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

The Democrats Mumble about Hillary and Obama

The New York Times, known lovingly as the Walter Duranty Papers [1]for their dedicated support of anything resembling Marxism, has taken to mumbling about the Hillary Clinton Problem.

Today, we are treated to two mushy narrations over the potential destruction of the party by Colonel Klebb [2] [3]of the Clinton Machine. The sky is falling.

Kristoff thinks:

“Exit polls show the same trend. In South Carolina in January, about 70 percent of each candidate’s supporters said they would be happy if the other person ended up winning the nomination. By the Ohio and Texas primaries in March, fewer than half of each candidate’s supporters said they would be content with the other person as nominee.”[4] [Emphasis is mine in all quotes]

Translated, this means the polarization is gaining momentum and race is the major issue. An uncommitted superdelegate from Tennessee, al gore’s state that he lost, has a recommendation:

“Mr. Bredesen is urging superdelegates (he’s one) to hold a primary in June, so that a winner would be chosen in time to begin a healing process before the convention.”

A primary or a star chamber? The Politburo did this monthly and chose the best candidates. Why the far cannot left just adjudicate this mess? We can be assured that this august assembly would be ‘fair’ and all that fluff. No racism would be a factor here.

Now, Gail Collins mumbles:

“The genius that is the Democratic Party has somehow managed to create a system in which two candidates can run for five months in all 50 states and neither one can possibly win enough delegates to clinch the nomination.”[5] 

We can find other words than genius for this outcome. How about calling this wreckage the ‘d[D]emocratic process?’

“Many are the suggestions for how to make it stop, all of which boil down to making Hillary Clinton go away. The most entertaining by far is the call for Howard Dean to Lay Down the Law. Stop the bloodshed, Howard! The governor of Tennessee announced that as party chairman Dean “needs to step up and bring some closure.” Truly, anybody who believes that Howard Dean can make Hillary Clinton do anything she doesn’t want to do is living in Fantasyland.”[6]

This is like making the world history of Stalin vanish. It could be done with several decades of book burning and brainwashing. Democrats could be forced to sign pledges that Hillary never existed and Obama ran bravely by hisself to the greater glory of the party as the Magic Negro.[7]

“I say her strategic desire to keep fighting trumps his strategic desire to put the lid on it. Even though there really is something very upsetting about a struggle that goes on and on and on without resolution…. [insert nonsense]… “Maybe there should be a support group,” my sister-in-law said…. [end nonsense] Maybe Howard Dean would like to join.”[8]

Since the NYT endorsed Colonel Klebb and tried to dump[9] and them undump[10] Obama, a perusal of local logic suggests that they should continue to endorse Hillary. This is obvious because their tax-whoring programs are nearly identical and Hillary is the only Marxist radical with enough support to run for this high office. The Old Guard is getting long on tooth and deep in wrinkles.

Hillary is not going to go away.

La raison tonne en son cratère.[11]

Operation Chaos is working. [12]

rycK

Comments to: ryckki@gmail.com

The Race Wars are On: Obama Sends His Party into the Dumpster.

We learn from political theory that special interests and splinter groups, be they separate parties or otherwise, always want a scrap of the aggregate power of a given party. The Party of Democrats, not so democratic in recent years[1], is an aggravated ensemble of warring factions who have more in common with their constituents in terms of hating their enemies than being united by brotherhood. They do have a common psychotic lust for taxes, however. Most political parties have a hierarchal structure where one group selects the candidates and offers minor offices and stations to the other groups as a reward for piling on. In the case of the Party of Democrats, the left-liberal wing of the party has, with few exceptions, has led the party to a curious win or loss, mostly losses since 1950. The new party [McGovern Rules] selection process of candidates, therefore, tends to be guided, at least in principle, by the quest for those defined as most suitable and compatible with leftist dogma and we saw that with persons like Dukakis, Kerry, Gore and now with Hillary Clinton. It would be difficult to find many to the left of this sordid bunch of societal tumors. Bill Clinton was an anomaly as Ross Perot acted as a wedge to split the opposition party and allow two wins for Clinton who took less than half the voters in each contest. We saw Ralph Nader [2] split the Party of Democrats in 2000 probably giving the White House to the second generation of Bushes. This is a chaos system. There are few rules.

Apart from some deviations from the grand plan, the splinter parties usually don’t have enough votes to do much more than become king-makers only  if they threaten to switch their votes among the warring parties. We see this in France, Italy and Israel yearly. They rarely claim the top spot if they are a small percentage of their parent party, but they can defect and destroy a coalition. In the case of the African-American wing of our party, the heiress-apparent seems to have been pushed away by a popular surge for Senator Barack Obama and now the contest is essentially deadlocked where neither candidate can win a clear majority of delegates until the 800 or so ‘superdelegates’ gather to work the political levers.  It was not supposed to work this way. When the race is close[3], either within the party of in open contests, those smaller or splinter groups may compete for favors and power and change the politic fabric of the party beyond recognition. To add to the confusion, there is the Hispanic component who, as yet, cannot vote legally except in California and a few other states that refuse to inspect voter credentials. This is as yet a wild card with the turnout being the most important factor. The superdelegates are not so super and cannot abrogate the winnings of Obama at this juncture. Their phony charge to select the best candidate is shown up as a farce right now.

Thus, the party drifts into a deadlock with the leader issuing from a minor wing of the party in the person of Barack Obama with major racist and socialist trappings. The difficulty here is that blacks were offered social programs and other perks for their votes instead of placing black leaders in high offices. The media went along with this idea. Now, the splinter party vies successfully for the top spot and brings along its own particular and characteristic political elements into policy fights. Here, the major concerns of the black community become a prominent factor in the noisy political circus as they steer toward the convention and final selection process. Unfortunately, the most prominent political vector of the African-Americans is revenge-race-based odium encumbered with the usual and often manufactured wild oration of hate from the religious pulpits and the urgent call for retaliation against the vast majority of whites. Compounding all this is the usual leftist indictment of corporations and greed and all this propaganda. Apart from the direct racist elements, this is standard leftist fluff—a proven loser in national political races. The media has done its part in essentially granting Obama half the delegates and holding the reporting the howls of racism to a minimum. Once half way, there is no way to allow Obama a loss from a ‘reasonable’ conclusion by the superdelegates. That would sart a race war and massive defections from the party. Hillary has now condemned Obama’s precious Reverend Jeremiah Wright. This is an act of desperation. The party faithful have dumped her lying carcass into the dumpster.

The Obama Speech outlined the salient fact that intrinsic racism is embedded too deeply into the black society to be set aside or even moderated.  The leading racist in North America, after David Duke, of course, is now Geraldine Ferraro. That is a major surprise for several reasons. Radical racism must be accommodated into his presidential run. With the prospect of power we hear of revenge.  The whites must be punished. Pundits from the gulches and other places such as the Old Red Lady[4] offer the suggestion that Obama ought to refrain from labels like ‘“[the] typical white person” because typically white people don’t like to be reminded of their prejudices.’[5] Dowd adds in the rest of the political poison with:

“But Republicans are salivating over Reverend Wright’s “God damn America” imprecation and his post-9/11 “America’s chickens coming home to roost” crack, combined with Michelle Obama’s aggrieved line about belatedly feeling really proud of her country.”[6]

Stereotypically speaking, the Obama stereotyping of whites appears to destroy the concept of unity and ‘change’ and nullifies the concept of a cloture to the racial hatred of the past. Nothing in this stance transcends race in a political sense. Obama endorses and enables overt racism and smiles as his wife Michelle plays the angry black lady. As the power base shifts, however, Jimmy Carter has abandoned Hillary along with Speaker Nancy Pelosi and lesser beings. There was probably no base support there anyway. Al Gore brings to mind the nasty history of his failed run and recites the sour memories of Monica Lewinsky and appears to offer this as the reason that he lost. Losers always need several excuses for their failures. All this is expected as the power pendulums sway back and forth and the acolytes scurry back and forth to curry favor. When the race is close, those with special interests will revert back to their strongholds and support their political bases. Senator Obama reacts in an identical fashion: he cannot abandon racism, the nuclear glue that holds blacks to the party.

Obama tries to cut the political fabric into two broad parts by offering excuses for the comments and views of his repulsive pastor and similar followers who praise Louis Farrakhan [7] and Quannel X and with stupid, racist, comments against Jews like: “"They helped him [Hitler] get the Third Reich on the road."[8]

Now, all this is standard politics as Obama cannot reject or notify his strongest supporters that they are simple, ignorant racists beating the drums of hate for political power. The Senator must accept their views at face value and attempt some form of intercalation into the structure of his political machine. This works for the Democrats. This does not work for the Republicans and a lot of independents, a party of nonparty voters whose singular attribute is a disgust of the two traditional parties. We shall see how this works for the voters.

We know that at the best of times the leftists who steer the clumsy Party of Democrats cannot command much more than 41% of the vote and must appeal to the independents for the missing 10. We also realize that the black vote is a critical 2-3% of the 41 and if absent signals another loss of the White House.

Purely by accident, we have a so-called moderate running for the right wing who is not so right or even right-thinking in conservative terms, but can harvest moderates, the silly putty of the political world. Thus, there is a push-pull battle for moderates and Obama must be careful not to push the malleable  and mentally disnimble into the hands of the Republicans.

Thus, it appears that the Democrats have hired another Vinegar John Kerry [9] [10] or algore to lead them into the septic ditch were it not for the perceived high registration levels of the young. If the twenty-somethings vote for Obama then he will preside over a mangled political machine that will be the object of a racial backlash from many quarters. He could McGovern the party for a decade or two. This remains to be demonstrated.  From my previous blog:

“There are several theories on political theory, but none actually suggest or mandate inflaming part of your potential constituency. Machiavelli taught that you should do nothing novel or new and just keep to known political mechanisms used by others. The mistakes by other political masters are also very valuable to analyze. “[11]

There is nothing new here! I have mentioned that I think Senator Obama is honest [12]and I still do. I truly believe that he truly believes this redacted historical view of white racism and oppression. He thinks that high taxes and micromanaging the corporations will bring some leftist-defined ‘economic justice.’ Any downturns in the economy would be solved by new and higher tax rates.

All this goes to emphasize the fact that politics is mostly identity based and that politicos are mere reflections of the loudest and angriest factions of their constituencies compounded by serendipity. We must hearken back to Eric Hoffer in his book The True Believer[13] when he said that leaders don’t create mass movements they sort of fall in front of the rabble and get pushed into the lead by default. Obama is not an original leader nor has he presented anything that we could describe as ‘new. ‘ His ‘hope’ message is not new, but is merely a reiteration of old political wounds mostly self-inflicted by the phony social programs and mangled education antics of the left. What is ‘new’ is that he is black, or gray [14] [Dowd] and brings a new twist to current political disaster.

So, we have a half-black far left 100% liberal running, again, for President. He has probably just sold out much of this white support for Jeremiah Wright’s favors. Disasters are made of this. I believe that he can lose the White House in the best tradition of George McGovern. That, I truly believe.

rycK

Comments: ryckki@gmail.com

Ferraro Resents Being Called a Racist?? Has She Forgotten How to Play the Game?

Geraldine Ferraro is still fuming about attacks on her from many sources for what she said about Senator Obama. In an interview in with the Daily Breeze[1] She retorts:

“"To equate what I said with what this racist bigot has said from the pulpit is unbelievable," Ferraro said today. "He gave a very good speech on race relations, but he did not address the fact that this man is up there spewing hatred."”

Having completely lost control over her politics, she made a comment to the effect that Obama is "lucky" to be black. Is this like the Magic Negro theme? A black man wrote that one.

Ferraro and her cohorts have hurled the racist rocks at many people who were naïve enough to mention the word ‘black’ or ‘race’ or anything else associated with minorities. Now, she compounds the error by calling Jeremiah Wright [1] a bigot and [2] racist and making [3] hateful comments.

Strike Three on the rebuttal!!

Geraldine now gets the same treatment that she dished out as a racist-enabling left-wing Democrat, not counting the FemiNazis remarks, and is shocked??

Geraldine Ferraro is a racist purely because she is white and anything minorities have to say about her is obliged to be accusations and offers of proof of her overt racism.  She is also a racist since she suborns racism in leftist politics and has done so for decades.

Liberals apparently don’t understand that some white people who are left-liberals are actually white and are racists by definition. She helped establish this definition of racism and now should grovel and apologize and put on sack cloth and ashes.  The left-wing of the party of Democrats have little else than racism and anti-Americanism for platforms other than the constant tax-whoring.

How novel!

She should have known better than this being on DNC and a fund-raiser and so on and so forth.

But wait!! Isn’t Hillary white or mostly white??

Just cast your superdelegate for Obama and keep silent. You may survive. Who knows what Hillary can do?  Billy played the race card and got bit.

Isn’t liberalism interesting??

rycK

The Mystical Adoration of Racism by the Media.

Senator Obama gave a speech in Philadelphia  that is now hailed by Chris Matthews as “'Worthy of Abraham Lincoln,” lacking an example even more praiseworthy that must, as a constraint, include sufficient  kokum or fluff.[1] He was ecstatic!

Chris gurgled on with:

“[He] also claimed it bypassed Martin Luther King Jr's "I Have A Dream" address as the "best speech ever given on race in this country." Of Barack Obama's speech in Philadelphia today, Matthews went on to declare: "I think this is the kind of speech I think first graders should see, people in the last year of college should see before they go out in the world. This should be, to me, an American tract."[2]

After being hailed as 2005's Misinformer of the Year [3] by the Clinton Machine’s Media Matters [4], and dunned for the preemptive exuberance for one of Bush’s speeches he hadn’t heard before he foamed:

“Before Bush had even delivered his November 30 speech at the U.S. Naval Academy, Matthews used variations of the word "brilliant" twice to describe it, while deriding Democratic critics of the Iraq war as "carpers and complainers."[5]

This must be an example of using the future past perfect tense with erotic inflection. The journalistic world needs to be inventive and lift itself above the mundane mendacities of mediocrity which the New York Times requires all non simian writers on their staff to gyrate. The Times has inaugurated  their salutation to Obama by highlighting the Old Red Lady, who did a proper propaganda job for  the “Gray” Senator.[6]

The Matthews politics are in disarray, we must presume, as he strays across the political latrines with such anti-Clintoonery remarks such as calling Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) a "sort of a Madame Defarge of the left[7]…"[8] and claimed such impossible antics as  when he stated that “Vice President Dick Cheney had sent him [Wilson, Plame’s reputed consort] on his February 2002 trip to investigate whether Iraq had tried to acquire uranium from Niger.”[9]

These would be sufficient examples (the references below give many more) that Chris Matthew must have drifted away from his Tipsy O’Neil’s  Leftist anchors and moors into some gray area between reality and politics. If there were any doubt of his treachery, this was all clarified when  he became the target of the Clinton Machine as he blundered away with this jewel:

“[T]he reason she’s a U.S. senator, the reason she's a candidate for president, the reason she may be a front-runner is her husband messed around. That's how she got to be senator from New York. We keep forgetting it. She didn't win there on her merit”.[10] [Emphasis is mine in all quotes.]

What he appears to reference in the sordid history of the Marxian Queen Bee and her reputed consort is that she deserves the benefit of maudlin victimhood and other laudatory trappings for ‘standing by her man” and not baking cookies.

Stirring the swill barrels here and reading the ripples, we can wonder just how we could square Obama’s new salubrious status with his endorsement of Reverend Jeremiah Wright, an unrepentant racist of the KKK level in intensity with only a reverse polarization. Jeremiah Wright may be the newly-minted leftist answer to David Duke.

This is all possible if we  ponder an explanation from David Horowitz’s Front Page Magazine by

“Matthews apparently failed to appreciate his leftist compatriots also play hardball, and they willingly sacrifice ex-friends as quickly as enemies when those friends are no longer useful.”[11]

Machiavelli would have agreed in principle. Maureen Dowd gave Reverend Wright an almost messianic aura as she wallowed in the leftist-mandated racism-for-all-seasons with:

“He rightly struck back at right-wing hysteria-mongers. “Talk-show hosts and conservative commentators built entire careers unmasking bogus claims of racism,”…[12]

Bogus??

The apologists for the black racists chime in with:

“Coulter[Kansas City Star]  is scolding any of us who take offense that Obama's racist Rev. has said things like "God damn America," and is himself outraged over our "ludicrous" anger over Wright's claims that the U.S. invented AIDS solely to kill black people.”[13]

What could the truth matter in racially heated politics? Black racists are angry when whites complain about reverse racism?

The Race War is now on and propelled by new and wonderful definitions of what racism might and might not be. The loser in all this is the Clinton Machine that tried to use racism to bump off Obama in South Carolina, a hot bed of red necks and now she is stuck. What can she do except remain silent?

How does Hillary now attack Obama and his lackeys using the new definition of racism?? The Diodic Effect [14] states that certain nasty political labels are defined to work only in one direction as the diode allows current to flow in only one defined direction. She cannot exactly call Jeremiah Wright a racist and attract black votes. Or, maybe she can and attract the lost white votes.

Racism may now be conveniently defined as anything a white says about a person of color [or half color in the Obama case thanks to Maureen Dowd] in any form, written or spoken or with sing language or body language and the “comment” may be interpreted in any manner that  the ‘victims’ of race might select. Counter epithets using the foulest language or gutter-level logic or rhetoric are for bidden comment by whites.

Isn’t politics wonderful?? All white people are racists and Hillary is presumable white although her consort claims to be black in some ways. Is that a racist statement??

Into the latrines we go………….

rycK

B. Hussein and H. Rodham SleazeBoat themselves with Tacit Endorsements from Racists and Criminals.

The much-awaited ‘explanation’[1] of how Jeremiah Wright’s ugly racist rants affects on of our candidates for the Oval Office was less than satisfactory if B. Hussein really wanted to separate himself from the deeply-ingrained systemic radical racism in the black community. Having slightly ‘distancing’ himself from some of the most outrageous lies of his ‘pastor’ like accusing the US of killing blacks with AIDS and other outrages, Obama dismisses this a some kind of cultural ‘heritage’ that needs to be changed by blaming the corporations and hiking taxes for education money, among other things.

How often we hear the eternal chants of the tax whores. [2] [3]

Obama could never more ‘distance himself,’ from the anti-white culture than Hillary could from her petting farm of criminals.

From Obama:

Segregated schools were, and are, inferior schools; we still haven’t fixed them, fifty years after Brown v. Board of Education, and the inferior education they provided, then and now, helps explain the pervasive achievement gap between today’s black and white students.[4][emphasis is mine in all quotes]

There are many reasons for the achievement gap between blacks and Asians and whites and drugs, sloth, crime and racism or the offense of ‘being whitey’ are among the few.  50 years of ‘education,’ busing and court actions have not improved the poor performance by minorities in the schools or alleviated the problems in our prisons, a direct result of this deficiency. The solution is always more tax money.

Al Sharpton, Louis Farrakhan, bell hooks and others can say whatever they want and are not placed under any scrutiny or any restrictions for overt racism by the liberals who desperately need the votes they obviously supply.[5] Al did his best to make the lies of Tawana Brawley into a political action mechanism and maintained that ‘she told the truth.’ A message appears on the red brick wall in the Spike Lee film Do the Right Thing as “Tawana told the truth.” Even the lies of black racists are preserved in some archival form to be told and retold to support the racist causes of liberals.

Author bell hooks[6] writes that she is "sitting beside an anonymous white male that [she] long[s] to murder" in the first chapter of her book Killing Rage.[7] Eldridge Cleaver wrote of the joy of raping a white girl in Soul on Ice[8]. Would Hussein or Rodham criticize any of this? Of course not.

All this must be preserved by leftist political candidates or risk losing their critical votes in inner cities and from far left liberals who hate capitalism and America. Neither Hussein nor Rodham will comment in public on such overt racism.

This form of criminal activity is cherished by H. Rodham by defending and accepting the endorsement of John Murtha, the king of Pork. [9] [10] Many of her former ‘good friends’ like Sandy Burger[11] and Norman Hsu [12] or friends from the Lippo Group [13] many of whom went to jail or are headed that way. Her own brother, and the brother of her consort too, were both convicted and then pardoned by Clinton#1. Susan McDougal [14]was probably the one who kept the Clintons out of jail.

From all this we can only conclude that ‘change’ means no change from the tax mongering leftist racist hate politics and that ‘experience’ means no change from the usually party practice harboring of criminals.

Both ‘candidates’ support Code Pink and other radical antiwar activism and will not, in any circumstances, say anything even close to “We want the US to win this war.”

They cannot even do that much for our troops and the 911 Massacre.

We continue to see the Party of Democrats besotted and defiled by degenerates from the far left and things will not change in the future until people stop supporting crime, racism and sleaze, the three pillars of liberalism. SleazeBoating continues to be the politics of choice for the far left.

rycK

Comments: ryckki@gmail.com

A Critique of the Mar. 18, 2008  Obama Speech in Philadelphia.

OBAMA SPEECH IN FULL: A MORE PERFECT UNION

Tuesday, March 18th, 2008/ 10:17:53 ET

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania[1]

The speech begins with:

“We the people, in order to form a more perfect union.” [Segments of the speech are in italics and reference the speech. My comments are in blue and emphasis, mine is given in red and or bold.]

There are several problems with this speech. The  central issue with Reverend Wright’s comments is dismissed in some form of cultural histrionics. The admission that his remarks were ‘condemned’ do not square with the blame that is later on in this speech clearly placed on whites, who have not fixed the schools, provided better jobs and health care.  

I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy. …

But the remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren’t simply controversial. They weren’t simply a religious leader’s effort to speak out against perceived injustice. Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country – a view that sees white racism as endemic,

As such, Reverend Wright’s comments were not only wrong but divisive,

The church contains in full the kindness and cruelty, the fierce intelligence and the shocking ignorance, the struggles and successes, the love and yes, the bitterness and bias that make up the black experience in America.

I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community.

Thusly justifying and qualifying Wright’s overt racism and hate speech.

The fact is that the comments that have been made and the issues that have surfaced over the last few weeks reflect the complexities of race in this country that we’ve never really worked through – a part of our union that we have yet to perfect.

Segregated schools were, and are, inferior schools; we still haven’t fixed them, fifty years after Brown v. Board of Education, and the inferior education they provided, then and now, helps explain the pervasive achievement gap between today’s black and white students.

We can lay all this on the teacher’s unions, who are in full control of education in this country and cite Washington, DC the worst school system in the US and run entirely by the black community as proof that whatever the far left have been doing it is not effective. This system also spends the highest amount of money per student in the US. There is no reason to believe that reverse discrimination in education will continue to drive ‘education’ in this country. When whites are denigrated as being derived from DWEEMS and we read about all they have done to destroy the brown and black races we wonder if this will ‘change,’ the basis of the Obama platform.

This is the reality in which Reverend Wright and other African-Americans of his generation grew up.

Like the anger within the black community, these resentments aren’t always expressed in polite company. But they have helped shape the political landscape for at least a generation. Anger over welfare and affirmative action helped forge the Reagan Coalition. Politicians routinely exploited fears of crime for their own electoral ends. Talk show hosts and conservative commentators built entire careers unmasking bogus claims of racism while dismissing legitimate discussions of racial injustice and inequality as mere political correctness or reverse racism.

Here, the facts of leftist racism and exploitation of the black masses are discounted.

Just as black anger often proved counterproductive, so have these white resentments distracted attention from the real culprits of the middle class squeeze – a corporate culture rife with inside dealing, questionable accounting practices, and short-term greed; a Washington dominated by lobbyists and special interests; economic policies that favor the few over the many. And yet, to wish away the resentments of white Americans, to label them as misguided or even racist, without recognizing they are grounded in legitimate concerns – this too widens the racial divide, and blocks the path to understanding.

This is not sufficient. The corporations, almost wholly white and derived from Queen Elisabeth in the 17 Century are cited here as the major problems with race relations.

For the African-American community, that path means embracing the burdens of our past without becoming victims of our past. It means continuing to insist on a full measure of justice in every aspect of American life. But it also means binding our particular grievances – for better health care, and better schools, and better jobs - to the larger aspirations of all Americans -- the white woman struggling to break the glass ceiling, the white man whose been laid off, the immigrant trying to feed his family. And it means taking full responsibility for own lives – by demanding more from our fathers, and spending more time with our children, and reading to them, and teaching them that while they may face challenges and discrimination in their own lives, they must never succumb to despair or cynicism; they must always believe that they can write their own destiny

The profound mistake of Reverend Wright’s sermons is not that he spoke about racism in our society. It’s that he spoke as if our society was static;

This is not sufficient. The remarks by Wright are simple hate speech and should be characterized as such—not cast in the context of the past. We can go to the past and show that Africa has sold slaves to anybody who wanted to buy them for the last 7000 years. And, slaves can be purchased today in the Sudan and other places. We might recall that blacks made huge profits selling slaves to the Colonies, Caribbean and Brazile, that latter seemingly have escaped any accusations of racism. No liberal could place ANY blame for slavery on black Africans.

In the white community, the path to a more perfect union means acknowledging that what ails the African-American community does not just exist in the minds of black people; that the legacy of discrimination - and current incidents of discrimination, while less overt than in the past - are real and must be addressed. Not just with words, but with deeds – by investing in our schools and our communities; by enforcing our civil rights laws and ensuring fairness in our criminal justice system; by providing this generation with ladders of opportunity that were unavailable for previous generations. It requires all Americans to realize that your dreams do not have to come at the expense of my dreams; that investing in the health, welfare, and education of black and brown and white children will ultimately help all of America prosper.

This is a call to maintain the status quo and not make chances. The change he must be talking about is more handouts and more taxes to ‘redress the sins of the past.’

For we have a choice in this country. We can accept a politics that breeds division, and conflict, and cynicism. …But if we do, I can tell you that in the next election, we’ll be talking about some other distraction. And then another one. And then another one. And nothing will change.

That is one option. Or, at this moment, in this election, we can come together and say, “Not this time.” This time we want to talk about the crumbling schools that are stealing the future of black children and white children and Asian children and Hispanic children and Native American children.

This speech does nothing to change anything. The same left-liberal complaints run rampant in this address and the call for higher taxes is implicit in nearly every passage.

 rycK

END

The Bailout Artists Crawl out of every Crack in the Wall [Street] Community with Advice: Socialism is Best.

Everything a market in the capitalist system swings one way or the other, the leftists and their attendant parrots take to the trees to sing their songs of woe. Tax payer alert!

IN successive days we have solemn pronouncements from the New York Times—aka The Walter Duranty Papers[1]—as to the ‘solution’ for fixing market variations.

In today’s article, entitled the The Bailout Artists, more noise from the Babbling Brooks [2], we are treated to an incoherent ramblage [3]of mixed social and financial metaphors. The day before, we heard similar psychic mantras honked by the NYT’s official non-economist Paul Krugman. [4] This was entitled The B Word.

From Brooks

“Roughly 14 million homeowners will owe more than their houses are worth. Uncertainty about mortgage-backed securities will continue to whack at the foundations of the banking system.”

We might compare this to the 2000 bear market in stocks when 75,000,000 people lost 1/3 of all their holdings in equities. Where was the call to ‘rescue’ investors then?

The dialogue here runs wild in a circular logical circus with questions promptly being answered with non answers [Q: then la la lah A:  format. Finally, a conclusion C: :is offered. This is amusing and sophomoric, but what else does the Times have to work with? Truth? Facts? Capitalism?? We have to be reasonable here.

“Q: Who’s to blame?...and then the question is answered: A: Who’s not to blame?”

Nonsense and the very basis of leftist dialogue.

“Q: Why should the government do anything?... A: Our economic system is based on the idea that people take responsibility for their own decisions.”

“Q: But shouldn’t the market be allowed to work?... A: That’s the lesson of the Japanese financial crisis. People aren’t going to buy houses if it seems that prices will continue their gradual fall for another several years.”

This works for buggy whips too. When dealers pay too much for  antiques they then become Egyptian Pieces, to be taken to the grave by the buyer for eternity. How about a cliché: “Those who ignore history must repeat their mistakes…………”

Fairness then springs forth in song and rhyme!

“Q: Well, if the government is going to intervene more in the housing market, what principles should we use to organize the response?

A: First, no bailout for the true greedheads: the speculators, the flippers, the people who bought second homes they couldn’t afford. C: Help only those who can stay in their homes with a modest amount of aid.”

Now, this sounds ‘fair.’ But didn’t we read a lot of politics from the NYT and other ragzines about Redlining and the solution Greenlining [5]that would guarantee housing to those people with poor credit, certain criminals and the celebrated drug addicts?[6] And how many houses in Baltimore now in foreclosure are owned by absentee owners? Can we say speculators?

Krugman does not know what to do other than crank up a massive new government program such as the RTC[7]

“C: Looking ahead, we probably need something similar to the Resolution Trust Corporation, which took over bankrupt savings and loan institutions and sold off their assets to reimburse taxpayers. And we need it quickly: things are falling apart as you read this.”[8]

But, previously he thought of Bear Stearns:

“C: Bear, in other words, deserved to be allowed to fail — both on the merits and to teach Wall Street not to expect someone else to clean up its messes.” [9]

This is one of those deep triple reverse psychological statements: We shoodah not evah done dat, but now we gotta do dat for all.

This is phony. The complicated liquidity shortage comes from a direct loss of wealth and only a leftist would both claim that speculators ought to be punished and other speculators, known as greenlined home buyers, not be punished. The investment was bad—the money is gone. Period. Somewhere in the midst of this prattle a new tax hike scheme is being hatched. How about some FDR New Deal stuff!! Watch and wonder how the NYTers present this stale notion:

Back to the babbler:

“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. C: 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.”

Bingo!!

Oh yes!! Let us allow the government to fix the price of housing!! If they are ripped off then let the taxpayers return their ‘loses’ so as to be fair! Didn’t the Russians do this with their stark concrete high rises in Moscow?? Everybody paid the same rent and had, essentially, the same equity, which was zero. Greenlining, a Marxism euphemism for subsidizing housing, means subsidized housing paid for by the taxpayers. Creditworthiness is not a concern. Let some drug-crazed judge in San Francisco ‘adjust’ the principal and interest rates just ‘to be fair.’

And Brooks concludes with:

“Q: So I guess we’re all bailout artists now?

A: We do seem to have reached some Bernanke-era consensus. In normal times, the free market works well. C: But in a crisis like this one, few are willing to sit back and let the market find its own equilibrium.”

So, the eternal quest of the New York Times is revealed after we tear off the fluff and mumblings: Let the government fix things.

Q: Could we have expected any other conclusion from the Walter Duranty Papers??

A: Of course not.

rycK

Comments: ryckki@gmail.com

We are Now Treated to the Era of The Politics of Hope, Hopeless that that Notion is in Leftist Politics.

There is hope and there is hope that the hope is hopeless depending on who stands where and who views how the current political gutter wars are conducted. We have learned that the words hope and change have no meaning other than to dazzle or mesmerize voters with minimal cognitive skills or perhaps those interred underground for decades and still anxious to caste a few votes. Today, the uselessness of these words is expanded to include new and more useless nuances.

It seems that the Race/Sleaze/Liberal Wars are now in the middle of the gritty  campaign and both sides are running out of ammo.

Echoes from Clintoonery:

“"It is disappointing that a campaign that began by promising a politics of hope has come to this, that it is signalling[sic] and revelling[sic] in attacks on Senator Clinton's character," her communications director Howard Wolfson said.””[1]

The guns sound from the other side:

“"The Clinton campaign says she has been fully vetted but the truth is she is a veteran of non-disclosure," Obama chief strategist David Axelrod said.”[2]

“"All of this has created a sense that there are things she wants the public not to know," he said.”[3]

We might be able to read liar here or other appropriate word.

Here, we are tempted to hope that that the truth about both the Clintons may ooze up from some primordial swamp and enlighten us, but there is little chance of this. Clintoonery is rooted in Marxian politics, dirty money from Asian Communists, trips to Moscow for probably mole training and the kiss-but-don’t-tell mysteries of Hillary’s roomies at Wellesley. Billary will NOT divulge their tax returns or library circus gifts. We could wonder if Billy went without sex for three weeks in Russia and Hungary in 1969. Gennifer Flowers brings us fresh talking points about Hillary, who may be the best lover of the pair. [4] All these points bring hope to at least one political camp.

The Clinton Machine is normally scripted down to even the minimal variance in the circularity of an apostrophe. This allows weather vane politics and transparent flip-flopperism in many cases.  She never makes a mistake unless she loses all controls and flies into a rage like Colonel Klebb and shrieks or utters a solemn sulfurous oath against one of her enemies or throws a lamp at Billy. One of the Obama Team referred to her as a monster, not a racist tern and not far from the truth either, but this was scant hope that such a contest could conducted with courtesy and aplomb. This is the most hopeless facet of the hope being bandied about in this chingaso. This scripting process, alone, is the very essence of secrecy and a frantic flight from the facts. Her comment that she has been ‘vetted’ means in scriptspeak [5]that she has so far escaped jail for her crimes and has aged compared to her lies and thus the right wing and others have nothing left to toss into her trenches. This may change if a former Clintoonista turns from the brilliance of her presence and rats her out.

As this were not enough to coax a few new sorties from one of the armies, we now find that Obama was a pew witness to some of the racist rants of his pastor Jeremiah Wright.

“Obama claimed Friday that “the statements that Rev. Wright made that are the cause of this controversy were not statements I personally heard him preach while I sat in the pews of Trinity.”[6]

Refuted as:

Here, Obama seems to allow the racist themes of a group that fully supports his candidacy by ‘disagreeing’ with some of the remarks or actually not having heard them. There is a theory in politics that works in this manner:

Theory and Mechanism: The objective is to get as much support from listeners as you can so you can be vague and mumble so that:

Group A heard exactly what you said and now are convinced that you are the right candidate for them.

Group B heard everything but was not able to accurately guess what some of the comments actually meant, but were hopeful that they meant what they should have meant to this group so this is the right candidate for them too.

Group C heard everything and was not interested in the facts as long as nothing favorable was mentioned about their enemies, so this is the right candidate for them.

Group D didn’t hear anything, but was dancing in the streets or howling in the pews and it wouldn’t matter what the candidate did or said or even if he said nothing or lied.

A proper scripting and the use of weasel words can be incorporated into a speech that imparts nothing of substance and yet grants enchantment all four groups. This is the mechanism and harvest of a gifted speechwriter or, better, a skilled propagandist. It is interesting that LBJ and Richard Nixon have never had such writers in their camps, but both Democrats have several.

Now, Geraldine Ferraro apparently forgot some simple rules when she said:

 “If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position,” Ferraro told a California newspaper. “And if he was a woman [of any color], he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is.”

After this set off the proverbial and predictable firestorm, Ferraro responded by saying: “Racism works in two different directions. I really think they’re attacking me because I’m white. How’s that?”[8]

Isn’t this all very sordid and the convention is not until, when, July?! They could waste another 100 million dollars in this slugfest and provide some entertainment for the McCain camp and some of the rest of us.

This is the proper time for the superdelegates to just keep silent, let the mess deadlock and wait until both candidates have scattered all the fecal material in their arsenals to the media and the political winds and then, with some Manchurian Candidate Speech draft Al Gore, who is also vetted, but does not carry baggage like this pair. Al is a liar, crook, Communist, and EcoNazi but as yet not an identified racist. But, the year is young. He might be charged for carbon footprint sales fraud, but that would be past his inauguration date so that can be dismissed until it becomes a problem.

I nominate Al Gore, Nobel Peace Prize winner as the grand nominee of the Party of Democrats!

rycK

Much of the Mortgage Crisis is due to the Marxian Greenlining Tactics.

In an article entitled Through Bush-Colored Glasses [1] we read the same, stale old leftist plot about the Republicans. Here the Times, known as the Walter Duranty Papers, and a compliant platform for any Marxian fluff moans about Bush with a reading of his economic failures. As with all propaganda screeds by the NYT, we have to sift through the verbiage and filter out some of the distortions.

“President Bush admitted on Friday that times are tough. So much for the straight talk.”[2]

“Mr. Bush went on to paint a false picture of the economy. He dismissed virtually every proposal Congress is working on to alleviate the mortgage crisis, sticking to his administration’s inadequate ideas. And despite the rush of serious problems — frozen credit markets, millions of impending mortgage defaults, solvency issues at banks, a plunging dollar — he said that a major source of uncertainty today is whether his tax cuts, scheduled to expire in 2010, would be extended.”

There is a lot of effluvial discharge here so let us take the mortgage crisis as a starter:

On the Issues of Mortgages:

The leftists, otherwise known as Marxists or perhaps some of  their familiars, or New York Times stooges, or  criminals and others, actually  intimidated legislators to force banks into making loans in minority sections of the cities to people who could not afford them. The (reverse) alleged process used by banks was known as [3] Redlining after a practice that many used to isolate certain neighborhoods from getting loans since the credit rating of such areas were very poor. The question was: should banks be forced to make bad loans to those with poor credit or not jobs and then assume the loss? Of course!! Liberalism in action.

The free-mortgage barkers are situated in Berkeley, CA and known as the Greenlining Institute. [4] This group had a strong influence upon banks and lending institutions to force them to loan to persons who had bad credit. [5] Hence, we find that like other facets of our society, the Marxists have found a way to force a new kind of tax upon society whereby home loans must be granted even though the potential homeowners have no credit or jobs or any other reason to be home owners.

Here is what they forced the banks and others to do:

[1] Training staff to use judgment to assess risk when opening accounts.

This means giving out an assessment without regard to facts. This means: be emotional.

[2] Setting minimum limits to activate the use of ChexSystems

[3] Considering the possible override of a customer denial for situations that are beyond the customer’s control, such as a prolonged illness

This must be translated as follows: as long as these people had lousy credit or were felons, the Greening System[6] could get them credit that could lead to obtaining a mortgage. Welcome to socialism and the subsidy of chaos.

The banks were forced into:

[a] Disregarding all ChexSystems entries greater than three years old provided the entry is not fraud-related.

 So, being a dead beat is not fraud. That sounds fair.

[b] Disregarding all ChexSystems entries greater than one year old if the consumer has repaid the debt

All the debt? Just one debt?

[c] Disregarding certain other ChexSystems entries if the consumer has repaid the debt and completes a course in financial responsibility

It is okay if you are a dead beat as long as you take a course in ‘financial responsibility.’ Pay off one debt and take a course and get the loan.

[d] Increasing the loss threshold for reporting closed accounts from $50 to $100 in overdrafts .

Let us mask people who cannot handle their finances.

[e] Increasing the length of time a customer has to repay the debt

Can I get a 300 year mortgage with bad credit? How about a 1000 year mortgage with good credit? I would like to pay $1.00 per year until lit is paid off.

This is a political exercise. This is some latent form of Marxism.

We need to add in here the recent New York Times suggestion that:

““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.”[7] [8]

Wouldn’t it be nice if some deadbeat just howled and went to courts, with lawyers paid for by the taxpayer, to get some or all of their payments forgiven and the lenders would pay for this social privilege. Wouldn’t that be wonderful??

Can I do this with taxes?

The Times concludes this article with:

“The fiscal stimulus passed by Congress, and touted by Mr. Bush on Friday, could juice growth for a quarter or two later this year. But the economy’s fundamental weaknesses indicate that Americans are ill-prepared for hard times. That makes the need for clear-eyed policies all the more urgent. We need them from the president, Congress and the contenders for the White House.”

‘Clear eyed’ here means government control of mortgages and envisions subsidized or free housing for those who would then vote for Democrats.

What else do we expect from the far left and their Marxian overseers?

Liberal politics at its worst. This is just another cheap, slimy way of hiking taxes and buying votes for the leftists.

rycK

Comments: ryckki@gmail.com

Half White or Half Black or Half Communist? That is the Question for the Democrats and their Donations.

The Democrats, always willing to argue and disgrace themselves for the favors of a gnat, have now been forced into either side of a deep latrine where they can choose from some half white, or alternately half black or alternately half Marxist or several interesting variants thereof. Many think Hillary cannot win. [1]We have an ‘analysis’ of this phenomenon by the New York Times article entitled: Delegate Battles Snarl Democrats in Two States :[2]

“Democrats in Michigan and Florida struggled Friday to resolve the impasse over their disputed January primaries, coming up with a plan to hold a June primary in Michigan while remaining deadlocked in Florida.”

This is an ex post facto revolution in ‘rules’ that is characteristic of Demoncrappia although the Clinton Machine would benefit from this and, thusly, Obama ought to nix this funny fix or let it rot on the vine.

“Reflecting how tense the situation has become, influential fund-raisers for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton have stepped up their behind-the-scenes pressure on national party leaders to resolve the matter, with some even threatening to withhold their donations to the Democratic National Committee unless it seats the delegates from the two states or holds new primaries there.”

This is black mail [no offense to either half of Senator Obama and has no, it seems, gender preference in either blackness or mail.] It is sleazy however as befits the Demoncraps and their lackeys.

“Pushing to seat the Florida delegates, at least one top Clinton fund-raiser, Paul Cejas, a Miami businessman who has given the Democratic National Committee $63,500 since 2003, has demanded Democratic officials return his 2007 contribution of $28,500, which they have agreed to do.

“If you’re not going to count my vote, I’m not going to give you my money,” said Mr. Cejas, who was the United States ambassador to Belgium from 1998 to 2001”

Of course, this parasite is pushing to return his favors to Clintoonery as one of them must have appointed this turkey to talk with the Belgians about nothing. Why doesn’t he just demand his contribution to Billary be returned? Couldn’t he make a deal with Obama? The IRS ought to look into any money flows from Belgium to Florida for this.

“The new vote [in Michigan], which would be run by state elections officials but financed with money raised from private sources, is far from a sure thing. It requires approval by the divided state legislature and from the Clinton and Obama campaigns. There is also no assurance that the party can quickly raise the estimated $10 million it would cost to redo the January contest.”

Now, this is test of ‘fairness,’ the leftist version of the Rule of Law and other essays in objectiveness. It is also a farce. Billary has flat out lost this election to an equation that appears to be related to a half white and non Marxist opponent. The encrusted drool permanently seen on the shoes of the loyal Democrats reflects years of telling everybody that ‘skin color’ does not matter. That aside, several Billary operatives, such as Billy and one of their favorite stooges Keep it Clean Geraldine [3], have frenetically used overt racism [4]to attempt to get votes and influence superdelegates [5], a strange oxymoron.

“Mr. Obama has consistently rejected seating any delegates based on the January votes in Michigan or Florida, which he said were unfair because neither candidate was allowed to campaign there. In Michigan, while Mrs. Clinton’s name was on the primary ballot, many Obama supporters voted for “uncommitted,” a line that got 40 percent of the vote to Mrs. Clinton’s 55 percent.”

Wouldn’t it be interesting to suggest that we all convert all ballots cast to “uncommitted” to Obama? The Obama Surge is on. [6] Didn’t the phony Florida State Supreme Court want to do this for al gore??

“Some Clinton backers said they were intentionally withholding their contributions to the party, arguing that Howard Dean, the D.N.C.’s chairman, has left the situation in the hands of the states and the candidates, as opposed to exercising leadership to resolve it.”

Now, a reworking of the rules by the Howler would be appropriate. Since he is a Clinton Stooge [7] we can then wonder how he would rule from his majestic perch.

““While Howard Dean has been working hard to be an honest broker, too many involved have been more concerned with headlines than results,” Ms. Paxton said. “It’s never productive to negotiate through the press, but make no mistake, Howard Dean will continue to lead the effort to find a workable solution that’s fair and consistent with the rules.”

I thought negotiating through the press as their only of debate. The New York Times has already endorsed Hillary so let them decide! Or did they?[8] [9]

Error! Error! The Rules were already followed and now there are no seats for the delegates from these two states. That must also mean their superdelegates might be able to vote even the state delegates cannot do so. Oh, the sleaze of it all.

Oh, let us bend the rules for Hillary as this is the sour old Communist’s last chance to get back into power and make more money from Asian Communists.

Let us all be fair and consistent about changing the rules.

rycK

Comments: ryckki@gmail.com