From the Babbling Brooks: Confusion, Hokum and Fluff: Vote for Obama

Denial is a mental affliction that precedes a certain disaster and the New York Times, who carelessly endorsed Hilary Clinton-- aka Colonel Klebb—now wallows in misery. The therapy is to put up a rasher of minutia to banter around like a ping pong game with no prize money [or balls] to the winner. It is all just for fun—or better—to sooth the mind before the fall.

When it comes to mumbling, the Babbling Brooks is usually selected to mouth the words without any obvious connection to any set of connected neurons.  This is wonderful.

In an essay that avoids all known serious defects that have been highlighted in their candidates, we read stuff such as this:

“Life is short, but campaigns are long. And during the course of them, each candidate will have impressive and pathetic moments. But underlying the highs and lows, there are the fundamentals.”[1]

This is a typical propaganda method. Here, we will be offered an essay on the fundamentals, but this is hokum as nothing like that appears in this lament. Read on.

“Hillary Clinton went on “This Week With George Stephanopoulos” incarnating her role as the first Democratic Rambo.”[2]

Brooks might have then recalled the Clintoonery solutions to aggressive countries and cite the USS Cole, North Korea, Somalia and bombings in Africa, which might have indicated a military response: appeasement and blame for America in all cases.  Missing.  Bambi on drugs—not Rambo.

“She peddled her sham gas-tax holiday and repeated her attempt to blame Indiana’s job losses on outsourcing and Nafta[ sic, should be NAFTA]. Stephanopoulos asked her to name a single economist who thinks a tax-holiday plan would work, and the daughter of Wellesley and Yale took the chance to shove the geeks into their lockers: “I’m not going to put my lot in with economists.”[3]

Perhaps she has had some troubles with ‘economics’ from the NYT with their famous non-economist Paul Krugman, the krugmaniacal Tax Hike Zombie [4]of the Old Gray Lady. This is the usual question asked by the left: How can you ever advocate a tax cut!! You fiend!!

“But, as Sunday’s contrast made clear, Obama still seems like a human being. He still seems to return each night to some zone of normalcy where personal reflection lives. He wasn’t fully candid when answering questions about the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, but there are some inner guardrails that prevent the spin from drifting too far from the truth. Thoughtful and conversational, he doesn’t seem to possess the trait that Clinton has: automatically assuming that critics are always wrong.”[5]

Apparently, we must limit this fluff to economics as there are plenty of critics who view Obama and his psychotic racist pastor Jeremiah Wright as hopeless racists and   point out that Obama has been his stooge for 20 years. The ‘expert’ will ask Obama to explain this and Obama will not.

“Obama still possesses his talent for homeostasis, the ability to return to emotional balance and calm, even amid hysteria. His astounding composure has come across as weakness in the midst of combat with Clinton, but it’s also at the core of his promise to change politics. He vows to calm hatred and heal division.”[6]

 Here, we read the slick outline of the political construction known as Obama. No mention of his 100% leftist views, his utter lack of any meaningful legislation, his racist endorsement of Black Liberation Theology or his close association with Weatherman Terrorists. No, Brooks must babble about personalities and ‘little things’ and ignore the fact that Obama is an elitist and a tax whore.

“Obama’s campaign grows out of the longstanding reform tradition. His implicit argument is that politics doesn’t have to be this way. Dishonesty and brutality aren’t inevitable; they’re what gets in the way. Obama’s friend and supporter Cass Sunstein described the Obama ideal in The NewRepublic: “Obama believes that real change usually requires consensus, learning and accommodation.”[7]

That’s regarded as naïve drivel in parts of CampClinton.

Campaign issues come and go, but this is a thread running through the race. One believes in the raw assertion of power, the other the power of communication.”

The NewRepublic is a Marxist rag as The Nation .

There are so many mixed and convoluted metaphors here that are confidently commingled into some kind   60s era biker’s acid flashback episode it is difficult to find a place to begin to address this fluff. Apparently the message from the Times is:  that you can be a hollow liar and elitist as long as your are willing to ‘open a dialogue’ with the voters.   [A Clinton prop early on in this contest!] You can accept a little disapproval from those upon you heap contempt in buckets and verse, but you can comprehend why they need to be reformed, why we should hike their taxes for their own good and treat them like trained like monkeys in a cage.  They are too stupid to realize the gifts you offer. You can secretly embrace and cherish the overt racism of Louis Farrakhan and his lackeys, based on accepted  leftist ideology, and listen to hate speeches of your supporters while preaching the practice of some form of passive tolerance. Apparently we have to tolerate dishonesty and brutality, somewhere,and wonder if this means intrinsic attributes of Senator Obama, his angry black wife or his howling pack of ideological racists who hate American and threaten riots in the streets.

The belittling comment about “…change usually requires consensus, learning and accommodation” apparently invites us to trust this stuffed suit and believe in what he thinks he wants. We can pay for his mistakes and dishonesty along the way.  He thinks he might be the person he has waited for[8], a messianic being who will bless us all.

Reparations, punitive taxes and overt racism are attributes that really are the core of the Democratic reform tradition.  These parasites cannot exist without functional racism. That much is true. The ugly facts are that the leftist welfare society and praise of abortion and drugs, sloth and sodomy have created a need from some caricature to assume this urgently needed role. Obama is that vision.

We all know that Hillary is a monster[9], a criminal and a pit bull in the political arena. She will be ultimately muzzled by the whining, gutless DNC operatives that formed a Star Chamber [superdelegates] to ‘select the best candidate.’ They are slaves to ideology, a stance that will lose the race for the White House again.

As such, they recruit swamis and menials like Brooks to muddle the issues and prepare the ignorant unwashed masses for an ideological racist who will work the political levers and a dedicated and self-believing cryptomisoxenist[10] to perform as the Perfect Liberal Fürher. We don’t need truth or reality here or even an accurate historical account of who this ‘leader’ is, or was, or will be—we need to bow and grovel as unwashed supplicants to Leftist Orthodoxy.

The left knows what is best for us and the New York Times, as usual, and is properly telling us how to think and how to vote.  So, let us practice how to be in awe of those who spit upon us and call us stupid, rednecks and racist and to rely on the New York Time’s announcement of the Coming of the Messianic Fürher. With our tax monies he will recreate the Great Society. As typical whites we can all be retrained and share the leftist vision.

rycK

Comments: ryckki@gmail.com