sometimes heavily — against the roofs over their heads.” [11]

Is this like being robbed? Was this a plot by lenders to grab their homes? Maybe this would not have happened in bad times, the best of times for the left.

“Lenders also encouraged many aspiring homeowners to take out not one but two mortgages simultaneously — ordinary ones plus “piggyback” loans — to avoid putting any cash down.

 The result is a nation that only half-owns its homes. While homeownership climbed to record heights in recent years, home equity — the value of the properties minus the mortgages against them — has fallen below 50 percent for the first time, according to the Federal Reserve.”[12]

Mortgages were invented by the Greeks about the 6^th century B.C.E. We should have learned something about them by now.

There is, we learn, a hierarchal array of loaners who have sequential rights to reaming assets and debt in loans as the Times correctly reports:

“Lenders holding first mortgages get first dibs on borrowers’ cash or on the homes should people fall behind on their payments. Banks that made home equity loans are second in line. This arrangement sometimes pits one lender against another.”

[Insert comment here. See footnote [13]] The government actually stands first in line in taxes, which supersede mortages if taxes are due. Thanx to Baldeagle http://thebaldeagle.blogtownhall.com/default.aspx for this timely correction.

Everybody knew this. This is a detail in the sad saga where people sought loans they could not afford and does not satisfy the political question. It serves only to fraction the loaners in the eyes of the left. This is a standard business risk. The price of such risk is usually higher interest rates inversely proportional to credit levels with other charges, but those are frequently biased by governments and state laws. The risk is astronomical when the loan is terminated by some government or court action and will quickly dry up such financial misadventures.

The leftist mandate is: You MUST loan to deadbeats, losers, druggies, welfare queens, illegal aliens, criminals and the ‘poor’ and when they fail to meet their payments you must forgive the loan.

“Experts say it is in everyone’s interest to settle these loans, but doing so is not always easy.”[14]

Ah, the expert sings his leftist song from afar, perhaps from the 18 or 19 Centuries or beyond!! We should heed the advice of ‘experts’ like Marx or Lenin, Krugman[15] [16] or FDR or others.

“Underscoring the difficulties likely to arise from home equity loans, a Democratic proposal in Congress to refinance troubled mortgages and provide them with government backing specifically excludes second liens. Lenders holding a second lien would be required to write off their debts before the first loan could be refinanced. That could leave out a significant number of loans, analysts say.”[17]

This cuts away a whole segment of the commercial loan business and would dry up second mortgages and such. What a deal!! Second lien holders are mere dirt, or worse and deserve to swallow huge business loses. But, would it now be more difficult or more expensive to get such secondary loans for TVs, tickets to see the Fliers and all that??

““[For] … People with weak, or subprime, credit could be hurt the most…”This is turning out to be a real impediment to solving this problem,” said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Economy.com, “at least, solving it quickly.””[18]

Notice that the government intervention is a given and proffered without debate, explanation or excuse and we are now not concerned with lenders but how the credit system would affect those with poor credit. Isn’t this the ‘root problem’ that we might discover when rooting around and brandishing the root cause cliché? This is a triumph of Greenlining:[19] Let the ‘poor’ make foolish financial decisions, get into deserved trouble, blame the loaners for complying with the mandated laws designed by the Green Marxistsand let the taxpayer ‘solve’ the problem by backing up the bad loans, extending mortgage payments, truncating principle and lowering interest rates. This is a new and exciting project for the courts! Let us buy some economic justice at the expense of the taxpayers. Let there be no penalty for ignorance, sloth, criminality and parasitism by those who are dependent upon the left and are rewarded for both stupidity and crime. Sure.

As usual, the drooling leftists have no concern for market forces, investments, credit levels or other forms of social conduct in a capitalist system. The theme here is that: If anybody loses in the system, the government must solve the problem by direct taxation on the tax payers and by penalizing those who make the loans. And we wonder why Redlining existed, and hopefully, exists today?

Some pigs really can fly.

rycK

Comments to: ryckki@gmail.com