Katie Couric is now One-Sided Against Illegal Immigrants and their Children?

Apparently, as I do not watch her and cannot confirm this outrage, Katie Couric has offended Hispanics by reporting about costs and legality issues over illegal immigrant women who have children at taxpayer expense and the associated costs of this action. This was a blunder we are told.

Katie, whose refusal to wash her hair and think for herself, has chosen to state the facts about illegal immigration in the US by the social parasites in Mexico who, after 500 years, cannot rise above crime, sloth, drug addiction and failure. Mexico is the best example of how not to run a government except for perhaps Cuba and North Korea. They deserve a Communist government after the present bozo retires.

 In an incoherent screed by some Hispanic activist[1],  a group who routinely grunts and grabs for US taxes and the right to cast illegal votes, we read:

“The CBS newscast that carries her name recently aired a one-sided and inaccurate report about illegal immigrant women who give birth to their children in the United States. The news story challenged the broader constitutional law of birthright citizenship and stated — without providing the correct context — that the births cost U.S. taxpayers millions of dollars”[2]  

Apparently, this Gebe is unaware that many Hispanics make it to the border just in time to give birth and quality for free medical, welfare in several forms, a grand welcome by leftist Democrats and a chance to vote for more free  money for themselves in states that do not require IDs to vote. Apparently, Gebe is unaware that the theft of social security numbers and filing false  federal and state tax returns or not filing them are crimes  They are a burden upon us and need to be paid for their services and both monetary and political terms.

Couric is accused of tarnishing the images of Edward R. Murrow and Walter Cronkite  with this slight although Dan Rather is not mentioned. Murrow and Cronkite were/are far left Marxist supplicants who used phony journalism for political ends. This screed is an angry response by some assorted Hispanic Supremacy groups such as La Raza, La Mecha[3] , NCLR and MALDEF, among others. These groups want power and money and are racist in origin. They advocate: "…as Mechistas, we vow to work for the liberation of Aztlan." They are militant, Marxist and their official icon: ”is an eagle holding a machete-like weapon and a stick of dynamite.”[4]

These people are Marxist thugs and parasites.

So, Katie blundered into some forbidden truth zone that was not sufficiently filtered to make allowances for the ‘truth’ for their Hispanic radical political advocates.

Ted Kennedy must have gone back to the bottle over this incident. He did ask them to ‘help him and his party out.”

Well, we can excuse Katie for unconsciously reporting the facts in her fog of ignorance and advise her to wash her hair and try for another job. This will finish her off.

Why don’t we just put any person of color on welfare and see how wonderful things can be. That will be the test of the George McGovern Theorem.

rycK

Comments: ryckki@gmail.com

The NYT Dumbs Down on Energy “Policy” Again.

The quest for the solution to capitalism must begin with some way to stall martial, resources and manpower if the left will be able to gain control of everything and redistribute the wealth of the world according to some leftist scheme.

In an ideological fantasy, the pluralist Thomas L. Friedman [1] turns the rusty crank on his socialist vision and finds, as usual, that the United States is in error on all energy matters. The article entitled Dumb as We Wanna Be [2] is as dumb as we could get if we follow this sophistry. He follows his own soggy definition of pluralism, a rare insight he seems to offer us after an intense study of the cultures and economies in places like Bangalore and Shanghai. This adventure prompted him to write the sensational book The World Is Flat gave Friedman new insights into the continuing trends of globalization and the forces. Using the NYT resources as a crude guide to the mandated conclusions before he does any research his notion that the world is somehow ‘flat’ in terms of the economic competition of mature and emerging nations is mere hokum.[3] Essays like this are the fodder for the eternal and obvious conclusion that we need world government and all that. As such, we must take a scalpel to his broad claims and cut out the sour, leftist parts and save them for the garden until they ripen.

He pumps out insane conclusions such as this:

“It is great to see that we finally have some national unity on energy policy.” [all quotes are from the Friedman article unless   indicated otherwise and emphasis in terms of color, bold or italics are mine.]

This is a joke of course. Nobody agrees on any energy policy. This is a pipe dream that blends into San Francisco dope parlor parlance. Needle stickers have a policy too.

“Hillary Clinton has decided to line up with John McCain in pushing to suspend the federal excise tax on gasoline, 18.4 cents a gallon, for this summer’s travel season. This is not an energy policy.”

Nobody said it was, but this is a TAX CUT and prompts a Pavlovian Drooling Episode from any leftist, and here it is:

“When the summer is over, we will have increased our debt to China, increased our transfer of wealth to Saudi Arabia and increased our contribution to global warming for our kids to inherit.”

This is his conclusion, which could be equally applied to the production of cars, hamburgers or toys. Notice the automatic endorsement of the phony Global Warming screeds.[4] Does he want to end free trade? We can always embargo China and India and send them into a depression to avoid an imbalance of debts using this notion.

He twists a situation to fit his ends by ignoring some of the inputs that increase costs:

“The McCain-Clinton gas holiday proposal is a perfect example of what energy expert Peter Schwartz of Global Business Network describes as the true American energy policy today: “Maximize demand, minimize supply and buy the rest from the people who hate us the most.”

This is truly amazing. We can wonder how the frantic efforts of our domestic enemies(the left-wing Democrats, their Islamo-Fascist allies,  and their Marxist cheerleaders from Cuba and Venezuela), soaked in white wine and crazed with drugs, to prevent any new drilling, exploration or building of petroleum facilities might have affected the supply? Gee, they won’t allow drilling and now the supply is low? Who would have thought this might happen except for an authentic economist, someone the New York Times has yet to hire or listen to. [5]The BIG LIE here is that this is the leftist policy of the EcoNazis and their determined effort to sandbag our economy with regulations that will stop growth and generate unemployment with a recession or depression. This is all backward. The left likes depression and war and famine and hatred—those bring those votes. Snaildarterism at its best.

“But here’s what’s scary: our problem is so much worse than you think. We have no energy strategy. If you are going to use tax policy to shape energy strategy then you want to raise taxes on the things you want to discourage — gasoline consumption and gas-guzzling cars — and you want to lower taxes on the things you want to encourage — new, renewable energy technologies. We are doing just the opposite.”

Here is the undressed and trumpeted tax-and-spend mantra of the far left in verse and song. All this from the phony baloney notions that derive from this ‘strategy’ such as the counterfeit Blue Water Wind Follies [6] that would force the citizens of Delaware to pay $0.11 per kilowatt hour for 25 years plus 2.5% per year increase for some off shore gadgets when we now pay only $0.02-0.03 per kwh now and we could get ONSHORE wind power from many other sources for half the cost of the EcoNazi version. That starts off at a %440 increase for electricity and rises to %715 after two decades. What a deal we get from the drooling leftists!

“The Democrats wanted the wind and solar credits to be paid for by taking away tax credits from the oil industry. President Bush said he would veto that. Neither side would back down, and Mr. Bush — showing not one iota of leadership — refused to get all the adults together in a room and work out a compromise. Stalemate. Meanwhile, Germany has a 20-year solar incentive program; Japan 12 years. Ours, at best, run two years.”

The crude assumption is outlined in this notion that money wasted is money well spent as long as it comes from taxes. We could compare this to the doubling of ‘education’ spending in the last 25 years and wonder why there was no improvement in test scores, something the left always responds to with pleas for more money and teachers and accusations of racism. Here, again, the incessant tax mongering by liberals arises as the central issue. We all know Hillary wanted to put a $50,000,000,000 dollar punitive tax on Exxon and that must be thought of as some clever way to lower oil costs even thought Exxon cannot control the price of oil and our government makes more money off the Exxon sales taxes than Exxon makes in profits.

Solar energy, for example,[7] has been a pipe dream for 50 years or more, rivaling fusion and perhaps the celebrated cold fusion and is not efficient. Wind power is only efficient when the wind blows and only some 98% if the US landmass is suitable for such gadgets. Only on Martha’s Vineyard would it work exceedingly well and this project is currently blocked by the Kennedy Klan and his drug-dependent friends.

This current article is a pedestrian-level tautological screed in the manner of sausage-machine mental exercises and the conclusions are always what we expect from a leftist: increase taxes and regulate business and give breaks to third world. Get the parasites at the UN involved in the tax grubbings.

They ought to make rubber stamps for the clichés and hackneyed phrases this guy throws around carelessly and force people to stamp their clothing [or foreheads] every day before they go to work. That would be a ‘political policy’ that would work for the left—we could call it ‘education.’

The World Is Flat only in the fevered minds of the drug-crazed Marxists, the EcoNazis and their head-banging lackeys at the New York Times. And, they didn’t even pass this by Jeremiah Wright or Al Sharpton.

Walter Duranty[8] would be so proud. He had great visions such as this too.

rycK

Comments: ryckki@gmail.com

Jeremiah Wright Buries Obama in a Swamp Of Racism.

 In a previous blog, I raised the urgent obligation that we identify a new definition of racism—one that might cover and possible explain some of the contemporary arts, acts and theatre of the current political circus.

In a rare agreement with the New  York Times—the Testament to Marxism and its patron saint Walter Duranty[1]—we read some reasonable writings from Bob  Herbert[2] of the Editorial Board. His article is aptly entitled The Pastor Casts a Shadow.

“The Rev. Jeremiah Wright went to Washington on Monday not to praise Barack Obama, but to bury him.”

The Roman paraphrase is well selected and echoes the notions of political character assignation and worse in the politics of the Party of Democrats, now so democratic as we note of late.

“All but swooning over the wonderfulness of himself, the reverend acts like he is the first person to come up with the idea that blacks too often get the short end of the stick in America, that the malignant influences of slavery and the long dark night of racial discrimination are still being felt today, that in many ways this is a profoundly inequitable society.”[3]

This is part of the psychosis of Cryptomisoxeny.[4] A hidden, self-destructive, eternal hatred of some other group produces the mental aberration that acts of racial hatred and discrimination are endearing attributes that foster camaraderie and goodness. A sophist from the shadowy reaches of the social latrines now basks in the spotlight of national attention and this parasite instructs the world on slavery and the attempt by our government to summarily destroy persons of color. His book sales will soar.

 The unfortunate fact here is that this bozo actually believes what he says. He probably envisions some clandestine laboratory where the CIA cooks up new germs and other exotic afflictions to cast upon the non-white societies of this planet. AIDS is apparently one of their best inventions.

“So it’s not like he’s naïve politically. He knows exactly what he’s doing. Forget the gibberish about responding to attacks on the black church. That is not what the reverend’s appearance before the press club was about. He was responding to what he perceives as an attack on him.”

And, he earned such attacks.

“My guess is that Mr. Wright felt he’d been thrown under a bus by an ungrateful congregant who had benefited mightily from his association with the church and who should have rallied to his former pastor’s defense. What we’re witnessing now is Rev. Wright’s “I’ll show you!” tour.”

This is the key to understanding the concept of cryptomisoxeny: somebody has broached the pentagram that holds the True Believers in the fold and Senator Obama is that outlaw. Punishment now follows as the notion that the ‘leader’ of the cult has been trashed by a supplicant who refuses to endorse the detailed litany of the system. Obama, we might surmise, should have pounded the lectern in the manner that Jeremiah Wright pounds his dais on his pulpit and cursed whites for their evils.

“Mr. Obama seems more and more like someone buffeted by events, rather than in charge of them. Very little has changed in the superdelegate count, but a number of those delegates have expressed concern in private over Mr. Obama’s inability to do better among white working-class voters and Catholics.”

The good senator might attempt to cure this by selecting an equal pair of Faustian contracts:

[1] He can denounce this worthless parasite and self-mesmerized racist for who and what he is or

[2] He can embrace the frenzied rants of Jeremiah Wright,  kiss his golden toe ring, and then celebrate and amplify  all the  hate theorems, and the most obscure jots and tittles in the reverend’s screeds.

The Yellow Fangs of Clintoonery[5] await this outcome. As Perot took down one Bush’s system, this Neanderthal racist may push Obama out of the way and enthrone Hillary as the Queen Bee.

Senator Obama now faces some of the worst choices that any politician could endure. Here, his attempt to run the race sans the race issue has been ruined by ideological racism and he is trapped. He cannot refute the black ideological mantras that add the crucial 3-5 points to the national votes and risk those supporters staying home in revulsion of an Uncle Tom. He cannot, alternately, embrace the racism of the Wright gang including Calypso Louie Farrakhan and other radicals.

The political solution to the problem, obviously, is for Hillary to bow out, acknowledge that Obama ran a good race-- all for the good of the party and all that hooey. Fat chance of that!

Obama’s middle case of refuting bits and pieces of Wright’s Black Liberation Theology [6]is dicey at best, but probably the best path forward.

Hill and Bill have some $300,000,000 riding on this contest and they are desperate. Hillary will attempt to hang Wright’s rancid image around Obama’s neck if she can. She has done worse.

Now, we can expect McCain to ‘reach across the isle’ and begin to embrace illegal immigration, again, or wonder about more tax hikes as that would finesse both Clintons and Obama.

He is just unreliable enough to try that. He can always embrace reparations.

What a sour set of political choices! For the voters, this is like choosing the three leopards with the most artistic spots to start to eat you first.

rycK

Comments: ryckki@gmail.com

Whining about Taxes by the New York Times: Revision #476

We can all understand why the far left is utterly reliant upon grabbing their money from taxes.[1] Simply stated, they have no other source. Leftist government is a know failure on this planet. The left demands the highest throne on the totalitarian pyramid where they can direct as much wealth as possible to their ideological ends, which means poverty for all but the elite in most cases.[2] The social parasites who claim to have solutions to society’s problems scream and bawl for money for the ‘poor’[3] while they wink at Fidel Castro as he spends $800 per pound for Italian cured ham and bark out the song that he provides healthcare for all for a mere $230 per person per year.[4] As such, we expect no end to the lamentations and pleadings and may only expect the mechanical tautological screeds to be generated by the New York Times, the tribute to Walter Duranty[5], and forced upon us weekly. [6]

Today’s hokum and fluff is yet a simple Milligan’s Stew[7] of whatever could be scraped off the kitchen floors or reclaimed from the weaker cockroaches to beg for alms from the nasty capitalists. The author, Paul Krugman[8], the most famous non-economist in North America, has offered his maudlin whimper, pleas and predictions of doom if we don’t frantically raise taxes. We can save the planet by such actions.[9]    Which said and pondered upon for a few seconds, makes us wonder why they don’t just double taxes in California and achieve instant prosperity?

The next sausage pops out of the string as:

“And a look at what Mr. McCain says about taxes shows the same combination of irresponsibility and double-talk that, back in 2000, foreshadowed the character of the Bush administration.”[10]

Pure fluff and could have been written 8 years ago about any successor to the Republican control of the White House.

“First, Mr. McCain proposes making almost all of the Bush tax cuts, which are currently scheduled to expire at the end of 2010, permanent. (He proposes reinstating the inheritance tax, albeit at a very low rate.)” [11]

 This is so old.

“According to the nonpartisan TaxPolicyCenter, the overall effect of the McCain tax plan would be to reduce federal revenue by more than $5 trillion over 10 years. That’s a lot of revenue loss — enough to pose big problems for the government’s solvency.”[12]

This is NOT TRUE because there is no accounting of growth due to tax cuts. Krugman is loath to account for any form of growth from investments induced by such polities.[13] [14]

There is a ‘summation’ or some kind of yodel of ignorance as the author winds up his frustration:

“If truth be told, the McCain tax plan doesn’t seem to embody any coherent policy agenda. Instead, it looks like a giant exercise in pandering — an attempt to mollify the G.O.P.’s right wing, and never mind if it makes any sense.”[15]

The policy is to keep the leftist’s slimy claws and fetid drool away from the nation’s wealth, which they will quickly consume if they get the chance. We can always call on Krugman to tell us what happened to the $600 bln we spend yearly on phony social programs, to expound of the effects of busing on education. What happened to the $5 trillion we wasted on welfare and the Great Society and HUD and War on poverty and busing? Why do we double spending on ‘education’ has his no effect on either the test scores or the drop out rates?? The answer is liberalism: they want such programs to fail so they can grunt and grab for even higher taxes. Failure = success in their warped scenarios.

It has been stated in more explicit terms than printed here that :Liberalism is like probing a baboon’s sphincter for diamonds. There is little chance for success, but there several opportunities for anger and frustration. [16]

Here, the NYT’s editorial writers become the restless probers in a hopeless quest for new ways to waste our tax monies.

 We thank the New York Times for another tautological screed on taxation.

rycK

Comments: ryckki@gmail.com

An Urgent Need for a New Definition of Racism. [Cryptomisoxeny?]

There are several variants of racism that infect or influence our societies that are politically and socially useful to gain power and are essentially universal in application and theory.  All defined social and political groups practice overt racism. The definitions of racism are always self-serving, frequently self-laudatory, and have no general definition or universal application other than to enhance the powers of its designers or allies and/or heaping ridicule upon opponents for political gain. The current definitions seem to imply an inherent imbalance of power among several groups, defined in detail by the definer, which is self-serving. Thus, the ‘rich’ are rich because they robed the ‘poor.’ Any observed or perceived imbalance serves as a proof of guilt and social or economic misconduct. An excellent example of this is the use of the term McCarthyism [1] which first justifies and then reverses the direction of the smear tactics used against the 50s era senator and is now universally used in a blanket mode to reproach criticism of the left or as a attack mechanism against their right-wing enemies. McCarthy was first smeared and then labeled as the smearer. McCarthyism was an expeditious political construct designed to stop his investigations of the Executive Branch, mostly the Department of State. He terminated the careers of several communist sympathizers[2] and was a threat to both Republicans and Democrats of the Eisenhower and Truman administrations. Similarly, if an actual crook, such as Mumia Abu-Jamal[3], is properly termed a crook this might just be mechanically labeled as an example of acute McCarthyism or racism. Mumia is considered an intellectual and a freedom fighter by many. His innocence is blindly accepted by millions. Facts are irreverent in politics.

In conducting an historical study on this topic we can identity no isolated regions in this world, nor are there any known slots of provable history, when the predominance of the practices of prejudice and racism were not found to be intrinsic components of the firmament of our nations, tribes, political groups and clans. Tribalism as practiced in the ancient world, the clans of China and India, Scotland, Africa and with the Native Americans in the Western Hemisphere [and everywhere else] are prime examples of how groups respond and react to different groups with fixed views and carefully structured feelings. Political parties in the US, as elsewhere, exhibit traits of tribalism. These attributes of tribalism and racism are the fruits of a combination of social education and political indoctrination and are valuable as a form of nuclear glue that gives groups their cohesiveness. Members of other groups are thus assessed and judged through preassembled mental filters in a manner described by Immanuel Kant.[4]

Kant’s description of a “Categorical Imperative “is very instructive in this search for a better term, because in that definition the outcome of the imperative is predetermined to be essentially ‘good.’ Ferreting out racists is good; racism is bad. An accusation of racism directed at some political target thus magically absolves the accuser of the identical blemish and instills a feeling of self goodness and a social superiority because a ‘racist’ has been properly identified and exposed. This process differs significantly from hypocrisy and is not really even remotely related in practice. Tossing the racist labels toward your enemies endears you to your friends and gives comfort to your group. Hypocrisy cuts through groups in a different dimension.

A reading of the Seven Pillars of Wisdom by T. E. Lawrence gives us an insight into tribalism in the Arab Revolt of 1917–18 during World War 1 in North Africa. Here the assembled tribes were fighting a near hopeless war against the Turks and Germans yet the combatants prioritized the legions of ancient tribal hatreds among themselves over the common effort to contest their mutual enemy. The slightest incident between different tribal members would rekindle the fires of tribal hatred dating back centuries. Such a trivial episode might provoke an instant battle among members of different tribes and create new and fresh reasons for inventing new vendettas. Lawrence himself had to ‘solve’ a problem of an inter-tribal killing in his military group by executing the guilty person who murdered a member of a different tribe. This death sentence was mandated by the aggregate tribal notion that the guilty person must, indeed,  be executed, but that his own tribe would not do this and any other tribal member who was willing to bring justice to the crime would merely generate another reason for future retaliation. A solution was needed. Lawrence finally executed the man and all the tribes acclaimed that justice was done! It was okay that an infidel shaped the justice in this case. The simple occurrence of conflict between the tribal members—whatever the origin or the outcome—was the ultimate proof that the other side was guilty. Identity politics is thus an all encompassing mixed form of tribalism, bigotry and racism and is deeply embedded in most elements of this political world. This is not lunacy, but a prearranged form of social reasoning. Everybody seems to be happy with identity politics as long as they can agree with the tenets of the particular polices defined in a given slate of issues. It works even better when your enemies hold the opposite views. Hate and racism aid this behavior.

We can inspect the varied definitions of racism, ideological racism, and intuitional racism   developed by David Duke, Pol Pot, Nelson Mandela, Tojo, Stokely Carmichael, Karl Marx, Joe Stalin, John Kerry, Eldridge Cleaver, Bull Connors, Bill Moyers, Angela Davis, Osama bin Laden, the Clintons[5] [6], Barack Obama[7], James Carville, Louis Farrakhan[8], Quannel X[9], Geraldine Ferraro[10], Jeremiah Wright, Adolph Hitler, J. J Rousseau, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and many others. There is little to say about the absence of racism in any of its variants in our society. There is much to say about how political groups employ racism to advantage and that prompts us to seek a better definition of the process. Many of the struggles to successfully employ racism are fraught with political complications and leaders must be concerned with the crafting of new ways in which to attack ideological and political enemies. Neophytes who practice overt racism by criticizing other presumed racists are astonished to hear that their comments might be prime examples of overt racism and retort with anger and frustration and fear. Geraldine Ferraro suffers from this condition. The accusations hurled at others announcing a perceived usage of overt racism are structured such that there must no acceptable response by their opponents in liberal circles. “They” are racists—“we” are not.  Thus, the control of ideological racism is ‘owned’ by the left, so far. [11]The emergence of Jeremiah Wright as a national advocate of rabid racism may revolutionize this balance in the future. He is a true racist, non repentant in all variations, and his followers, parishioners and admirers must grovel and grope to explain away his overt racism. He is an important political asset to liberals. They must conjure up notions and cite practices based in history or during various contemporary oppressions or employ other clumsy excuses that shield Wright from his racist image and performances. Those who support Wright are thus racists under the definition of the new word coined here. The subliminal force operating here works to reinforce and exploit racism for power and other gains and not to eliminate such tactics. Those on a crusade to eliminate racism are racists solely if they must only attack opponents of a different skin color. Those who complain about the high violent crime rates in inner cities are labeled as racists because the majority of crimes committed are by African-Americans and our prisons are half filled with minorities. Minority crime rates are excused by other groups as being a result of institutional racism. This observation is also useful for tagging whites as racists because of the low incidence of incarcerated white felons based on the higher white fraction of our population.

Therefore, we must conclude that any and all groups, political or not, employ metered variants of racism, hatred, prejudice and bigotry as necessary cooperative elements within their local societies. This produces an expedient ‘us’ versus ‘them’ mentality in any randomly chosen camp that is easily reciprocalilzed by disparate groups. Such views solidify the camaraderie within groups and lead to mutual admiration and fraternalism. The leftists, for example, have used McCarthyism as a vulgar epithet to categorize and demonize their political enemies on the right although the liberals in Congress were the ones who used the smear tactics first with the lying barnstormer Millard Tydings[12]and others.[13] The right wing, as a counter example, has successfully cobbled the works of the US left-liberals with Communism or Stalinism or other socialist or liberal attributes of the far left although they cannot generalize about the extent of this view. Those who parrot Stalin or the tenets of Saul Alinsky seemingly deny that they do so and are targets for these reasons. Those who admire and practice and advocate the precepts of Marx are actually communists, by definition, even thought they have no formal party registration. Similarly, those who advocate fascism are fascists and those who advocate capitalism are capitalists. Members of the right wing are actually fascists if they align themselves with Fascism too closely. Conservatives, described as mean-spirited and fascist, cannot be communists and conversely, a false syllogism. This effect, a successful measure   employed by all political camps, to set up a unilateral smear system can be categorized as the use of a diodic effect.[14] In this usage, one group claims ownership of a mechanism of intimidation and insists that only certain other groups are guilty of this evil while the effect is absent within the originating group. Only the right wing can be Nazis and so on and so forth. Leftists are not racists.

As such, there is no coherent definition of racism that makes any sense inside or even outside of the usual itinerary of politics, tribalism or bigotry. I suggest the new word cryptomisoxeny[15], which is derived from the Greek term for hidden [crypto] and the new word misoxeny[16], meaning a hatred of strangers. Here the deeply-imbedded and self-inflicted delusion that you really hate some group or person [for any reason] is masked by a subconscious mental condition.   This mental condition automatically exonerates the group that is actually afflicted with the disease of racism and falsely signals the brain that the opposite is actually true.  Hate, thusly, is converted to love. More, an external hatred creates love, respect and tranquility within the group when cryptomisoxeny is exercised. We can all feel very good about hating our enemies if we just avoid saying so in public. In private, within the group, we can celebrate out moral superiority.

Thus, a given political group can say that they are not haters or racists while accusing others of the same sociological defects that they display. For example the University of Delaware may consider itself a non-racist entity and announce they are a pillar of intellectualism when they claim that “All white people are racists.“[17] The problem is hence solved in the customary political manner. The opposite statement that: “All black people are racists “is considered racist by the left although it is an equivalent [although not an accurate] statement. Only a convenient definition of discrimination allows this process to be one-sided. This problem must be aired in public.

The current political practice of overt racism is multidimensional charade born of intrinsic hatred and reeking of tribalism, the social defect that has destroyed African and the Middle East. A term like cryptomisoxeny[n. The subconscious and delusionary practice of covert hatred toward other groups who differ in color, ethnic, racial, political or economic views. This word is probably pronounced krypto-mis-ox-eny, in my first attempt] should be used to describe this repulsive practice and destabilize some of the racist pillars which prop up such groups.Finally, those who would introduce racial issues into the current political contest, such as the Clintons and Obama, and emphasize that this is not racism may be conveniently categorized as cryptomisoxenists. McCain is silent on this matter so far. This does not hold for many of his supporters, however.

The contemporary antics and definitions of racism are just plain phony. That is how politics operates, but we all can see that racial discrimination is a major component of political success. Hate harvests votes and racial hatred keeps individuals safe and happy in political fortresses. In today’s article entitled Hillary Clinton's racist appeal [18] we read that 20% of voters interviewed in the PA exit polls admitted they would not vote for a black.

“Many Americans talk a good game when it comes to race and equality but they are still bubbas in their hearts and minds and bubbas hate and distrust anything that ain't lily white and just like themselves.

And those racists are gathering around their candidate of choice: a bleached blond carpetbagger who adapts herself to whatever political environment it takes to win an election.”

Contrast this comment with Reverend Jeremiah Wrights rants.  There is little practical difference. Missing, of course, are the polls that report how blacks or Asians or Hispanics would base their votes on the Obama candidacy?  Where are the polls that might show that many blacks would vote for a black candidate in preference to a white, Asian or Hispanic? Where is the gringo effect in US politics? Those who would vote ‘for’ a minority candidate in preference to a white suffer from the same prejudice and are hence cryptomisoxenists along with the rest of society. The dichotomy occurs because of the way people of certain ethnic groups are trained. The concept of the secret ballot muddies the analysis of such actions.

I have to agree with H. L. Mencken that it is a miracle that our society has survived with this social defect. It is astonishing that we have functioning indoor plumbing and can eat at McDonalds without warfare breaking out at the soda bar. The most interesting aspect of cryptomisoxeny is that it is subconscious social disorder and a conditioned reflexive attribute of human personality. The only reason that white people don’t publicly denounce others because of skin color is that it is now unlawful and impolite. Black people, however, may do so. So can Asians and Hispanics and Native Americans. So, we conceal racism under social and political barriers while we struggle to broadcast to the world that we must rise above racism. Such is the farce we labor under.

People may suffer the common fantasy that they see things as an objective observer, but following Kant [19]they actually modify and fit their observations into fixed mental compartments because they cannot remain objective. Thus, the political observer interjects political precepts and predetermined outcomes into whatever he sees and reports his analysis of the incident by thinking backward to the base propaganda of his training. We see this all the time in the New York Times. [20] [21]

This leads to a prediction for November: if cryptomisoxenyis practiced as usual, and this will probably never change, then Senator Obama will lose the election because many white and Asian groups who refuse to vote for a black person will, obviously, not do so. Hispanics will be split in a similar ratio. Other excuses for not voting for Obama will be proffered such as liberal extremism, taxes and the War on Terrorism will be invoked. Thus, McCain wins.

Identity politics, driven by cryptomisoxeny, thus generates the deciding votes.

rycK

Comments: ryckki@gmail.com

Reply to ATT’s “..Push button #2 to continue in English…”

Here is a letter I sent to the ATT CEO Randall L. Stephenson , whose name and probable address is shown below. Here is the text I withheld until I am paid to translate my comments into English from Spanish or from the Borkifier.[1] It generates a text that sounds like Mary Lacy, the dodo DA from Colorado.  My name and  address were withheld on this post, but was included in full  in the letter:

Dear Mr. Stephenson

 This is a letter to you to explain why you have lost my business. It has to do with having to “Push #2 button to continue on in English…” that I hear when I attempt to talk to your service employees with names like Sean in India.

Let me make this perfectly clear: Not only have you lost my business, but I will change over my business phones as well and will place as much pressure on my colleagues and business partners to do the same.

Your politically correct pro-Hispanic-Anti American stance is going to cost your corporation money. I will personally lead a crusade in this effort to divert business away from your organization.

rycK

_____________________________________________

The Letter I sent ATT:

ATT Corporation

Randall L. Stephenson

Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

Deer Mr, Stephensun

 Thees is a letter tu yuoo tu ixpleeen vhy yuoo hefe-a lust my booseeness. It hes tu du veet hefeeng tu “Poosh #2 boottun tu cunteenooe-a oon in Ingleesh…” thet I heer vhee I ettempt tu telk tu yuoor serfeece-a impluyees veet nemes leeke-a Seun in Indeea.

Let me-a meke-a thees perffectly cleer: Nut oonly hefe-a yuoo lust my booseeness, boot I veell chunge-a oofer my booseeness phunes es vell und veell plece-a es mooch pressoore-a oon my culleegooes und booseeness pertners tu du zee seme-a.

Yuoor puleeteecelly currect pru-Heespuneec-Untee Emereecun stunce-a is gueeng tu cust yuoor curpureteeun muney .I veell persunelly leed a croosede-a in thees iffffurt tu deefert booseeness evey frum yuoor oorguneezeteeun.

_____________________________________________

In Spanish:

Querido Sr. Stephenson

 Este es una carta a usted para explicar por qué usted ha perdido mi negocio. Esto tiene que ver con necesidad “de Empujar *2 botón a seguir en inglés …” que oigo cuando intento dirigirme a sus empleados de servicio con nombres como Sean en India.

Déjeme hacer este absolutamente claro: No sólo usted ha perdido mi negocio, pero cambiaré mis teléfonos comerciales también y colocaré tan mucha presión en mis colegas y socios de negocio para hacer el mismo.

Su políticamente correcto pro-Hispanic-Anti postura americana va a costar su dinero de corporación .I conducirá personalmente una cruzada en este esfuerzo a divertir el negocio lejos de su organización.

Yours

rycK

Phone # 555 555 1515

P.S. For a copy of this in English please remit a 75$ per page fee to the address above.

The Old Red Lady is Wilting over Clintoonery and Waffles. Just Go!!!

We can always depend upon the Depends-oriented New York Times, the Old Gray Lady--losing money but not defiance--and one of their spiciest writers, Maureen Dowd to make subtle political gestures. Just get the hell out!! The Walter Duranty [1]Newspaper paper that chose Hillary and McCain may get their dreams half stuffed after the precisely predicted Clinton win in Pennsylvania.

The Old Read Lady serves up a soggy lament about Wilting Over Waffles[2], a title that masks intrinsic wilting of the Democrat party leadership over the obstinate attitude of the former first lady. Propelled by the intrinsic sociological racism [3] of Pennsylvanians, Senator Obama could not best Hillary in a state famous for hoagies, guns, religion and potholes. Their policy statements look like two Gorgon twins each festooned with sticky gray hair and yellow tax-devouring fangs, so that potential divisor has been lifeless. All they have left is race and gender and Jeremiah Wright is puling Obama down in states like PA. Both candidates stubbornly hang on  as if they had a dead chicken wired around their necks, a tedious  therapy for poultry eating dogs. Bill Clinton and Jeremiah Wright ought to take a cruise to Bimini on the Monkey Business[4] and avoid the press, or, better, to attract them away from the divisive issues that stall the party.

And, Howard Dean wants a decision with about a dozen contests to go?? Maybe Howard ought to join Jeremiah and Billy on the cruse to nowhere so they cannot bungle any more critical deals.  

The Old Red Lady mumbles and fusses over an assortment of trivial and obscure three-layer, triple reverse political notions and then loses it with parroting Dr. Seuss:

““The time has come. The time has come. The time is now. Just go. ... I don’t care how. You can go by foot. You can go by cow. Hillary R. Clinton, will you please go now! You can go on skates. You can go on skis. ... You can go in an old blue shoe.

Just go, go, GO!””,

.. ..a toxic screed that we have heard before from the Times [5]

 Translated: One Old Red Lady [6]wants the Other Old Red Lady[7] to scram. Red against Red. This lament is echoed by an editorial from today’s Times:

Another screed:

“The Pennsylvania campaign, which produced yet another inconclusive result on Tuesday, was even meaner, more vacuous, more desperate, and more filled with pandering than the mean, vacuous, desperate, pander-filled contests that preceded it.” [8] [Emphasis in all quotes is mine unless otherwise indicated.]

And more!

“It is past time for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton to acknowledge that the negativity, for which she is mostly responsible, does nothing but harm to her, her opponent, her party and the 2008 election.”[9]

A rare burst of reason issues from the normally ideologically fossilized New York Times.

“On the eve of this crucial primary, Mrs. Clinton became the first Democratic candidate to wave the bloody shirt of 9/11. A Clinton television ad — torn right from Karl Rove’s playbook — evoked the 1929 stock market crash, Pearl Harbor, the Cuban missile crisis, the cold war and the 9/11 attacks, complete with video of Osama bin Laden. “If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen,” the narrator intoned.”[10]

Let us hate the hate. Hate Bush—Love Osama bin Lade—Hate Karl Rove—Love Stalin.

“It is getting to be time for the superdelegates to do what the Democrats had in mind when they created superdelegates: settle a bloody race that cannot be won at the ballot box. Mrs. Clinton once had a big lead among the party elders, but has been steadily losing it, in large part because of her negative campaign. If she is ever to have a hope of persuading these most loyal of Democrats to come back to her side, let alone win over the larger body of voters, she has to call off the dogs.”

Chicken eating is a strong habit to break among dogs as the cure is unsightly and aromatically obtuse. Hillary has just scattered feathers all over the KeystoneState. Can she be stopped?

The Party of Democrats is now at risk of choosing the ‘wrong’ candidate [how many times does that make since Harry Truman?] and losing the contest to yet another Republican--even one that is not a real Republican.

The notion that some party that glubbers incessantly for taxes and instructs the world on moral relativism and the ‘value of each vote’ now suddenly endorses a Star Chamber approach to selecting which candidate should run? A mere 200 people out of some 100,000,000 or so Democrats will make the call?? This is democracy?

Chaos! Medusa ^[11]  can still turn half the Democrats to stone!

Rush Limbaugh’s works barely reflect back from the distorted mirror that shows this political wreckage. More Dems unconsciously follow Operation Chaos than he could predict  

Is it too late to suggest a ‘marriage’ between Hillary and Barack ‘for the good of the party?’

Way too late.

Hillary is a gift to the Republicans, of sorts, like George McGovern

rycK

Comments: ryckki@gmail.com

The Blow: All Atmospherics, No Climate. The Facts: None

 The new psycho-loony babble about climate change has now morphed from the simple (minded) concept of global warming. This impending cataclysmic effect had been ‘proven’ as fact after some exotic torture methods were imposed upon scant scientific data available, which included a novel calibration of the long-term temperature ‘trend’ by reading tree rings. Tea leaves would have been faster and just as illustrative if some LSD had been added to the brew. But, then, we learned that the average earth surface temperature suddenly decreased in 2007.[1] Now we have global cooling? All this unexpectedly happens after science ‘showed’ a monotonic increase in surface temperature that persisted over ten decades or so. Man caused this! In the political arena, the ‘facts’ can always be forced to confess to any allegation.  Scientific charlatans can bring about this stunning political feat by forming a simple ‘consensus.’ We can just hold a meeting, smoke some dope in university settings, and decide what the current  laws of physics ought to be if most of the attendees are merely ‘concerned’ and federal funds are on the drum.

This temperature trend reversal problem, which is an acute embarrassment that destabilized this prearranged folly, was finessed by simply adding a bi-directional vector to their snake oil equations. Now, they can explain any change in any variable and just bawl to conceal their former errors and sophomoric guesses and rants.  At this time, up can be replaced, willy nilly, with either up or down. Extending this logic, we may soon hear that any isothermal observations [constant temperature] may also signal the man-made disease of ‘climate change.’ Whatever happens, or does not happen, is man’s fault. The media has now elevated this sorry lump of sophistry to new highs with Time Magazine’s insulting cover that replaces the US flag on Iwo Jima with some tree. [2] This is a disgusting insult. They could have shown Britney Spears smoking dope or Al Gore flying round the world in his massive jet polluting the atmosphere while dropping leaflets about buying carbon credits to stuff his pockets with money.[3] The editors of Time have sunk very low into the latrines with this outrage, not the first time, however, since this notion is based only on fear and is woefully lacking any scientific basis. Of course, a propaganda piece like today’s screed would appear, predictably, in the New York Times, the Walter Duranty Papers.[4]

The EcoNazi Festival now includes such madness as a woeful plea from the New York Times to save witches from being burned[5]because of the weather changes, to name one bit of nonsense among other follies. This variant of hysteria emerges from a long trail of wimpish gushing over some real phony science such as the famous counterfeit computer model that predicted things that never happened. This scientific sham was fallaciously entitled The Limits to Growth[6] and   hilariously predicted we would run out of oil, copper and lead by 1992 and deplete our natural gas reservoirs by 1993.  Did I miss this? This was a disgrace, but, clearly, acceptable politics. That phony essay was probably inspired by communal and ritualistic sniveling over Rachael Carson’s Maudlin Meltdown Silent Spring. That this essay on climate is merely a leftist, tax-whoring crusade [7]is made obvious by the lack of scientific data that correlates temperature changes with carbon dioxide levels and this essential scientific element has been challenged by a mere 21,000 scientists, my signature appears upon the petition.[8] The presence of the United Nations confirms this for all.

In a silly article written, appropriately by some unknown named Blow, we are ‘educated’ by ‘facts’ in a maudlin screed entitled All Atmospherics, No Climate.[9] The CO₂ levels seem to obstinately rise and fall quite autonomously of the temperature trends.

The whine, blow by blow:

“The League of Conservation Voters, an environmental watchdog group, reports that in the debates in which five Sunday-morning television anchors — George Stephanopoulos, Tim Russert, Wolf Blitzer, Chris Wallace and Bob Schieffer — have participated (17 in total) and in their major interviews with the candidates (176 in total) only eight of the 2,372 questions asked have mentioned global warming or climate change.”

“That omission is baffling because the environment has become a big issue for Americans.”

This is a circular essay. The blowhards who conjured this demon and tried to sell it to the politicos for fun and profit now are baffled that the public is not buying their blow. Let us all believe the blow from Blow and times will be wonderful again.

Now the bogey man rises with the Scrolls of Doom:

“Americans have awakened to some simple and frightening realities. The earth is getting hotter. The world’s ice is melting. The sea level is rising, and will continue to do so. How much? That’s the question. The answer may largely depend on the course America takes, since we have been the most egregious at treating the air like a sewer for carbon emissions. (Although China may already have caught up.)”

This is all crap. Apart from theatre this frantic screed has the stench of Lyenkoism. [10] [11] This Russian bozo also was a politician and offered magical yields of grain if only the state arranged the planting and growing of crops the way he predicted. It ended predictably, with abject failure as his phony notions were based on nothing but fluff and politics. But, Al Gore and his flock of squawking ‘scientists’ are our new Lyenko Mumblers: they promise an escape from this man-made disaster if the taxes are high enough. All this collides with the notion that cow flatulence dominates the carbon emissions.[12] Termites are suspect too. Couldn’t we just tax the termites?

We expect the hustlers and tax whores to enter stage left in election years and wiggle their behinds and here they are.

rycK

Comments: ryckki@gmail.com

Stereotypically Clinging to Stereotypes, the New York Times Stereotypes, as Usual.

The New York Times—aka the Walter Duranty Papers [anagram is appropriately ‘wet laundry rat’]—excels in propaganda[1] [2] [3] [4] [5]and has provided us with yet another excellent example of the art. Being a closet Clinton supporter, actually adhering to the NYT’s presidential choice, our famous non-economist Paul Krugman essays us on why the low class vote Republican and ignore the splendors of socialism.

We read in an essay entitled Clinging to a Stereotype By Paul Krugman the following opening to a proper propaganda piece:

“Mr. Obama’s comments combined assertions about economics, sociology and voting behavior. In each case, his assertion was mostly if not entirely wrong.”[6]

Really? Sounds like a mechanical Clinton supporter who has waxed angry and frustrated with the voters, who, obviously, voted incorrectly. I wonder if these assertions broach either reality, the facts from the polls or reason. They need not approach any of these attributes for a good, juicy propaganda piece.

“Start with the economics. Mr. Obama: “You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration.”

Ah, the real point of this screed. We cannot equate Clinton and Bush in economic terms nor can we even mention that the Clinton Era was made possible by the Ronald Reagan Tax Cuts, the horror of the left. Krugman also leaves out the Clinton-Gore recession. The focus of half-truthful points is a hallmark [or earmark?] of propaganda and we are thankful to the krugmaniacal one here for its enlightening usage. Didn’t the Bush years produce lower unemployment and more jobs than the Clinton era? Lower taxes too!! We also liberated 50,000,000 from Islamo-Fascism too.

He surges on!

“We can argue about how much credit Bill Clinton deserves for that boom. But if I were a Democratic Party elder, I’d urge Mr. Obama to stop blurring the distinction between Clinton-era prosperity and Bush-era economic distress.”

Krugman  will NOT argue the antecedents of the Clinton inheritance. He cannot even inspect the SP 500 curve, as any economist might, to see that the growth curve does not even show when Clinton came in to push his socialized medicine, a program that would have crushed prosperity with massive taxes and inefficiency. Krugman still embraces follies such as the Phony Cuban Healthcare system.[7] It is clear that Clinton’s economic claims rest only the Reagan Legacy. Keep to the track: Republicans are economic zombies and Democrats produce economic splendor.

Switching to sociology, our esteemed author discusses the notion that economic distress encourages religion, guns and xenophobia:

“But this result largely reflects the fact that southern states are both church-going and poor; some poor states outside the South, like Maine and Montana, are actually less religious than Connecticut. Furthermore, within poor states, people with low incomes are actually less likely to attend church than those with high incomes. (The correlation runs the opposite way in rich states.)”

This is an excellent example of cherry picking the facts   to support an obscure point. Detailed studies show how people vote in terms of race, religion, sexual preference and other factors. The demographics of voters based on many factors are highly complex as the Pew Forums Research show. [8]

Income Distribution of Religious Traditions

Ref:[9]

This krugmaniacal comment that the rich attend religious ceremonies more than the poor may hold for Hindus, blacks and Jews, but the national trend is for the affluent to somewhat avoid religion in smooth trend. I couldn’t find a state-by-state breakdown.

Regional Distribution of Religious Traditions

Ref:[10]

This is all very complicated—too complicated to make generalizations. Yes, the South has more religious people and the Northeast the least. This is not news. The point off all this sociological fluff must have a propagandistic endpoint and here it is:

“So why have Republicans won so many elections? In his book, “Unequal Democracy,” Mr. Bartels shows that “the shift of the Solid South from Democratic to Republican control in the wake of the civil rights movement” explains all — literally all — of the Republican success story.”

I was thinking Krugman would forget to inject racism into his screed. I am so relieved.

“Does it matter that Mr. Obama has embraced an incorrect theory about what motivates working-class voters? His campaign certainly hasn’t been based on Mr. Frank’s book, which calls for a renewed focus on economic issues as a way to win back the working class.”

The liberals want to hike taxes to the roof in direct conflict with the despised notion that tax cuts inspire growth and increase jobs and income. We can ‘win’ back working-class types with more government? Higher taxes that will drive corporations away from our country and socialized medicine that will break the budget Recall that one of their phony programs, Social Security, is already broke and the same liberals didn’t want to do anything about that after the 2004 election. This notion is backward: the lefties DO NOT WANT ECONOMIC PROSPERITY as that drives voters away from them. Fact.

“Anyway, the important point is that working-class Americans do vote on economic issues — and can be swayed by a politician who offers real answers to their problems.”

 We could discuss this notion of ‘real’ for centuries.

“And one more thing: let’s hope that once Mr. Obama is no longer running against someone named Clinton, he’ll stop denigrating the very good economic record of the only Democratic administration most Americans remember.”

We remember LBJ and JEC!!

All this fluff to state the obvious fact that most people vote their pocket books as we have known for centuries? The inference here is that only Clintoonery can provide economic prosperity after we ignore the FDR years, Jimmy Carter and his Malaise and the Clinton-Gore Recession.

We can, with a bit of reason, understand the tax-whoring pathologies of the liberals egged on by Krugman and his lackeys on the left. [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] All they have is your money and they know how to spend it better than you ignoranti who vote against liberalism. Shame on you.

The point of this article is that the unwashed slobs in the lower economic strata in the US ought to vote for a Democrat, probably Hillary as first choice according to this propaganda artist, and be comprehensively ashamed of their racism, religion and former votes for Republicans.

Obama is not that good or precise, but he will raise your taxes as much, or more, as Hillary and tax us all into prosperity.  Isn’t it interesting that the New York Times cannot publish an article on their op   Ed    page without howling about taxes and racism. Racism is the very b bedrock upon which the Old Gray Lady exists.

Join the Tax Hike Zombies and elect a Democrat!!

rycK

Comments: ryckki@gmail.com

Stick the Needle in and Eliminate Some Prison Costs.

The Walter Duranty Papers[1] [2] laments the obvious decision of the United States Supreme Court, getting bolder at a ratio of 7 to 2 now, to sanction lethal injection as a method of capital punishment. [3] Given a cursory familiarity with this leftist rag that sanctioned the Marxist ‘liquidation’ of millions of Russians and purred over the rights of those women who aborted 25,000,000 children, we could expect little else. The psychotic dichotomy of killing babies by sucking their brains out into a metal pail amidst their muffled screams while spending all our assets in a courageous crusade to protect some 10-time loser who murdered several people is beyond description. This is sheer lunacy assisted and abetted by drugs a lot more mind-altering than LSD or STP—this is the mental pathology known as liberalism.  

To untangle this ideological briar patch and force the far left to find some middle point in this problem would take years of Maoist-Era indoctrination, weeks in the watery tiger cages and probably more than a few public injections. 

The same people who ‘worry’ about some unknown and undocumented accounts of those who “feel excruciating pain” have few concerns about the thousands butchered by Fidel Castro or Robert Mugabe [4]and seriously doubted that Pol Pot had done anything politically incorrect until piles of skulls were shown by the media. No liberal seems to moan about the former Rhodesian state’s monthly inflation rate of 1200 per cent or that their women’s life expectancy is only 34 years. Perhaps they do not read Parade.

The liberals can howl and moan and try to protect Mumia [5] from the needle but cannot bear to see us reject plane tickets to known Islamic Terrorists.

The left-liberals are truly sick. They cannot be cured. Don’t vote for a liberal.

Get the needles going and save society some money.

rycK

Comments: ryckki@gmail.com

The Sophistry of Elitism

Much mumbling has sallied forth from the lips and pens of pundits and others in a frantic effort to define elitism and justify the lofty notions of this honored place on Olympus where the ignoranti maximus can be trained to do simple tasks, such as voting for leftists.

The usual definition of elitism reads like a cartoon of an urgent competition among a thoroughbred horse in rivalry and a string of three-legged mules in a stakes race. It is clear to all observers that the elites can provide the answers and solutions to many, if not all in all possible cases, social problems. Let us all be thankful there are so many among us to guide us through the swamps of life and taxation.

Members of this august group would have the following attributes: inherent outstanding personal abilities such as oratory approaching the finest works of Cicero, a soaring intellect with the implication that their IQ levels must be past 150, usually great wealth as in the case of the Kennedy Klan, Kerrys, Rockefellers and now the Clintons, a unique expertise in several fields of endeavor such as law or logic or philosophy, or a combination of divers factors which would make them natural sages or leaders or more.[1] The antonymous elements of this class include the populists, common folk, uneducated and vulgar, Republicans and residents of Pennsylvania. Half the Methodists unconsciously fit into this later category.

The Brits and their slower congeners in the colonies use the pejorative term Tall Poppy Syndrome, derived from Aristotle [the king of sophistry][2] where he and Livy give an account of how the Roman King Tarquin the Proud had Sextus cut off the heads of the higher class citizens of Gabbi.[3] This syndrome is in retaliation to snobbery and elitism and seeks to adjust the intellectual imbalance inherent in society. A backlash against arrogance is a common occurrence in politics.

We are faced with a dilemma here. We, the politically and socially inept, need expert leadership to decide how our tax monies will be properly spent and where to live and talk and how to think. So why is there such antagonism against the Tall Poppies who guide us through the darkness? We cannot appreciate our ignorance any more than book works eating through a calculus book could appreciate the Limit Theorem.[4]

This thesis now must be extended by asking the following question: Are those elites who parade before the TV cameras really so elite? The definition of elite is complicated.[5]

Part of this dilemma can be solved by inspecting the themes and comments of the elites running for President in the Party of Democrats. We can inquire as to education and find two Ivy League graduates. That works. Next we can look at their list of achievements and note that they are both successful politicians. Check on that item. But, elites must have been educated and we can wonder who influenced them and with what political theories.

As for Hillary Clinton, she must have been strongly influenced by Eldie Acheson[6] [7] [8]and Saul Alinsky as the record shows. Other students of Alinsky, a sworn Communist include: Ed Chambers, Cesar Chavez, Tom Gaudette, Michael Gecan, Andrew Vachss, Patrick Crowley[9], Fred Ross and Barack Obama.[10] [11] These people are [or were] all radical activists who are anti-capitalist, anti corporation and favor command economies as did Lenin, Stalin and Mao.

So, subtracting out the contributions from their speech writers, especially in the Clinton cases, what do we get? Ordinary left-liberalism?

We can find nothing novel about any of their political theatre or economic or social positions from either Democrat. Senator Obama is rated 100% liberal so we can wonder where the intellectual power went. They offer nothing outside of the narrow left-liberal notions that have produced disastrous social and economic programs like the Great Society, HUD, War on Poverty and a few world wars. They cannot be considered elites if they do not understand that tax cuts benefit all society in the creation jobs and growth. How can they talk about restoring lost jobs in the auto industry when they want to tax corporations until they flee the country? They want to punish business success with taxes? Their legal training in the Rule of Law prompts them to summarily ignore gun laws and allow illegal aliens to have driver’s licenses and live in sanctuaries at taxpayer expense? Their moralities seem to be buttressed by a fondness for homosexuality, kiddy porn, sloth, sodomy and the urgent need to legalize drugs so their constituents can ‘feel good.’ One of them even used crack.

One of this pair is a consummate liar whose lack of credibility [12] [13] is well known in the polls.  She cannot communicate without a premeditated script. The other candidate sat for 20 years listening to the low-class ethnic rants [14] of a unhinged racist and abject loser who howls for revenge and hates his own country as he builds a new 10,000 square foot mansion in an all white neighborhood. Obama stripped of his pin stripe suits and ignoring his slick rhetoric is a common closet racist who must tantalize his half-brothers to political action. Both of these two candidates practice ideological racism [15] for political advantage.

All this evidence leads us to conclude that the candidates have only the sophistry of identity politics and are steering their constituents toward the polls with ordinary political tactics. These people are not elites—they are slow-witted mechanical chum chuckers who will not deviate from sausage-machine political slogans in fear of alienating their base. Their views are exceedingly narrow and shallow.

These two frauds are not elitists nor can they be associated with Tall Poppies. These two are just crude political operatives devoid of morality or even class and will say or do anything to make more money for themselves from their book sales.

Let him them rave on so men will know them mad—[a paraphrase of Ramses II][16]

“"Out of their own mouths they are condemned," and they are so base they do not even know that they are publishing their own shame."[17] Georgia 1865.

Yes they do. Shame has nothing to do with politics when they win.

There are no poppies in this group—only weeds.

rycK

Comments: ryckki@gmail.com

The Hand-Wringing Droolers at the New York Times Lament about ‘Lack of Issues.’

In a rare [but strangely]correct political analysis, the collection of Pinch Pustules at the New York Times, the dandy handy candy ragzine of the Walter Duranty Adoration Society, the current slate of political issues is poorly chosen.

The Times begins with a soggy  lament about ‘planning’ born of tears and unhealed wounds and broken dreams in a woeful glubberance entitled Guns and Bitter[sic]:

“Whose brilliant idea was it to leave six weeks open before the Pennsylvania primary?” [1]

The Republicans?? Whose brilliant idea was it to have put this starter in their editorial? Duh? Whose brilliant idea was it to let 796 party hacks have 20% of the party vote for the convention?? After subtracting these ghouls from the contest, one of the candidates would get a majority even if it was only one vote. Such a superdelegate ‘system’ was designed to prevent exactly what happened here and the phony paternalist mechanism has created this fiend for the left. Jokes like this show up the leftists who control the Party of Democrats like a pack of front parlor fluffers in a drunken frenzy for customers.

“But the campaign, as seen on TV — the one that counts — has been consumed with the senators trading insults over Mr. Obama’s boneheaded remarks about working-class voters. They are not doing themselves or the country any good. A few more days of these Punch and Judy shows and even we will be tempted to tune out.”[2] [Emphasis is mine in quotes.]

Obama’s bigoted remarks are exactly what Howard Dean, Ted Kennedy and other elites think about Middle America. They use overt racism for political gains. [3] These cretins are too stupid and unfamiliar with basic hygiene and sobriety to vote appropriately and cannot understand the splendor they would live in if their taxes were doubled, their guns confiscated and parental restraints on their offspring’s sexual adventures were abrogated by the state. Obama parrots Lenin in this matter. So does Colonel Klebb[4]

Since the two leftist candidates agree on most other far-left topics such as gun control, high taxes, amnesty for illegal aliens what else should they do? This is a contest between two liberals. Perhaps they should auction off the most expensive tax hike plan or talk about emptying the jails of political prisoners. They might call for all illegal aliens and felons to vote.

“After days of digging at Mr. Obama for saying that working-class voters turn xenophobic or “cling to guns and religion” because they’re bitter over lost jobs, Mrs. Clinton couldn’t resist a new nasty attack ad. What she has yet to figure out is that she ends up hurting herself — feeding her negative image — by attacking too long and with too much relish.”[5]

 Religion is the enemy of the socialist and Marxist states as it tends to take away things that ‘feel good,’ the sordid basis of liberalism. The New York Times and other elements of the moral relativism combine have tried to protect perversions, crime, drug addiction, sloth and sodomy and those cretins who “cling to guns and religion” are their political enemies. They are also unimpressed when political hacks at the Times and other rags attempt to instruct Americans on the virtues of Islamo-Fascism. The NYT seems to have forgotten that guns and religion took down the British parasites and corralled the savages and that 8000 farmers with squirrel guns defeated General Bourgoyne in Saratoga[6] in New York. All despots should fear guns and religion.

“The reason this campaign started out as the Democrats’ big chance to take back Washington is that Americans face huge challenges on which the Republicans have an abysmal record: Iraq and Afghanistan, the trashing of America’s global image, inequitable taxes, a flagging economy, epidemic home foreclosures, lost jobs, soaring health care costs and struggling schools.”[7]

Yadda yadda yadda--the usual tax-whoring screed from the left.

Recall that Hillary voted to authorize the Iraqi war. The War on Terror is going well. America’s image in the world is fine except for the drooling Marxist and Islamo-Fascisti who are fanatical social parasites. Who cares what Hugo Chavez or North Korea’s Kim, darlings of the New York Times, thinks?

A focused debate on the agenda issues enumerated by the Times would lead to either a head banging spectacle or a contest to see who could make more promises about fixing ‘problems’ with the American people’s tax money. The Devil is in the Details in this case, something to be avoided as cautioned by Saul Alinsky,[8] Hillary’s patron saint and would open up the attack by the opposition. After tax whoring[9] [10] and Hezboadulation (or Hizboadulation) [11] and other forms of praise for any thing un-American, what do the far left have left? [pun intended].    

We invite these two bigoted elitists to open up and tell us how they would change our society by bringing in some of the cherished ideas of Saul Alinsky, Jeremiah Wright, Louis Farrakhan, Jimmy Carter, Mumia Abu-Jamal, Lenin, Uncle JoeStalin, Squeaky From, the Code Pink Perverts and other social misfits.

We want to hear the elitist views from both of these candidates. Tell us the truth some more. There are plenty of issues.

rycK

Comments: ryckki@gmail.com

Backside Barney: Clinton Should Bow Out.

Rep. Barney Frank from MA, the moral high priest of the liberals who runs the Party of Democrats like a charnel house converted to a dope den, has hinted that Hillary ought to quit.[1]

This, of course, is the logical conclusion that it must be Hillary because she is ‘trailing’ the other candidate. 

The polls don’t look especially good for the sour, old, wrinkled Marxist radical [2]given the surge of young folks who want change.

There are many who are ‘suggesting’ that the old girl give it a rest and try again in 2016 when Obama is through forcing socialism upon the society.

Using the ‘democratic’ process, the old, sticky leftist manikins that make believe they are statespersons and ‘leaders’ will take precedence over the voters and anoint Barack Obama the Chosen One to lead liberals to oblivion in November. Fear will drive their votes as Hillary has now lost her royal power.

Hillary has spent more than 150,000,000 dollars now and must have committed 5 million of her own ill-gotten booty and is unimpressed with this notion. She will linger until PA has ostensibly dumped Obama for his belittling of the restless white voters there. [3] Obama’s ill-advised remarks have caused some of his supports to make threats against the ‘reporter’ who reported his bigoted remarks from a secret location.[4] This was an off-the-record fund-raiser where elites could speak openly about the ignoranti and other unwashed, inbred morons in PA and not upset the rabble.

This is the work of a snitch and is not tolerated in the hood. Oakland is not the place for people with too much white skin tincture anyway.

Soon, the Clintons will be given a few choices to make such as her being reelected [or not] in a state controlled by blacks from the governors chair to Harlem. It is clear that Obama can persuade his homies to dump this white gal in the EmpireState.

With that much money on the drum and the impending demise of the Clintoonery Era it is difficult to theorize that she will back down from this guy. Her junk yard dog manner of leadership has created numerous IOUs and a large cadre of hardened political activists who may not want their careers pitched into the latrines along with their mentors from Little Rock.

Deals can be made, but how large and for how many? Obama owes his Jeremiah Wright and Louis Farrakhan supporters a bunch of cushy jobs for their loyalty so there is little room for the Clinton testosterone –free bunch. Who wants Janet Reno back anyway? A switcheroo to Hillary by the Sacred 800 would start a race war and a sure loss in November.

Obama must offer Hillary something fat and juicy or will jimmy her reelection and finish off this tumor and not have to put up with her in 2012.

It is a grim piece of poetic justice that she has been out-elited by a slick  black Ivy League elitist and now has to swap stories and throw back cheap rye shooters with the smelly low class she abhors in cheap Pittsburgh bars.

Obama will certainly bring ‘change’ and the Clinton power structure will be the first thing to go.

The second thing to go will be Obama, following the usual Democratic party trend of selecting losers to lead them to destruction in national elections.

McCain gets a free ride on this stroke.

rycK

The NYT Apology for the Obama Bitterness Speech Squeaks Faintly in an Ocean of Leftist Racism and Bigotry.

The fate of the Party of Democrats has always depended upon race [1] [2]or class conflicts and the exploitation of the frictions thus generated when such groups collide. Racism is good politics. Marx has successfully brainwashed their little minds with the notion that class struggles are eternal and than the worker class can seize the opportunity to control all facets of society and bring some kind of Golden Age to humanity. The simple math shows us that the splinter group known as African Americans is a vital component to winning elected seats, but the concept is frustrated by the notion that a black candidate might not be able to win because of the race factor.[3] Blacks have kept their place until Obama arrived on the scene. Now, the game pivots on black-on-white and white-on-black racism. Hillary could solve this by dropping out. She will not.

Bill Clinton[4] and Geraldine Ferraro[5] have been soaked with the flotsam that has broached the gunnels of their boat as it brushes the shoals of this treacherous political tsunami. Both politicos have been labeled as racists because of their characteristic display of ‘logic’ on the question of race and voting. To be fair, they have both embraced ideological racism for decades as any good leftist must do to survive. Without the rubber-stamp votes of the black community the Party of Democrats would be finished. Here are some examples of their racist remarks:

Ferraro 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?”[6]

Bill Clinton said:

“Bill Clinton postulated that his wife might lose SC because: "As far as I can tell, neither Senator Obama nor Hillary have lost votes because of their race or gender," he said. "They are getting votes, to be sure, because of their race or gender — that's why people tell me Hillary doesn't have a chance of winning.”[7] [Emphasis is mine in all quotes unless otherwise stated.]

Ed Rendell has his input:

““I think there are some whites who are probably not ready to vote for an African-American candidate.”[8]

Senator Obama said:

“You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them.And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not."

"And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."[9]

 The buggers hate Mexicans too.

This reminds us of Howard Dean when he said:

“"I still want to be the candidate for guys with Confederate flags in their pickup trucks," the former Vermont governor said in a telephone interview quoted in Saturday's Des Moines Register. "We can't beat George Bush unless we appeal to a broad cross-section of Democrats."[10]

That must mean rednecks.

Or Dick Gephardt’s comment:

“"I don't want to be the candidate for guys with Confederate flags in their pickup trucks," Gephardt said in a statement. "I will win the Democratic nomination because I will be the candidate for guys with American flags in their pickup trucks."[11]

Kerry pipes in:

“"I would rather be the candidate of the NAACP than the NRA," Kerry said in a statement.””

Then Al Sharpton:

“Candidate and civil rights activist Al Sharpton — who has accused Dean of having an "anti-black agenda" — said he was "surprised and disturbed" by the Confederate flag remark. "If I said I wanted to be the candidate for people that ride around with helmets and swastikas, I would be asked to leave," Sharpton said.”[12]

So, how does the New York Times navigate this swamp? In an article by Herbert entitled: Some Perspective on ‘Bitter’ [13] we read:

“There is no mystery here. Except for people who have been hiding in caves or living in denial, it’s pretty widely understood that a substantial number of those voters — in Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia and elsewhere — will not vote for a black candidate for president.”[14]

Clinton’s reputed view as envisioned by the NYT by Bob Herbert:

“This toxic issue is at the core of the Clinton camp’s relentless effort to persuade superdelegates that Senator Obama “can’t win” the White House. It’s the only weapon left in the Clintons’ depleted armory.”[15] [16]

What can we conclude from this mess? Can we say that the Party of Democrats avoids the use of labels and stereotyping and racist slurs and innuendos? There is too much documentation in this essay alone to entertain  any such notions. I am not sure Hillary’s armory is yet depleted.She has a lot of scalps on her war belt.

Herbert then glosses over the problem with:

“In his San Francisco comments, Senator Obama fouled up when he linked frustration and bitterness over economic hard times with America’s romance with guns and embrace of religion. But, please, let’s get a grip. What we ought to be worked up about is the racism that still prevents some people from giving a candidate a fair chance because of his skin color.”[17]

 Really?? Well, now we know.

Apparently, we can assume that the NYT can make ample excuses for Senator Obama for remarks made off camera regardless of the context or breadth. They will hold him blameless as he is the choice candidate. Their ability to make apologies for Marxists, traitors, murderers, perverts, terrorists and others is noted as manifold and enviable. 

Extending Herbert’s logic, can we wonder if other people [white or black or whatever] with certain religious or moral beliefs can be given a ‘fair chance’ on any political matter because of their views? Didn’t we just struggle through some moral epistle from Herbert about ignoring skin color, but that those voters with views that conflict with liberalism are still to be condemned if they cannot vote for a black person? Can a candidate who opposes abortion be judged on other issues by liberals? How about welfare or gun control opposition?

It seems that Obama can echo the long-term, stereotyped negative views of many country style ‘typical’ white Americans with reams of criticism as long as we insist that these same white people embrace liberal-endorsed color blindness on important matters like voting. NYT Paraphrased: We understand that you are ignorant, unwashed, inbred cultural zombies lacking the cognitive skills to understand why major tax hikes would be of great advantage to you. We understand that you are gun-toting racists that murder innocent animals, ignore the ecological tenets of civilized society and use too much toilet paper in a given session, but you should accept all this abuse and vote for the elites anyway. We are right and you are dim-witted. You are too stupid to cast a reasonable vote anyway and need to have your guns confiscated. Go ahead and vote for Obama nevertheless as he is not racist, not bigoted, has no hint of elitism and still loves Jeremiah Wright and refuses to condemn him.  At least, he has no ties to Marxism like Hillary does.[18] If you don’t vote for Obama after he insulted you and trashed your culture you are just ignorant racists.

Reality check:

The elites who have driven the Party of Democrats into the political latrines seem to think that one of their stars can state that these white, uneducated, crude and coarse troglodytes can retain their social status and subculture and tolerate their sorry image being dragged through the dump yard, but that they must retain their objectivity with those elites who are black or half black and vote as instructed.

This Herbert Theory would work if there were only one Democratic candidate. Hillary and Bill, no strangers to racism, crime and sleaze are desperate and Pennsylvania is the last frontier in their political careers. If Obama wins, the Clinton Era will be finished. Clintoonery stands to make another 300,000,000 dollars with 8 years of Hillary astride the political levers. Is that enough to risk some party disintegration along racial lines? Sure. Rule or Ruin may be the Clinton slogan.

As we expected, the NYT comes down on the side on mandated racial equality while they practice overt racism. History predicts no other avenue. The wildcard here is that there are two racist elites who are playing the game. Jeremiah Wright may be the person who determines who wins in November. His rants are welcomed by blacks and, yes, Ferraro you are a racist simply because you are white.

All white people are racists[19] according to some university elites.

So, Pennsylvanians crawl out of your caves, take a bath, learn to read so you can vote for Obama.

rycK

Comments: ryckki@gmail.com

The US Has Wrecked the Housing Market World Wide.

Most nations of the known world, known at least from 1620 onward, has admired the colonies of North America, but never acknowledged that American were in the lead. Spain brought in untold wealth in gold while the colonies were struggling with mosquitoes and barbarians. The US was called in to mediate in the 1000 year old wars in Europe and parts of Asia and applied some wisdom and more money upon those left standing after 81,000,000 dead bodies littered the landscapes.

After crushing the idiotic USSR and its lackeys scattered around the world, the US seemed to rein supreme in many matters. Reason and soap were forced upon the far left along with offers of prosperity if they would only reinvestigate capitalism and dump the socialist idiots.

The Americans were probably rightly blamed for the Great Depression and now new faults have been found in our society and announced with trumpets and song: The US housing crisis has infected the rest of the world. Private property is the reason.[1]

From an analysis printed in the New York Times, not always a friend of capitalism and free trade, we read this in an article entitled: Housing Woes in U.S. Spread Around Globe [2] by Mark Landler [European Economic Correspondent of The New York Times, based in Frankfurt.]

Bringing us the European view he writes:

“DUBLIN — The collapse of the housing bubble in the United States is mutating into a global phenomenon, with real estate prices swooning from the Irish countryside and the Spanish coast to Baltic seaports and even parts of northern India.”[Emphasis is mine in all quotes]

One has to struggle a bit to connect these events as the citizens have different cultures, varied monetary wherewithal and very different governments marked by excessive socialism. But, we can probe this notion for elements of truth.

“To some extent, the world’s problems are a result of American contagion. As home financing and credit tightens in response to the crisis that began in the subprime mortgage market, analysts worry that other countries could suffer the mortgage defaults and foreclosures that have afflicted California, Florida and other states.”[3]

Does this mean that the Europeans have crooked lenders too?

“For countries like Ireland, where prices were even more inflated than in the United States, it has been a painful education, as homeowners learn the American vocabulary of misery.

“We know we’re already in negative equity,” said Emma Linnane, a 31-year-old university administrator.

She bought a cozy, one-bedroom apartment in the Dublin suburbs with her fiancé, Paul Colgan, in May 2006, at the peak of the market. They paid $575,000 — at least $100,000 more than it would fetch today. “I sometimes get shivers thinking about it,” Ms. Linnane said, “but I’ll let the reality hit me when I go to sell it.”[4]

 What is some young ‘university administrator’ doing with a $575,000 house [with only one-bedroom??]. Does she have one of those socialist jobs. How much does she make?

When some people buy things it might be termed an ‘investment’ in American terms. When an investment turns sour can we expect lenders across the pond 5000 miles away be blamed? Of course!

“That reality is spreading. Once-sizzling housing markets in Eastern Europe and the Baltic states are cooling rapidly, as nervous Western Europeans stop buying investment properties in Warsaw, Tallinn, Estonia and other real estate Klondikes.”[5]

This part uses the gold hysteria of at least 100 years ago. Oh! The speculators guessed wrong and lost money! Damn. From the article, we learn that this same speculation is failing to produce products in India, China, Hong Kong, and many other parts of the world.

“Much of the retrenchment seems to be following the basic law of gravity: what goes up must come down. With low interest rates helping to inflate housing bubbles in many countries, economists said the confluence of falling prices was predictable, if unsettling.”

We are indebted for the cliché here. The Walter Duranty Papers [6]usually grope for some anti-capitalistic root cause for any social malady and now low interest rates caused higher demand for real estate! This is astonishing! Can we give this guy the Nobel Prize in economics for this jewel? Didn’t Adam Smith once live in Britain?

““The boom in house prices was actually much bigger here [Britain, ed] than in the U.S.,” said Kelvin Davidson, an economist at Capital Economics in London. “If anything, people should be more worried than in the U.S.””

 Okay, now what is the solution??

“In Spain, more than four million homes were built in the last decade, more than in Germany, Britain and France combined. Average house prices tripled in parts of the country, as Spain’s torrid economy attracted immigrants and Northern Europeans snapped up holiday homes along the Costa del Sol.”[7]

Speculators!! Capitalists!!

“But some worry that the housing meltdown could spoil Ireland’s recipe for success. Like Spain, it attracted lots of foreign workers, many of whom came for well-paying jobs in the construction industry. That fueled the Irish rental market, which has remained buoyant and been a source of income for Ireland’s many real estate speculators.

“If the immigrants go back home, will this hurt the rental market?” asked Ronan O’Driscoll, a director in the Dublin office of Savills, a real estate firm. “If that happens, it would definitely cause foreclosures.”[8]

But, what about the solution??

This is all the fault of the greedy capitalists in the US. The obvious solution, echoing the best elements of socialism, is to have the United Nations put up a special greed tax on the US and use that money to compensate those poor people who thought they could be speculators and make money like the Americans used to do. I also hurry to mention that if the Europeans had their cherished subsidized and public housing that this would never have happened. When some 31 year old with a clerk’s job can buy a $575,000 house we can conclude that the taxes are too low.

Raise taxes and bring back prosperity!! Give us more socialism!! Where is Paul Krugman when you need him?

 The proof for this: Cuba and North Korea do not have this problem.

Buy gold.

rycK

Comments to: ryckki@gmail.com